The realization that the universe is finite has created big problems for 'atheistic evolutionists'.
With an infinite universe their argument essentially becomes: "given enough time anything can happen".
Posted on 08/14/2007 3:40:40 AM PDT by monomaniac
By Elizabeth O'Brien
OTTAWA, August 13, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a recent column, Ottawa Citizen columnist David Warren digs at the root of the hype surrounding "evolutionism," calling it, "evolution as a religious cosmology."
In the article entitled, "The Limits of Atheism," Warren notes that whenever he writes about "evolution", he always receives a series of letters from indignant people who are "shocked and appalled that anyone would dream of challenging what they believe to be the consensus of 'qualified experts,'" respected members of the scientific community whom they believe are a "closed camp of hard-bitten materialists, with no time for religious or poetical flights."
Why do people get so upset about the issue? The answer is simple, Warren says, "People without a stake in a controversy pay little or no attention to it." He continued, "It follows that my most apoplectic correspondents have a stake in evolutionary controversies."
"They imagine themselves to have an impersonal interest in defending science against 'religious superstition,' and the dangers to society that the latter might present. They in fact have strong and uncompromising religious beliefs of their own, which they are loath to have questioned."
Michael Behe and other such scientists, who have devoted their research to examining evidence for intelligent design in the universe, are a threat to the "religious order" of atheist materialism. As a result, "Any attempt, or suspected attempt, to acknowledge God in scientific proceedings, must be exposed and punished to the limit of the law; or by other ruthless means where the law does not suffice."
Truth be told, Warren notes, some members of the Catholic Church did mistakenly condemn certain "cosmological speculations" of Galileo, although they never tried to suppress the research. Likewise, some Christians disagreed with Darwinism. He emphasizes, however, that as "we found throughout the 20th century, atheist materialism is vastly more sensitive to heresy than any previously known religious orthodoxy-as witness more than 100 million corpses it created, to enforce its doctrinal will."
Warren notes, however, that just this past week biologists debunked the "panspermian" hypothesis, the belief that the seeds of all life arrived on earth by comets, proposed by some scientists as a means to solve the mystery of the origin of life that has vexed materialistic evolutionism since its beginnings. Warren notes that this theory only transfers the problem, taking "life's origin on earth, out of the finite space and time of the earth's own geological history, and into some abstract place where the laws of chance have an infinite amount of time to do whatever is necessary." According to the most accurate dating methods, however, the universe is too young for everything that exists to have evolved by chance.
Warren concludes, "Those who refuse to acknowledge God, will not give up. Most have by now moved on to hypotheses about 'multiple universes,'" another theory that proposes an infinite number of by-definition unobservable extant universes as a way of solving the problem of the origin of life.
Read Related LifeSiteNews coverage:
Evolution/Creation Debate Now Science vs. Science not Science vs. Religion
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/oct/05100605.html
New Alberta Museum Defends Creationism, Opposes Evolutionary Theory
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/may/07053002.html
Astonishing 88% of Americans Believe in Creation or God-Directed Evolution
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/oct/05101705.html
Read David Warren column:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=c43112b1-d4b9-4a09-ac0f-8517f0b931d5&p=1
So what's his stake in the controversy?
there is a defacto NO PRO-EVOLUTION policy here at FR...so your preacing to the choir, and no one with a different POV can reply....
....enjoy your monopoly, but dont you think there are more important issues that need our attention. Like the W.O.T., Open Borders, Abortion, 2nd amendment issues???
Just a thought.
Might have something to do with the way evolutionists have conducted themselves on FR...
That's not so.
And by the way, since there are several theories of evolution, which one are you referring to?
......that is a bogus response. Yes...how they behaved themselves. They used their training in science to explain their knowlege and thats all she wrote...
just ask PatrickHenry.....
Translation: "I am right....Q.E.D."
I am underwhelmed.
no, your highness.....
“Thats all she wrote” and the perpetrators were banned from FR.
I get it - you're a victim. So is anyone who tried to just express their views with civility and honesty, right?
Oh, you poor dear.
I feel so bad for you.
I am sure FR just banned these people and burned them at the stake.
I am sure you wouldn't leave out any vital facts.
Signed,
Your Highness
no.....not victims. and we evolutionists mostly express our views with civility and honesty...unfortunate that the ID and Creationist crowd here are too blind to see that.
this is why I have to learn not respond to these threads. I won’t be baited into this argument. it is sure death here and there are much more important things like the WOT, the border, the attacks on the second amendment and abortion that we all need to focus on. (and your kind has booted out many folks who feel your way about these issues....)
Goodbye.
Forget PH, I’m asking you - there are several theories of evolution - which one - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1575742/posts?page=70#70 - are you referring to?
"They imagine themselves to have an impersonal interest in defending science against 'religious superstition,' and the dangers to society that the latter might present. They in fact have strong and uncompromising religious beliefs of their own, which they are loath to have questioned."Michael Behe and other such scientists, who have devoted their research to examining evidence for intelligent design in the universe, are a threat to the "religious order" of atheist materialism. As a result, "Any attempt, or suspected attempt, to acknowledge God in scientific proceedings, must be exposed and punished to the limit of the law; or by other ruthless means where the law does not suffice."
What absolute tripe. I hope this author has a day job.
Agnes: Enough talk, it's smashing time!
“They imagine themselves to have an impersonal interest in defending science against ‘religious superstition,’ and the dangers to society that the latter might present. They in fact have strong and uncompromising religious beliefs of their own, which they are loath to have questioned.”
***Yup. I ran into that here on FR.
The realization that the universe is finite has created big problems for 'atheistic evolutionists'.
With an infinite universe their argument essentially becomes: "given enough time anything can happen".
Michael Behe has done some scientific research into ID? Well, fancy that!
Ping me when he finally gets around to publishing some of it. (Though you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.)
And yet astronomers and cosmologists everywhere, even the atheists among them, accepted the theory once the evidence came in, and are perfectly comfortable with it (despite your claim to the contrary).
If you knew anything about scientists, then you should not be surprised to learn that the answer "We don't know" doesn't scare them or keep them up at night when it comes to questions of origins.
In fact, you'll find that many cosmologists have written off the origin of the Universe (i.e. why the Big Bang happened) as unknowable--forever outside the bounds of naturalistic investigation--and don't lose any sleep over it. Whether or not there was a supernatural first cause to the Universe, that position will likely always be correct.
Conservatives are justly outraged when Christian belief is equated with terrorism - but David Warren here does exactly the same thing, equating evolutionary science with Communism.
People without a stake in a controversy pay little or no attention to it.
Mr. Warren is almost frankly spelling out the strategy: attack one branch of science which is no immediate importance to most people, hoping that nobody will notice that the real target is science itself.
It is rather when a person does have a stake, that he begins to care.
What is my stake in the controversy? As you read this you are looking at it. It is science that has given us the Internet, among many other things. Mr. Warren will no doubt protest that he doesn't want to destroy science. Of course not: he wants to control it, to bend it to his will and beliefs. But that just doesn't work. Science is the understanding of reality, or it is nothing at all; and reality does not bend.
Incidentally, Warren is not really attacking atheism, as he claims, unless atheism is defined as any opinion of which he disapproves.
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.