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)
And the mistake you are making is assuming you know what you are talking about. I never said anything like that. Lots of poeple that believe in God understand science. It's just the whacko creos that are lost.
"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."
Hmmm. That probability is the same as the probablility for anyother.
"The probability of this even happening one time in a billion years approaches zero."
Ah, a typical sentence penned by one intent on misleading the ignorant. Pure garbage.
Demanding that "Evolution-The Origin of Species" explain the origin of the first species along with all the rest, seems pretty reasonable to me.
That most evolutionists like to get off on a rant about the difference between abiogenesis and evolution, is nothing but a feeble diversion from the discussion. They believe that life originated by the chance combination of events, just like they believe that species evolve. But for some reason, it's like how liberals in general don't like to be labeled as liberals.
snip
Your article (post 400) is complete bunko.....
If I were you I would refrain from using it in the future since even the first sentence is in error.
I'm not sure this message was intended for me. I didn't post the article in #400. (although I did respond to it).
If it is intended for me, then I guess I'm confuseled.
True enough. But only that order of cards results in life(in this analogy), and all other possible orderings result in nothing useful at all.
Therefore, chance of life = extreeeeeemly small.
Chance of something else = virtually 100%
Okay, I'll bite. No person who buys into intelligent design dares to face what challenge?
What about the Cambrian explosion?
"Demanding that "Evolution-The Origin of Species" explain the origin of the first species along with all the rest, seems pretty reasonable to me."
I'm sure it would, to you. If you had read that book you would know better.
And the mistake you are making is assuming that I assume that I know what I'm taking about. When in fact I assume that I assume that you know what I'm talking about. And if you assume something different, then I assume that you assume that I assume something else. I think.
here is a list of more fossils that would totally not fit evolution:
-A dog fossil with rockets morphed into its legs.-A fossil shark with lasers attached
-A fossil crocodile with an outboard motor
-A lion with wings of a bird
-A centaur
-A werewolf
-A human fossil in the cambrian
-An elephant fossil in the cambrian
-Any mammal fossil in the cambrian
-or bird in the cambrian.
False. Unless you consider that trees and humans have the same genes ...
Ever been to Africa? Try selling sunscreen next time you're there
No. Definitely not.
Anyhow this is called changing the subject. I listed fossils that can't exist under evolution. Fossils that would represent past life. Nothing about future life.
-A dog fossil with rockets morphed into its legs.-A fossil shark with lasers attached -A fossil crocodile with an outboard motor -A lion with wings of a bird -A centaur -A werewolf -A human fossil in the cambrian -An elephant fossil in the cambrian -Any mammal fossil in the cambrian -or bird in the cambrian.
I'll throw in another: A whale with two heads.
None of these things would fit evolution. All of them would fit Intelligent Design. There isn't a single theoretical fossil that would not fit Intelligent Design. Both the most simplest, and the most ludicrously complex fossil would fit Intelligent Design equally.
People have answered your question and each time you disagree with the answer and complain noone is getting what you mean. I suggest you figure out a way of making your question clearer.
"I was joking of course, but . . . good answer."
I'm not sure which post you are referencing, but that would be consistent with my not getting the joke too :) I never said I wasn't slow, just that I get there eventually :)
Since a few hundred years has failed to explain or create even a "single specific" result of life, is there some good reason to asume there are more?
"False. Unless you consider that trees and humans have the same genes ..."
Oh, that's right. I forgot for a moment there. Evolution assumes that the impossible happened not just once, not just twice, but countless times. Good point :-)
As far as I know this does not fit any scientific, theological, or known model for the universe as we know it. It does, however, appeal to human imagination.
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.