Replies

Interesting title:

The Cult of Evolution – the Opiate of the Atheists

One could argue that there is a ‘scientific priesthood’ such as; Richard Dawkins, William Provine, David Barash, Stephen Pinker, Jacob Weisberg, Sam Harris, and a many other people who use evolution to tear apart Judeo-Christian beliefs and replace them with atheistic beliefs from science. Even philosopher Michael Ruse is ‘accusing atheistic scientists Richard Dawkins of being as religious as a born-again Bible thumper’.

“I do think its true that cosmologists are slightly more likely to be theists than biologists. In earlier times biology was the thing that provided the most powerful apparent evidence for the existence of a Creator – Darwin solved all that. I think, in a way, cosmology is waiting for its Darwin. However, I would add this, that biology is supremely complicated. Complexity is the really difficult thing that you might think you need a designer for – Darwin solved that. The universe actually, is not very complicated.”
-Dawkins

I could go on to quote Dawkins and others where they apply science to religion, but do we really need to look to scientists who promote this type of thinking when we can readily see many of the posters here on FR that hold an atheistic view, at least partially from Darwinism, in science forums and then continue their barrage in religious forums (This is obviously a rhetorical question). I realize this is a public forum in a free country and people should exchange ideas – but if these scientists and freepers are against mixing religion and science, why do ‘they’ do it and why do ‘they’ allow the National Center for Science Education to do it ?

Now, I’m sure we’ve all heard the mantra that; ‘ID is creationism', ‘ID-creationists are hell-bent on taking our society back to the stone age’ and ‘ID is destroying conservatism’. Our President has advocated teaching ID in public schools which is something that the Discovery Institute is even against. Is our President a creationist? He is a Christian advocating the teaching of ID in a political forum. Is he all of the things that science now hates? Is he destroying the conservative platform even though a majority of people in the US believe in some intelligent cause intervening somewhere in our existence (71%)? (Even a majority of doctors in the US believe this) If ID is a religious belief and if science states that the ID designer must be God, than what is science stating when it proclaims it has no ID… that ID does not exist.

Ask an atheistic evolutionist where they get their ethics and Judeo-Christian ethics will more than likely be attacked to justify their belief. Mention ID to an atheistic evolutionist and God is invoked as a stupid designer while evolution is ingenious and resourceful. The creationist label is applied loosely to anyone who sees anything other than nature involved with our existence. I agree that the current ID theory is not ready to be taught but the Design Theory has been around for over two millennia and was scientifically and philosophically concluded by thinkers without any Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Neo-Darwinism is random wrt fitness; it has no goal, and lacks any intelligence. This sums up the Democratic platform.