Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

--> The Cult of Evolution the Opiate of the Atheists
NoDNC.com - STOP Democrat Corruption ^ | NoDNC.com Staff

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 e
volution 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)
 



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; awwcrapnotthisagain; crevolist; enoughalready; evolution; evoscientology; evoshavetinywinkies; idiocy; idiots; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 761-780 next last
To: woodb01; Admin Moderator

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?


21 posted on 08/16/2005 11:41:59 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor (ID: the idea that somebody did something to some gene or other sometime somehow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

22 posted on 08/16/2005 11:41:59 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: doc30
The problem is that science, not just evolution, is undermined by this type of nonsense.

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..)

23 posted on 08/16/2005 11:42:37 AM PDT by Paradox (Budweiser, fighting for the Right to Keep and Beer Arms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

ah, you are already here


24 posted on 08/16/2005 11:43:00 AM PDT by King Prout (and the Clinton Legacy continues: like Herpes, it is a gift that keeps on giving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
Evolution is the only "scientific" theory that needs legal protection. How pathetic.

ID is the only "scientific" "theory" that needs to be shoehorned into science by political means. How pathetic.

25 posted on 08/16/2005 11:43:57 AM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
ah, you are already here

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.

26 posted on 08/16/2005 11:46:30 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

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...

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-08-14-harvard-evolution_x.htm?POE=TECISVA

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...


27 posted on 08/16/2005 11:47:25 AM PDT by woodb01 (ANTI-DNC Web Portal at ---> http://www.noDNC.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: woodb01
Evolution is not science, because it can not be tested, verified, and there are no "false results."

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.

Pure projection.

This is really the worst piece of ID dreck I've read. And that's saying something.

28 posted on 08/16/2005 11:48:20 AM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: woodb01
. . . come out of the woodwork and shriek from the high heavens about how they refuse to prove one iota of their religious philosophy . . .

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.

29 posted on 08/16/2005 11:50:16 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: woodb01

Hi Wood, long time no see. Ping me when you post on this subject.


30 posted on 08/16/2005 11:50:27 AM PDT by AliVeritas (Ignorance is a condition. Stupidity is a strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Beautiful Mind
There is no mention of "miracles" in evolutionary theory

I am not an Atheist and I don't believe in "miracles" either. I agree that those "accidents" could be intelligent design.

I also don't believe this debate is about Intelligent Design. It is about getting Evangelism into the schools, IMO.
.
31 posted on 08/16/2005 11:50:30 AM PDT by mugs99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

What made the big bang bang?


32 posted on 08/16/2005 11:51:10 AM PDT by AliVeritas (Ignorance is a condition. Stupidity is a strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: woodb01
Then again, maybe evolution really IS the secular fundamentalist religious belief that the article posits.

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.

33 posted on 08/16/2005 11:51:20 AM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: All
Hey, DU lurkers:

If you're looking for solid evidence that conservatives are retards, please use this thread's lead article as Exhibit One.

34 posted on 08/16/2005 11:51:34 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: woodb01

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?


35 posted on 08/16/2005 11:51:51 AM PDT by FostersExport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: woodb01

Funny thing is I get paid to teach this stuff. What are your credentials?

Oh, and try re-reading the projected Harvard study proposals.


36 posted on 08/16/2005 11:51:53 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

perhaps a matter of the law of conservation of manure and enthalpy?


37 posted on 08/16/2005 11:52:10 AM PDT by King Prout (and the Clinton Legacy continues: like Herpes, it is a gift that keeps on giving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: woodb01
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...

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?

38 posted on 08/16/2005 11:56:22 AM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AliVeritas

Big bang = nothing to do with evolution.


39 posted on 08/16/2005 11:57:42 AM PDT by FostersExport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: AliVeritas
What made the big bang bang?

If something made the big bang bang what made that bing bang banger?
40 posted on 08/16/2005 11:58:48 AM PDT by drtom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 761-780 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson