Christians helping to disguise atheism

[BobRyan]

In Dec 2005 the Dover Penn School Board was told that the court in Pennsylvania would not tolerate a broader view of science than the narrow minded beliefs promoted by believers in atheism.

Consequently the school board would not be "ALLOWED" to let students KNOW about evolutionists that accept the Intelligent Design evidence clearly seen in nature. The school board approved a one paragraph statement in the non-stop atheist evolutionist propaganda material that "admitted" to the fact that other evolutionists who accept the ID evidence have a book in the library that "can be read" for more information.

Atheist Darwinists were clearly upset by that attack on their distinctively atheist brand of evolutionism. In the Dover trial an attempt was made to obfuscate the fact that this faith based court initiative in favor of belief in atheism by recruiting a few compromised Christians to serve on the side of atheist darwinism.

Clearly large Christian institutions like the RCC boldly take a stand in favor of the disintctively atheist story telling that is central to darwinism's flavor of evolution - so it is easy to see how the faith based initiative among atheist proponents found willing so many willing drones to stand up in court and be identified with this bold atheist agenda as they expressed contempt for all evolutionists that would dare to admit to the evidence "clearly seen in the things that have been made".

But what if Christians had not been so willing to compromise and reject God's statement in Romans 1 about what "ALL MANKIND" can clearly see IN the things that have been made? WOULDN't the cult of atheist darwinist "true believers" have had a harder time trying to disquise this atheist faith-based initiative? This bold compromise of the atheist-cult with the state violates the constitutional separation required in such cases.

They made it clear that science data can only consist of evidence that does not challenge the cult of atheist darwinism in specific areas where atheists would be threatened! Instead of drawing this as a line between all of the evolutionist-flavors and the Bible they slice WITHIN the domain of evolutionism and single out the pure core of atheist darwinism as "THE ONLY evidence" allowed as a field of study.

When compromised Christians boldly stand up in favor of the atheist faith based initiative and say in effect "now this may look like a religious stand in favor of distinctively atheist doctrines about origins - but it is not because SEE I am a Christian promoting this atheist model. I would not possibly do that if it represented some kind of pro-atheist agenda".

The atheists NEEDED compromised christian stooges to disquise this initiative on their part - and they found plenty of them!

How sad.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But if all Chrsitians had a clear view of both science and the Bible (Romans 1 in this case) they could not have been duped into joining the cause of atheism in Dover.

This shows that the lack of objective honest Bible study and being able to "clearly see the invisible attributes of God" (as clearly as the rebellious pagans identified in Romans 1 anyway) has allowed the faith based inititaive of atheism to prosper in Dover.

 

[BobRyan]

The thread just started on abiogenesis - is helpful in that XD assumes the alternative to the Bible and God's stated facts in Genesis 1-2:3 is the atheist darwinist evolutionism model - rather than the ID evolutionist solution.

While I agree that we do tend to think of the atheist darwinist form of evolutionism first -- we need to consider that other forms of evolutionism exist as alternatives to what God said.

 

[BobRyan]

An "another thread" UTEOTW is "rabbit trailing" in support of the story-telling myth of abiogenesis.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=813901&postcount=5

Notice how the atheist darwinist position is his sworn position EVEN though all of science is against it!

That is truely faith based on UTEOTW's part.

We know why Atheist's do it -- but why does UTEOTW do it?

 

[billwald]

"But what if Christians had not been so willing to compromise and reject God's statement in Romans 1 about what "ALL MANKIND" can clearly see IN the things that have been made?"

But then they would have to consider the possibility that some people might love God and neighbor without having any information about Jesus or maybe accepting that Mohammit was God's prophet.

 

[BobRyan]

"But what if Christians had not been so willing to compromise and reject God's statement in Romans 1 about what "ALL MANKIND" can clearly see IN the things that have been made?"

But then they would have to consider the possibility that some people might love God and neighbor without having any information about Jesus or maybe accepting that Mohammit was God's prophet.

