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)
Plenty...
Correction... Evolution is concerned with how life began, and how DNA has manifested in phenotypes over successive generations.
Well there are a lot of differences because it is only an analogy. One key difference is that decks of cards don't reproduce like organisms do. So in order to make the analogy work a person must manually simulate the reproduction and mutation. Of course a better idea is to get a computer to do it.
Most uses of evolutionary algorithms on computers involve a mathematical based problem to be solved in which the desired result (the solution) isn't known beforehand. Running the same algorithm multiple time can yeild many differnent results. Sometimes the result can be suprising.
"Correction... Evolution is concerned with how life began, and how DNA has manifested in phenotypes over successive generations."
No, it isn't concerned with the origins of life. Nice try though :)
Evolution is religion.
ID is religion.
So this is just an issue of comparative religion?
Science can become A Faith, for the Materialist.
ID can never be anything but faith, to Science.
That was the position of the Cathlic church. The new pope may change his mind, but as it stands the Catholics have no problem with evolution.
Really? I can show you a never ending stream of highly complex object which I can prove were created by intelligent design.
Can you show me ONE complex thing that you can PROVE originated by an evolutionary process? (hint, snowflakes and crystaline structures don't approach the complexity I'm refering to, even if you could prove they weren't the result of I.D.)
"I can show you a never ending stream of highly complex object which I can prove were created by intelligent design."
Show us these *proofs* (and don't say they were made by humans, as no scientist claims that humans are not intelligent designers)
" Can you show me ONE complex thing that you can PROVE originated by an evolutionary process?"
Science never works in proof, only evidence. Try again! :)
Sure it is. In order to determine how change has occurred, if any at all, there has to be an origin. This is why the “missing link” is so important to the study of human evolution.
Humans did not evolve from apes; this much is a certainty in human evolutionary study. If evolution is concerned with human origin, it also is interested in life's origin. All living things have DNA...
Are you suggesting Dumbski has provided a mathematical proof of God?
The mutation of the virus? (crystalline structures... not living things... some even have DNA...)
Just asking.
I don't think that's what I said, no.
I'm not the one who needs to try again. I can prove that intelligent design exists. Call it "Science" if you wish, but what ever your "Theory" is, it certainly is not more intellectually superior to a process which can be PROVEN to exist.
Very well stated.
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity with New "Intelligent Falling" Theory
KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
http://theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2
Could it be the opposite of what biology textbooks call "life?"
"Why not?" is not an answer to "Why?"
2. we like to understand things, for the sake of understanding them.
3. we like to understand things in order to come up with technical solutions to problems which make life less pleasant than it could be.
Both 2. and 3. are related to improving our condition. What is the evolutionary mechanism at play? Survival? Probably. If so, then when we embrace the goals of 2. and 3., we are assigning a purpose to the process of evolution that is illusionary. There is no purpose.
4. Understanding how the mechanisms of life work might just possibly teach us how the mechanisms of death work, and allow us to switch off those genetic factors leading to decrepitude and death.
Why is immortality preferrable to non-existence? What does it accomplish? According to natural selection, creatures have a survival instinct because those without one died off. Again, that is a process. To seek immortality as something desirable is to mistaken the process for a purpose. A fly may flee your swatter without knowing why. (All the flys that didn't have the flee function are flat). But we as humans know better. The jig is up. We seek to improve our condition because our mutation led to a survival instinct while someone else's did not. Now that we know, how do we pretend it is anything else? Why do we?
all, from a life-is-all-there-is, perfectly sound reasons based entirely on natural self-interest.
happy, now?
I was already happy.
It didn't seem to be a requirement for belief, as in de fide. To be the position of the church, there has to be some kind of consensus of the bishops and cardinals, no, like magisterium, ex cathedra? By the time it trickled down to me, I took it as the pope's private opinion which he made public. According to the media, which is known to garble and/or misquote what the pope says on any given matter, there was supposed to be some "new evidence" which was never clarified or forthcoming insofar as I know.
Some Catholics do have a problem with evolution, but they are no doubt in the minority now. I know because I've read some of the writings of various lay persons. Offhand, I can't think of any priest, traditional or novus ordo, who publicly expresses disbelief in evolution.
I don't have a problem with Catholics who believe in evolution so long as they leave me free to believe the Word of God on the matter (which Catholics believe, but may interpret certain passages a little differently, or leave them up for grabs as some seem to be now).
BTW I am a convert to the Catholic faith who is having some difficulties with parts of it which cannot be resolved on this forum.
Even if you accept the mutation of a virus as a the "origination" of a complex structure (as opposed to a minor change), you cannot PROVE that it occured by chance.
Since intelligent design can be PROVEN to occur, Intelligent Design or Intent can just as easily be proposed as the mechanism by which the virus mutated. And it is FAR AND AWAY the best explanation for how the virus originated in the first place, including it's ability to change (which may or may not have occured without intervention).
How about this one: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html#examples:electrical
A field-programmable gate array, or FPGA for short, is a special type of circuit board with an array of logic cells, each of which can act as any type of logic gate, connected by flexible interlinks which can connect cells. Both of these functions are controlled by software, so merely by loading a special program into the board, it can be altered on the fly to perform the functions of any one of a vast variety of hardware devices.
Dr. Adrian Thompson has exploited this device, in conjunction with the principles of evolution, to produce a prototype voice-recognition circuit that can distinguish between and respond to spoken commands using only 37 logic gates - a task that would have been considered impossible for any human engineer. He generated random bit strings of 0s and 1s and used them as configurations for the FPGA, selecting the fittest individuals from each generation, reproducing and randomly mutating them, swapping sections of their code and passing them on to another round of selection. His goal was to evolve a device that could at first discriminate between tones of different frequencies (1 and 10 kilohertz), then distinguish between the spoken words "go" and "stop".
This aim was achieved within 3000 generations, but the success was even greater than had been anticipated. The evolved system uses far fewer cells than anything a human engineer could have designed, and it does not even need the most critical component of human-built systems - a clock. How does it work? Thompson has no idea, though he has traced the input signal through a complex arrangement of feedback loops within the evolved circuit. In fact, out of the 37 logic gates the final product uses, five of them are not even connected to the rest of the circuit in any way - yet if their power supply is removed, the circuit stops working. It seems that evolution has exploited some subtle electromagnetic effect of these cells to come up with its solution, yet the exact workings of the complex and intricate evolved structure remain a mystery (Davidson 1997).
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.