Skip to comments.Evolution is preposterous
Posted on 07/07/2007 2:31:35 AM PDT by balch3
Mr Lundbergh is absolutely accurate in his critique of the false pseudo-scientific religion of Darwinism.
The hysterical/irrational reaction of its adherents is similar in many ways to the reaction to Pope Benedict's brilliant Regensburg lecture.
Such people do not like to have their certainties questioned.
For anyone with an open mind, neither historical evidence nor scientific experimentation lend any credibility to this "theory". It remains just that, a preposterous theory, not a matter of fact. It's very much a case of ideology masquerading as science, a crutch for closed minds, an ideology for the deluded.
There's nothing concrete or tangible about it. The contrast with the contribution of its adherents' great ideological enemy (Roman Catholicism) could not be greater. There you have tangible evidence of its reality. For example you can visit the great universities, Oxford, Cambridge, Bologna etc. You can see the Sistine Chapel. You can expand your mind by absorbing the genius of Thomas Aquinas and so on, and so on.
Bad "scientific" ideas (like all bad ideas) have bad consequences. ERIC CONWAY, NAVAN, CO MEATH * Redmond O'Hanlon writes that adherents of evolution rely on "a biased interpretation" (Letters, July 28).
This could not be futher from the truth. One of the main reasons so many books by atheist writers have appeared recently is because of the "intelligent design" concept in the USA.
Over the last few years hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in an attempt by scientists to find evidence for God's handy work in the natural world. They have even tried (unsuccessfully) to have intelligent design inserted into school science courses on the basis that both arguments deserve equall respect, even though Darwinian evolution has literally mountains of ancient evidence to back it up, and intelligent design has no evidence at all, only theory based on parts of evolution which have not been fully explained by conventional science, yet.
If people such as Mr O'Hanlon can't reconcile evolution with the existence of God, then this is as good as proof that God dosen't exist, in the same way we know the earth is not flat because we know its true shape. Proof is always positive which is why nobody can ever find evidence for the non-existence of God.
I only meant to paste the first letter. The second is Darwinist garbage.
That it happened by God's design in God's time.
"Oi! You over there in the puddle with the 18 eyes and 36 legs...yes you! Stand upright, breath oxygen, walk over here and paint the 'Mona Lisa'!"
OK, not quite, but something along those lines. : )
Over the last few years hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in an attempt by scientists to find evidence for God's handy work in the natural world. They have even tried (unsuccessfully) to have intelligent design inserted into school science courses on the basis that both arguments deserve equall respect, even though Darwinian evolution has literally mountains of ancient evidence to back it up, and intelligent design has no evidence at all, ...Good find. Tell it brother!
Being Creationist is not the same as being a flat Earther.
The problem with your second point is that the science is known to be in its infancy. We’re learning new things every day, and there are many big mysteries yet to be solved. They’ve been studying evolution for what? About 150 years yeah? I’m going to paraphrase Men In Black (yeah I know, bad movie to quote in a science thread but there’s a really good quote that explains the viewpoint). “A thousand years ago everybody KNEW the Earth was the centre of the universe. Five hundred years ago everybody KNEW the Earth was flat. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.”
We see evolution in (Human) behaviour, why can’t it exist in biology? The problem with the “young Earth” theory is that it doesn’t stand up to scientific inquiry either. But the difference between scientists and creationists is that scientists are always willing to entertain a new theory if it is supported by facts, creationists are not.
Just wanted to add “I’ve never understood how God could expect His creatures to pick the one true religion by faith - it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe.” - Robert Heinlein through Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a Strange Land
God created Evolution!
You mean you only meant to use the garbage you agree with don’t you? It’s pathetic when you have to post letters to the editor from an Irish paper to try and prove your point.
Question is, how do you get people (evolutionites in this case) who are massively wrong to stop acting arrogant about it?
I sense... Irony.
But also more accurate than the first.
Only Darwin (and a few million medical doctors and scientists) could understand Evolution.
And yet have to resort to name calling to defend the theory.
What, you don't see how the directive to "visit the great universities, Oxford, Cambridge, Bologna etc" applies to topic of evolution? That portion of the text doesn't seem to follow the rest of the letter. There must be a Latin phrase to explain such things...if only I could think of it... ;-)
Yes he did! The God I know is powerful enough to do that. I have never seen anything to argue about here. Evolution was Gods plan and it is brilliant!