Posted on 08/16/2005 11:23:20 AM PDT by woodb01
The Cult of Evolution – the Opiate of the Atheists
evolution is based on superstitious religious secular fundamentalism
for the week of August 15, 2005 - NoDNC.com staff
ARTICLE LINK - | | | - DISCUSSION LINK
(New Discussion thread, membership is free but required)
Evolution’s basic premise is that all “life” on the planet miraculously “emerged” through a bunch of accidents. Current evolution teaches that “natural selection” is how we continue to “evolve.”
Unfortunately for evolutionists their recent beliefs have been challenged on interesting grounds. A new theory has come about to challenge the blind faith orthodoxy of the evolutionists, that theory is intelligent design.
Think of it like this, evolution believe that if you have a deck of 52 cards and two jokers, and then shuffle the deck thoroughly, and throw the entire deck up in the air as high as you can, that eventually all of the cards will land, in perfect order, and perfectly aligned. The probability of this even happening one time in a billion years approaches zero. Then, to believe evolutionary "theory," you have to accept on blind faith that this same miracle of perfect order from total chaos has repeated itself millions of times to account for each of the plants, animals, and life on earth. We'll leave it there for now. It gets a WHOLE LOT MORE COMPLICATED for the evolutionary cult. On the other hand, intelligent design says that after the evolutionist throws the cards up in the air and makes a mess, the intelligent designer comes along and carefully picks up each card and stacks them all up together, in sequence, and properly aligned.
Stepping back from evolution long enough to use critical thinking skills not taught much in public education these days, it becomes quickly apparent that evolution is nothing but a silly religious belief – a type of “secular fundamentalism” – demanding cult-like superstitious faith in the impossible. If I have your attention, let’s take a careful look at what evolution requires us to accept on complete blind faith:
These are just a few of the major problems for the cult of evolution. They are certainly not the least of the problems. For example, under the “accidents” of evolution, where do emotions come from? Where does instinct come from? Why do humans have the ability to reason and understand right from wrong? And the list goes on. None of these innate characteristics can be explained by evolution.
Evolution is not science, because it can not be tested, verified, and there are no “false results.” The only “false result” to evolution is Intelligent Design (ID) because the theory of ID proves that evolution is false and therefore evolution adherents attack ID proposals with zealous fundamentalism.
Has anyone ever seen how zealously these evolutionary “secular fundamentalists” irrationally attack competing theories without answering the underlying problems with their beliefs?
Evolutionists routinely dodge issues like the origins of the universe because they know that if you stop and think hard about these issues, evolution falls apart as nothing but a widely held religious belief. If you can't explain where the raw material for the inputs to the "evolutionary process" come from, then you have no process. If you can't tell me how life started, and where its components came from, what the specific components were, what specific “accident” created “life,” then you have no process, only religious belief.
When you refuse to evaluate the inputs to a process, you have an incomplete process, it is unverifiable, and therefore un-provable, un-knowable, and an un-testable theory from a scientific perspective. You MUST at that point insert your suppositions and BELIEFS (i.e. secular fundamentalist religious beliefs) into the process. This is where it is no longer science, but superstition and blind religious faith.
It is understandable evolutionists would avoid many of these difficult questions because it exposes the preposterous "blind faith" required to accept evolution.
The cult of evolution is the opiate for the atheists.
Evolution is an atheist’s way to excuse their denial and rejection of god, it is their religion. To the degree that evolutionists dodge the difficult questions, like the origins of life's raw materials, how the five senses came about (how did one-celled organisms get the "idea" that “senses” were even needed?), how or why or where emotions come from, or a whole host of other questions, proves that it is not science, but secular fundamentalism. To the extent that evolutionists challenge competing theories such as Intelligent Design rather than answering the difficult questions or admitting that their “theory” has holes, it is not a scientific theory subject to the scientific process, but a cult based on zealous secular fundamentalism.
And on one hand, evolutionists expect you to believe that through a bunch of "accidents" life happened and "evolved" and then later, just the OPPOSITE takes place in the form of "natural selection." In other words, the "accidents" of life lead to deliberate selection. Under "natural selection" the "great god of evolution" decides who is the strongest and smartest and everyone else must be subjected to the superior race. Sounds a lot like what Hitler's National SOCIALISTS believed to me.
No amount of proving atheism, er, I mean evolution wrong will ever satisfy the secular fundamentalist religious cult of evolution. Even when those who support the theory of Intelligent Design are willing to engage in a dialog on the issue, the secular fundamentalists come out of the woodwork and shriek from the high heavens about how they refuse to prove one iota of their religious philosophy, but demand that ANYTHING that dares challenge their orthodoxy must be proven beyond any doubt. This is the essence of religious zealotry and blind religious fundamentalism--, it is the opiate of the atheists...
If those who adhere to evolution are genuinely interested in science, then they must evaluate the whole process, and if the inputs to that process, or many of its components such as the senses or emotions do not support the process then they must reject that theory (evolution) as unworkable. To do anything less is no longer science. But then again, evolutionists are not really interested in science.
