Armstrongism and the Lie of Evolution

Eric Sell


Aha! Not what you were expecting, is it? It wasn’t what I was expecting, either, when I came to discover that my entire world view was a fairy tale. There was a time when I believed everything the church said, and that included information on the topic of evolution. Why would I distrust what they said? Why bother reading up on something I knew was stupid/false anyway? I’m not here writing about creationism v evolution—I’m writing about the lies the church told us concerning “the other side of the argument”.

What I mean by that is, even though I now no longer believe in creation, I’m not here trying to convince anyone else. I’m here writing this today because of the lies about the idea of evolution the church taught us. And it is a very strange subject to lie about—they believe in creation, and they have booklets, and booklets, and booklets about all sorts of topics “as explained by the bible”, yet they felt it necessary to lie about a subject, I would think, they could have tackled easily. I mean, they can make it sound like Herbert Armstrong, David Pack (RCG), and/or Gerald Flurry (PCG) are end-time Apostles of God—certainly they can take the real Theory of Evolution and make a good sounding argument against it. One would think. But instead they paraded a paper tiger in front of us, thrashed it, made it look utterly ridiculous, and said something to the effect of “see, now that proves the Bible is true, and our booklets tell you how the Bible shows that our leader is from God, so now obey”.

For example, I remember a lecture given by Stephen Flurry at PYC one year (would have been ’97-’99) on Seven Proofs God Exists. The one I remember most clearly was “Dogs Don’t Mate with Cats”. I don’t remember exactly what was said, but I’m sure it was some sad defacement of the idea of Speciation. It really rather reminds me of the South Park where Mr. (I mean Ms.) Garrison was being made to teach evolution in the classroom. She didn’t like the idea, so taught it…kind of like the PCG did in my time: Congratulations, you’re the product of five monkeys having butt-sex with a fish-squirrel!

As you might imagine, this pattern began with the inimitable Herbert W. Armstrong! It is present even on page one of The Bible Superstition or Authority:

“If you are college or university educated, you have undoubtedly been taught that humanity originated through the theoretical process called evolution. But the educated of this world in nearly all cases have been taught only one side of the subject of origins—the theory of evolution. On the contrary most of those lacking higher education in the United States ‘Bible Belt’, for example, have been taught only, and accepted without proof, the teaching that the Bible is the very Word of God.”

The falsehoods only waits until the third paragraph. So, the Educated of the “world” have only been taught evolution, whereas those lacking higher education have only been taught the Bible. Really? Is it just me, or did he say two contradictory things in the same paragraph? So, the highly educated are born highly educated? Are they a separate class of people? Does he really expect us to believe that nobody who went through the Higher Education system ever came from a state of, let’s say, uneducation? I’m pretty sure it is (or certainly was during the time he was writing) statistically impossible to grow up in the United States and not have some religious upbringing—at least for 95% of the populace.

This appears to be the early days of a now favorite argument from those who argue the Creationist side in the Big Debate, which is “evolution is just as much a belief as creation”, or “I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution!”. Remember the oft repeated analogy of “evolution is like saying a tornado went through a junk yard and formed a functional Boeing 747”? Makes evolution look like the stupidest idea possible—one that even the proverbial village idiot could see through! But that analogy is at best a complete misunderstanding of what the idea actually is, and at worst is a deliberate effort to deceive the people by using an effigy and setting it alight.

The argument itself is a variation on the old Watchmaker Argument, which points out that if you stumble upon a pocket watch out in the fields somewhere, you know there had to be a watchmaker. Similarly, a muffin pre-supposes a baker. Thus, we must conclude that the existence of the earth and the universe proves there is a Creator.

On pages two and three of the aforementioned booklet, Mr. A regales us with a tale of how he once faced the question of evolution v creation (EvC). What is the big thing he points to that convinced him (or at least helped a lot) that evolution was bogus and the Bible/Creationism was true? Scientists used terms like “we think”, “the possibility exists”, “there are reasons for supposing”, etc. But the Bible was sure! It was definitive! It was authoritative! It explained how things happened, not how they might appear to have possibly happened. If that is convincing, then I might just start worshipping Eru Iluvatar, who after creating the Ainur, used them and worked with them in the Song of the Ainur to create all things. There is no speculation there. Nor is there speculation in the Qu’ran. Of course, to be fair, for a man in such a crisis state as he was—without work, suffering terribly from the Great Depression, facing “wifely fanaticism”, and becoming even more confused and unsure about what he believed after reading some of the great thinkers in the evolutionary field—to be fair, something claiming surety and authority was doubtless very comforting; it was a life raft, if you will, in a sea of uncertainty. However, I would say that such a story illustrates that his resulting religiosity rests upon pillars of sand.

So, he started out good—started down the road of proving all things, but stopped half-way. He didn’t read the accounts of Islam, or Hinduism, or even Mormonism, to see which of those stacked up against the Bible. And what was the result? We end up with a story about how he disproved evolution completely, but the “highly educated librarian” would not accept it because faith in evolution was all she knew. Really? I know the Pacific Northwest is kind of liberal, but I would be willing to bet that back in the ’20s and ’30s even they still taught their children about the Christian God. And even more to the point, evolution is not a faith. A person can disagree with what it says all they want, but saying it is a faith is a cheap trick; if it is nothing but a faith, then it is at least on a level playing field with my faith, and then my faith is validated because it is older!

OK, ok, that was back in the ’30s. One could argue that there were a lot of holes and gaps in the evidence for the theory—a lot of fossils hadn’t been found, and many other things just couldn’t be explained very well yet. Fair enough! If the evidence for evolution is unconvincing, then there you go. But what about today? What about in the World of Google? Today it is easy to find lots of information on evolution and the evidence for it and arguments against it. So, what does the Armstrongite church do today with this new information? Do they present what the scientists say and then tell us how it contradicts the bible? Not really…

Mark Nash, who in my opinion is smart enough to know better, wrote a fairly good article on the topic of evolution for the Trumpet back in ’07, called The Fraud of Evolution. For all his complaints that people could find out the truth about evolution if they would only look hard enough, it seems he has failed to look hard enough. He goes on at some length about the complete and total lack of any transitional fossils for any kind of animal. That just simply isn’t true. You can have a look at transitional fossils in the evolution of the horse in Wikipedia. There is also a big list of transitional fossils for various other animal types. Whether you find these enough to doubt creationism or not, they are there. Thus, sadly, Mr. Nash uses a “favorite lie” of the Creationist side of the debate. Why? Couldn’t you just argue against them? Couldn’t you employ some form of Gap Theory and explain why fossils don’t really have any connection to modern animals because of the re-creation of the earth 6000yrs ago? See? Even I can make a go of it! There’s no need to outright lie.

He also mentions a certain type of Peppered Moth in Britain that scientists use as an example of natural selection. He calls shinanigans on the fact they are shown in photographs to be resting on tree trunks. Why? Those were dead moths, glued onto the tree trunk! *GASP* Could it be scientific fraud? I suppose it could, but in this case it isn’t. The moths usually rest on the under side of tree branches, but it is difficult to photograph them there. In the end, whether you hold the example of the Peppered Moth to be evidence of natural selection or not, it is still making much ado about nothing to yell about them being photographed on tree trunks instead of tree branches. In either location the conclusion drawn by the scientists studying them are the same.

One big argument Nash puts forth is the falsification of evidence. His example is that of a scientist who lived during the time of Darwin, and was one of his biggest supporters—Ernst Haeckel. He is most famous today (at least in some circles) for committing scientific fraud. He was an embryologist, someone who studied animal embryos. He made much of the fact that at certain stages in development, there are almost more similarities in form than differences amongst various species, including humans. However, some of his drawings were inaccurate at best, and downright doctored at worst. More than a hundred years of research since then has shown that, yes, considerable similarities do exist, yet Haeckel’s theories have been abandoned by modern science, thanks in large part to the discovery of DNA. His infamous drawings were made specifically in support of some of his now discredited theories…or more accurately, hypotheses.

Scientific fraud is not a small thing, and Mr. Nash is right to bring up how wrong it is that some modern science textbooks still use reprints of those drawings! There is accurate, modern evidence of the similarities (similarities which could be argued prove nothing in the EvC debate). The use of those drawings really has no excuse. But that isn’t the end: Mr. Nash makes reference to a book called Icons of Evolution, wherein the Haeckel fraud is re-examined. The problem there is that it leads Nash to tell a complete untruth (even if, hopefully, unknowing):

“Even Darwin used the Haeckel lie. In his famous book, On the Origin of Species, Darwin called the similarity of embryos as reported by Haeckel ‘the strongest single class of facts’ for evolution.” Darwin may have seen embryology as one of the strongest class of facts supporting his new idea, but it was not Haeckel’s research. Origin of Species was published in 1859. Haeckel’s research was published in 1866, with the infamous drawings not appearing til ’74. Thus, discrediting Haeckel in no way discredits Darwin, or his book.

So, here am I, amateur blog writer, and I’ve been able to research enough on one Sunday to find Nash to either be lying, or to have not done enough of his own research and is thus parroting someone else’s lies—and it was this failure to search out the truth that he was lamenting at the start of the article!

But this isn’t about bashing Mr. Nash. This is about bringing to the fore another landscape of lies from Armstrongism. They seem to hope that by showing Haeckel to be a fraud, and showing Haeckel’s research to be a main pillar and support of Darwin’s ideas on evolution, that they can then discredit the whole thing. Unfortunately for them, science doesn’t work that way. There are things written in Origin that have been found false in the 150yrs since it was written, but that doesn’t destroy the idea. The idea still stands even if some of the specifics have changed due to new research.

It matters not whether reading any of the outside links convinces anyone of the veracity of evolution. The important thing is the lies we were all told. They are flat-out lying about something they don’t need to lie about, and that is particularly troubling considering all the hype HWA made about “know both sides of the argument”. They are betraying their position of trust by feeding the people falsehoods, and to me that proves one of two things: 1. That lying is systemic in the organization to the point they can’t even write a Trumpet article about evolution without doing it, or 2. They doubt their position enough to feel it necessary to lie. Either is very troubling.

In the end, the PCG (and every other splinter group) is guilty of the “original sin” of Armstrongism—proving all things…half way. Perhaps evolution is bollocks. Perhaps there is a divine creator of all. But to go from that to “and that creator is the God of the Bible” is quite a leap. The Genesis account is only one of 11 different ex nihilo (from nothing, or out of nothing) creation accounts known around the world. Besides that there are four other main types of creation story with at least 28 different variations. All together there are 5 main categories of creation story, with 39 different examples, or types. And that doesn’t even count the different ways of seeing the Genesis account within Christianity (Literalist Young Earth Creationism, The Gap Theory, Deism; and a newer theory that says God simply created the universe to look old—kind of a new variation on the old idea that God created the earth with dinosaur fossils already in it just to mess with the Doubting Thomases). If Armstrong had thoroughly studied all those, plus evolution, and then came to the informed conclusion that Biblical Young Earth Creationism was the most correct, then that would mean something!

Instead, we find another strata of lies in the foundation of the religious organization that gave us the Plain Truth, and all 400 True CoGs.


31 thoughts on “Armstrongism and the Lie of Evolution

  1. Eric, your work is stellar.

    One thing I wonder about: The purpose of the lies, deceits, prevarications? It’s just my opinion but, there seems to be one goal: Power. Power would be in the form of winning an argument to be “right”, triumph over your critics, gain prestige and a following, and, ultimately, to make money.

    What you are talking about is people just making stuff up. They have no qualifications, but they have an agenda.

    It has always amazed me that the ministry was expert in geology, biology, history, mathematics, physics, archeology, psychology, health and medicine, economics, family counseling, financial advice, on and on, with instant answers to every question without one shred of research. What an imagination. The Founder (and that has another meaning) barely got past the eighth grade, and yet he could comment on nuclear physics in “Does God Exist?”.

    Thus it is, not unlike the character pictured in this blog entry, the only conclusion we might logically come to is that these cons are narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths, which, thanks to the Internet, we all can research.

  2. Neither Evolution nor Intelligent Design be “proven” in absolute terms, although the bulk of evidence seems to support the former with the latter being a bit thin in places.

    Note that “Everybody Lies” is also an unproven and unprovable theory with the same caveat.

    • An observable fact need not be proven, since it can be observed to occur. Evolution is such a fact. What bears proving are the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. Several well-supported theories are available, including the ever-tenacious natural selection. (Note that I am using the vernacular definition of “proof”, not the strictly mathematical one).

  3. As David might say, you guys and girls are all fools, completely devoid of faith. Evilution is the goofiest rumour ever passed from one human to another.

  4. Well, sanity at least, logic too, and let’s not rule out the scientific method which produces better consistent results than witchcraft, Harry Potter, notwithstanding. Remember that “common sense” in the dark ages was that the earth was the center of the universe and / or flat. These days, “common sense” runs to the idea that oil is heavier than water and that heavier objects fall faster than light objects in any significant measurable way in the macro world (quantum mechanics not withstanding).

