--> 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)
 

[bobdsmith]

If you understood anything about evolution you would realise that a modern mammal fossil found in the cambrian would make as much sense for evolution as 1 + 1 = 3

Yes of course such a thing hasn't been found. If it had these evolution threads would have disapeared a long time ago.

This is about potential fossils.

Any potential fossil would fit ID. Even the most ludicrous fantastical fossil would fit ID.

Yet many potential fossils, in fact I dare say most potential fossils would present major problems for evolution. The modern mammal in the cambrian senario is a case of a major problem beyond resolution.

[GSHastings]

Yes. Populations of organisms can be observed to evolve

Wrong. Populations of oganisms can be observed to CHANGE.

Do you have some method of proving that those changes have not been orchestrated by an unseen intelligent force?

Just because you don't think that intelligence was involved, and you can't think of any way to prove that it was or wasn't, is NOT PROOF that it was indeed "evolution".

I, on the other hand, can prove with absolute certainty that intelligent design exists, in great abundance and variety.

So my question to you stands. Can you prove that undirected evolution exists in any way, shape, or form?

[Dimensio]

So my question to you stands. Can you prove that undirected evolution exists in any way, shape, or form?

Alright, given your list of conditions, no. I can no more prove that undirected evolution exists in any way, shape or form than I can prove that gravity exists in any way, shape or form or that you exist in any way, shape or form. Absolutely nothing at all whatsoever can ever be proven, ever.

[From many - one.]

A breath of fresh air.

[GSHastings]

Alright, given your list of conditions, no. I can no more prove that undirected evolution exists in any way, shape or form than I can prove that gravity exists in any way, shape or form or that you exist in any way, shape or form. Absolutely nothing at all whatsoever can ever be proven, ever.

Not so. You can very easily prove that gravity exists. You can observe it, without fail, with any number of different test. You can predict exactly where it will be found, and exactly how much of it will be found there. And your predictions will be found to be accurate each and every time. And all of this with great precison.

Not that anyone needs an example, but I learned something intersting from a co-worker whose daughter works at JPL on some of the missions to Mars. One of her functions is to calculate the gravitational effects of the rotation of the Earth's liquid core at the time of launch, and how that is going to change the trajectory of the mission package.

[Dimensio]

You can very easily prove that gravity exists.

No, you can't. What if what you think is gravity is just an intelligent agent pushing things around?

[GSHastings]

What if what you think is gravity is just an intelligent agent pushing things around?

Very good question!

In the context of this discussion, GRAVITY is analogous to CHANGE (in organisms).

We can prove that Gravity exits, and we can prove that Change happens (exists).

Where the Theory of Evolution, and the Theory of Intelligent Design come in, is the WHAT and HOW.

We can Theorize about WHAT gravity is, and how it works. And we can Theorize about WHAT mechanism causes the changes in organisms, and how it works. But at this point in time, we have no proof of the WHAT and HOW, of either Gravity or the Change in Organisms.

[Heartlander]

Here we have an equation that represents observable phenomena that causes no complaints from atheists, IDists, Creationists, Buddhists, conservatives, or liberals.

Neo-Darwinism is random wrt fitness; it has no goal, and lacks any intelligence.
- The Current Law of Naturalism (as I see it)

Here we have a ‘belief’ statement from science that treads on many other ‘beliefs’ but allows atheists who preach atheistic science,... comfort.

But we can look at the theories and the influence – such as - the theory of gravity does not become sociobiology – the theory of gravity does not have ‘memes’ – the theory of gravity does not worry itself with beliefs from any side of the id/evo/creo/ equation.

Now if anyone should equate gravity and neo-darwinism they should offer that we survive only because we now stick to the earth and those that did not, floated into space and died.

[Lord_Baltar]

hehehehehe Not fair, I was just going to say EXACTLY the same thing...

Dang it, you stole my thunder...

[YHAOS]

Is this your evidence? That the origin of life is studied at all is what links it to the theory of evolution?

