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)
"Since intelligent design can be PROVEN to occur."
How?
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.
I not implying anything. I am asking. Specifically, I am asking why an atheist and evolutionist would prefer one over the other. I have yet to get a satisfactory answer.
Anti=Evolution is the only "scientific" theory that needs affirmative action legalislation. How pathetic.
So ID is based on playing cards.
I won't bother to reprint your whole post. Just read it again yourself and you will clearly see that nothing more happened here other than the creation of a devise by INTELLIGENT DESIGN. The engineer had a goal in mind. He programmed the code to select with a GOAL in mind. Anything which did not advance toward the GOAL was deselected. Anything which advanced toward the GOAL, was selected. Intelligent Design, through and through! Design, Intent, Goal, Intervention, all directed by INTELLIGENCE. Next?
Yes, ID uses Natural Selection. There is nothing incompatible with the principles of ID or Creationism.
Now now, let's post what you actually said to avoid the disingenous evasiveness that you posit now...
Natural selection is an established fact and can be readily observed in nature over as little as a few generations.
It was an evolutionary algorithm. The researcher did not directly do the selection - the algorithm did that. More explaination is found here: http://www.netscrap.com/netscrap_detail.cfm?scrap_id=73
It is unremarkable that a microprocessor can perform such a task--except in this case. Even though the circuit consists of only a small number of basic components, the researcher, Adrian Thompson, does not know how it works. He can't ask the designer because there wasn't one. Instead, the circuit evolved from a "primordial soup" of silicon components guided by the principles of genetic variation and survival of the fittest.
So no it wasn't intelligent design. The end solution was not known, and in fact is not understood. How can an intelligent designer not understand their own design huh?
This is exactly a design generated by an evolutionary process.
Pay all my expenses, and I'll take you on a field trip to the factory that created the computer you are reading this message on, plus the facilities of the firm that created the software, designed and fabricatd the integrated circuits contained within, etc., etc.. All highly complex strucures and mechanisms. None of them even comes close to the complexity of the simplest structures in living organisms.
So, give me something that compare in complexity to the humble desktop computer, which can be demonstrated to have come about purely by chance, plus time, plus whatever other random ingedient you wish.
Then and only then will Evolution have the logical standing as an explanation that Intelligent Design has.
"Thompson's work is not aimless tinkering. His brand of evolution managed to construct a working circuit with fewer than one-tenth of the components that a human designer would have used."
"Call me weak minded ..."
Ok.
That still does not negate the fact that an infinite combination of matter over an indefinite period of time could reasonably produce the proverbial monkey at typewriter striking the number 4-0-6.
One time, many thought that angels held planes in the air. Now just a few dumb creos think that.
Another blatant left-wing lie. All someone has to do is produce a genuine billion-year-old human fossil. Evolution would be toast.
At this point we're still waiting to hear what the "scientific theory of ID" is. It's certainly not proven, if it can't even be described.
What meaning would that be?
"adherent to the secular fundamentalist religious belief of evolution,..."
You throw this
1) as an insult?
2) to create an equivalency between ID, as faith, and evolutioin as faith.
This is common from the evangelical "ID be science" crowd.
You degrade your faith,religion and fundamentalism and science all in one ill considered statement.
It is your faith that is in crisis.
If the existance of a 90 million year old fossil threatens the existance of God in your mind, you have some work to do.
The conclusion of ID is based on a leap of faith.
Science can be faith to a materialist.
ID can only be faith to science.
This is not a debate over the existance of God.
It is a debate over the continued existance of science.
Of course I do.
you gotta try harder with your flame bait...that was a pretty amateur attempt.
Flame bait? Hardly. When asked to provide evidence to support your assertion, you declined to do so. I graciously accept your surrender.
and science will eventually hit a brick wall because there are no ethics underpinning it
woodb01 tells us that science is building a little wall around evolution to protect it, and you tell us that science is going to hit a brick wall. Could this be the same wall?
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.