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)
Pete, do you love life. Do you enjoy the beauty and pleasure of life's existence? Every good thing in this life is an expression of the goodness and wonderfulness of God. Each drink of cold water, the blue sky, the green grass, the love we know for one another. Every good thing comes from God and is an expression of His wonderfulness. It is the LORD God who knows all that provided you with this life. If you love life I would think you would want to live forever. The Bible says that everlasting pleasure is at the right hand of God. The LORD loves us and derives pleasure from our pleasure. He derives pleasure from our love of Him. Have you ever felt this way about your children or maybe even a pet?
I think part of your analogy is right. God is so completely all knowing that we are truly stupid compared to the one who knows everything. What we know we know only partly from our finite and imperfect perspective. Not only are we stupid compared to one who knows all but we are completely impure and sinfully disgusting compared to one who is absolutely perfect and righteous. But still He cares for us. He cared enough to give His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ to be the sacrifice to pay the blood price the sins we commit require.
The Bible says those who hate God love death. Conversely those who truly love life love God. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the LIFE. No man comes to the Father but by me." Are you one who loves life and would like to live forever or do you hate life so much you would rather cease to exist? No one ceases to exist. We will go on in the presence of the glory of God or out of the presence of His glory. In heaven or in the only place we are suited for apart from His forgiveness and cleansing, in the lake of fire. Choose life or choose death. Death is separation from God.
God is seen in every good thing you have ever experienced or seen in this life. Remember when you choose to reject God you also choose to reject experiencing His eternal blessings. Imagine spending eternity in a place where not one good thing exist because you have rejected them when you rejected God. When you wake up tomorrow to the smell of a fresh cup of coffee and fill your lungs with fresh air and gaze out the window at the blue sky remember who made it all and don't reject Him. Worship Him because He is worthy of our praise. Love Him and this day choose and love life rather than death.
What are you, athiest, or just Anti-Semantic?
that was a joke :-)
That depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
If by "is" still evolution you mean a process by which a series of events take place, and they are controlled by an intelligent being, with purpose and design, than YES.
If by "is" still evolution you mean, a process involving time, chance, natural selection, with no intelligent involvement or intent, (sort of the classical interpretation of "is" Evolution), then NO.
Natural selection is not a philosophy, it is a mechanism that can be observed in nature. No one called me to ask my opinion about it and I don't think it is subject to opinion anyway. You might want to acquaint youself with the difference between natural selection as an observable part of the natural world and the political notion commonly called social Darwinism. Since the first is an observable fact of nature and the second a set of policies, I don't think I understand your compulsion to confuse the two.
"I'm sorry you're so fixated on religion, and do you hate religion and God that much that you think I speak for God? "
I don't hate religion, just liars.
"You are challenging science with a leap of faith, with a proposition that is supernatural, untestable, unverifiable."
** Just like evolution is supernatural, untestable, and unverifiable... :-) But then again, we don't dare talk about the secular fundamentalism of evolution.
"You are free to criticise TOE. You are free to not believe it. But within science, you must adhere to the rules of science. If the fundamental aspects of the scientific method are abandoned, to a leap of faith, science and Reason itself is in fact undermined."
** Again, just like evolution? This isn't just a criticism of an unsupportable theory, but the exposing of a zealous fundamentalist religious belief. It takes TOTAL BLIND FAITH to accept evolution...
**As for calling Harvard Scientists idiots, that was meant as a satirical, scoffing response at all of the evolution geniuses and brilliant minds that dismiss the things they can not support because it proves evolution is a cult-like con. Saying that the genesis of life is not part of evolution is disingenuous at best, but I understand why evolutionists hold this position. It certainly shows how silly evolution is, that it requires complete and total blind faith to believe it.
The problem I see is that too many IDer and creationists aren't gethering evidence and building a body of knowledge to support their idea. Evolution has had over a century's worth of evidence. More and more evidence is found every day and what is found fits within the framework of evolution. If ID was science, then there should be an equally developed body of self consistent knowledge. There isn't. Instead, they are trying very hard to discredit evolution. That is not science. My biggest pet peeve is when they get the basics of chemistry, physics and biology wrong. It is still irksome that many people believe evolution explains the origin of life, which it does not. It is also irksome how people use the word 'theory' in a layman's sense and not in the strict context of science. That is the origin of my comment that undermining evolution undermines science - people need to change the basic scientific definitions in order to try to get traction against evolution.
So is it fair to say that the theory is untestable without inserting some type of intelligence into the testing?
"Then you must PASSIONATELY HATE all those evolutionists!"
No, just people like you who feel it is OK to lie for God. :)
Just about all of it I am afraid. Sigh. Someone needed to do a bit of research before publishing that.
With out a clock their serial flash could never load their algorithm nor could they toggle their flip-flop CLB and output latches. They are so dependent on clocking most contain a digital clock manager (DCM). While this may work with a gate array it simply will not with a FPGA.
They never claimed a clock wasn't part of the FPGA. This is not the clock they are talking about. They are talking about a clock being used when the algorithm is running. The software contains no clock, nor are external clocks used as input.
