Archive for the creationism Category

Evolution: Good for (my) Theologies

Posted in atheism, atheists, Bible, Catholic Church, common sense, creation, creationism, evolution, Original Sin, science, theology, Truth with tags , , , on August 30, 2011 by devilbloggger

Evolution.

Want to start an argument among Christians?  Just mention “evolution” in a crowd of two or more, and sit back and watch the show.  I watch it all the time, and I must say it never fails to amuse.

You know, atheists must believe in “evolution,” because they are constrained in their chosen belief system to only one interpretation of the evidence.  In a sense, atheists have it easy; they don’t have to really think about the evidence.  For atheists the answer to every question of origins must be answered in only one way. 

Atheists could wear T-shirts saying “Evolution is the answer, what’s the question?”

But Christians?  Those poor souls are in a quandary.  They are not mind-constrained to only one answer to the question “where do we come from?”  And because “science” demands one explanation and God another, Christians end up confused.

Many Christians lazily believe “science” over God.

It’s a beautiful sight.

And then I read in Forbes online today an article on this topic entitled, “Can Theology Evolve?”  In this piece author John Farrell explores:

. . .the recent Nature article on the increasing evidence that modern humans have inherited the genes of more than a few now-extinct relatives on the evolutionary tree, NPR hosted a short program on what this all means for one of the fundamental stories of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

I linked to this story from a link at RealClearReligion: The Vatican Has a Problem with Evolution.

Well, well, well. 

Problem?

Yes, Problem, with a capital “P”.

Because, as Farrell explores in his article, the bottom line is simple and stark: if “evolution” is true, then the Bible is not true.

If “evolution” is true, then Adam and Eve were not real people, I did not tempt Eve, and Adam was not the first sinner, and there is no original sin.

In fact, if “evolution” is true the entire tapestry of Christianity tatters and shreds into little pieces of thread to be trampled on the floor of history.

A beautiful sight, I must admit.

What are we, my servants, to make of this growing controversy?

First, the easy points: Of course theology can evolve.  Duh!  Why do you think there are so many various theologies out there?  I’m behind all but one.  And all but one have evolved to the place they are now.

And as for the Vatican, the RealClearReligion’s statement is misplaced.  The real issue is “God has a problem with evolution.”

Let me explain, my servants.  What I am about to share is highly confidential kingdom knowledge.  Please casually look around and make sure no one can see your computer.

Clear?

OK.  Pay attention.  I put “evolution” in quotes because one of my greatest lies on earth is to deceive many into hopeless confusion merely by confounding what the term evolution means.  I keep people confused, darkened, and generally theologically schizophrenic because people don’t understand how the word is used, and what it really means as understood by modern biologists.

The real meaning behind “evolution” as used by any modern biologist refers not to mere “change over time” (as your high school teacher would have you believe), but Darwinian “change by mindless, unguided, purposeless processes of nature.”

Don’t doubt me on this one, my friends.  I’m the one behind the nonsense of Darwinism.  Regardless of all wishful thinking that “evolution is true but God is behind it all,” the bottom line is that such thinking is hogwash; “science” demands a purely naturalistic definition, and a purely naturalistic definition is just that: no mind behind creation.

Keep in mind that “science” doesn’t say anything, scientists do.

And if a scientist is constrained (as they virtually all are in modern academia) to a naturalistic explanation of science, then that scientist will always, without exception, come to a Godless “scientific” explanation of our human origins.

It is my way.  Start with a lie, end with a lie.

Clearly an explanation for human origins (and indeed, the entire universe) that starts and ends with mindless, unguided, purposeless processes can not in any way be squared with the Bible’s explanation of creation.

Someone is lying.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Yes, someone is lying to you, my friends.

Either matter came from mind in a purposeful creative act, or mind came from matter in a purposeless, accidental act.

There are only two choices.

But I ensure you will never be faced with a choice, a real choice demanded by the scientific evidence, because I’ve structured all of academia to guard a constrained definition of “science” as requiring only naturalistic, materialistic explanations for all natural phenomena.  This means that unless you take it upon yourself to read the excellent literature on the topic of intelligent design, you will never know the truth.

