Archive for evolution

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

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.

Evolution debate un-naturally selected to die in Louisiana

Posted in atheists, creation, Darwin, evolution with tags , , , on December 8, 2010 by devilbloggger

Do you know what the opposite of a creationist is? 

The opposite of a creationist is a materialist–that is, one who believes that matter is all that exists and all of the universe’s design is merely apparent design that has occurred through the random forces of physics and chemistry. If one believes there is any intelligence, any mind, any overarching plan to life, then that person is a creationist.  What else could he or she be? 

Do you know where you find materialists?

Only on earth.

Because everyone in Heaven and Hell is a creationist.  Including me.  What else could I be?

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Yes, my servants, it is an amazing thing to witness staunch atheists become cringing creationists one millisecond after they permanently leave the life of free will and enter my eternal kingdom of irredeemable theists.

Ha ha ha ha ha.  I love it.  To see the look of surprise on their faces!  And then shock!  And then anger as they realize that they have been duped by me–deceived their entire lives to believe they were not knitted together in their mother’s womb by a creator who numbered every hair on their little pinheads.  And then the gnashing of regret as they realize they can do not one whit about it now. 

Or ever.

Ha ha ha ha ha.  My kingdom is full of creationists lost forever in an abyss created by the selfsame creator for me.

And you should hear the begging to go back to tell their families, so they need not end up in this place of torment.  Oh! it makes me want to cry! 

NOT!

You see, I know that if people do not believe in creation based on the evidence of design on earth, they will not believe even if someone rises from the dead to tell them. 

In fact, someone did rise from the dead to tell them.  See what I mean?

That’s why, my servants, I welcomed the good news today out of Louisiana, United States, telling of another public school district shutting their eyes and ears to the clear evidence of design, and mandating that all their little chillins learn only that science has proven they are the product of mindless, purposeless forces of nature that never had them in mind.  (If you don’t believe you are the product of mindless, purposeless forces, you are a creationist.  Why do you let your children be lied to? Ha ha ha ha ha.)

In a FoxNews article today entitled, “Louisiana Moves to Block Creationism Debate From Inclusion in Biology Textbook,” I find my servants on earth rejected calls by conservatives to include references to the debate over evolution and the religious-based concepts of intelligent design or creationism in state-approved biology textbooks.

Yes, my servants, the little occurrences of blind nature, products of random chemistry and physics, are not even allowed to debate the weaknesses of evolution.

I won again.

You see, my servants, I not only have convinced an entire generation of Smart People that evolution is true despite the evidence, I’ve convinced all the rest of the people that Smart People are not to be questioned and their beliefs not to be debated.  And Smart People say that “science” cannot discover truth, if truth looks like religion. 

Of course they are partly right.  If truth looks like atheism, the science of Smart People has a chance.  But if truth looks like a supernatural creator God, then science as practiced by Smart People cannot discover truth.  It is impossible.

But the good news is that everyone discovers truth nevertheless.  It’s just a matter of when.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Oh look, here comes a Smart Person now!

%d bloggers like this: