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)
It's a consequence of the math. I'm sure I can solicit some textbook recommendations if you like.
No, if I believed in ID I'd say that everything had been planned down to the last detail. Evolution allows for random chance. I like to think that God got the ball rolling and then let the Universe grow on its own, and gave us the free will to explore its origins and find the facts on our own.
One again, simply explain to me from the theory of evolution how the five senses came about from single-celled creatures that had no idea they even needed such things?
Explain to me how and where emotions came from? They serve no purpose in evolutionary theory. Why fear before even knowing what fear is? Why be happy or sad when there is no basis for such philosophical underpinnings? Why isn't there a single "super race" that has already destroyed all other animals under "natural selection"? How did so many different varieties of species come about rather than consolidated species?
And the list goes on. Yet evolutionists can NOT answer these questions because answering these questions points out the silliness of the religion of evolution. Evolution survives in America for 2 years, black robed lawyers who believe they are gods decreed it, and people have been indoctrinated to accept the secular fundamentalist view of evolution rather than THINKING through evolution's absurd and silly leaps of blind miraculous leaps of faith.
I fully admit that ID does not meet the rules of science, and I admit that evolution is the best theory that science has come up with to explain life, etc. However, evolution is not a fact (it is an educated guess and nothing more) and it does have a lot of flaws, including the laws of probability (that is the most obvious one to me and many others). Speaking of evolution as a fact is ignorant.
Thanks. I've never seen an explanation for that bit of nasty. I remember now posting to Narby what turned out to be a futile attempt to prevent his loss of faith.
So what the author is saying is that "Evolutionary Theory" can be overturned by the mere postulation of an opposing "Creationist Theory".
...A 'Theory' (or 'Paradigm' in Kuhn's esteemed work) is overturned by the accumulation of observations that cannot be accounted for by the existing Theory or Paradigm, NOT by the simple positing of another speculative Theory.
You made no point worth refuting. Those that know read, shake their heads and go on.
Google is your friend. Try 'scientific theory definition'. It will make you look a lot less stupid.
My goodness you are a slow learner. The whole buiness of science is to keep improving its understanding. The process is iteartive.
But you are covertly implying something that simply isn't true. You are implying that everything is science is mush and it will all have a completely different shape tomorrow. the actual progress of science is more like a pixel fade, in which things are seen with more and more detail as the resolution deepens.
Gravity was first explored by Galileo, who made some decent quantitative observations; then by Kepler who discovered that orbits were best described as eliptical; thne by Newton, who foune formulae that perfectly describe the motions of objects at familiar distances and speeds; then by Einstein who extended the theory of gravity to deal with extreme velocities. We do not yet have a comprehensive theory of gravity, but what we have learned has not contradicted Galileo; it has just improved the resolution of the image.
The same applies to biology. Current research is improving our understanding of life, but it is not contradicting the basic picture discovered by Darwin. It is just adding more detail.
It is fantasy to believe that the age of the earth will suddenly be found to be a few thousand years, or that living things are not related by descent.
Let’s move away from the daft idea that a basic organism suddenly popped into existence with a spine. That’s a pretty complicated structure to come about in one fell swoop.
Suppose, on the other hand, an organism mutates a light-sensitive organ. Just a basic little thing. That basic ‘eye’ enables to move towards light where there’s more food (you can use your imagination to work out what it might do with it). More food = better chance of survival and the ‘eye’ gets passed on to the population through breeding. Over time this eye gets more complicated.
Now, that’s not so ridiculous is it? Maybe you would grasp the idea of evolution better if you didn’t think basic cells suddenly grew the complicated organs that we, the most powerful life forms on the planet, have today.
Biological systems exhibit intelligence and demonstrate this intelligence by creating complexity.
I could say the exact same thing to you (please offer some testable hypotheses) and then it just degrades into a circular discussion of enormously unedifying proportions.
Interesting name you are blessed with. Did you know the book of Malachi (same name diff spelling) is about God telling us He is not pleased when we do not obey His commands. He will repay those who disregard Him.
I tried with Narby too.
It was strange with Elsie. He didn't really gloat, but he seemed strangely happy with Narby's loss of faith. Since then I've wondered seriously if Elsie wasn't a DU troll. His actions certainly didn't fit my idea of what a Christian would do in those circumstances.
Maybe I should simplify things a bit.
You see, when one is asleep, and not dreaming, time flies. There is nothingness all around. A state of 'black peace'. Perhaps this very same unconscious 'black peace' awaits death too. And a fear of this thought of nothingness after death perhaps caused human societies to invent the idea of religion, so as to attempt to give meaning to the happenings after death?
Existence is indeed preferable to its alternative smply because of the rarity wth which it seems to happen. Those very probabilities are very low, as the Creationists oft parrot, and if you are lucky enough to be favoured by them, then why not strive to keep the 'moment' longer?
Feelings of love, companionship and bonding are evolutionary mutations that vastly improve chances of survival. Social beings, like mankind, are the most successful biological creatures.
By the term 'satiate'(to which no meaning exists as far as I know), I presume you mean the opposite of 'insatiate'. I need you to elaborate for me to attempt to provide a satisfactory explanation. That "luck" referred to earlier is the very probabilities mentioned therein.
Name a specific gap that evolution will never be able to address, and tell us what gives you confidence that it will never be addressed.
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.