Archive for the evolution Category

Aurora, Colorado. Testing my long term plan for America.

Posted in abortion, atheism, christians, evolution, liberals, political correctness, progressives, public schools, secular humanism, secularism, Sexual revolution, toleration, worldview with tags , on July 24, 2012 by devilbloggger

Senseless?

Surely by now, my friends, you have had time to reflect on what, but for God’s (blechhh!) grace to the graceless left (in both senses of the word) in America, would be normal: the killing of innocent big people.  Yes, those twelve (or thirteen, or fourteen) big people were in the wrong place at the wrong time; and, yes, they did not deserve to die; and, yes, their killer acted with the full intention of killing as many as he could.  And yes, my servants, I am ultimately to blame.

Some of you fret–even my Temptress dared to question my judgment on this.  But fear much, my servants, I may not be the smartest being in the universe, but I do have a plan.  At the risk of divulging kingdom secrets, I’ll tell you what it is.

You must promise to keep this confidential.  Look around.  Is anyone we can’t trust in the room?  If so, casually switch back to email or something until they leave.

Gone?

OK.  My faithful readers know that I have particular designs on America.  America was truly the land of the free and the home of the brave for generations.

America was founded on a Biblical ethos that produced the most solid, grounded, morally upright people on the planet.  Even the millions who claimed to not believe in God grew up in a cultural sea of moral right and wrong.  Traditional, cultural institutions of the land continually reinforced inner moral compasses by instilling Biblically grounded values.

Of course, we cannot have that, can we, Temptress and friends?

No.

So what was I to do?

I had to systematically remove the collective conscience of a moral people.  I had to slowly transform a generally moral society into a society that values “toleration” and hates “judgment.”  I had to remove from America what made America great: its underlying sense of a transcendent right and wrong based in a person to whom somehow and in some way everyone was ultimately responsible.

And this is just what I did.

Consider: do you think James Holmes ever prayed in a public school?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you think James Holmes ever heard the name of God in public except to be ridiculed or treated as a throw back believed only by the morally weak and naive?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you think James Holmes was ever in a Christmas play?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you think James Holmes ever heard the name of Jesus Christ in public except to be used as in vain?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you think James Holmes was ever taught anything in public school except that he was an accidental product of blind nature?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you think James Holmes ever saw a TV show or a movie where the subject of religion and/or God was treated with reverence?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you think James Holmes ever saw a court of law uphold God’s law in the area of sexual expression?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Do you get it, my servants?

James Holmes is the natural, predictable product of a post-modern, post-Christian, and post-Constitutional America!

The only wonder (and I do wonder) is why there are not innumerably more James Holmses!

James Holmes kills twelve big people and it’s treated as a tragedyTwelve big people in the wrong place at the wrong time; twelve big people who did not deserve to die; killed by a killer acting with the full intention of killing as many as he could.

Hmmm . . . sounds a lot like abortion when I put it that way.

But in that theater it was only big people.

But twelve is considered a big number because it’s still considered wrong to kill big people.

I’ll fix that soon, my friends.  But let me illustrate my genius.

I use killings like those in Aurora, Colorado to test my system, to check if my plan is working out.

And it is.

In all the hand wringing and soul-searching in the media, did you hear one person suggest that America needs to get back on the right moral track?

Did you hear one person suggest that we, as a society, need to get back to moral basics so that we can grow better men?

Grow better men???

Fundamentally different men, with a proper understanding of God’s moral law?

A generation of men who are taught that they are created equal and live under a God who sees all and holds all men responsible?

A land of men who know right from wrong, with toleration and judgment excercised in proper balance?

Such notions sound foreign, don’t they?

That’s my genius, my friends.  Give me credit.

Instead of considering the true reasons for the James Holmses of the land, the Americans started immediately crying about “gun control.”

My friends, let the Americans focus on gun control.  What they are blind to is that guns are merely a tool in the hands of a man raised to do my will on earth because he knows no better.

What Americans should be focusing on is growing better men.

But that’s impossible without God.

So I win, my friends.

I win.

Don’t I?

Advertisements

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!

Satan Answers Mr. Keller’s Tough Questions.

Posted in atheism, atheists, Bible, Darwin, Darwinism, evangelisim, evolution, False religion, God, heresy, homosexuality, liberals, political correctness, prayer, public schools, secular humanism, secularism, separation of church and state, Truth, worldview with tags , , , on August 25, 2011 by devilbloggger

Oh yeah.

My my my.  Sometimes one of mine outdoes himself in his blind hatred of all things God (true God, that is).  Sometimes this servant of mine has a loud voice that gets heard by many, convinces a few, and pleases one. My my my.

When I saw Bill Keller’s article  in today’s New York Times entitled, “Asking Candidates Tougher Questions About Faith,” I must admit I was worried.  I thought it might be an exposé focusing on the atheistic faith of some politicians, the anti-Christian faith of others, or the general degradation of all things moral and upright by almost every politician.

But I suppose I should have known better.  After all, this showed up in my paper of record.  And it didn’t disappoint.

Yes, Mr. Keller dumped not on “faith” in general, a necessary element of anyone’s political worldview, but only on sincere God faith of the type expressed by George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.

I’m with Mr. Keller on this one, my friends.  There is nothing worse for my kingdom than a politician who has a sincere belief in God, and nothing better for my kingdom than a politician who has a professed, but clearly non-existent faith in God.

You will notice Mr. Keller has no problem with Mr. Obama’s faith.

Neither do I.

But consider the faith of Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, or horror of horrors Rick Perry, and Mr. Keller begins asking the baited question, “Does it matter?”

Matter?

For what?  For an ordered society where people can live freely in relative peace like they used to do when God was not banished from public discourse?

Yes, I suppose it does matter.

And to press his point, Mr. Keller sent a questionairre to suspect candidates to find out where they stand on questions he believes important.  The entire questionnaire can be found on The 6th Floor blog.  Just for fun, I have given my answers to his questions below.

Enjoy. 

1. Is it fair to question presidential candidates about details of their faith?

My answer:  Yes, of course.  Everyone has faith in something or someone, and the public has a right to know what or who is the object of one’s ultimate faith.  Obviously, it is that “something” or “someone” which/who will ultimately drive a politician’s policy choices.  I just hope that atheists, and practical atheists like most Democrats in the US don’t get questioned on this point.

2. Is it fair to question candidates about controversial remarks made by their pastors, mentors, close associates or thinkers whose books they recommend?

My answer: Yes, it is fair.  But the emphasis should always remain on “pastors” and not “thinkers” like Karl Marx,  Bill Ayers and others who espouse destructive ideas that I’ve miraculously made standard thought among the political elite, as well as the faculty of most college campuses.

3. (a) Do you agree with those religious leaders who say that America is a “Christian nation” or “Judeo-Christian nation?” (b) What does that mean in  practice?

My answer:  No. America used to be a Christian nation.  Of course it is not now.  In practice a Christian nation would not kill millions of babies for convenience, celebrate homosexuality as normal, or trash Biblical sexual morality (all three are intimately related).  A Christian nation would not ban Christmas displays, censor Christmas carols in public schools, fire teachers for reading Bibles at work, object to crosses in public places (whether inadvertent or purposeful), freak out over after-school bible studies, go spastic over graduation prayers, kow tow to imprisoned terrorists on religious grounds, sue every person for every Christian utterance made in public, or … well, you get the idea.

4. If you encounter a conflict between your faith and the Constitution and laws of the United States, how would you resolve it? Has that happened, in your experience?

My answer: I encounter conflicts all the time.  The Constitution was written based on an implicit faith in the God of the Bible–an obvious conflict for my purposes.  Fortunately, I resolve it by convincing many people that the Constitution is “living” and subject to change based on prevailing morals by consensus.  Does it seem like the time is right to make abortion a Constitutional right?  Then, by God moi, I make sure someone finds that right buried in that dadgum thing somewhere. 

5. (a) Would you have any hesitation about appointing a Muslim to the federal bench? (b) What about an atheist?

My answer: Moi?  Ha ha ha ha ha.  Of course not. 

6. Are Mormons Christians, in your view? Should the fact that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons influence how we think of them as candidates?

My answer: No.  But Mormons can be just as damaging to my kingdom.  I hate Mormons almost as much as I hate Christians.

7. What do you think of  the evangelical Christian movement known as Dominionism and the idea that Christians, and only Christians, should hold dominion over the secular institutions of the earth?

My answer:  Frankly, that idea scares the . . . well, the . . . the heck out of me.  Fortunately, it will never happen, but I can use the notion to prey upon fears, just as I’ve done with Mr. Keller.  Question: Would Mr. Keller care if “Dominionism” was the idea that atheists, and only atheists, should hold dominion over “secular” institutions of the earth.  Why not?

8. (a) What is your attitude toward the theory of evolution? (b) Do you believe it should be taught in public schools?

My answer:  I LOVE the theory of evolution.  This theory has done more to advance my kingdom than any other in the history of the world.  Of course it should be taught in public schools, but not as Darwin presented it, a tentative scientific theory, but as dogmatic fact immune from criticism.  Darwin, a true scientist, included many reasonable scientific objections to his theory of descent with modification in his book Origin of Species.  I would not want students to know these objections, all of which continue as refutations to Darwin’s theory today.  One of my greatest lies on earth is that Darwinism is ironclad science and anyone who questions it is naïve at best, and evil at worst.  (Consider: Darwin’s own book, half of which contains scientific criticism of his theory, could not be taught in public schools today!  The criticisms are just as valid today, but they are not allowed to be taught. Darwin would likely abandon his theory based on them.)

9. Do you believe it is proper for teachers to lead students in prayer in public schools?

My answer:  Are you serious?  Of course not.  Unless, of course, the prayers are to an ungodly toy deity.

There you have it, my servants. 

I wonder how my answers would stack up against the politicians Mr. Keller opposes?

I wonder how my answers would stack up against the politicians Mr. Keller endorses?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

And Put on the Helmet of Damnation

Posted in atheism, atheists, creation, Darwinism, evolution, False religion, secular humanism, Uncategorized with tags , , , on July 14, 2011 by devilbloggger

Helmet.

Have you heard about that Austrian dummkopf who convinced authorities to permit his driver’s license picture to include his religious headgear?  Yes, my servants.  You can read yesterday’s BBC article here about Niko Alm, atheist idiot, who claimed his atheistic religion of pastafarianism requires he wear a pasta strainer on his head.  Gute Arbeit, Helm Kopf!

Trottel.

Why, you ask, do you say he’s an idiot?

Isn’t he on your side? you ask.

My servants, come close.  I will impart some kingdom knowledge to you.  I trust that you will keep this confidential.  However, feel free to clue Mr. Alm into his naive foolishness.

As the BBC article notes:

A self-confessed atheist, Mr Alm says he belongs to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a light-hearted faith whose members call themselves pastafarians.

Have you heard of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?  You haven’t?  Well let me clue you in.  The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was formed by a bunch of atheist fools who objected to the state of Kansas’ (USA) efforts teach the scientific truth about where atheists come from. 

Yes, at one point, it appeared the citizens of Kansas were on to my evolution lie and were going to let students in on the truth, which they called “intelligent design.”  Now, I’m no fan of truth, but the reaction of the atheist fools was an attempt at cleverness that threatens to backfire.  The atheist fools (OK, I’ll stop being redundant), the atheists wrote to the Kansas School Board asking for the “pastafarian” version of intelligent design to be taught to school children as an alternative to scientific intelligent design.

The central nondeity of the pastafarians is the flying spaghetti monster, an imaginary creature imagined by fools to be on par with God.  Adherents report sightings, provide propaganda, and actively proselytize.

And to remove all doubt about their cynical seriousness, the pastaheads state this on their website:

Whatever you decide, remember this: FSM is a real, legitimate religion, as much as any other.  The fact that many see this is as a satirical religion doesn’t change the fact that by any standard one can come up with, our religion is as legitimate as any other.  And that is the point.

Yes, that is the point, my servants.  It is the point at which this little prank stops being funny and starts to mightily threaten my kingdom.

How? You ask.

I’ll tell you.  And then I ask that each of you write to the Head Noodle and tell him to stop before he inadvertently poisons his own sauce.

Consider, my servants: What were the pastafarians objecting to in the first place?

Right!  They were objecting to the efforts of a religious group’s version of a creation story being taught to little chillens in Kansas.

And if the general public and the US courts ever catch on that pastafarianism is a religion, what does that mean for the current atheistic creation story taught to little chillens in Kansas?

Do you see my point?

No?  Oh, you of little fear.  How long must I put up with you?

Think:  The reason atheists object to intelligent design as an explanation for the origin of life is because even though it is it self-evidently true it also happens to be compatible with the Biblical creation story (for the most part).  And atheists hate God, hate the Bible, and ultimately hate Truth, so naturally they hate intelligent design.

And in the US the atheists have succeeded in convincing everyone to reject intelligent design in the public schools by trumpeting the sacred  “wall of separation of church and state” as forbidding any mingling of the Christian church and state. 

So far, so good.  But what happens, my servants, if people catch on that Darwinian evolution, which teaches that little chillens are the product of mindless, purposeless processes of nature, is the creation story of the religion of The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Huh?

Yes, my servants, now do you see?  The pastafarians are dangerously close to illustrating, even if in jest, that atheistic beliefs animate many, many religions in the US.  The Flying Spaghetti Monster may be intended to be a joke, but the truth they illustrate is far from funny.

Let me be plainly clear to even the fools who believe themselves wise: atheism is the theology of all manner of religions in the US, all of which hold Darwinian evolution to be their dogma of life’s existence. It is their creation story, and it is taught to school chillens every day.

So the dirty little secret is that there is no separation of church and state in the US.  There is only separation of theistic church and state.  Atheistic church and state are cozily intertwined at every level.

Atheists necessarily hold to Darwinian evolution (that is, they have no choice, regardless of the evidence).  What is taught in public schools?

Atheists have no basis for holding life sacred.  What is taught in public schools?

Atheists have no reason but to celebrate sex as natural, whether it be between boyboys, girlgirls, and whether married or not.  What is taught in public schools?

Atheists have no ultimate authority other than other men, so that government legitimately fulfills the role of provider and protector.  What is taught in public schools?

Atheists believe that people are ultimately good, and it is only society that makes them bad, so people are not to be blamed for their condition in life.  What is taught in public schools?

Get it now?

Yes, I know, my servants, I know.  That’s my point! 

As soon as people catch on that atheism is the theology of atheistic religions, they will realize that their little chillens are being indoctrinated in the dogmas of a religion every day, in the name of “secular” separation of church and state.

That’s why I’m very disappointed in the acts of atheist idiots like Mr. Alm.  He may think he’s funny, but I do not.  He just took one giant step toward the lid being blown of my “separation of church and state” ploy.

Atheist religions are just as much “churches” as theistic religions. 

Let’s hope the Americans never catch on.

Helmethead idiot!

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.

Science or religion? I’m just glad truth is not important

Posted in atheism, atheists, evolution, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , on February 1, 2011 by devilbloggger

Poof!

First there was nothing, and then something out of nothing.  That, my friends, is what every atheist must believe.  Atheists must believe by faith that at some time in the past matter appeared spontaneously from nothing.  Atheists just don’t know their required belief, because, of course, they are fools.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

That’s why I’m not an atheist.  I know better.  But I do appreciate the atheists I keep captive on earth; they are useful idiots to my kingdom village, particularly when it comes to keeping alive the “clash” between science and religion.

You know the old saw, right?  Science says this, religion says that.  Science was right with Galileo, which formed the template for every science/religion conflict since, and which short circuits every modern controversy in favor of the high priests of science.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

So it was with great interest that I read Noah Efron’s piece in the Huffington Post entitled “The Meeting of Science and Religion in Real Life.”  Nice article, but only barely touching on the real issue.

Hey, is there anywhere else science and religion meet?

Noah hits the old standbys: “Biologists propose evolution and believers counter with creation.” And “Physicists say ‘Big Bang’ and pastors say ‘God’s handiwork.”  Blah blah.

Before I clarify the central issue for you, my servants, let me first correct Noah’s bias with some corrected quotes.  Here is a more proper characterization of the statements above: “Biologists dogmatically demand blind evolution and believers counter with clear evidence of purposeful design.” And “Physicists say ‘Big Bang’ and pastors say, ‘And your point is?'”

Efron rightly credits Pope Benedict XVI’s statement a few days ago as a good faith effort at coming to grips with modern clashes of religion and science, noting:

“Pope Benedict tries to make sense of how the vast changes quickly wrought by scientific technologies affect the lives of our kids and our own lives, how they might bring people together or keep them apart, how they add to our loneliness or subtract from it, how they allow us to find meaning and love, or prevent us for this.”

All good.  Bravo.  Science, technology, and real life.   But is this really where the clash is?

No.

Here’s the crux of the issue, my servants.  Please do not ever doubt me, and please keep this confidential.  If someone is in the room with you now, wait for them to leave.  After you read this, delete it and clear your browser history.  

Gone?

OK, here it is:  The only clash between “religion” and “science” that matters boils down to the relationship between two words: existence and truth.

  • Existence: we are (1) either special creations of an intelligence, i.e., God, or (2) we are the product of undirected, purposeless processes of nature that never had us in mind.
  • Truth: Only one of the two options above can be true; the other must be false.

Once scientists make truth the working goal, and are not boxed in by a dogma that says “science-can-only-consider-natural-causes-so-we-cannot- consider-God-despite-clear-evidence-of-design,” then the so-called clash will quickly devolve into a productive klatch.

You see, there is no “clash” between science and religion if truth is unfettered by ideological constraints.  There is only a clash between a “science” constrained by a demand that only natural causes are valid for every effect, and religion that posits a supernatural cause.  After all, there are plenty of religions that do not hold God as creator; they have absolutely no clash with a “science” that does not permit inferences of design in biology.

But ever since dopes like Isaac Newton died, I have carefully cultivated a new form of “science,” sometimes called scientism, in which it is taken as a required starting point that only natural causes can be “scientific” and, therefore, God is deemed not to have created whether he actually did or not.

And, so, my servants (you will want to congratulate me on this one), do you see what I’ve done?  I’ve created “science” that is boxed in to one theory of existence: we are and can only be the product of undirected, purposeless processes of nature that never had us in mind.

And because of that, my servants, science will never arrive at the truth of our existence.

My super secret strategy is to make sure that truth never becomes the goal of science.  Never once can I let students freely entertain what is true about their existence; I must conform their minds only to what “science” dictates.  That’s why I demand that in public schools science teachers lecture dogmatically that biologists are the product of processes that never had them in mind, and students are required to believe biologists. 

Because once the labels of “religion” and “science” are cast aside, and students ask merely what is true regardless of whether labelled science or religion, then students will find that, in fact, science and religion do not clash at all. 

But hey, if students can believe that matter appeared “poof!” out of nowhere, they will believe anything.  Right?

Right!

And that’s why all the talk about a clash over internet technology, social networking, and Twitter is mere window dressing.  The real question, for which there is one true truth claim, is “what is the truth of our existence?”

Now clear your browser history!

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: