Recent posts be me and Bob Ellis have generated quite a few comments. What follows are a few thoughts that I jotted down as I read some of them.
Atheism (and evolutionism) constitute a religious belief system. It claims to account for an origin of life (without explaining it), it has its inviolable doctrine and to sin against its gods (Darwin, Dawkins, etc.) is sure to bring down fire and brimstone. Redemption is possible, but only by absolutely rejecting Satan and his demons (Demski, Behe, Stein, Sternberg, Hoyle, Hamm, etc.). Atheists worship a jealous and vindictive god. Atheism claims to know what awaits us after death (nothing) and claims to inform our philosophy and behavior while we are here (usually some variant of hedonism). Atheism and the doctrine of evolution epitomize arrogance. Their (atheists') minds alone can conceive the truth.
It is asserted by several commenters that those who question Darwin don’t understand evolution or the philosophy of science. They apparently are claiming that the detractors of Darwin, of which there are many, with PhDs and other advanced degrees are imposters who don’t understand their fields of research and study. This is supreme arrogance, often demonstrated by those having no more understanding than what their high-priests reveal to them.
To claim that evolution is a proven fact, like gravity, is patently absurd. If I throw a ball in the air, I can predict with confidence that it will come down. Can evolution predict anything? What? Most genera and even species of mammals, fish, reptiles and insects that exist today are found in fossils that are claimed to be millions of years old. Yet they exist today unchanged from the fossil record. (The exception to this are some domesticated animals, but we can agree that they had a designer!) Evolutionists rarely bring up the subject of botany for a good reason. Virtually every known species of plant now extant are found in the fossil record dating back to the Cambrian deposits. Apparently plants evolved by different mechanisms than animals, all showing up very early in evolution and then becoming static for the subsequent millions of years. That is why there is not a phylogenetic tree of the plant world that is widely accepted. Most are the products of the imagination with fossil evidence contrary to the supposed evolutionary relationships.
There is no “theory of gravitation.” The fact of gravity remains completely inexplicable. It is a force that is not explained by any of the known forces in physics. In fact, we might call it a miracle!
There is not a single fossil that is accepted by all paleontologists as a transitional form. A few are claimed, but if evolution were true we should be awash with transitional fossils. For every completed, i.e., stable, organism there should be thousands of transitional structures leading up to it. Even Darwin knew this and considered his theory fatally dependent on the the eventual discovery of myriad transitional animals. There are none. Evolutionists cannot show us a single example of the complete evolutionary sequence of transitions leading to a known genus. There is no shortage of postulated sequences that are passed off to the uninformed as true, such as the equine series, which both Gould and Patterson admitted to be a misleading depiction.
For evolutionists to claim that they don’t deal with origins is disingenuous at best and cowardly at least. Evolution is the prima doctrina for atheism and humanism, both philosophies claiming to have essential truth. From the eternity of the universe, to the “big bang,” to the coalescence of gasses to form planets, to the formation of an oxidizing atmosphere and water, to the chance formation of organic molecules, evolutionsists are insistent that there are no insurmountable mysteries that can’t be answered. But when challenged to explain for us mere mortals how LIFE came about, they retreat from the discussion, claiming “evolution doesn’t deal with origins.” How convenient!
I saw EXPELLED last evening with my son, who is a microbiologist, and we both thought it was fair, well-done and compelling. The many negative reviews are based on either ignorance of the subject or a complete bias that prevents an objective viewing. Stein attempts to show that an other than honest and fair hearing of the arguments costs many scientists, researchers and teachers their jobs and reputations. The statements of the many representatives of the Darwinist mafia were enough to make the point. Dawkins sounded like nothing less than an intolerant religious bigot. I didn’t see Mr. Stein holding a gun to his head and forcing him to read a statement. Dawkins’ (and several other’s) spoke their own words, damnable as they were. Dawkins is going to have to expend a lot of ink, not to mention credibility, trying to undo the damage he's done to the one true religious faith, atheism/evolution.
It is now more that 150 years since Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species" (published 1859). Within only a decade or so of its printing his theories were widely accepted by scientists of the day. By the turn of the century no one other than the most committed and ignorant Baptist doubted the validity of evolution and dissenters were dismissed as religious cranks and ignored. Now, since the explosion of information in cell biology and biochemistry, over seventy percent of average adults in America are skeptical of Darwinist evolution, as well as 50% of biology students!
The Evolutionists have lost a great deal of ground in the past few decades and feel the sand slipping away from beneath their feet. No wonder they are frightened, angry and vengeful. (Just look at the recent comments re: posts about the movie EXPELLED, and "Dawkins the Firebreathing Baptist!")
Featured Article
Monday, April 21, 2008
Notes on Comments re: EXPELLED
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
I'd really like to claim Poe's law on this post - but only because I'm eternally optimistic that no one is ignorant enough to make so many mistakes and be comfortable posting it publicly.
In all seriousness, there's something wrong with almost every sentence. The article misrepresents atheism and evolution while unjustifiably tying the two together (ignoring the fact that atheism isn't dependent upon evolution and evolution isn't restricted to atheism). To claim that there is no "theory of gravitation" only conflates the ignorance demonstrated here.
Surely this can't be a serious post.
OK Matt, show me how smart you are, explain it to me in simple terms.
I wonder if this person has ever actually talked to anyone who calls themselves an Atheist. It is nonsensical to say that Atheists worship a god. It's like saying that vegetarians eat the wrong kind of meat. In fact, many Atheists are adamant to say that one cannot know what lies before us after death. This sounds more like bogotry than informed opinion to me.
What a crazy article! The guy should do a bit of research first. He doesn't understand atheism or evolution at all.
Do some book-learnin' before you post any more drivel like that :)
-A reader from the UK
Matt d., I really appreciate your comments. Such encouraging words from the president of the Atheist Community of Austin are truly heartening.
I am curious though which of the unproven theories of gravitation you subscribe to, space-time distortion, "gravitons," or string theory? Or perhaps you have a theory all your own?
"Atheism (and evolutionism) constitute a religious belief system."
Atheism is not believing in God. It is no more a religious belief than not believing in Santa. Evolution is not a religious belief. It is compatible with the beliefs of many who are religious, like the Christian Catholic Church.
"Atheists worship a jealous and vindictive god."
This post has got to be a joke, right?
"detractors of Darwin, of which there are many, with PhDs and other advanced degrees"
So what, there are PhDs who think Elvis is still alive. What evidence do they have?
"Can evolution predict anything?"
Yes it can.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html
"There is no “theory of gravitation.""
Yes there is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gravitational_theory
"Even Darwin knew this and considered his theory fatally dependent on the the eventual discovery of myriad transitional animals. There are none."
You are incorrect, again (noticing a pattern?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossils
"Now, since the explosion of information in cell biology and biochemistry, over seventy percent of average adults in America are skeptical of Darwinist evolution, as well as 50% of biology students!"
70% of "average" Americans and 50% of biology "students." When you become more than average and more than a mere student, the tendency is that you will realize evolution is true. Has your microbiologist son discovered any data that Darwinism is false?
"The Evolutionists have lost a great deal of ground in the past few decades and feel the sand slipping away from beneath their feet."
Every major science university on the planet, no matter the nationality, accepts evolution. Evolution has won in court, twice. And the people leading the fight against evolution are lawyers and think tank politicos like Ben Stein. It's something that should make you go "hmmmm....."
"Atheism (and evolutionism) constitute a religious belief system. It claims to account for an origin of life (without explaining it)"
I can't believe that you are this ignorant.
Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. That's it. It is not a belief system and it certainly isn't a religious belief system.
Evolution does not attempt to account for the origin of life. It isn't supposed to. Abiogenesis is the the origin of life and is a different field of study that, though is related to evolution in some respects, is independent of evolution.
Atheism doesn't claim anything about evolution or the origin of life.
It really boggles my mind how people like you can be so woefully ignorant of things that are probably common knowledge to the average 5th grader.
It has always been my assertion that religion breeds ignorance like this because, if you were to know the facts and understand these topics, it might dilute your faith.
I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post because I can't see how it could possibly get any better but it could and probably does get a lot worse. I'm sure that if I did read the rest, my head would explode.
By spreading your ignorance like this, you are doing a disservice to your readers and making yourself look like an idiot to anyone with even a modicum of common sense and intelligence.
Excellent article, I get it! I have to agree that evolution is religion. This issue not rocket science. . . . . anyone can do dot to dot. Looking forward to learning more regarding this issue. . . . . finally something makes sense in this cosmic spaghetti.
excellent article, i get it! . . have to agree evolution is religion. This issue is not rocket science . . . anyone can do dot to dot. Great eye opener for me, finally something makes sence of this cosmic spaghetti.
Is this all serious? I have just found this website and read all this business about creationism (aka ID) versus evolution. I live in Australia and was truly, truly surprised, I suppose shocked in a way, to see such a bizarre debate raging in the year 2008. I went to a fair bit of trouble signing up to this blog just to write this, but now I'm unsure what to say to any American readers. The fact there are people outside the dark ages who still believe in creationism is amazing. I've heard its still happening in the US but to actually read it from reasonably articulate people is, I suppose, shocking. It reminded me of many years ago the only person I knew who subscribed to the creationist beliefs was an old mate of mine called Dave, Dave was a Scotsman who in the middle of debates/arguments on religion would suddenly flare up and say things like “All your arguments are a waste of breath, Darwinism has been completely discredited”! My normal response would be, “which parts were discredited mate”? to which he would continue on as though I hadn’t spoken, saying “yes, completely discredited…” I never did get an answer out of him and now he’s passed away so I’ll never know if he was actually hearing my question or merely using the pause to think up his next theological attack line. I think, just reading the ‘expelled’ article/review and all those other posts by that Bob Ellis character that his will be a similar situation. He is a little more articulate than Dave was but in the end I suspect he will continue their similar debating method of putting ones fingers in ones ears and saying “lah lah lah, I’m right and you’re wrong”. Good luck over there y’all (always wanted to say that although I’m sure my accent would detract from its delivery) I’ve bookmarked this site and will continue to check it out.
Lance
P.s. I was checking out the logo at the top of this site’s home page and had a little chuckle at the cross floating over the Mt Rushmore heads and the logo. You guys must cringe sometime, knowing other countries around the world are seeing stuff like that and drawing generalising conclusions.
P.p.s. Am I the only one here who thinks the mysterious 'anonymous' submitter is no other than young Bob Ellis himself? Yes, I'm a little cynical.
It needs to be said again:
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SCIENCE.
I'm sorry, but it is true. This post is foolish, ignorant, or just plain dumb to any scientist. I'm not sure which one of those 3 camps you are in, but you are in one of them. If that's arrogance, I'm sorry. But someone needs to tell you.
I understand that there is no point in trying to explain it to you. Just keep taking this crap to the courts and keep losing.
Go ahead and put this ID stuff in a Religion or Philosophy class. But you must understand that we "Darwinists" must fight you when you attempt to put this ID/Creationist stuff into a Science class. The reason is simple: YOU ARE WRONG. And it is the ultimate arrogance to force a debunked and non-scientific ideology on our children just so you can feel better about your God.
Interested Observer, thanks for adding one more illustration of the closed-minded intellectual bigotry pointed out by Expelled.
I'm sure the fact that many of the great scientists of history believed in creation would be lost on you, so I won't bother going into that.
And while you may chuckle at the honor given to Jesus Christ by the cross at the top of the Dakota Voice logo, He deserves the honor since it was His principles which made the country in which I live the greatest one on earth.
And I don't post anonymously. I stand behind everything I say.
"Atheism (and evolutionism) constitute a religious belief system."
Not to an adult.
Posts like this always catch me somewhere between laughing and crying. I'm an advocate of free speech and hold out great hope that the Internet will be the great, democratising and educational tool of our time, because anyone can find out anything they want to at any time (unless they live in China).
The trouble with the Internet is the people using it. It strikes me, reading this article, that regardless of how much evidence or information there is out there, available at the mere click of a mouse, there are people who will choose NOT to seek out that information, believing instead whatever happens to suit their rigid, iron-cast view of the world, regardless of provable fact or evidence.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I am continually shocked, as is our Australian commenter a few comments above me, that ignorance is taken so seriously in a country as supposedly advanced as the United States.
I can't even begin to pick out the mistakes in the article above, it would take thousands of words to even start, but I'll cite one example where Dr Theo obliging hoists himself with his own petard.
One paragraph starts "To claim that evolution is a proven fact, like gravity, is patently absurd. If I throw a ball in the air, I can predict with confidence that it will come down. Can evolution predict anything?"
Ok, so you're saying that evolution isn't a proven fact like gravity. Erroneous, but ok... And then the very next paragraph is:
"There is no “theory of gravitation.” The fact of gravity remains completely inexplicable. It is a force that is not explained by any of the known forces in physics. In fact, we might call it a miracle!"
You can't have it both ways, Theo. But then I guess this kind of selective blindness is the only thing that allows you to live in the delusional, inconsistent and illogical world that you clearly do.
Keep on posting. It's actually quite entertaining, in a freak-show kind of way.
Richard said: "The trouble with the Internet is the people using it. It strikes me, reading this article, that regardless of how much evidence or information there is out there, available at the mere click of a mouse, there are people who will choose NOT to seek out that information, believing instead whatever happens to suit their rigid, iron-cast view of the world, regardless of provable fact or evidence."
So true, Richard! I cannot agree with anything more than with this simple and straightforward assertion. You really have a knack for reducing an argument to its fundamentals.
So true, Richard! I cannot agree with anything more than with this simple and straightforward assertion. You really have a knack for reducing an argument to its fundamentals.
I'm impressed Dr Theo. Richard was blasting you for a post full of untruths and pretty much devoid of facts
Richard said:
I can't even begin to pick out the mistakes in the article above, it would take thousands of words to even start...
and you complimented him. I guess that's one way to avoid answering the many issues brought up by the previous commenters.
I hate to pick on children who are just learning to think and write and spell but please..."evolutionism"? If you want to be taken seriously you need to use real words. The rest of your post is just nonsense, there is no nice way to put it.
While I am all for freedom of speech, your thought process is a dangerous one. As an example, the theory of evolution helps form the bedrock of modern medicine, and to reject it would severely hinder further advances in medical research. Thus, proponents of evolutionary theory have good reason to fight creationists from getting a foothold in the mainstream educational system.
Science is by no means an absolute - it is a process explaining the world we live through natural mechanisms by using the tools we have available. We have come a long way in our understanding, and have along way to go. To invoke a designer to the understanding of our world adds a whole extra element of complexity. Creationists often cite a 'lack of evidence' to disprove the theory of evolution. However, we have enough evidence through a multitude of sources to support evolution beyond a resonable doubt. On the other hand, there is nothing outside of the Bible that supports the Creationist world view, which itself has been demonstrated to be, outside of the fairy-tale miracles, an innacurate account of history.
I also have to point out how you somehow try to portray athesim as a religion. Atheism is neither a religion or a philosophy - it is merely a statement of disbelief. There is no dogmatic code, ritual or supernatural belief attached to it. To say that I am an atheist is to simply say I do not believe in a supreme being, not even a jealous and vindictive god. Of course, the god of Christianity is just that - jealous and vindictive. If you choose not to believe, worship and perform a prescribed set of rituals, you are doomed to Hell. I cannot imagine living under this regime - it is akin to cowering in fear from being bullied by an imaginary 'friend.'
Bob Tut, now that I've picked myself up off the floor from laughing so hard, what possible medical breakthrough is going to be missed or hindered by a lack of belief in the theory of evolution?
Bob,
Viruses and Bacteria evolve rapidly. Our ability to understand how they work, and more importantly, how to stop them, is highly dependent on our understanding of evolution. Why do you think there is a different flu vaccine every year? Why do you think Doctors are worried about over-prescribing antibiotics?
I would really like to say you have a misperception of something or other, which I could correct, or argue against. But as you've proven again, and again, and again, you are simply uneducated about that which you write.
No, la Rana, when you say I'm uneducated about these matters, what you're really saying I don't agree with your suppositions, therefore I can't be educated.
So your position is that the influenza vaccine is a supposition?
How is life on that planet? (other than the product of a long process of evolution).
I just read the bible again and it says up is actually down! Quick, stand on your head! Gravity is a myth peddled by nefarious scientists!
The flu vaccine is more or less a fact (I equivocate because they claim you won't get sick from it, but every time I get it I get sick as a dog).
But your contention that the flu virus is evolving is a supposition.
And you were probably already standing on your head when you read that Bible, from trying to make evolution theory stand up to reality.
Zing!
What's your explanation for why we need a different flu vaccine every year?
Of course evolution is atheism. Everyone knows God is too stupid to contrive such a complex process as evolution.
Criminy, you IDiots blaspheme the power of your God far worse than any atheist.
"...what possible medical breakthrough is going to be missed or hindered by a lack of belief in the theory of evolution?"
I am truly flattered that you feel I can predict the future of medical research, however I unfortunately can only reflect upon past accomplishments. Now let's try formulating medicine from Biblical scripture and prayer, and see what happens. I'd be picking myself off the floor from laughing, but I'm far too frightened of your views.
The evolution of viri is hardly a supposition - if they do not evolve, do not adapt, they cease to exist. Some survive, most do not. This is observable due to the rapidity of changes. Or do you believe that God simply uploads new viri to contaminate us? That silly God..... always working in mysterious ways and testing our faith... There must be nothing better to do in the universe than toy with human lives.
Hello Bob, I just checked and saw your posting addressed to me. This will have to be quick as I have to fly and I'll give a more considered reply, my time, tomorrow. In your opening back-hander to me I think you implied I was intellectual. If that’s the case, I thank you. As for bigoted, well from your perspective I have no doubt I appear to be such. There is nothing I can say or do that would change your perspective on that, in fact everything I say on this topic from this point on will doubtless confirm your initial low opinion of me I’ll have a look at some of my history books tomorrow and I have no doubt I will find numerous scientists over the millennia (some of them famous) who were creationists. Yet I don’t see what your connection is between some scientist’s religious understandings of a thousand years ago and the scientific fields they may have been working on (a field that was no doubt completely unrelated to anything religious). I’m probably not being very clear here but I will propose this, ; I suspect that a lot of scientists who believed in creationism in their time also believed that the world was flat, but still made profound scientific discoveries. I do not, however, take what you consider a logical step of linking those two fundamental beliefs to making scientific breakthroughs. In my mind the scientific discoveries were made DESPITE their belief that the world was flat as we know that now to be incorrect. Such in my mind is the case with your comments on their belief in creationism. Those individuals made their discoveries DESPITE their belief in creationism. At the time both creationism and belief in a flat earth were accepted by many scientists as fundamental truths, but I’m sure you would not be caught dead suggesting that their belief in a flat earth at that time resulted in them making discoveries and should still be adhered to today as you do with creationism. Making a scientific discovery is not always the sum total of ones contemporary understanding of how everything works, it comes I believe at times in spite of, and by challenging your understandings and beliefs. That’s how the scientific world marches forwards and discovers amazing new things on a seemingly daily basis. I suppose in short, what I’m trying to say is that at one time or another throughout history very bright men and women have believed many things we now consider to be ridiculous.
Re the floating cross: “He deserves the honor since it was His principles which made the country in which I live the greatest one on earth”. I bet every ‘greatest’ country on earth throughout history has had its religious individuals praising their god/gods/spirits for giving them the grace and principles and strength to make them the chosen ones over the rest of humanity. There are numerous countries back through history to way before jesus who we would have called superpowers, and they would have called themselves ‘great’. Some lasted hundreds of years at the peak of their greatness. I won’t be around in hundreds of years to see how you guys are going, but I wish you luck and hope you can defy the trend of every major power in history which has eventually ended up in one of two ways; either not existing any more or ending up crumbling and being ‘just normal’ countries in the mix of other normal countries, watching people like yourself preening over your believed selection by some higher power to be the “greatest nation on earth”. Sorry that wasn’t very objective but I’m in a mad rush at the moment and I must get my ‘intellectual’ backside out of here!
Lance
one last thing Bob, I withdraw my remark about you probably being the anon contributer. Judging by your writings you appear to be many, many things including a very strange bloke, but one thing you most certainly aren't, is afraid to put your name to articles. All power to you for that. Cheers,
Lance
"It is now more that 150 years since Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species" (published 1859)."
Even your math is suspect.
Post a Comment