Skip to comments.--> The Cult of Evolution – the Opiate of the Atheists
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)
Evolutions 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, lets 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 atheists 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...
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)
Whats 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)
Stopping Democrat Corruption by exposing leftist lies.
So does intelligent design use natural selection or not?
What a load of horse manure
And to think we make fun of DU.
Also no mention of origin of life. Oh, well. Facts may not be relevant in this attack on science.
Why can't people just agree to disagree? Why do we seek to find witches and demons in those who hold views contrary to our own? Are people THAT intellectually challenged?
ID cannot answer the questions it asks of science. Evolution is theory built upon evidence. ID is religious speculation that denies what we know about the world via science. It doesn't even answer what the evidence is of a designer, nor the origins of that designer, not how this designer can physically manipulate the world around us without leaving a footpring behind. Evolution does have some intersting and importnat quersitons about specific things, but that is healthy scientific debate, not a retreat from where clear evidence leads. The author of the article needs to stop trying to change the meaning of science to hit his own agenda.
Wrong from the very first sentence. How typical.
Yet assume that it did. Now this is the million $$ question, are there millions of these evolutionary possibilities all over the universe or are we the only sentient beings in the entire universe? Keep in mind the mathematical probabilities of evolution occurring here on earth. That there is life in the universe is not the issue. That there is sentient life is a whole different question. Science cannot answer the question nor offer a theoretical alternative.
Putting words in quotes doesn't disprove things.
The problem is that science, not just evolution, is undermined by this type of nonsense. All of science must be gutted in order to fit what some people 'believe.' For those of us that believe the strength of the U.S. resides in the technological prowess of our citizens, our own future is being short changed by the anti-science crowd found in the ID basket.
Who made the deck of cards?
With plenty of funding from the looney Moonies, if indeed they are looney and not malignant.
Plus support accepted from the anti-evolution Islamists.
Evolution is the only "scientific" theory that needs legal protection. How pathetic.
Religion's basic premise is that all "life" on the planet miraculously "emerged" through a few waves of a magic wand.
Sounds about equally stupid, I think.
"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."
Right, let's stop this article right there. Whoever wrote it needs to go back to school. Or maybe he hasn't got there yet.
Creationists please, show just a bit of intelligence with your arguments and I'll promise to stop laughing at you.
Since woodb01 seems to have written this piece, and has simply posted a link to his own post on another site, it should surely be on the 'blogger/personal forum', no?
Just look at the global warming debate. A shame that science has been thus perverted, although I suppose it has always been a controversy, I hear that Newton really got into it with his contemporaries about various things (light as a particle rather than a wave, etc..)
ah, you are already here
ID is the only "scientific" "theory" that needs to be shoehorned into science by political means. How pathetic.
Wherever you go, there you are.
I think that has something to do with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, according to some creationists. But I'm not really sure.
Please do me a favor and tell those idiots in the Harvard Science department that they need to abandon their own multi-million dollar research project into the origins of life and the origins of evolution...
My God, what could those moronic Harvard idiots be thinking insisting that the origins of life, and the origins of the universe are crucial / central issues to evolution... What silly fools those Harvard Scientists...
Please do me a favor all of those sidestepping secular fundamentalists, let those idiots and Harvard know just how wrong they are and how much smarter you are...
Then again, maybe evolution really IS the secular fundamentalist religious belief that the article posits. After all, the REAL scientists admit that the origins of the universe, and of the initial creation of life are central to evolution...
Ummm... and what about ID?
because the theory of ID proves that evolution is false
And how does the "theory" of ID prove evolution false? Where is the evidence supporting ID?
and therefore evolution adherents attack ID proposals with zealous fundamentalism.
This is really the worst piece of ID dreck I've read. And that's saying something.
They cannot even go so far as to admit they have something to prove. They're above that.
. . . but demand that ANYTHING that dares challenge their orthodoxy must be proven beyond any doubt.
They cannot even go so far as to allow other points of view a hearing. They're above that, too.
Hi Wood, long time no see. Ping me when you post on this subject.
What made the big bang bang?
Just because you view the world through the prism of religious fundamentalism doesn't mean that everyone else does. Your misapplication of religious terminology onto science only illustrates that you don't understand science.
If you're looking for solid evidence that conservatives are retards, please use this thread's lead article as Exhibit One.
So you are scared that scientists might create life and damage your theory? But I thought only God could create life. What do you have to be scared of?
Funny thing is I get paid to teach this stuff. What are your credentials?
Oh, and try re-reading the projected Harvard study proposals.
perhaps a matter of the law of conservation of manure and enthalpy?
umm USA Today certainly does. I don't see any evidence in your link that the "Harvard idiots" do. You wouldn't be taking an MSM article at face value would you?
Big bang = nothing to do with evolution.
oops! you done it now - now they'll start accusing you of defending "the cult" in order to preserve your livelihood.
just you wait 'n' see
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay...
Oh if scientists do create life, even if it's from the raw elements as precursors, they will calim it as proof of ID. After all, these scientists just designed life so how does that counter the ID claims? </ sarcasm>
Seriosly, they will twist things, like they always do, to fit their preconceptions. You cannot argue with closed minds.
Your bovine discharge clearly proves that if Intelligent Design really existed it wasn't applied to everyone.
If, at the instant before the big bang, there was no time, then did it really have a cause?
The scientific arguments as well as the theological and philosophical ones: http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net//evolution.html.
Yet another crevo thread.
Haven't seen one of these in a while.
This has been found to be a common thread among the avid evolutionists.
It's as though they are scared to death of acknowledging any entity who can, with valid authority, pass judgment on their morals, so they do whatever they can to "prove" that God does not exist.
In the long run, if people of faith are wrong, they are no worse off than the evolutionists. If, however, the atheistic evolutionists are wrong, they have a hell to pay.