The paper is found here: http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/users/adrianth/ices98/node1.html
The logic layout (of the final design):
Pinging your vacuous friends for support again?
It's a silly question. If you are any living thing, existence is preferable to non-existence.
Folks have been banned for much less, no doubt.
Evolutionists like to semantically cast the debate as "science vs. religion' or "science vs. faith", when in reality it's faith vs. faith. Honest evolutionsists know that.
Even Gould admitted that all of macroevolutionary theory is based on 3 things; (1) 1 observable event (intraspecies limited adaptation by inherent variable traits), extrapolated into an unobservable assumption that this would create new critters, (2) assumptions from similar homology and assumed structural defects, and (3) assumptions about the fossil record. Evolutionists try shoehorn any actual experimental observations into that framework of assumptions. But the farther down we look, the less logical that becomes. Ask Crick and his "little gtreen men" explanation for the DNA code.
It takes faith indeed to make these kind of assumptions and inferential leaps. Of course, it helps the True Believers to paliate their doubts and feel intellectually enlightened, when we throw in a few Latin terms and discuss the complex experiments that reveal observable facts-- facts which must then be interpreted through some interpretive model. Whether one choses MET or ID as their model is unavoidably a matter of faith. But faith should be based on logic, and I personally believe ID is much stronger in that respect. Kudo's to Anthony Few for finally being able to admit that to himself.
But most evolutionists I've talked with fail to recognize where observation leaves off, and interpretation begins. It takes a special kind of myopia to gloss over that distinction and accept Neodarwinism on faith. And I just don't have that kind of faith.
Morality is based on the presupposition that some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior...
Rights? Define a right and the origin of such an idea...
As far as CarolinaGuitarman is concerned, he is just a Marxist troll, f--k him... I don't know why he brought you into it except, since he is so weak, maybe he thought he might get some support...
Thanks! You are inadvertently making my points for me. I suggest you actually READ Kuhn's book rather than blather on as the Creationists usually do. Nonetheless, I'll make the key point one more time (a point made numerous times, again and again on these worthless, yet insidious Threads): Science does NOT conduct itself through Democratic processes such as taking a vote; It deals in facts, observations and data, things that are missing in Creationist Theory.
Me: So what the author is saying is that "Evolutionary Theory" can be overturned by the mere postulation of an opposing "Creationist Theory".
You: do you extend the SAME assumption to intelligent design (rhetorical question here, evolutionists do not do so!)...
Once again, to be clear: The Creationist author FALSELY states that "Evolutionary Theory" can be overturned by the mere postulation of an opposing "Creationist Theory". QED - Thomas Kuhn's scholarly work.
Admit it, you don't like intelligent design because it explains the gaps............
No! I don't like it because it has not, to the present time, explained anything. In addition, the continued trumpeting of this crap (either by those unconciously too ignorant of the methodology of Western Science to see the falsehood and errors of Creationism, or those who are evil enough to want to conciously destroy Conservatism by posting this crap in Troll-like fashion again and again) destroys the credibility of this site and the Conservative Movement.
.........that evolution will never be able to address.
Evolution has explained these. I refer you to any of the Lists of Links on 'PatrickHenry' or 'Ichneumon' Home Pages posted ad nauseum on these Threads.
In conclusion, please STOP destroying the credibility of this site and the Conservative Movement by posting Creationist crap.
Best of Luck with your personal problems.
Hardly. No one accepts evolution based on faith. They accept it based on the evidence.
Much of it is probably down to genes that specify the development of brain structures, such as the amygdala and the frontal lobes, that have been shown to be involved in guiding social behaviour and the emotions. Unfortunately, the start of the art in evolutionary neuroscience is way off having any kind of explanation of how that actually happens, so I doubt anyone can give you a more concrete answer that.
I guess we can take your juvenile insults as an admission that you don't actually have any cogent points to make in this discussion.
Because I've evolved to be afraid of death. And because I've also evolved to find pleasure in many of the things life has to offer, so I want to keep on enjoying it. I've also evolved to find certain things painful, and if there was a preponderence of pain over pleasure in my life maybe I'd be tempted to see non-existence as the preferrable of the two.
(The reality is actually more complicated than that, because there are cultural factors involed in addition to the evolutionary factors. But in simple terms I think what I've said is enough to answer your question).
It is just another immaculate conception, a belief that life just evolved from nothing. Like the Big Bang it relies upon a singularity, the DNA molecule. They are inadvertently admissions the universe and life are immaculate conceptions and they are dependent on each other. Categorically, they are the same - - mythology...
Only if you define "evidence" to mean extrapolations and assumptions, and not observed events. Read post 518. BTW, a number of MET advocates have admitted it's matter of faith. Google's our friend. :)
Thanks for your patience.
The relevant threads are:
New Scienctis Issue on iD posts 395, 439 and follow-ups
Let's have no more monkey trias to teach faith as science is to undermine both posts 209, 236, 248,280 and 829
"On The Origin of Species (but not Colors)."
"On The Origin of Species (but not Powered Flight, Which Hasn't Been Invented Yet But That's No Excuse)."
"On The Origin of Species (but not Continental Drift)."
"On The Origin of Species (but not Pi)."
