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)
Congratulations. You are the first person on you side to protest against the obscenities being posted by someone claiming to be on your side.
I have been wondering if Sir was a DU plant, joined up to make Christians look bad. He certainly has tried.
A very interesting perspective, and one I don't share.
To me faith is important, I don't joke about someone losing theirs. If they think something I did had a negative impact on them I will do the best I can to ameliorate the situation.
At the very least I will express sympathy when it happens "on my watch" so to speak. And anyone who jokes about it will be called out.
An explanation that can "handle" any finding at all is not an explanation. It is not telling you anything about the world. It may appear to have some sort of content. ("The world is a dream being dreamt by a giant turtle!" "The world was made Last Thursday with all of our memories intact!") However, it tells you nothing about what you can expect to see, nothing at all about what you can rule out ever seeing.
When you say "faith". Please define that for me.
I am not going to be an appeaser. I expect people to mature in their faith. I expect Christians to know why they are saved. Knowing why you are saved will stand up against any offense by man. No matter if its as slight as what we are discussing or being asked to die for your faith.
God tells us to mature in our faith. If Christians dont, then they are on the wide path and its no ones fault but their own.
Hbr 5:11 Concerning him [Jesus] we have much to say, and {it is} hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.
Hbr 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.
Hbr 5:13 For everyone who partakes {only} of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant.
Hbr 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.
That is correct. It's the kind of "upright" behavior that we've all come to expect from the highbrow evolutionist men of science. Here's the typical pattern: Join the thread and make between zero and two civil posts. Begin with the ad hominem fallacy and continue until thoroughly frustrated. Finish with dismissing any poster that even questions evolution as dishonest, a liar, etc., but never actually tap into that mythical mountain of evidence that proves evolution true.
Not pertainent. Harry Potter may be a myth, but J K Rowling exists. So noöne, (even evolutionists) is denying that the the writer of Eccelesiastes actually existed.
"The Cult of Evolution – the Opiate of the Atheists"
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!
This has been beat to death again and again on this forum.
You don't have to be an atheist to believe or disbelieve in evolution, and the Bible doesn't conflcit with basic evolutionary concepts.
I believe in the Bible and I believe in evolution.
Where I and the millions of other thinking individuals who believe in Evolution and the Bible differ from those few atheist biologists who do so also is that we don't believe that multiple fortuituous "accidents" of species improvement resulted in mankind, but rather that there was some direction from God.
The latter can't be proven scientifically, but then again, nor can it be disproved. Consequently it is not a scientific issue, but a personal theological one.
My thinking is that if "a force that can originate life" acted at more than one point in time, then the time sequence now used is quite suspect of being accurate as a framework in which evolution occurs.
Specific example: If there are other "Burgess shale" deposits yet to be discovered that occurred at later or earlier times than we believe the actual Burgess shale to represent, that would effectively challenge the current timeline of evolution. That seems quite relevant, since time is most assuredly a key component of "change over time".
White Men Can't Jump
and
Elsie can't subtract.
26 hours old then.................
Boo!
And so, your counterexample that would disprove evolution is what?
I can at least prove that intelligent design is a reality in the universe. Can you prove that evolution is a reality in the universe? How?
LOL!
What is that a picture of?
"What a Difference a Day Makes"
You say that, but since a rabbit fossil hasn't been found, you are only guessing what the response would be.
I know what they do with what they HAVE found. . .they make it fit. Example: The so called 'refutations' of Behe's book. It's all embraced by evols whether it makes sense or not.
As ridiculous as some of these are, they would all fit ID. None would fit evolution, no matter how hard anyone tried to make them.
Easy for you to say, but no evidence thus far would support your theory that evolution theory supporters in the scientific community wouldn't make them fit.
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.