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)
If we are as dumb as you say, why are we beating the tar out of evolution? Your side is in retreat as Rush has observed:
| Now, the REAL million dollar question: what took Harvard so long to get to this point? And if the Discovery Inst. hadn't been doing the work it has been doing, does anyone seriously believe that Harvard would spend money on this? Not a chance. This announcement by Harvard is nothing less than a giant white flag raised above a key fortress of 'intelligent people'. And it is a FLAT OUT VICTORY for the folks who have been promoting ID. |
You voluntarily relegate yourself to an inferior intellectual category.
Yes I guess you could say that if the cambrian represents a problem for evolution, then the cambrian completely obliterates creationism.
You haven't heard how Ashley Montagu went after Charleton Coon for his "racism." The real question is what our anthropology will say about the varieties of human cultures and the people who have developed them. Hitler discredited a whole line of conventional wisdom by applying an extreme version of eugenics.
That isn't evolution you
Are you posting to me? I don't recognise the quote you attribute to me.
I am not a reader of Ashley Montagu. I have seen racism spring up from every political direction. I associate racism with individuals, not with ideologies.
Matter of fact, as a conservative, I always hold individuals rather than groups resopnsible.
Without requoting the whole diatribe, I love how wonderfully "tolerant" and "scientific" so many evolutionary secular fundamentalists are... It's so refreshing to hear the same old personal attacks. Although it's entirely understandable when you try to defend the indefensible...
Evolution is a complete SCIENCE FRAUD! It is a zealous fundamentalist religious belief masking as science. At least I give the Church of Scientology CREDIT for acknowledging that theirs is entirely a religion, at least they are honest about it and do not lie about it and engage in ad hominem personal attacks to distract from the FACT that evolution is an unsupportable SCIENCE FRAUD!
Evolution requires more blind faith to believe that rocks, water, and a few base chemicals (which no one can even prove existed) are the source of all life. And now evolutionists, realizing that their entire hoax is being exposed as a fraud scream "no fair, you can't say that the origins of life have anything to do with evolution..."
Understandably evolutionists recoil at this because when you evaluate the WHOLE PROCESS, including the INPUTS into that process, evolution collapses. The only thing left is complete intellectual dishonesty, zealous secular fundamentalism, and a house of cards built on fantastical fairy tale lies.
Evolution is the opiate for the atheists, and it is a SCIENCE FRAUD! Science is not damaged by evolution being challenged as the FRAUD that it is, science is damaged by NOT challenging evolution as the FRAUD that it is!
THINK man, evolutionary claims require so many leaps of blind faith that those who ACKNOWLEDGE religious beliefs are easier to accept, at least they are honest that theirs is based on faith.
You lied when you said that the Harvard scientists were claiming their study was a support for evolution.
How can complex biochemical organization be irrelevent, when the "fact" of evolution is a mere inference and not an observable event? Wouldn't evidence contrary to that inference be relevent? It is certainly is in any court of law I've practiced in. Really, you've just given a splendid exmaple of the kind of "faith" no intellectually honest person can hold.
But more to your argument about the Cambrian record--it too rests on a large assumption. I'll let you figure out what it is.
You are claiming that because we don't know the details of how evolution works, therefore evolution isn't science.
That something occured can be worked out independantly from knowing how it happened.
That evolution has occured on Earth is beyond doubt given the evidence. How it occured is only starting to be looked into. But then we are only starting to look into how an embryo changes into an adult. It simply is not a case that we understand nature well and cannot see how evolution is possible. It is a case of not understanding nature well and lots of research still left to be done to uncover the details of evolution.
"Without requoting the whole diatribe..."
Or answering why you lied about what the Harvard scientists said either
Or explaining why you didn't inform everybody that this *article* (not the AP one, but the one that was the basis for this thread) was written by YOU. Not very honest, though not surprising.
"I love how wonderfully "tolerant" and "scientific" so many evolutionary secular fundamentalists are... It's so refreshing to hear the same old personal attacks. Although it's entirely understandable when you try to defend the indefensible..."
And your rambling *article* was a model of restraint and free from personal attack and invective? RIIiiiggghhht!!
Keep trying to convince yourself that :)
The National SOCIALISTS determined that Jews, the sick, the elderly, the disabled, etc., weren't as "valuable" as the rest of society and exercised their "natural selection" to exterminate them.
Lots of facts in science are not observable events. Just about all of geology is based on working out facts about the past that we cannot recreate. It is a fact that Hawaii formed a few million years ago, even though noone witnessed it. Same with astronomy. It is a fact that Pluto orbits the sun, yet noone has witnessed a full orbit. It is a fact that the craters on the moon were caused by meteors, yet noone observed them. It is a fact that stars form, burn and die in a certain way, yet noone has observed one do so. It is an inference from current states of stars and models.
Wouldn't evidence contrary to that inference be relevent?
Yes it would. But what evidence contrary to the inference would you be suggesting? Arguments such as "the eye seems to complex" are not contrary evidence. They are pointing out gaps in scientific knowledge, not scientific knowledge of gaps in evolution. Fact is we don't really know how the human eye develops in the embryo yet so it really isn't suprising that we wouldn't understand how such development itself could evolve. This is due to a lack of current knowledge and technology. Only when such knowledge and technology becomes better will answering the question "how did the eye evolve" become really possible.
But more to your argument about the Cambrian record--it too rests on a large assumption. I'll let you figure out what it is.
The cambrian strata in the grand canyon are labelled. If you found a mammal fossil noone would be able to deny it.
The big bang? Who cares about the big bang? I want to know who made the big bong.
sorry, a momentary lapse into history. I am out of these threads, and it is nice to drift back in and see that nothing has changed.
Greetings to all. I am busy ranting about immigration threads when I can post.
Later, all.
If natural selection is a mechanism that can be observed in nature, then it must have a physical effect upon nature, and in particular the organisms which constitute nature.
What event, or events, does natural selection explain, that isn't already explained by mutation, drift, recombination, and heredity.
If you can't demonstrate this, then natural selection does not belong in a scientific theory.
Yes. No one disagrees with species differentiation from a common ancestor. We just say that there are a lot fewer 'common ancestors' than evolutionists do, and they were created with the genetic potential for adaptation.
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.