"On The Origin of Species (but not Pie)."
"On The Origin of Species (but not Witches)."
"On The Origin of Species (but not Card Tricks)."
Why are there no mammal fossils found in cambrian rock? The theory of evolution has a good explaination for this. In fact the theory of evolution requires this to be true. I can think of no reason why we shouldn't find elephant, horse, or human fossils in the cambrian if evolution were not true.
Just one example of coincidence that just so happens to allow evolution to survive as an explaination. Hundreds of such coincidences lead me to believe it is true.
This isn't an assumption. It is coincidence upon coincidence until it is simply beyond doubt.
My, my, my. We are in a lather, aren't we?
I haven't seen this level of creationist discourse since ALS was banned.
Mayve he will.
"As far as CarolinaGuitarman is concerned, he is just a Marxist troll, f--k him... I don't know why he brought you into it except, since he is so weak, maybe he thought he might get some support..."
Too scared to ping me? You're losing your edge there Dashboard.
Thanks for giving us a good laugh! :)
I see a site URL that says "noDNC.com" and I think it's something I could support. Lurking under that banner is a rubbish heap of central casting stock characters attacking a scientific theory with about 150 years of accumulated evidence for it and none against.
I'm reminded how, forty years ago, I thought environmentalism was just Teddy Rooseveltian conservation and was of course a good idea. By thirty years ago, it was clear that environmentalists were a bunch of communists. That in turn led to my decision that the whales could go screw themselves if it came to that.
You guys are doing the DNC a big favor.
You guys have reached the zenith of your intellectual powers. You are on a roll.
Satisfactory to you, perhaps, but not to them.
There they are, cheerfully posting answers to your post.
BTW, there are very few evolutionists posting, just scientists and interested amateurs.
Uh...this isn't going to help.
See post 263 on that second thread you referenced.
You are overemphasizing or exaggerating the commentary.
He says himself he is simply "being over the top" and debating with the same style used against him.
To call it anything else than a friendly "needling" is a bit overly dramatic.
Be thankful someone trys to hold you accountable for your faith...if no one ever called you on it, you may be walking down the wide path without realizing it. No one wants that.
your first post must not be spelled right...i cant find it
I also remember the Teddy Rooseveltian form of conservation and, as a matter of fact, I remember when the left was trying to get national parks turned over to "the people" to squat or whatever.
Conservation got infiltrated and marxistified, then turned to environmentalism.
I'm still a conservationist. Can't find too many others, though.
I'm pre-caffeine, sorry.
New Scientist Issue on ID
posts 395, 439, 503
Who is"trying to hold me accountable for my faith"
Other than God, of course, whch is no one else's business.
"Then you must PASSIONATELY HATE all those evolutionists!"
No, just people like you who feel it is OK to lie for God. :)
"morality is a delusion of the religious morons"
Oh well how do you explain how Hitler was defeated then? Clearly Nazism isn't the fittest is it? It perished.
The fittest system is one with good morals. Evolutionary speaking a society that cooperates is stronger than one that works by "law of the jungle"
It has a "just so" type explanation, but not a good one. It has no explanation for the Cambrian explosion; it has no observed mechanism to cause transition; it has no record of inchoradtes w/ exoskeletons transitioning into endoskeleton forms (in fact, has few if any forms it can point to that can be called clearly transitional between any species, and logically there should be countless examples); it has no example anywhere in the world of the professed order of a chronological column (and in fact, it's exactly opposite in may places)-- just to name a few assumptions that must be made.
And on top of all that, it has yet to explain, how complex organic compounds (a) existed or (b) were assembled by chance less mathematically probable than throwing a box full of letters into the air to create code more complex than a Shakespearan sonnet-- Millions of times over and independently.
Again, I just can't swallow the magnitude of "coincidences" that Neodarwnism requires. But to each their own.
You lied when you said that the Harvard scientists were claiming their study was a support for evolution. I asked for a quote, just one, and you said you had *multiple sources*. Except, each *source* was the same AP article. And that article never said any of the Harvard scientists had made any claim at all that this would be a support for evolution. Only the idiot reporter said that, and only to flame controversy. You had to lie in order to *prove* the creationist fantasy that evolution claims to describe the origins of life. You have been shown time and time again that this is not true, yet you persist, without addressing our objections. You are either a liar or very stupid.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not really as stupid as you come off. Therefore, you were shown to be a liar, a *Liar for the Lord*.
"I honestly think you truly believe your suggestions that somewhere I said I speak for God... "
I said you were lying for him, not speaking for him.
Take any typical public school textbook that deals with the subject, and let's see where the fantasy resides.
Somewhere in the ... let's call it evolution of a creationist or a socialist there comes the realization that many people will dismiss him out of hand if he labels himself up front as what he is. That, of course, won't do for getting the all-important message out. Thus the creationist or socialist must stop periodically in the middle of his rant and deny who he is. As if that will help.
It's all about reasonable-looking cover, but few people realize that reasonable-looking cover is blown in seconds if you don't sound reasonable.
Once you think you're in a Holy War against an Evil Dumb Conspiracy, you're lost. You're nucking futz. You've cut the connection to reality.
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.