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)
Natural Selection?
Actually, scientific principles are the what man uses to describe the way God established and runs the universe. God did not wait for scientific principles to create the universe, and He sure doesn't need them to sustain it.
Oh, please. This little game gets tiresome. Pointing out that humans design lab experiments says exactly nothing about the general ID assertion.
Moreover, assuming for argument's sake it did exist as alleged, and Cambrian strata held older forms, it still would not support macroevolution in absence of solid and numerous transitional records. And it would still fit very nicely into the ID interpretive model. :)
Anything would fit nicely into ID model though. That is why the ID model is junk. A model that fits anything is empty.
Now you're simply denying the problem. Seamlessly, you have slipped from pointing with pride to published accounts of the Cambrian strata to pretending that all such interpretations are really controversial and may be discarded at your convenience.
I laid it out already. It can't be a problem for evolution without it being a problem for creationism.
And it would still fit very nicely into the ID interpretive model. :)
Oh, you have a theory now? Would that be this one?
A good scientific theory like ID should be vague and ambiguous, and refuse to propose any specific details about mechanism or history. Some unspecified being "designed" something, somewhere, at some point in time, somehow, is a perfectly good explanation.The Quixotic Message.
Beat me to it.
And no creationist dares face the challenge.
Perhaps you haven't noticed how every new discovered is 'interpreted' by evols in such a way as to make it fit the theory of evolution. (Or perhaps you have noticed it and just haven't mentioned it.)
talking to yourself again?
:)
might be time to go for a walk
Not everything would fit evolution though. Rabbits in the cambrian would not fit evolution. Neither would half wolf-half bird fossils. That such examples have not been found is exactly why evolution is so strong a theory.
Give me just one fossil that wouldn't fit ID. Go on try and imagine just one fossil. I could go on all day listing fossils that would be incompatible with evolution. Can you name even one which would be incompatible with ID? I doubt it.
That more or less sums up what I said, but you seem to have missed it.
I was born an innocent baby.
Have you remained pure . . . or did you screw up somewhere along the way?
They'd make it fit somehow. They always do.
Give me just one fossil that wouldn't fit ID.
What's the point? I'm not arguing that your statement is wrong. I'm simply saying it cuts both ways.
We all believe what we choose to believe, and we (yes, even the much venerated scientific community) filters the evidence through those beliefs.
Well, again, I think it's fair to argue with his reasoning. I haven't read any of his work, so I really couldn't argue it one way or the other.
Has he written about evolution, or just about origin of life/matter/universe? And does he assume a different set of requirements for the first life form than what is generally accepted?
Apologies if you haven't read him, either ... I've read critiques both pro and con and found neither very satisfying. I find the idea of a statistical analysis very interesting, but it strikes me as an extraordinarily complex matter to apply statistics to the origins of life or the universe... too many unknowns, it seems to me, to be able to really determine an "impossibility" threshold in the first place. But that's just me talking.
This isn't explained by mutation - it would still occur in absense of mutation.
This isn't explained by drift - it would still occur in absense of drift.
This isn't explained by recombination - it would still occur in absense of recombination.
This isn't explained by heredity. Heredity is needed for natural selection to work, but it isn't the only thing that is needed.
Well, then what is this physical process that acts on an organism that can explain the occurance or disappearance of traits that these other processes can not?
A rabbit in the cambrian would not fit evolution at all. There is no way of making it fit. The earliest mammals appear early triassic and are reptile-like, but not rabbits. Even when rabbits do appear they are not like modern rabbits. So to find a modern rabbit as far back as the cambrian would inexplainable via evolution. It simply is not possible for mammals to exist, let alone rabbits at a time when no land animals even existed.
Nothing like a rabbit in the cambrian has ever been found so when you say "they always do" what are you basing that on?
here is a list of more fossils that would totally not fit evolution:
-A dog fossil with rockets morphed into its legs.
| -A fossil shark with lasers attached |
| -A fossil crocodile with an outboard motor |
|
-A lion with wings of a bird |
| -A centaur |
| -A werewolf |
|
-A human fossil in the cambrian |
| -An elephant fossil in the cambrian |
| -Any mammal fossil in the cambrian |
| -or bird in the cambrian. As ridiculous as some of these are, they would all fit ID. None would fit evolution, no matter how hard anyone tried to make them. |
But it was a Scrappleface article.
per post 427 which has the link
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.