Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

--> The Cult of Evolution – the Opiate of the Atheists
NoDNC.com - STOP Democrat Corruption ^ | NoDNC.com Staff

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 e
volution 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)
 



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; awwcrapnotthisagain; crevolist; enoughalready; evolution; evoscientology; evoshavetinywinkies; idiocy; idiots; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 761-780 next last
To: FostersExport
I never suggested that evolution would suggest that I could grow wings in a day; I merely used that example to state that the probabilities of it occurring are basically impossible.

That is a good point that a lot can happen in a billion years. However, I still think evolution relies on too much chance and that the probability of such chance actually occurring is basically impossible.
181 posted on 08/16/2005 1:47:07 PM PDT by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick
One of the basic flaws of science is confusing an answer with a best guess. A best guess is not an answer. Science does not know the answer of the beginning of life, and evolution is still just a best guess based on imperfect information, which never rises to an answer.
182 posted on 08/16/2005 1:49:07 PM PDT by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix

"It is still just a best guess based on imperfect information."

And what is the better method? No better method? We are not capable of making any sound statements about the universe?

Until you come up with something better than science you really have no argument.


183 posted on 08/16/2005 1:49:53 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix

The very success of mankind lies in people not satisfied with answers available via science at present, and hence striving to improve answers already available.

The very failure of mankind lies in the substitution of science with unverifiable beliefs.


184 posted on 08/16/2005 1:50:13 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: FostersExport

Suppose, on the other hand, an organism mutates a light-sensitive organ. Just a basic little thing. That basic ‘eye’ enables to move towards light where there’s more food (you can use your imagination to work out what it might do with it). More food = better chance of survival and the ‘eye’ gets passed on to the population through breeding. Over time this eye gets more complicated.




I don't want to suppose. How can you PROVE that light had anything to do with the development of anything? If a single celled organism has no awareness of light, then how does an "accident" suddenly develop a detailed system for a very SPECIFIC purpose? The eye by ITSELF disproves evolution. The eye can NOT come about by accident. The nervous system, the brain, even the spinal system and even muskuloskeletal motor controls that are tied to coordination with the eye all militate agains the silly notion that ANY of this "evolved"...

All of the underlying assumptions are FALLACIES because they do not evaluate the impetus that created the eye to begin with... Only assumptions based on blind faith. Use science, PROVE IT!


185 posted on 08/16/2005 1:50:37 PM PDT by woodb01 (ANTI-DNC Web Portal at ---> http://www.noDNC.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick
How does t universe stretch forever? What lies at the end of forever? Perhaps more 'forever'?

We don't know for sure that the universe is expanding forever. It could be that whatever forces or actions were present at the beginning of the universe are still present today and matter and energy are continuously being created. Remember that we can't see what most of the universe is composed of: scientists call the unknown forms of matter and energy: dark matter and dark energy. So, perhaps it is not expansion that we should be talking about but growth from the new matter and energy..

So to prevent himself from going crazy, man planted the idea of religion.

Perhaps it is another form of energy that makes us believe in a God. The God particle or energy may have been planted in all of us and it comes naturally.
186 posted on 08/16/2005 1:51:23 PM PDT by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix
One of the basic flaws of science is confusing an answer with a best guess. A best guess is not an answer.

Religion can have answers. Science has theories supported by evidence. Those theories can change as new evidence is discovered and developed. Science's ability to change is what makes it so valuable, while religion's inability to change is what makes it so dogmatic.
187 posted on 08/16/2005 1:52:21 PM PDT by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix
"I never suggested that evolution would suggest that I could grow wings in a day; I merely used that example to state that the probabilities of it occurring are basically impossible."

So you acknowledge the use of a straw-man? How is that not lying?
188 posted on 08/16/2005 1:52:34 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

We can make statements about the universe, but they are just best guesses. They are not answers.

I don't need a better method to prove that a scientific theory is still just a best guess based on imperfect information. You know that a theory is just a best guess, but you don't want to admit it, and that is a major problem with scientist: they confuse best guesses with fact or an answer. Evolution is just a best guess. Admit it or you look as foolish as you say the ID people look.


189 posted on 08/16/2005 1:53:01 PM PDT by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr

I will not participate in your apparent attempt to further attack Narby, as evidenced by your final line:

"There is only one excuse for entering the gates of Heavan...blaming your loss of faith on others isnt one of them."


190 posted on 08/16/2005 1:53:14 PM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix; FostersExport
...probabilities of it occurring are basically impossible.

What is "impossible" in a day isn't necessarily impossible in a span of multiple billion years. Those one-in-a-million chances can get very favourable outcomes when you give it time in the range of billions of years.

191 posted on 08/16/2005 1:54:54 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix
...a scientific theory is still just a best guess based on imperfect information. You know that a theory is just a best guess, but you don't want to admit it...

So when your child is desperately ill, who ya gonna call?

192 posted on 08/16/2005 1:55:49 PM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC

Religion's whole idea is that it has the answer (I am not arguing that it does). Science is trying to find the answer and it pretends that its best guesses are answers. As long as science admits its theories are just best guesses, I don't have a problem with that. I just don't like to see scientific theories passes off as fact.


193 posted on 08/16/2005 1:56:13 PM PDT by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: js1138

So when your child is desperately ill, who ya gonna call?

A doctor. And your point is?


194 posted on 08/16/2005 1:57:29 PM PDT by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
"its difficult to talk while gnashing your teeth...some should practice..

Shouldn't be too difficult. I once saw the ventriloquist Edgar Bergen sing a song while drinking a glass of water.

Maybe that's the next step in evolution! LOL

195 posted on 08/16/2005 1:59:04 PM PDT by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: CarrotAndStick
What is "impossible" in a day isn't necessarily impossible in a span of multiple billion years. Those one-in-a-million chances can get very favourable outcomes when you give it time in the range of billions of years.

I agree with that, and that is why I said it was a good point that a lot of things can happen in a billion years, but I still think evolution relies on chance that is probably impossible to occur, regardless of the time frame.
196 posted on 08/16/2005 1:59:59 PM PDT by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
What a load of horse manure

You're so right. Evolution is a load of horse manure!

197 posted on 08/16/2005 2:00:57 PM PDT by Gritty ("The bumper-sticker, 'War is Never the Answer', depends on the question! - Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix

"We can make statements about the universe, but they are just best guesses. They are not answers. "

Sure they are answers. When we use science we have the ability to approach truth too.

"I don't need a better method to prove that a scientific theory is still just a best guess based on imperfect information"

I was asking what method YOU use to arrive at what you have called *answers*. Divine revelation? Are you perhaps the Intelligent Designer we have been hearing about and therefore don't need to arrive at new information?

"Evolution is just a best guess. Admit it or you look as foolish as you say the ID people look."

It's a well evidenced explanation about how life changed over time. Is it imperfect? Sure... no theory is based on perfect knowledge. There is NO better way to approach truth though, so it is what we are stuck with. The only people who look foolish are the ones who claim to have a direct link to the Divine Truth.


198 posted on 08/16/2005 2:01:33 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix

One of the basic flaws of science is confusing an answer with a best guess. A best guess is not an answer. Science does not know the answer of the beginning of life, and evolution is still just a best guess based on imperfect information, which never rises to an answer.




Ahhhh, and this is the essence of the whole issue. If this were the reasonable appraoch that the adherents to evolution took, and if they accepted intelligent design as an alternate guess, there would never be an issue. My experience is that evolutionists do not have this healthy perspective, instead theirs is nothing but blind, zealous, almost fanatical religious faith. They are blind to the fact that evolution is a theory and not "settled science."

The fact that evolutionists routinely decry intelligent design proves that they have no concept of science. Science, as you note, puts forth theories and then begins to evaluate those theories. Evolutionists can not tolerate the theory of intelligent design because if it is a more tenable theory, then it is diametrically opposed to evolution and evolution collapses. But then again, real science accepts this and gains knowledge. Zealous secular fundamentalist beliefs do not.

Evolution is proving to be the opiate of the atheists.

Insisting evolution is true and intelligent design is not has nothing to do with science, it is pure, unadulterated fundamentalist belief. It is supposition without science.

ANTI-DNC Web Portal at ---> http://www.noDNC.com


199 posted on 08/16/2005 2:02:04 PM PDT by woodb01 (ANTI-DNC Web Portal at ---> http://www.noDNC.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: adorno
We don't know for sure that the universe is expanding forever. It could be that whatever forces or actions were present at the beginning of the universe are still present today and matter and energy are continuously being created. Remember that we can't see what most of the universe is composed of: scientists call the unknown forms of matter and energy: dark matter and dark energy. So, perhaps it is not expansion that we should be talking about but growth from the new matter and energy...

Alright, my mistake. Okay, say the universe shudders to a stop at some place determined by the forces you mentioned. So what? What lies beyond that limit? Further nothingness? Bear in mind even emptiness IS something. How can this void seem to stretch forever?

Perhaps it is another form of energy that makes us believe in a God. The God particle or energy may have been planted in all of us and it comes naturally.

I'm a curious about this strange "particle". Pray, tell me, if all of us are supplanted by these particles, are some of us blessed with more of it and some of us with less of it, or perhaps none of it? Is there also an "anti-God" particle?

200 posted on 08/16/2005 2:02:15 PM PDT by CarrotAndStick (The articles posted by me needn't necessarily reflect my opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 761-780 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson