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)
If you bothered to read, you would have seen that the IDers could care less if their theory is taught in public school.
They want the growing evidence against Darwinism to be presented ... instead of supressed. Evidence for and against a theory should be presented ... any reasonable scientist would agree.
The major problem here is that there doesnt exist a reasonable Darwinist. They are the ones that are frothing at the mouth at the thought of their theory being criticized.
What evidence would that be?
The existence of a Creator can hardly be undermined by anything science finds. You are suggesting that some lines of curiosity are somehow off limits.
The future of medicine depends on knowing how life works at its most fundamental levels. It is curiosity, not rote lab work that results in breakthroughs.
I agree that science has made its progress for the past several hundred years by ignoring philosophy and the concerns of philosophers.
The history of creationist frauds is long (no doubt someone will be along to post another piece of disproven evidence shortly). It is only reasonable that 'evidence against Darwinism' go through peer review like all other scientific data.
Who are these 'Darwinists' you keep speaking of? You don't call physicists 'Newtonists' do you?
When you come up with a better way of figuring things out, let the rest of us know.
Exactly. What is your answer?
You can describe science and the history of science but isn't science a pointless, meaningless endeavor? If there is no God and we are merely the consequence of evolution, then existence is actually meaningless. It follows that anything we do, including science, is also meaningless.
So, again I ask (and sincerely), why bother?
The problem is that the science being used by IDers and Creationsists in order to invalidate evolution has been manipulated and abused. The problem is that this abused sciecne contradicts what is really going on. The worn arguements, like the abuses of second law of thermodynamics for example, have been completely destroyed by the ID crowd. It just confuses kids when they are taught different things about the same idea. They are taught the ID side of things early on, buty then they hit the contradictions when taught at a high school or college level. Why study science if it is so (unnecessarily) contradictory? Science itself is not anti-religious, but religiously neutral. It is not equipped to answer spiritual or moral questions. It never has been and it will never be able to. It is wrong to use it either in a pro or anti religious way.
Growing so fast that not a single new idea or argument has been put forward since Paley's "Natural Theology" in 1802. But wait, that was before Darwin.
If you disagree, show me any idea that was not in Paley's book.
Another "You're an idiot" "No, you're an idiot" thread....
"So even the "design" of evolutionary tests requires "intelligent design"..."
You need to read exactly what I wrote a little closer. Notice I mentioned that scientists creating life would disprove the idea that ONLY God could create life. I had outthought your reply before you made it.
This has been found to be a common thread among the avid evolutionists.
Rather, it is a common theme among avid creationists to make this claim about those who accept the ToE. I suppose it is easier to accuse those you disagree with of denying and rejecting God than to actually learn something about science.
It would seem to me that if scientists create life where none was before, then that is a demonstration that intelligence creates life.
So what the author is saying is that "Evolutionary Theory" can be overturned by the mere postulation of an opposing "Creationist Theory".
Apparently the author hasn't read 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' by Thomas Kuhn. If he/she/it had read it then he/she/it would know that THAT is not how Science works. A 'Theory' (or 'Paradigm' in Kuhn's esteemed work) is overturned by the accumulation of observations that cannot be accounted for by the existing Theory or Paradigm, NOT by the simple positing of another speculative Theory.
Everyone knows that Creationists don't publish experiments and data to back up their Theory, but instead spew bilge, lapped up by the ignorant, and repeated by even more ignorant people in Chat Rooms. Oh well. [/heavy sigh]
Its really too bad that this crap has to be pushed on FreeRepublic to make the members here look like idiots in attempts to destroy this site and the Conservative Movement by these Trolls. [/another heavy sigh]
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.