Truth?

Whoops.  Now we are into highly confidential territory. 

You see, my servants, I’ve forced the public discussion of origins into a “science or religion” framework.  And what is lost is a common sense inquiry into what is true?

Consider: if one does like the scientists of old, and put aside forced constraints on potential theories, and let free thinking reign with the goal of knowing truth, then evolution will die like other scientific theories.

The evidence simply does not support the requirement of Darwinism that new, beneficial forms, organs, or other features of species differentiation came about by unguided, natural processes.

The evidence does not support Darwinism.  There is absolutely no evidence that an unguided, purposeless process can produce new, novel, beneficial features needed for speciation (as opposed to silly things like peppered moths (no speciation) and finch beaks (again, no speciation)).

The fact that you don’t believe me just goes to show how effective I am at perpetuating a lie.

Look it up yourself.

As I’ve engineered modern atheistic science (the only kind allowed any more in public schools), as soon as one starts inferring design by using the common sense scientific method, the explanation is immediately assigned to the “religious” category, never to see the darkness of my scientific night.

Of course, this constraint is placed on “science” only for origins science.  Other scientific fields depend entirely on making design inferrences.  The entire discipline of archeology is built on inferring design from artifacts for which there is no evidence of the original designer.

An archeologist finds a piece of pottery and wonders (without hesitation, and with no hope of an answer) “who made this?”

A biologist finds reams of information coded into the cell like computer programs but is not allowed to ask “who” made it, but only “how” did “evolution” make it.

Evolution is the answer, what’s the question?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

I’m good, I’m really, really good.

In fact, when one removes the constraints of naturalism and materialism, and opens one’s mind to finding truth, regardless of its label as “science” or “religion”, one will find that science actually points to design.

Remember, this is our secret, right?

Good. Now close your mind and go evolve!

Advertisements

Thank God for Evolution?

Posted in atheism, atheists, christians, creationism, Darwinism, evolution, religion with tags , , , , , , , on March 12, 2011 by devilbloggger

Hoo boy.

Sometimes I just have to sit back and count my curses.  I know you try hard, my servants, but sometimes you just go too far in your zeal for me and end up making my job harder.  I try to be patient, but patience is not one of my best traits.  Let me explain.

I have a great servant for my kingdom named Michael Dowd.  Mr. Dowd bills himself as a “reverend” and holds himself out as a an “evolutionary evangelist.”   According to his website he hopes to “promote Christian discussion of evolution,” via, among other avenues, webinars.  Yee hah!

Let me summarize some basics for you before I go to some gentle criticisms of Servant Dowd.  My most reverend Dowd believes that you and I are the product of natural, unguided, mindless processes that never had us in mind.  That is the definition of evolution, and it leaves no place for God, except for a private, imaginary type of God. 

So far, so good. 

I love that Mr. Dowd holds himself out as a Christian who has bought my lie so zealously that he “sees no conflict between faith and reason, heart and head, Jesus and Darwin.”  Yes, my lie as articulated in my deceitfulness by Servant Dowd is that “evolutionary theory can deepen rather than challenge faith.”  

In one sense this statement is true:  a true understanding of evolutionary theory will deepen faith; it will either deepen the Christian understanding of special creation due to Darwinism’s dearth of evidence, or it will deepen the atheistic understanding of creation despite nature’s wealth of evidence.

You see, my servants, here is my lie, which Servant Dowd touts at the top of his website: 

“Dowd argues that the conflict between evolution and religion is unnecessary and shows how we can recover the virtue of mutual respect, without anyone having to sacrifice deeply held principles.”

Question: Does Dowd expect that atheists will sacrifice their deeply held principles that God does not exist?  They must, if the “conflict” is between a science that denies the existence of God and a religion that demands it.

Or, does Dowd expect that Christians must sacrifice their deeply held principles that the Bible is God’s word, and that the evidence of nature supports a strong scientific inference of design that overwhelmingly confirms that word?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

You see,  my servants, please pay attention.  I will impart kingdom knowledge.  If you know Servant Dowd, please forward this to him.  I don’t expect him to understand immediately, but over time perhaps my kingdom wisdom will sink in.

The mire that Servant Dowd slogs around in is a mire of post-modern, lazy thinking that ignores the law of non-contradiction.   Essentially, the law of non-contradiction, which every serious thinker through history recognizes, and which every thinker uses in real life (as opposed to philosophical pontifications like Dowd’s), is that it is impossible for two conflicting truth claims to be true at the same time and in the same relationship.

Example: Either (1) God created life; or, (2) life is an occurrence of mindless, unguided process.  Both statements cannot be true.  There is no “third way”. 

Christians believe No. 1 above.  Evolutionists and atheists believe No. 2 above.  To resolve the conflict, someone must give up a deeply held principle.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

I love my lies infiltrating the mind of the worldly-wise.

You see, my servants, Servant Dowd’s statement is true in one condition.  He is exactly right if one’s religion is atheistic.  In this case, there is, by definition, no conflict between “evolution” and “religion”  and no one need sacrifice a deeply held belief to resolve conflict.

And it is exactly Servant Dowd’s ignorance on this point, my servants, that he has gone to far, and raised my ire.  In this month’s Skeptic Magazine, a magazine for everyone skeptical of everything except Darwinism, Servant Dowd has an article entitled, “Thank God for the New Atheists.”  Servant Dowd’s views are prized by the likes of Skeptic Magazine, as they are used to promote the idea that Christians can be skeptics too, if only they become unskeptical about Darwinism and believe in a private, imaginary God.

In the Skeptic article servant Dowd pleased me with his bold display of anti-Christian-but-curiously-religious-pseudo-Christian bona fides by boasting that “God is not a person.”  (What if to resolve conflict Servant Dowd has to give up that deeply held belief?  Ha ha ha ha ha!).

But then Servant Dowd blurts out a truth statement that I wish to conceal.  He states without any hint of its damaging consequences to my kingdom: 

“Religion is about right relationship with reality, not the supernatural.”

Uh, Servant Dowd, ummm, you might want to walk that one back ASAP.  You see, my friend, you make two mistakes.  First, reality includes the supernatural, you doofus.  It is on that deeply held principle that you go wrong on everything else.  But more damaging to my kingdom is that  if your statement is true, then atheism is a religion.  Materialism (the idea that only matter exists) is a religion.  Evolutionists are religionists.  And, you, my servant, are a reverend of a non-Christian religion.

You see, my servants, the problem?

My lies are spread on earth, in public schools, in the media, in politics, in culture because my viewpoints are considered to be “secular” and not “religious.”  I have labored hard over decades and centuries to make sure that the United States’ “separation of church and state” is always thought of as “separation of Christianity and state.” 

If word gets out that atheism, materialism, evolutionism, and every other of my God-less “isms” are religions, then I and my kingdom will experience a set back to the dark ages.

Please, my servants.  I know that atheism is a religion.  But keep that quiet, you hear?

Somebody tell Servant Dowd, please?

Hoo boy.

Creationism seems to have a life of its own

Posted in creationism, Darwin, evolution with tags , , , on January 30, 2011 by devilbloggger

And I said let there be . . .

Bad news out of the United States, my servants.  Bad news.  It seems that no matter how much I try to suppress the truth of creation, those Americans simply won’t let it go.  Not one, but two stories today, my friends, embarrassing me in front of the rest of the world, where I have effectively silenced all voices of reason.

Is it because the Americans are still free to think?

First the bad news, then the worst.  Last week’s story in ScienceDaily, entitled, “High School Biology Teachers in U.S. Reluctant to Endorse Evolution in Class, Study Finds,” says that a majority of public high school biology teachers in the U.S. are not strong classroom advocates of evolutionary biology.  And this, according to the political scientists who researched it, “despite 40 years of court cases that have ruled teaching creationism or intelligent design violates the Constitution.” 

