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)
"I also believe that God exists and that evolution is his (or its) way of doing things."
That sounds like another version of ID to me.
If it is so different, then post it. Theory is not fact. Theory is a best guess based on imperfect knowledge.
For an atheist(more rather an agnostic), the very belief that his life is a result of the cumulative effects of chance happenings through antiquity, that he is extremely lucky to be a being, is reason enough to seek betterment of his life, and those of whom he cares of, so that he may enjoy for a longer while, what luck has befallen him.
To not know of what happens after his death, is reason enough to enjoy life when he is alive.
Not at all. The view I suggest seems to have been quite popular in the first half of the previous century.
Ultimately, for me to believe an atheist when he says his life has meaning and purpose would require a rigorous explanation fo the basis of such meaning and purpose.
It demonstrates that humans can analyze and mimic a natural process.
The actual interpretation of your scenerio would depend on the specifics. Are the laboratory conditions consistent with known facts about the history of the earth?
Unfortunately, the details of earth's early history are erased by time. We probably cannot reconstruct anything better than a plausible scenerio that is not contradicted by known facts. That is not the same thing as knowing the actual history.
The study of other planets may give us information about what happens in various environments.
What I dislike about ID is that it denies the legitimacy of this kind of curiosity.
That you have'nt followed a link and read says volumes about you.
There is no specific definition for "scientific theory" in the dictionary. If you think scientific theory is something more than an educated guess based on imperfect information, then I don't think you really understand the field of science. Science is a flawed study. It is not perfect, and a lot of its theories are flawed and not true. That is what is being glossed over here in this debate. Science is not perfect and it does not explain everything and a lot of what it has explained (in theories) is wrong, just as history has shown over and over again.
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?
Your proposition seems to assume that existence is preferable to non-existence. What is the basis for that preference?
You talk about "those of whom he cares of"? Wouldn't a man of science recognized those feelings of "love" as nothing more than evolutionary mutations.
Also, what is "luck"? Is it satient?
I don't go by what people say; I go by what they do.
Too many of the self-identified Christians I see on these threads are dishonest, use epithets in describing those with different views, and, most shocking to me, one even boasted about shaking the faith of someone else. Yes, I'd ping them if I remembered who. Maybe someone can remind me.
Science is, and has been, revised conclusions from observable facts, experiments and hypotheses.
Science is the best tool mankind has and will ever have.
freepmail
I think we can only view one universe at a time, as, as I understand it, a different universe can have different laws of physics. I don’t claim to be an expert on this though, so take what I view with a pinch of salt.
Still, I guess there’d be more credence to the idea of big bang followed by big crunch followed by big bang, etc, if our current universe looked like it was heading for a big crunch. That is no longer the view, so beats me what was going on before the big bang. As someone else says, time started with the big bang, so the whole subject starts to give me a headache at this point :o)
"So even the "design" of evolutionary tests requires "intelligent design"..."
You need to read exactly what I wrote a little closer. Notice I mentioned that scientists creating life would disprove the idea that ONLY God could create life. I had outthought your reply before you made it.
But it has a whole lot more evidence than many other scientific theories. The gaps in the theory of evolution are overplayed by creationists and, more to the point, they don’t qualify as evidence for an alternative theory (yet).
Narby and Ellsie
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.