    Do you ever get the impression that Armstrongists just might be a bit unscientific, not to mention illogical? Just a theory….

  5. I wonder how many Creationists understand that Gravity is only a theory too? And in exactly the same way as Evolution. We know Gravity exists, we’re just not sure we’ve nailed how and why it exists. We think we know, but we’re open to additional understanding.

    The same for Evolution. We know it exists (if you don’t believe in Evolution, then ask for Penicillin next time you need antibiotics) but we’re still working on the how and why. Cracking the Human Genome has been a big help in ushering a lot of crackpots out the door, including the British Israelite group.

  6. I still think evolution is highly improbable for a lot of reasons, and most people who believe it are highly biased and superficial and really not that educated about it. The educational system is pathetic on this topic. God might be a mystery or even evil, but at least he’s a damn good engineer. Even IF species can change, somebody had to design the DNA to make that possible. DNA is a program, and any computer guru will tell you that programs don’t evolve by themselves or appear out of nowhere.

    • I missed this before. You’re committing the design fallacy. It’s ultimately a false analogy, because you are necessarily leaving out important distinctions between computer programs and self-replicating compounds. For more information, see this explanation of the argument from design.

    • You see, Chuck, you really do need to follow your own advice and read up on this subject that you feel so certain about (while incongruously claiming that no one can know the truth of the matter).

  7. One thing I know for sure is that anyone who is really serious about the topic of evolution had better have an open mind and read the best books they can get on both sides because the blogs, pulpits, and schools are full of people who don’t really have much of a clue but think they do and are extremely insulting about all the “idiots” who don’t agree with them. What a waste of time arguing with opinionated people.

    Some people on here need to read some good philosophy books about God since their concept is very narrow. A few months ago they were in a cult an now one gets the impression they think they are experts on evolution and the philosophy and theology of God. How did they digest and master thousands of years of science, philosophy, and theology so fast? Well, they didn’t, they just brushed it aside and now talk like they really know.

    • “How did they digest and master thousands of years of science, philosophy, and theology so fast?”

      The arrogance of the ignorant/lazy/apathetic is always a thousand times more infuriating than that of the wise. Listen, Chuck, some people are voracious when it comes to Big Macs, and some people are voracious when it comes to knowledge. That’s just the way it is. What is impossible for you is like breathing for others. I often wonder how some people can perform almost magical feats of athleticism. The difference is that I don’t doubt what I’m seeing when I observe them doing so.

      “Well, they didn’t, they just brushed it aside and now talk like they really know.”


  8. One big argument Nash puts forth is the falsification of evidence.
    Both sides falsify evidence. Both sides cherry-pick. Both sides are biased. Both sides are usually bigoted. Both sides are typically arrogant. Few on either side can actually think straight.

    So I suspect that the truth will likely remain a mystery. Who can sort out all the BS from the facts? Who has the time? Who can put the facts together properly? I don’t expect “science” to answer it. As anyone who really researches “climate change” can tell you, “science” is badly tainted by politics, emotion, and money. Evolution always was and still is a political and emotional topic, so don’t put much faith in “science”. Unless you are a lot smarter, a lot more objective, and a lot more careful than most people, and spend a LOT of time, you probably won’t know what the real science really says or how to put it together.

    • “Who can sort out all the BS from the facts? Who has the time? Who can put the facts together properly? Unless you are a lot smarter, a lot more objective, and a lot more careful than most people, and spend a LOT of time, you probably won’t know what the real science really says or how to put it together.”

      And if you’re not willing to do all of this, you have nothing to say on the subject. Even your opinions about science are based on ignorance, since the crossroads of science, emotion and politics are just as complex as the science itself, and are themselves the subject of deep study–I have at least three thick books in my possession that cover the topic. You simply aren’t prepared to speak on these things until you follow your own advice and read some books. Google philosophy of science, history of science and science and the public and you’ll start to get a sense of the daunting scale of the problem you’ve given up on. But just because you don’t have the mettle for it doesn’t mean others are similarly unwilling to do the hard work of understanding.

  9. Funny how this turned into an Evo v Creation debate, even though that wasn’t really the point of the article. I should have known, since it is a rather contentious topic…

    I certainly hope I didn’t come across as being an expert in evolutionary biology. I know I’m not. I also know I’m not an expert in theology or philosophy. However, thx to the internets, I can gets me some pretty good info. No, I’m no expert in paleontology, but I can find references that show there are intermediate fossils, thus proving the argument “there have never been any intermediate fossils found” to be false.