It’s my question: Why is science studying the origin of life at all? Aren’t such studies pointless, scientifically speaking? It’s my understanding origins is properly a subject for study by theology or philosophy, Science being a materialistic discipline, unable to make meaningful judgments about other things. That’s true isn’t it? Can I get a straight answer to an uncomplicated question? If you need to qualify or equivocate a little bit, please feel free - I won’t accuse you of lying.

The story is appearing all over; it’s in the Sidney World Herald, in the UK Guardian, in the Houston Chronicle, USA Today, CNN, and many others, I’m sure. The Boston Globe has the biggest article, and a lot of the others seem to have based their report on the Globe version.

The Boston Globe

Project on the origins of life launched

Harvard joining debate on evolution

By Gareth Cook, Globe Staff

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/08/14/project_on_the_origins_

On what do you base this? A USA Today article?

Can’t trust them papers, huh? Well, here’s your chance to set the record straight. You have the name of the reporter, so you can email the bovine scatological ignoramus, and his equally mentally retarded editor, and square them both away on the gratuitous addition of material potentially embarrassing to the Science Community, or their failure to edit out some of the more careless statements made by scientists. You have such an enchanting manner about you when you are correcting others’ errors, that almost assuredly they (the editor and the reporter) will be charmed into a response, confessing who it was that screwed up in leaving too many dots around to be connected.

Personally, I think the articles are probably accurate. You have to remember who MSM pukes cuddle up to, and who they scorn and shun. Imagine their elation when they were told that it’s just a matter of a few years and the existence of God will be definitively disproved, and that it will be known authoritatively that we all came from a mud puddle. This would just be too good of news not to be passed on largely unretouched. It is IDers, other ‘Bible-thumpers’ and ‘Jesus-freaks’, and knuckle-dragging conservatives generally, who are greeted with hostility and disdain, and whose stories are spiked or distorted.

[Dimensio]

Why is science studying the origin of life at all?

The same reason scientists studies anything: better insight into the workings of the universe.

Aren’t such studies pointless, scientifically speaking?

Scientifically speaking, studying anything is "pointless". Science is a methodology. Motives behind scientific study are not themselves science. Science does not define purpose, it simply explains how the universe works.

It’s my understanding origins is properly a subject for study by theology or philosophy,

Theology and philosophy can certainly address the matter of origins, but that doesn't mean that science can't investigate the matter. Theology and philosophy can try to examine gravity, but that doesn't mean that relativity theory isn't science.

Science being a materialistic discipline, unable to make meaningful judgments about other things. That’s true isn’t it?

Yes. What has that to do with studying the origin of the first life forms?

Can’t trust them papers, huh?

A newspaper to give an accurate description of the scope of a scientific theory? No. Many people mistakenly believe that the theory of evolution directly addresses the ultimate origin of life. That doesn't make it true, but it also doesn't surprise me to see a reporter who has no discernable science background making that mistake in an article.

Personally, I think the articles are probably accurate.

On what basis?

You have to remember who MSM pukes cuddle up to, and who they scorn and shun.

What does that have to do with the actual scope of the theory of evolution?

Imagine their elation when they were told that it’s just a matter of a few years and the existence of God will be definitively disproved, and that it will be known authoritatively that we all came from a mud puddle.

Who in the hell told thim this? I've never heard anyone claim that we're anywhere close to demonstrating that the latter is true, and science could never, ever, do the former. Anyone who claims that science could disprove God is a liar or a moron.

This would just be too good of news not to be passed on largely unretouched.

I think that you're reading into this things that are simply not there. Harvard is doing a study on life origins. Many people mistakenly think that life origins is part of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution has recently come under attack by a group of hacks pushing "Intelligent Design", thus from a study on origins we get an article mentioning the evolution vs. ID issue. I don't see how this is the fault of Harvard, nor do I see how this logically demonstrates that life origins actually is part of the theory of evolution.

[Heartlander]

The Harvard stance on OOL:

”We start with a mutual acknowledgment of the profound complexity of living systems,” said David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard. But ‘’my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention.”