Call me weak minded but I just don't have the blind, zealous, fundamentalist faith to believe that nothing created everything (the "Big Bang") and that life just spontaneously erupted from rocks, water, and a few base chemicals (evolution) through a bunch of "weird science" accidents. Step back, stop and actually THINK about the leaps of un-provable, totally blind-faith that evolution requires and unless you're one of its religious zealots, you too will reach the conclusion that evolution is a FRAUD!
Evolution, the opiate for atheists and the biggest hoax and fraud ever perpetrated on the Western World in History...
Additional Resources:
DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution (DNA is PROVING that evolution is a hoax)
The controversy over evolution includes a growing number of scientists who challenge Darwinism. (The fraud of Darwinism...)
Einstein Versus Darwin: Intelligent Design Or Evolution? (Most LEGITIMATE Scientists do NOT agree with Evolution)
What’s the Big Secret? (Intelligent Design in Pennsylvania)
What are the Darwinists afraid of? (The fervent religious belief in evolution)
The Little Engine That Could...Undo Darwinism (Evolution may be proven false very soon)
So, again I ask (and sincerely), why bother?
Perhaps to distract Man's uniquely powerful and conscious thinking mind from worrying too much about the apparent endless purposelessness of his existence as a species, in a journey through time, religion was invented by almost all, if not every, human culture.
OK, I admit I'm drunk.
If God is omniscient and omnipotent, as generally depicted, then everything we do and ever will do is already known. In the mind of God we as static as butterflies pinned to a museum display for amusement -- perhaps the amusement of other gods and demigods and angels. All our hopes and fears, all our ambitions, all our joys and sufferings are like a two dimensional tapestry in the eyes of God, who is outside time, and can see the whole of time -- past, present and future -- at once.
How does it feel to be a museum display? What is the point of your life and your sufferings?
Free will? You might imagine it, but what does it mean to a being who can see all of time at once?
Science has always been an activity aimed at acquiring knowledge. Scientists have pretty much ignored philosophy for a couple of centuries.
You are wrong. I believe in God, and I accept the ToE.
So my question is, why is it that you spend any time at all either defending your position or attacking alternative positions? Not just on evolution/creation but on any subject? In other words, why do you care?
Because our advancement -- our ability to live in something other than mud huts and misery -- is directly due to our use of the scientific method to gain knowledge about the world, and to invent ways to make life better. There is a neo-Luddite streak in creationism which would reject scientific knowledge. I have no real desire to slip back into the dark ages.
So, again, why do care about anything? All is vanity. I fail to see how existence is preferable to non-existence.
Since I'm not an atheist, this doesn't apply to me. But I see no evidence from actual atheists that atheism = nihilism. Their lives seem no less full of meaning and purpose than do those of theists.
Back to specifics, what do you hope to achieve by coming on FR and debating?
I am concerned that ID/creationism will be used by the left to paint conservatives as a bunch of knuckle-dragging anti-science religious fundamentalists. This debate has real-world political ramifications.
If we create silk in the laboratory, does that mean it isn't made by spiders? If we model the workings of a volcano in supercomputers, does that mean volcanos are designed?
Your comments may adequately display your lack of theological training and study but they do little to answer my original question.
"Science is still a very flawed study."
Whereas of course the science that the Church wanted was never wrong was it?
Yes, and they replaced that with politics.
Sounds good to me. I'm retired and the pay is pretty much token. I'd make a lot more doing just about anything else.
And I get to ask how much the DI rakes in.
Wouldn't it be fascinating to hear what Steven Jay Gould or Julian Huxley or even ol' Charles Darwin have to say about evolution now?
In other words, intelligent design is unfalsifiable, and thus isn't science. QED
"evolution is based on superstitious religious secular fundamentalism for the week of August 15, 2005"
I like this quote. I wonder what it'll be next week?
I guess you are'nt hear. You are very improbable (basically impossible, though that phrase means nothing).
I do believe in probabilties as a tool. But only valid ones. To construct a probablity you need to understand what you are modeling. Just making up probabities about a process that is not understood means NOTHING. Anybody who would hang an arguement on such sophistry is no scientist.
Evolution is a theory. As such it can be proven false (just find REAL human footprints next to a dinosaurs) and is well supported by the fossil record, DNA studies etc etc.
ID is a not even a valid hypothisis. How would you disprove it?
ID isn't a scientific theory.
If you disagree, please offer some testable hypotheses made by ID.
"No, I do not remember wrong. I was taught that in my science class that we evolved from gases. "
Nonsense. What gases were they?
Dataman! I haven't seen you around in forever! How've you been?
Two wrongs don't make a right. Science is not the "end all" of knowledge. History has shown a lot of garbage to come out of science. Science is not perfect, and it often gets the wrong answer. Even the scientific method assumes that any answer or theory may be overturned by later findings, etc. Evolution is just a guess. Pure and simple.
"To say that gravity brought all of the material of the universe together into a tiny ball before the Big Bang is to say that before that tiny ball there was a different kind of universe with all kinds of material scattered about, and therefore the universe didn't begin with the Big Bang."
Correct me if I’m wrong, but that isn’t necessarily out of the question is it? The Big Bang only really accounts for our 'current' universe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.