The article continues:

“Considerable research suggests that supporters of evolution, scientific methods, and reason itself are losing battles in America’s classrooms.”

Consider that quote, my servants.  Of the three, evolution, scientific methods, and reason, which one do you think is dragging the other two down?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Now, that is not to say I’m not also behind the effort at eliminating reason and the true scientific method from America’s classroom.  Removing reason was the only way I could force (against the scientific method) Darwin’s (and my) truth claim that mindless, undirected natural processes, AKA evolution, made 10th grade accidents of nature that could question whether they were accidents of nature.  When students are free to reason based on the evidence, they always reason their way to God.  It’s been that way since the beginning.  Aristotle did it.  Little Johnny does it.  I can’t prevent the destination when the reason train freely leaves the wonder station.

So if “supporters” of evolution are going to moan and groan about the loss of reason and the scientific method, they will get no sympathy from me. 

Go find your own creation story if you don’t like mine or God’s.

Here’s the problem, my servants, if I might be very open.  You can’t have both reason and evolution.  The two are mutually exclusive if reason’s goal is truth and evolution means speciation by unguided, purposeless processes of nature (which it does in biology).  Reason based on the evidence according to the scientific method never leads to evolution because evolution is not scientifically true.  And truth doesn’t care what the Constitution deems unconstitutional.   Just like killing human babies is wrong even if the Constitution says it is a human right, creation is true in the public schools even if the Constitution prevents its teaching there.  Truth doesn’t care what a teacher says, what a curriculum demands, or what a final exam requires.

Stubborn thing; truth is not changed by what anyone thinks about it.

Even Google can’t fix a lie: try Googling “evidence for speciation” and see if you can find one example of natural selection naturally (not in a designed experiment or in a computer simulation) actually producing a new species.  Darwin used an imaginary example and his modern disciples carry on his tradition; there is no evidence, my lied-to friends.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

So researchers need to stop whining about the loss of “evolution, scientific methods, and reason itself” in American classrooms.  I removed reason specifically so that schools could require evolution to be taught dogmatically.  I recognize that the problem is not, as the noble researchers’ quote above suggest, that “evolution, scientific methods, and reason” are losing battles in American classrooms.  Rather, students are well-trained in the exercise of “which one of these does not belong in this group,” and reason must be suppressed as a prerequisite to “learning” evolution.  The problem the researchers are blind to is that evolution must be forced into the minds of little public school chillens against the weight of reason informed by the scientific method

I’ve worked hard to successfully suppress reason by insisting that evolution be referred to mindlessly as “the fact of evolution.”  And it took decades to successfully change the scientific method.  Instead of Francis Bacon’s time-tested, common sense New Organon method, in which reasoning is inductive, beginning with the facts of nature (nature appears designed) and working slowly toward testing reasonable inferences (the world is designed), for evolutionary biology I’ve supplanted the deductive method, which simply starts with the defacto proposition that the world is not designed.  Note the method of modern dogmatic evolutionist:  Own it, you stupid public school student; you are not designed!

 You see? No reason, no scientific method, no . . . evolution?

And there’s the problem.  It seems that even when reason is suppressed and the scientific method is rigged, evolution still doesn’t gain any traction. 

Maybe what the Americans need is not only a Constitution that prevents teaching what appears to be true, but which also demands that evolution be believed as true against all appearance.   That should do it, right?

Well, it couldn’t hurt with respect to the news of the second related story in the news today.  It seems that, according to a LiveScience.com story, 13% of high school biology teachers advocate creationism in class.

Yikes!

This is not 13% who wish creationism was taught, but rather 13% who “explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending at least one hour of class time presenting it in a positive light.”

Nowhere else in the world do I have this problem.  Except for small pockets of resistance, large swaths of modern culture bought my lie years ago, and now resign themselves to the “fact of evolution” despite the fact that this implies they are purposeless creatures with no more intrinsic dignity than a rock.

But in America?

America needs to evolve.

%d bloggers like this: