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)
oops! you done it now - now they'll start accusing you of defending "the cult" in order to preserve your livelihood.
just you wait 'n' see
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay...
Oh if scientists do create life, even if it's from the raw elements as precursors, they will calim it as proof of ID. After all, these scientists just designed life so how does that counter the ID claims? </ sarcasm>
Seriosly, they will twist things, like they always do, to fit their preconceptions. You cannot argue with closed minds.
Your bovine discharge clearly proves that if Intelligent Design really existed it wasn't applied to everyone.
If, at the instant before the big bang, there was no time, then did it really have a cause?
The scientific arguments as well as the theological and philosophical ones: http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net//evolution.html.
Wow.
Yet another crevo thread.
Haven't seen one of these in a while.
This has been found to be a common thread among the avid evolutionists.
It's as though they are scared to death of acknowledging any entity who can, with valid authority, pass judgment on their morals, so they do whatever they can to "prove" that God does not exist.
In the long run, if people of faith are wrong, they are no worse off than the evolutionists. If, however, the atheistic evolutionists are wrong, they have a hell to pay.
Looking back at your posts, I am assuming that you are both an atheist and an evolutionist. If that is not correct, please forgive me. However, my question is based on those assumptions.
For the sake of this question, let's assume your position is true. Through some natural process life formed on earth and all the life we observe today developed over billions of years of evolution.
So my question is, why is it that you spend any time at all either defending your position or attacking alternative positions? Not just on evolution/creation but on any subject? In other words, why do you care?
The lion on the African plain is at the mercy of natural selection because it doesn't know any better. However, we do. In our case, the cat is out of the bag. Procreating in order to continue your line is actually pointless and serves no end because there is no end to serve. When it comes down to it, "survival of the fitness" may work well to "strengthen the herd", so to speak, but we both know such strengthening is really meaningless. Evolution may provide the process but it offers nothing in terms of purpose.
So, again, why do care about anything? All is vanity. I fail to see how existence is preferable to non-existence. How does one who is an atheist and an evolutionist not become a secular existentialist? Back to specifics, what do you hope to achieve by coming on FR and debating? Given that any such argument is ultimately completely meaningless, I wonder why you show up?
So you are scared that scientists might create life and damage your theory? But I thought only God could create life. What do you have to be scared of?
Look outside your window...you have available to you the biggest cosmic "Duh" of proof ever.
Intelligent Design is the only scientific theory that makes sense.
Yes, I know not all will agree with Gods creation and the self-evident nature of it all...but thats cool. We arent judged on whether we enter heavan becuase of it.
That test requires different answers thankfully.
Id is conservatism's DU.
To refer to this post as "horse manure" is an insult to horse manure!
Wow! What a conclusion to make because there are disagreements on how life (and the universe) began. Just what technical prowess is being hurt so bad that we are being shortchanged? What technology is being hurt? Are computers not as good as they could be? How about medicine?
This is not science for science's sake, it's a wondering of where we came from and serves no other valuable purpose than to either validate the existence of a Creator, or to undermine the existence of a Creator. In essence, it is a religion/anti-religion battle that has no affect on the sciences that move and shake the world, yet those who love science more than God are quick to take umbrage over those who prefer to believe in God as the source for us all. Let's face it, without a good explanation for where it all started, anything else is just a guess. Some of us prefer to guess that the bible explains it and others prefer to guess that it somehow happened without intervention.
At any rate, unless you can use the scientific method to prove that believing in Creationism vs. Evolution is harmful to our technical prowess, you might want to reconsider how you state your arguments.
God Bless.
Why would anyone spend time defending what is true?
Science is the process of accumulating knowledge through observation, hypothesis and research aimed at testing the hypothesis. Science assumes that observable phenomena can be analyzed as the result of sequences of observable phenomena. Call it laws of nature or natural causes -- whatever. The history of science is the history of investigating this assumption.
Science does not assume supernatural causes for the simple reason that they do not suggest any research. The ID movement does not suggest any research. It's a dead end.
Science is a very flawed field of study (as history has shown), and the scientific method is flawed as well. Evolution is a very flawed theory, regardless of whether ID fits into the flawed study of science or not.
Most of the arguments from that link seem to be along the lines of “it’s complicated…therefore God did it”. Is it too much to ask for something a little more specific?
You remember wrong.
As to the 'mathematical proof'. There is no such thing. All I've seen is someone pulling a statistical analysis (out of their @#$%) of something that no one claims to understand. It's a correllary of the ID axiom that anything we don't understand is 'irreducibly complex'. Anything we don't understand is very improbable.
The final flaw in the statistical analysis is ignoring the numerator. The IDers spend pages constructing a flawed probability model for the simplest life forming (ignoring the fact that we don't know what the simplest life is). They finish with a 'viola, life is this improbable on earth' then ignore the number of planets in the universe life could have formed on.
By that arguement none of us can be here. The odds that the sperm containing our genetic information could fertilize an ovum are so small as to be laughable.
Only religion claims perfection (not that they have it). If something can't be addressed with the scientific method it is not science.
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.