Somebody's lying, all right!
It has been used to deceive hundreds of millions of people and has been instrumental in the death of millions. It is at the root of most of the great ills that now afflict society.
Still lying.
“It” is evolution—the theory, first introduced by Charles Darwin, that says we are the product not of a benevolent Creator, but of a blind, random, and spontaneous process.
Now merely incorrect; the theory of evolution deals with change in the genome through time, not origins.
Evolution rests on the claim that the universe is made up of nothing but matter. It holds that matter, time, and chance—the unholy trinity of materialism—brought all things into existence.
False; the theory of evolution deals with change in the genome through time. Other subjects deal with origins. (This sounds like typical creationist claptrap: evolution is a term used by creationists to include all sciences that they disagree with.)
Evolution, therefore, has no need for a Creator and has been midwife to the growth of atheism in the last 150 years. Before Darwin, an atheist was as scarce as a hen’s tooth. But, as atheist Richard Dawkins has put it, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
Evolution deals with change in the genome over time. This author is incorrectly dealing with origins again, with a bit of non sequitur thrown in for good measure.
Sadly, Darwin did more than provide atheists with an excuse to reject God. His idea has leaped from science to almost every other arena of human endeavor. Evolution is, after all, more than a scientific theory. It is a worldview—a way of understanding all of life that entirely excludes God.
Evolution is a scientific theory that explains a lot of facts and observations. Creationists don't agree with the theory for religious reasons, and use all manner of exaggerations, falsehoods, and other methods of misleading folks as their efforts to combat the science itself have failed.
This evolutionary worldview has long held sway in the law. It has led courts to discard the principles laid down on Mount Sinai in favor of legal standards that adapt to evolving social standards—a notion that allows judges to discover new rights, such as the right to abortion, or the right to engage in homosexual sodomy.
Is the author disappointed that we are not living in a theocracy? It sure sounds like that is what he would prefer. Then he could send the Inquisition after those evilutionists and set them straight once and for all!
Evolution has also led to lethal consequences. The idea that only the fit survive has led to both eugenics and genocide. Darwin predicted that, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.”
The idea that only the fit survive is something that was added a decade after Darwin published his theory (not by Darwin), and it is both wrong and misleading. The genomes which survive are those that reproduce! The change in the genome over time favors some organisms and disfavors others. And, this operates at a population level, not the individual level.
As for the Darwin quote mine, see this.
Adolf Hitler, a devout evolutionist, applied these ideas and taught them to his troops. He was absolutely determined to create a super race. Six million Jews lost their lives as a result.
False. Hitler was more a creationist than a "devout evolutionist:"
What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, . . . so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. SourceDarwin’s theory supplies a rationale for racism—the idea that some groups are more advanced along the evolutionary scale than others. It gave to Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, an intellectual foundation for her campaign to rid mankind of what she called “human weeds,” so that the superior stock might prevail.
False (once again). Source
Evolution also robs man of his significance. The Bible teaches that man is an immortal creature created in the image of God. Today, students are taught that man has no purpose and that chance, not God, governs all. When life has no meaning, no purpose, and no future, some young people take their own lives. Suicide is the third largest cause of death among youth ages 15-24, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
I think this is rather the fault of fundamentalism. By pushing a false dichotomy, an either-or, a bible-or-nothing approach, when the scientific evidence is clear is perhaps the culprit. As long as creationists are casting such a wide net in an effort to pillory Darwin, perhaps some of the blame comes back upon them. Ever consider that?
And yet, evolution as science has failed at every point. The late British astronomer mocked the idea that the amazing complexity of living cells could come about by chance, calling it “nonsense of a high order.” Yet it is this “nonsense” that our children are being taught in schools as scientific fact.
Perhaps Hoyle was wrong? Perhaps mathematicians are not modeling the variables correctly. Perhaps mathematicians have looked silly in the past when they did the same thing (like the story of a mathematician proving a bumblebee could not fly). And perhaps Hoyle is describing origins, while the theory of evolution (again) deals with change in the genome over time.
My earnest prayer is that the Lord will topple the whole monstrous edifice of evolution, which has brought so much death and despair into human existence. May evolution’s collapse be swift and complete! In its place may Christ be glorified, and the wondrous effects of His ethical, moral, and spiritual teaching prevail once more in our nation and in this world.
Don't wait up. The theory of evolution has been doomed (any day now) since 1859.
Pearls before swine bump to ya.
your post is riddled with so many half truths and innacuracies, that I don’t have time to deal with them all. Here’s just one though.
http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/connection.asp?ID=crh&ec=I1297
Science, by modern definition, limits itself to what's supposedly observable in the natural world, and therefore, is handicapped by its current definition bias against the supernatural.
So, the complete peace, joy and love that exists in my home is just a fig-newton of my imagination? And, any transcendent values say, a mother has for her children, are disposable, mere instinctual impulses? A mother's selflessness - what's the point of such behavior - it doesn't net her anything of worth to herself except should you look to the transcendent for such value.
Yes, the non-Christian conservative is an emerging creature, worthy of study as it gains in power, to join the Left against those Talibanist Christians.
Speaking of Taliban-like behaviour, have you taken a look at the madrases of Secular Humanism called Government Schools. Darwin would be proud. How Machiavellian.
Evolution is defined as heritable change in a line of descent: occurs by microevolutionary events (mutation, natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow). I can see how populations would change over time, but the DNA was there from the start. Unless a mutation occurred in the DNA of the egg or sperm it would not be inherited. A leg would not form spontaneously on both sides of a species, and the law of ‘use it or lose it’ would make a ‘leg bud’ disappear since it is useless. IMHO. Seen any mutations recently that are not destructive? Let me know. I really can’t accept this theory. It just doesn’t fit.