--> The Cult of Evolution – the Opiate of the Atheists

NoDNC.com - STOP Democrat Corruption ^ | NoDNC.com Staff

[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:

• Life came about from a bunch of accidents.
• Life magically “spontaneously erupted” from a bunch of rocks, water, and base chemicals.
• DNA, with millions, or even billions of complex chemical instructions, just happened by accident.
• Natural selection, survival of the fittest, or similar philosophies are nothing but the “law of the jungle” and mankind is nothing but a hedonistic animal --, kill or be killed.
• The five senses, sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste, all “miraculously” appeared from one celled creatures that had absolutely no awareness that such things existed or were needed.
• Observable “transitional forms” for every form of life are non-existent.
• The raw material “inputs” for the evolutionary process, the “Big Bang” requires blind faith to accept that nothing magically became a universe so large, and with so much material that the human mind can not comprehend its infinite size.  Nothing “created” everything by a “Big Bang” accident.
• Complex systems with mutually exclusive components (“pieces” that can’t work without all of the pieces being there at the same time) that “magically” created all of the dependent components at the same time through the same “accidents.”

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)
 

[WillMalven]

Stopping Intelligent Discussion by exposing Religious Orthodoxy's lies

[CarrotAndStick]

Are you willing to concede that right to the scientists that easily? Outcomes could be dangerous, if not deadly.

[ReignOfError]

Evolution’s basic premise is that all “life” on the planet miraculously “emerged” through a bunch of accidents.

First sentence, first falsehood. Evolution does not address the origins of life. It is not only not the "basic premise;" it is wholly outside the scope of evolutionary theory.

[BikerNYC]

There are answers to everything. We just don't know all of them yet.

If you believe that a scientific theory provides an answer, then you are moving beyond science to religion and philosophy.

I believe that quantum mechanics is the best explanation we have of the physics of the very small. The predictions the theory makes agree with experiment to a high degree of accuracy.

However, if I were to say that quantum mechanics provides us with the answers to our questions about the physics of the very small I would not be making a scientific conclusion, but a philosophical one.

You have chosen which scientific theories are answers for you and then have concluded that those theories that do not provide you with answers are of little value and are only guesses. In reality, you are deceiving yourself by thinking that science itself provides us with certainty. It is psychologically pleasant to think that it does, but it doesn't, as nothing in science is written in stone.

[malakhi]

I disagree and I choose not to pursue the discussion.

That's fine, you are welcome to cede the field.

Did you know the book of Malachi (same name diff spelling) is about God telling us He is not pleased when we do not obey His commands. He will repay those who disregard Him

Yes, as a Jew I'm quite familiar with the derivation of my screen name. BTW, 'kh' is commonly used instead of 'ch' in English transliteration of Hebrew.

[Gumlegs]

Please go back to posting in blue.

[muir_redwoods]

"Evolution’s basic premise is that all “life” on the planet miraculously “emerged” through a bunch of accidents."

Since this is untrue and neither Darwin nor educators today have anything to say about origins of life based on Darwins teaching, everything else this person has to say is suspect. Natural selection is an established fact and can be readily observed in nature over as little as a few generations.

Next

[RadioAstronomer]

Theory is a best guess based on imperfect knowledge.

Codswallop.

[Clemenza]

Whoever wrote this packs an extra chromosome and lives at home with their parents.

IDers are to the Right what the Al Sharpton crowd is to the Left.

[malakhi]

Evolution is no longer tenable, it is junk science or science fraud!

Your repeated assertion of this doesn't make it any more true.

Feel free to provide some actual evidence to support your assertions anytime, though.

[RadioAstronomer]

The article would make a good appendix to the book "The Republican War on Science."

Indeed!

[Moral Hazard]

"how does an "accident" suddenly develop a detailed system for a very SPECIFIC purpose"

That's not what evolution requires. Things like eyes evolved over hundreds of millions of generations. Under evolutions you get small changes over many generations that gradually add up to very complex systems. It's easy to see this by looking at DNA itself, which is just a long string of 4 different kinds of amino acids called peptides.

Specifically in the case of eyes we can see simpler versions that require no central nervous system to function. For instance we have starfish that have simple light sensing cells. Same goes for jellyfish which adjust their depth based upon the quantity of light.

Just think about how it would develop. Consider a simple plant eating organism. It moves around at random without sensing it's environment and eats any plant matter it runs into. Well, plants tend to be on the surface of the ocean, because that's where the light is. So, now imagine a random mutation that causes the organism to move in the direction of heat. That would tend to make it go to the source of it's food. That organism would have a natural advantage.

Build on that for millions of generations and you get greater fidelity until you get the ability to observe a greater range of the electromagnetic spectrum. The organism develops an improved ability to see and an improved ability to react to what it sees. As sensing light in multiple directions is more useful than in one, when an organism develops this ability, it is selected again.

Gradually the ability to detect light in many directions is developed, as is the ability to process that information. The ability to reconcile overlapping images to gain more information (depth perception) is eventually formed, as is the ability to detect movement and see in greater fidelity. Eventually you get something like a modern eye.

Sure the eye is complicated, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be created through an evolutionary process.

[malakhi]

Testable hypothesis #1 - IF ID is true, evolution is FALSE!

How does this constitute a testable hypothesis?

Testable hypothesis #2 - Evolution is not reproducible, ID is

You can repeat the intelligent design of the universe in a laboratory? That's the usual standard IDers demand for reproducibility of evolution.

Testable hypothesis #3 - The drug companies "reproduce" lots of ranges of emotion through intelligent design and have already succeeded in proving an emotional connection to design.

I have no idea what your point is here, or how it constitutes a testable hypothesis.

Testable hypotheseis #4 - Cloning has already proven that small segments of complex organisms can be reproduced through the INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED process of cloning.

Which says nothing about the claim that the entire universe was intelligently designed.

[malakhi]

placemarker

[malakhi]

placemarker

[Erasmus]

Sorry. Forgot the smiley.

< ]B^)

[adorno]

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?

I did say 'perhaps'. I don't know about the God particle or energy or if they actually exist. But, I'm just theorizing in an attempt to explain something that baffles all of us. Why do humans naturally lean towards the 'supernatural' existence of a superior being, i.e., God? And, who says that a particle or form of energy needs to have a counterbalancing particle or energy?

[wallcrawlr]

I asked if you know what the Book of Malachi says...not the spelling...and its even specific to Jews. Although the prophecy does apply to everyone.

welcome to cede the field.

you gotta try harder with your flame bait...that was a pretty amateur attempt.

[Gumlegs]

Here's another way of putting woodb1's point regarding science, testability, and falsfiability:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

[WillMalven]

Attention all Creationists out there...If God zotted us into existence then why didn't he create a perfect human being?
Why was evil able to seduce Eve, why was Eve able to seduce Adam? Does that mean that God is not perfect? Yes I know that he has given us free choice, but if we were perfect then those wrong choices would just not appeal to us. Why not perfect bodies? Why is it that just as our intellect and wisdom gets to the point that we can use our bodies to the maximum effect and to be of greatest service, our physical capabilities begin to desert us? Surely God would have created us with better bodies than the ones we have.

Hmmm...maybe our bodies are evolving wow what an amazing possibility.

For that matter, why did God have to use Adam's rib to create Eve, or even better, why did God have to reach down and grab a handful of clay to create Adam. Couldn't he have just zotted both of them into existence?

As for civilization, why didn't God give us a perfect society to live in? Why did we have to go through the primative cultures, why not instant Duck Dogers in the 24th 1/2 Century with miracle medicines that can cure cancers or prevent diseases? Why do we have to "EVOLVE" our civilization?

I'm only asking because the Creationists seem to know all about what God chooses to do or not do.