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)
I'll say... OH you mean the article, not evolution.
Psst... I'm BAAAACK.
;-)
(no hard feelings I hope...)
Everything in the laboratory is designed by an intelligent being. I'd say that qualifies. The whole process of experimentation, invention, art, construction, etc. is ID. It's so prevalent that you can't see the forest for the trees.
You guys have reached the zenith of your intellectual powers. You are on a roll.
Sorry- you were misquoted. The above was your quote.
Art went herbiverous fathom.
The effect that traits that aid an organism to better reproduce will tend to be fixed in the population, while those that hinder reproduction will tend to be lost.
This isn't explained by mutation - it would still occur in absense of mutation.
This isn't explained by drift - it would still occur in absense of drift.
This isn't explained by recombination - it would still occur in absense of recombination.
This isn't explained by heredity. Heredity is needed for natural selection to work, but it isn't the only thing that is needed.
anatomical cheese hmm. possibly.
When are you people going to start listening to reason and realize that evolution has nothing to do with being an atheist. I'm a Christian and believe in evolution. As far as that goes Darwin himself was a Christian.
Have you ever stopped to consider that God chooses to run the daily events of the entire universe according to scientific principles. Even the miracle of birth is strictly a scientific miracle. There's not one step in the process that is supernatural.
So why is it that you don't give your God credit for having the ability to do the whole job in a scientific fashion. Instead you seem to insist that that would have been just too tough for even God and imagine that he had to resort to some sort of magic or supernatural processes to get the ball rolling.
Thus, when woodb01 posts this:
Hitler's National SOCIALIST "uber-man" or Aryans, or the "super race" are all based on crazy notions of natural selection. The National SOCIALISTS determined that Jews, the sick, the elderly, the disabled, etc., weren't as "valuable" as the rest of society and exercised their "natural selection" to exterminate them. Abortion supporters do the same thing today, babies are "inconvenient" and some of them may have gestational diseases so it warrants "natural selection" to "terminate them" because they are the weak and defenseless in society. The law of the jungle, the "me" law that says if I want it, I can do anything I want to get it and no artificial moral construction is going to stop me!
... it's nothing more than an attempt to discredit a scientific theory by demonstrating that it can be misused for terrible ends. This argument from adverse consequences is a fallacy and can be compared to an attempt to discredit Christianity by pointing to the Inquisition.
Curiously, though, it also confuses "natural selection" with the Nazis' planned extermination program. Rationally, this should is an example of intelligent design, although I hate, even as an in this example, applying the term "intelligent," to the Holocaust. It was done by design, though. "Malevolent Design" would be more like it. The above abortion argument is more of the same.
"Wells isn't the first to recognize that the Cambrian explosion counts as evidence against evolution. Even Richard Dawkins admits, "It is as though they [Cambrian explosion fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." (Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker). These sorts of evidences do indeed pose a major challenge to Darwinian evolution, as the origin of these most recognizable body plans and body parts must take place in just a few million years, and there are no fossils documenting these transitions. This compresses the origin of a very large portion of the genetic diversity ever to have existed on earth into an evolutionary instant, and the lack of transitional forms begs the question if common descent through natural selection had anything to do with this at all. Valentine and Erwin (referenced above) see typical microevolutionary processes as "implausible" to explain all of this. If this doesn't fly in the face of evolutionary predictions, what does? Regardless of what appears later in the fossil record, the bottom line is that almost all phyla appear in the Cambrian without any previous animal fossils to account for their supposed evolutionary origin. There may be no "lions, tigers, or bears" in the Cambrian (oh my?), but the fact is that when other groups appear in the fossil record, again we often see an "explosion". Paleontologists have called the origin of mammals (with few plausible intermediate fossils) an explosion, for birds there's a bird explosion, and there's even a plant explosion."
It's really not that hard.
Certain things found at certain places at certain times are designed.
Therefore, everything everyplace throughout time was designed.
It wouldn't do to post a rebuttal without someone posting the point being rebutted in response, would it?
Are you referring the inclusion of the following in the midst of the usual rant which omits all the facts that falsify it?
There may be no "lions, tigers, or bears" in the Cambrian (oh my?)...There may be none? Is he not sure? And where O where does this inquiring mind inquire why not? Where O where does this inquiring mind attempt to fit the lack of modern life in the Cambrian into creationism?
They don't do that. Your offered example isn't one, and how did that happen? Anyway, there aren't any. There are no creationists wondering WHY there are no lions and tigers and bears "Oh my!" in the Cambrian. There are no inquiring creationist minds. And there is no theory to fit facts into anyway. At least, there none that wasn't falsified by about 1831, well before Darwin published, when Adam Sedgwick admitted he couldn't find one great worldwide flood anywhere in the geologic column.
So the only questions creationists have are the ones fed to them by pamphlets. They parrot them, ignore the answers, and show up back again dumb as a stump the next day. This is the "real" science. It will teach us much.
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.