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)
Whoever wrote it needs to go back to school. Or maybe he hasn't got there yet.
Or maybe just occupied space in a school for awhile, like desks do.
Flawed applications of Darwin’s theory of natural selection do not disprove the theory of evolution.
1) A ‘law of the jungle’ society is worse than an ordered, co-operative one. So such a society doesn’t conform to the idea of natural selection anyway.
2) Some societies are more powerful than others typically due to accidents of history and geographical luck. So that isn’t ‘natural’ selection either.
3) Any cultural reasons for superior economies and whatnot do tend to spread (e.g. capitalism). But the spread is not following the method of beneficial mutations being passed on to offspring, which is what the theory of evolution prescribes.
4) Not that it is relevant, given the above points, but Hitler clearly screwed up if he thought he was improving Germany’s gene pool by persecuting the Jews, seeing as they included amongst them the finest minds in physics at the time. He wanted to conquer Europe and persecuted the theorists behind the A-bomb. Ooops.
Typical scholarly approach to addressing the cult of evolution, "you're bad and ignorant"... neener, neener, neener, your a terd...
I'm so totally and completely impressed with the level of scientific and academic discussion from the Darwinists.
It's called suffering fools with humor. Of course, I doubt you see the humor.
Can you be a little more specific?
Hitler was a creationist, not an evolutionist.
He also fancied himself a great artist, kind of like the Hollywood and pop music crowd do. This attitude is seems to be fertilizer for megalomania.
I am not perfect because I am not God.
I was born a sinful man.
That might be slightly helpful if I were a mouse. Thanks for the response anyway.
Okay you can stop trolling now
"I am not perfect because I am not God.
I was born a sinful man. "
Good for you. I was born an innocent baby.
Whatever.
Good article. I would like to see an evolutionist answer this. Logically it makes no sense to believe that this could occur even once. If this were a religious occurrence it would be called "miraculous". And the level of complexity in this example seems to be much less than say, the creation of an eye.
Thanks for the well thought out answer. What are the probabilities of the card scenario occurring compared to the probability of dead matter becoming alive?
Chemistry doesn't operate on "chance". If it did, then imagine the odds of an ice cube forming. In just one cube there are innumerable atoms, all lined up in rows. In snow flakes, they even make pretty designs.
You want to tell me that this is by shear "accident"?
It is impossible to analyze chemistry by just looking at odds. And when creationists do this, science laughs and points.
You people should be embarrassed, but you don't have enough knowledge to know what it is you don't know.
If this were my website, I'd pull the thread and ban its poster. But it's not my website. Nevertheless, sitting in the News/Activism forum, this thread shows the very worst face of creationism to the world. At minimum, the thread should be moved to the blogger forum. It originated as an article from some blog, and the person who created the thread seems to flog the blog's URL with every post he makes. Also the URL of the blog is in that person's tagline. I thought we weren't supposed to use our posts to promote other websites.
If I were a troll from DU, I'd want to post threads like this on FreeRepublic. But if I cared about the reputation of FreeRepublic, this thread would be gone. Why does this thread continue to exist?
"What are the probabilities of the card scenario occurring compared to the probability of dead matter becoming alive?"
What are the card scenarios having anything to do with evolution... close to zero.
I repeat The *probabilities* were pulled out of the ass of the author.
Well, that's about the same level as the original post. Maybe he'll understand that. (not holding breath)
Okay, then what is the probability of dead matter becoming alive? Isn't that the premise of the origin of life in evolution?
I don't know. Some of the more intelligent conservative lurkers out there might get the idea that it's embarrasing to hang around this kind of discourse and just drop the subject.
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.