Without divine intervention? This is the reason for OOL (origin of life) research… It seems science has found a motive and philosophy.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Without divine intervention? This is the reason for OOL (origin of life) research… It seems science has found a motive and philosophy."

You can thank Galileo and Newton for that. They helped to advance the notion that only natural causes are to be introduced into a scientific theory. Supernatural causes are not a part of any scientific theory, not just abiogenesis.

[Heartlander]

Galileo and Newton both believed in an intelligent cause. The Design Theory has been around for over two millennia and was scientifically and philosophically concluded by thinkers without any Judeo-Christian beliefs

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Galileo and Newton both believed in an intelligent cause."

That may be true, but that intelligent cause was not a part of the theories they formed. They were both Christian too, but again that was not a part of the logic or evidence of their theories.

"The Design Theory has been around for over two millennia and was scientifically and philosophically concluded by thinkers without any Judeo-Christian beliefs"

It was accepted, but it was never a scientific hypothesis, as there has never been a way to test for it. The fact that it has been around for a long time also says nothing for it's logical strengths or weaknesses. The hypothesis is no longer the best explanation because a better one, evolution, has made ID unnecessary.

[YHAOS]

I wasn't claiming the shyster was the reporter . . .

I know you weren’t. But, there just aren’t all that many candidates; the reporter (and maybe his editor), and the scientists with whom he spoke. Like that elephant in the room, the connections are there in the article - thanks to either the scientist(s) who said it, or the reporter who wrote it on his own (unless you want to blame errant quantum particles).

. . . you have 0% evidence of that.

I have the article. I have the other articles I’ve researched:

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/08/14/project_on_the_origins_

The Boston Globe

Project on the origins of life launched

Harvard joining debate on evolution

By Gareth Cook, Globe Staff

On the basis of the articles, it’s perfectly reasonable to accept the reportage as information imparted by the scientists, and preferable to asserting that ‘some journalist made an ignorant claim’ as you did in an earlier post.

But whichever it is, the article makes it clear that a great amount of money and effort will be poured into an attempt to determine the origins of life and to prove that God doesn’t exist. A sort of abiogenesis Manhattan Project. Maybe we could call it the Cambridge Project? Probably not. Better to wait in case the project is located at a cite remote from the Cambridge campus.

Is this project real science? Does it deal with matters appropriate to science? Or does it actually belong in the Divinity Dpt or the Philosophy Dpt? It looks like it’s going to be 100% a science undertaking.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I know you weren’t. But, there just aren’t all that many candidates; the reporter (and maybe his editor), and the scientists with whom he spoke."

Actually, you missed my point entirely. I was talking about the people who use the article to promote the false claim that the scientists had linked abiogenesis with evolution. I would not have used the term shyster though; I think the term I used was liar.

"On the basis of the articles, it’s perfectly reasonable to accept the reportage as information imparted by the scientists, and preferable to asserting that ‘some journalist made an ignorant claim’ as you did in an earlier post."

It was either an ignorant claim, or a calculated claim. What it also was positively was an unfounded claim.

The Boston Globe article, what I could read of it online without paying, said the same things as the AP article.

"But whichever it is, the article makes it clear that a great amount of money and effort will be poured into an attempt to determine the origins of life and to prove that God doesn’t exist."

That is simply not true. They are trying to find a natural process that could have led to life. The fact they are not going to use supernatural causes as *evidence* only means they are doing what EVERY other field of science does. They are not trying nor can they *prove* that God doesn't exist.
Name ONE science that allows supernatural causes as evidence. Abiogenesis is no different than any other field of science in that respect. Whether there is or isn't a God is a philosophical debate, one that science can't resolve one way or the other. And it doesn't try.

[Elsie]

Amen!

[Elsie]

According to their website, it is a sculpture(?) of a troll with a real VW in it's hand, under a bridge in Alaska.


http://howardfamily.ws/alaska.htm


(Near the bottom of page.)

[Elsie]

But Others say this guy is in Seattle!

---