.jpg)
Posted on 02/22/2009 6:59:30 PM PST by SeekAndFind
As an old hand at tangling with Darwinists, I was well aware that a howl of furious protests would greet my item last week describing their curious inability to recognise just how much of the story of evolution Darwin's theory cannot explain, For pointing out that they rely on no more than an unscientific leap of faith to believe that an infinite series of minute variations could bring about all those extraordinary leaps in the evolutionary story, such as the emergence of the eye and countless others, I was derided as "stupid", "idiotic" and "scientifically illiterate". Clearly I was unaware all these riddles had been solved by genetics and the decoding of the human genome.
The trouble is that, as my colleague Dr James Le Fanu has lucidly set out in his admirable new book Why Us? How Science Rediscovered The Mystery Of Ourselves (Harper Press, £18.99), the unravelling of the genome has done nothing of the kind. When mice, men and chimpanzees all turn out to be made of almost identical genetic material, the unknown factor which determines why the same building blocks should give rise to such an astonishing variety of different life-forms leaves the Darwinian thesis as full of holes as ever. To believe that genetics have solved the riddle relies as much on a leap of faith as that Biblical â Creationism' which causes the more fanatical Darwinians to foam at the mouth.
Last Tuesday various eminent figures from the scientific establishment wrote to the Daily Telegraph, prompted by the remarkable finding of a poll published in this newspaper two weeks ago that only 37 percent of those questioned agree that Darwin's explanation for evolution is â beyond reasonable doubt'.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
I don’t believe that I am putting words in his mouth. Sagan was a self-described, famous atheist. I observed him make this statement on his show “Cosmos”, years ago.
He was tying to make a point concerning the origins of the universe, not simply offering a definition of a word. I think most people have a good enough grasp on what is meant when somebody refers to “the universe” that they don’t need it to be explained to them.
He also made the statement that the universe “exploded into being”. Coming from an individual that assumes a purely materialistic reality, that is one of the most unscientific expressions of faith that I have ever heard.
Sagan may have been a poor philosopher, and can be forgiven his imprecise statements, but that is all the more reason for him to have limited himself to his area of expertise, and to not attempt to leverage his reputation to promote his flawed view of reality.
“Should a person ever truly believe this, for what reason would they want to draw another breathe?”
Because nothing really matters but the moment, nothing.
Oh, you can rail & cry over the past and hope for the future, but the only thing that should concern anyone is the now of life, live there be happy.
“Because nothing really matters but the moment, nothing.”
That is the inescapable logical conclusion of a materialistic world view, and it is a very short walk from there to nihilism. Very few people who profess this believe actually live by it, and those that do are mostly in prison, or dead.
No believe is more destructive to the nobility of man. Love and morality are only an illusion from this perspective.
There is a cognitive dissonance on a grand scale at work here. Many people who ascribe to a materialistic world view, with it’s denial of purpose in the universe, and believe that humans are just grown-up germs, are also driven to “save the planet” and “fight social injustice”.
Why?
Do you also post burning crosses in the front yards of black people you don’t agree with?
The Icthus (fish) is a historically sacred symbol to Christians. It was used to secretly communicate their identity as believers to each other so they wouldn’t be tortured and killed by the Roman government.
Maybe the next time some uppity black person you disagree with posts here you can reply with a picture of a noose.
See-my-***Tagline*** Placemarker.
In the case of the atheistic radical Darwinists, it seems to have set in as some sort of adolescent crisis and the monkey bones mythology with its elaborate pictures and graphs seems to provide a sort of secular Illustrated Children's Bible for them. But they do seem to be Freudian sexual anxieties behind the anti-Christian hysteria. The real question is why obsessing on pictures of imaginary prehistoric ape men ( and demanding that others do so) seems to relieve the anxieties for them. You would have to study when the adolescent crisis set in and what series of events led to the fixation on the prehistoric ape men mythology as a solution. Something makes them feel comforted by obsessing on pictures of large, imaginary, prehistoric ape men. It may be a little like the geeks and nerds who turn to comicbooks with images of ultra-muscular superheroes like Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Captain America, and the Flash. Just a little more like the Swamp Thing monster obsessions.
There's always some kid in middle school, usually awkward around girls, who can't stop talking about Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Lizardman, the Wolfman, or various other mythical boogiemen and rural swamp monsters. It seems to be of that type. Then you see a sickly Victorian neurasthenic like Huxley latching on to this with obsessive-compulsive fury. Something psychological -in abnormal psychology - seems to be behind this. Most normal people don't get this hysterical about their hairy monster fantasies. Or it goes away when they finish puberty.
“Why”
Because it works... silly.
Name calling is the time honored tactic of those who are forced to debate without the benefit of the facts being on their side.
It “works” for dogs. For humans? Not so much.
".....unabashed bigotry of staunch Darwinists....." Placemarker.
See my ***Tagine***
The original article in the Telegraph described specific statements made by Darwinist against the author that indicated a bigoted point of view (as does your tagline). The Darwinists did not attempt to debate any issues, only to malign the author for not accepting their dogmatic assertions about evolution. They can claim the issue is “settled”, but the poll indicates that it is obviously not the case.
The lack of scientifically verifiable and repeatable experiments that conclusively demonstrate the claims of evolution (mutation + selection = advancement) is the reason this issue is not settled.
A famous Darwinist (Dawkins?) was quoted as saying the evolution was as certain as the earth being round (implying that those who disagree are on par with those still believing the Earth is flat). This so wildly over states the evidence favoring evolution that it is laughable.
“It “works” for dogs...”
The more I learn about people, the more I appreciate my dog.
Cheers!
On that we agree. When I am running around trying to keep my head above water, I often look at my dog and think that he’s got it made! Although if I ever do lie around like he does I get bored to tears ;-)
Much too mild a rebuke. What you need to do is issue a fatwa and then burn his car.
If this keeps up, the human race will have to reinvent fire and the wheel.
Something you’ll just have to fight against with argument and facts.
Facts don’t matter when one’s religious beliefs are contradicted by the facts.
People change their religious views all the time when they discover the sacred scriptures for their religion may be read a different way.
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.