    The charge that “scientists are just as biased and bigoted as creationists” is a lovely ad hominem. Sure, there are those who are corrupted by money, or possibly even politics. But one example of how politics can’t make science is, I think, David Ben-Gurion, first Prime Minister of Israel, who told his archaeologists to go forth into the desert and “dig up the title deeds”–find evidence of Moses, the Exodus, and various other Old Testament things. Nothing was ever found. What more politically, and even religiously motivated science could there be? Yet nothing. Yes, if you can accuse scientists (and those who prefer science over religion) of the same close-minded bias as religionists, then you don’t have to actually face the arguments they give.

    But again, maybe there was a creation and the creator set things up for evolution to happen. OK. If we can prove that true, we have a first cause. But to go from that first cause to saying “and I know that this divine being was the God of my Bible, and further, I know that it is the God of the Catholics/Baptists/Lutherans/Pentecostals/etc, etc” is like jumping the Grand Canyon w/ a pogo-stick–it requires a HUGE LEAP of faith and illogic to go from that basic starting point (which hasn’t been proven yet) to get to the god of the Bible, or Allah, or the realm of Asgard, or Mount Olympus (the mythical one–the real one is real).

    Lastly, why might we seem pretty arrogant after coming out of a cult? Because coming out of something like that requires considerable brain power. It requires being WILLING (in the first place) to examine deeply held beliefs, it requires being open to the idea that your religious heroes and teachings, not to mention your entire world-view, are wrong (if/when you find proof of that fact), and it takes the COURAGE to stand up for truth, against lies, even when your family and friends will disown you (per church doctrine), and even when the ingrained fear of the Tribulation (or hell fire) is torturing you. So, yes, please forgive us if we tend to think of ourselves as slightly smarter than the average bear. Whether we are actually arrogant, or whether or not that arrogance is well-deserved doesn’t change what we say: in other words, cut it w/ the ad hominem attacks. If you can argue the POINTS do it!

  10. When people lose one god they often go looking for another. In many cases they end up worshiping junk science. Arguing the same old points points on the web is a waste of time, which is why I refer people to reading books and doing their own research.

  11. Ahhh, yes, the old “you just worship science” argument. Boy, for someone who is decrying the practice of “going to the internet for talking points instead of reading real books and doing your own research”, you sure are pulling out some tired old talking points.

    But perhaps I misinterpret? Perhaps you’re talking about how awful it was for Armstrong and now Flurry, et al., to be picking talking points instead of doing their own research? I would fully agree with that! And I know my article didn’t prove evolution or anything like that; that wasn’t the point. And I doubt anything of the sort will be hammered out here in the comments. Yes, I do have a pro-evolution bias in writing the article, but I did try real hard to keep the article to “this is how Armstrong, and Armstrongite splinter groups are lying about evolution”. And again, whether everyone agrees w/ evo or not isn’t the point here. The point is the lies the CoG organizations have been putting forward that are easy to disprove if you’ll actually do it. From the foundation of finding they are lies in the first place, you can then explore the scientific explanations and take from them what you will. If the person decides to stick w/ creationism anyway…well, fine. The important thing is that everyone have the opportunity to LOOK FOR THEMSELVES, which, if they really think evo is what they were told it was by CoG literature and ministry, they never will, b/c if it is really THAT stupid why look?

    So, this has been constructive! The challenges put forward in the comments have helped me synthesize some of my thoughts more clearly. So, to reiterate, the whole reason for pointing out the Lies about how silly they made evo look is to give people an opportunity to examine the scientific side for themselves, an activity I think wouldn’t have a high chance of happening if people thought the Theory of Evolution was what they were told it was by church literature and ministers.Whether they like it, or believe it, or not is up to them. The important thing is having a choice in the matter.

  12. This conversation has gone off the rails due to confrontational attitudes. I am not going to waste time trying to untangle it. My main point is you won’t settle the evolution argument properly on a blog. If you really want to know how to sort it out refer to my earlier post and good luck.

  13. Come on! Really? Did you even read the article? Did you even read my last comment?

    THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE WASN’T TO PROVE EVOLUTION. The point of the article wasn’t to sway people to the evo side of the debate!

    THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE WAS THIS: (do I have your attention? Think you can get it this time, or am I still being too subtle in some fashion??) “So, to reiterate, the whole reason for pointing out the Lies about how silly they made evo look is to give people an opportunity to examine the scientific side for themselves, an activity I think wouldn’t have a high chance of happening if people thought the Theory of Evolution was what they were told it was by church literature and ministers.Whether they like it, or believe it, or not is up to them. The important thing is having a choice in the matter.”

    I think I see now where the whole thing of “you guys are arrogant” came from–you seem to have misunderstood (to an astounding degree) and thought I was trying to prove evo w/ this article! I assure you, my hubris does recognize my limitations.

    • I’m afraid my hubris has no such limitations. Chuck, evolution is a fact, and natural selection is one of the most dramatically confirmed theories ever developed. The only people who don’t accept this are obstinate fools who simply don’t want to believe it. The supporting evidence, should one dare to look at it objectively (and this requires casting off the lies this article refers to) is absolutely overwhelming to anyone with a modicum of intellectual honesty. The real truth is always frightening to sheep, who desire comfort above all else.

  14. If there is a god, and if he did create a world with pre-existing dinosaur bones just for the skeptic, that’s pretty messed up. Why play games like that? Why be so deceiving? Why would anyone want anything to do with that kind of god in the first place? I sure wouldn’t.

    Young earth creationists really, really look like idiots at this point, it’s utterly amazing that they’re still around at all.

    Not that I support YEC, but you clearly don’t have a clue what you are ridiculing, which means you are doing exactly what the writer of this post laments the Armstrongists for doing. The young earth creationists claim all fossils are post-creation, and that dinosaurs existed alongside humans. Now, you might claim that makes them look like idiots – at least then your claim would be consistent with their actual theories.

    • Like usual, you’re wrong. Young earth Creationists aren’t all of one stripe. Some have indeed postulated that fossils were planted by Satan (or God). Granted, you can usually only find this claim bandied about by those who are stupid by Creationists’ standards, but that makes it a very popular folk belief (i.e., rarely encountered on the Web, except for the purpose of ridicule). It is merely the more absurd of the two horns of the fool’s dilemma YECs are obliged to confront, the other one (the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs) being only marginally more reasonable. Unfortunately, both are nothing more than ridiculous just-so stories concocted to protect YEC from the evidence against it. Like lies, stupid beliefs are prolific breeders. Incidentally, I have also seen the claim that the earth was made of parts from other worlds, and that explains the apparent age of the young earth, including fossils. The apparent age theory is certainly popular, and is just as moronic as fossils planted by deities.

  15. Armstrongism vs Science. Let’s see, science predicted phenomena which was then discovered. Armstrongism predicted the fall of the United States and Britain in 1943, 1975 and 1988.

    It is hard to argue with success.

    It’s hard to argue that the dead False Prophet had much success.

    That’s the thing with science: It’s useful; pragmatic; solves problems.

    Armstrongism? I’ve been looking for it to produce something useful for 48 years and all it has produced is lies, broken up familes, deceptions, false prophecies, wrecked lives and financial ruin. I guess if I wanted any of those things, I’d pick Armstrongism, but I’ve chosen science because it has produced the results I really want.

    Can I say it? Cough, cough, by their fruits you shall know them.

  16. Pingback: Misconception – Armstrongism and Abortion « Armstrong Delusion

  17. fantastic publish, very informative. I wonder why the opposite specialists of this
    sector do not realize this. You must continue your writing.
    I’m confident, you have a huge readers’ base already!

  18. Thanks, Hilary! We are, however, pretty well done with this. We might come back once in a while if something strikes us as important, but our main task–proving to ourselves, and to any who wish to read, that Armstrongism is false–has been accomplished.

    Before this blog was started, we were talking with each other trying to figure out IF Armstrong was right and the PCG simply off track. We quickly found the answers. Now that the “trunk of the tree”, as HWA so liked to phrase it, is cut down, there’s no sense chopping at the stump…one could, but that would just look pathetic and silly.

    But, with that said, if you (or anyone else) has a topic you would like us to cover that we’ve overlooked, please tell us!

  19. Pingback: Fish Fry Part 1 | Armstrong Delusion

  20. Have you ever considered publishing an e-book or guest authoring on
    other sites? I have a blog based upon on the same subjects you discuss and would love to have
    you share some stories/information. I know my subscribers would value your
    work. If you’re even remotely interested, feel
    free to send me an e mail.

Say anything you want. We do.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s