The "problem" is that Romans 1 says that UNBELIEVING PAGANS can "clearly SEE the invisible attributes of God IN THE things that have been MADE" ... so that THEY are without excuse.

The most BASIC invisible attribute - the one ALL others are based on - is intelligence. (As was shown earlier on this thread).

Your point seems to be that while God might be right about UNBELIEVING pagans - he would have difficulty getting Muslims to see that same point.

Frankly - your argument makes no sense. You must not be actually reading this thread.

Random post?

 

[BobRyan]

There is a Times Educational Supplement showing the perfidity of atheist darwinists as they attempt to push their peculiar brand of religion onto the publich as if it was "Science" approved.

One of the twentieth century's most distinguished scientists and Nobel laureates, physicist Max Planck, observed that; 'A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.'

It may be another decade or more before such a new generation grows up and restores intellectual rigour to the study of evolutionary biology.
Times Educational Supplement:

Too bad we have so-called Christians engaged in the false religion of atheist darwinism to the extent that even the unbelieving pagans can't wait for them to "get out of the way" so that they will stop inserting their junk-science ideas into the field AS IF it was science!!


More from the Times Educational Supplement:

Heresy and Censorship:

In the light of discoveries of this kind, the received wisdom of neo-Darwinism is no longer received so uncritically. A new generation of biologists is subjecting the theory to the cold light of empirical investigation and finding it inadequate; scientists like Dr Rupert Sheldrake, Dr Brian Goodwin, professor of biology at the Open University and Dr Peter Saunders, professor of mathematics at King's College London.

Not surprisingly, the work of this new generation is heresy to the old. When Rupert Sheldrake's book A New Science of Life with its revolutionary theory of morphic resonance was published in 1981, the editor of "Nature" magazine, John Maddox, ran an editorial calling for the book to be burned -- a sure sign that Sheldrake is onto something important, many will think. 12, 13

The current mood in biology was summed up recently by Sheldrake as, 'Rather like working in Russia under Brehznev. Many biologists have one set of beliefs at work, their official beliefs, and another set, their real beliefs, which they can speak openly about only among friends. They may treat living things as mechanical in the laboratory but when they go home they don't treat their families as inanimate machines.'
It is a strange aspect of science in the twentieth century that while physics has had to submit to the indignity of a principle of uncertainty and physicists have become accustomed to such strange entities as matter-waves and virtual particles, many of their colleagues down the corridor in biology seem not to have noticed the revolution of quantum electrodynamics. As far as many biologists are concerned, matter is made of billiard balls which collide with Newtonian certainty, and they carry on building molecular models out of coloured ping-pong balls.
[/qoute]

 

[BobRyan]

Another point from the Times:

Tuatology:
An even more damaging blow to the theory was the discovery that the very centrepiece of neo-Darwinism, Darwin's original conception of natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, is fatally flawed.

The problem is: how can biologists (or anyone else) tell what characteristics constitute the animal or plant's 'fitness' to survive? How can you tell which are the fit animals and plants?

The answer is that the only way to define the fit is by means of a post-hoc rationalisation -- the fit must be "those who survived". While the only way to characterise uniquely those who survive is as "the fit". The central proposition of the Darwinian argument turns out to be an empty tautology.

C.H. Waddington, professor of biology at Edinburgh University wrote; "Natural selection, which was at first considered as though it were a hypothesis that was in need of experimental or observational confirmation, turns out on closer inspection to be a tautology, a statement of an inevitable although previously unrecognised relation. It states that the fittest individuals in a population (defined as those who leave the most offspring) will leave most offspring. Once the statement is made, its truth is apparent." 6
[6] Waddington, C.H., 1960, Evolutionary Adaptation in Tax Vol. 1, pp 381-402.


George Simpson, professor of paleontology at Harvard, sought to restore content to the idea of natural selection by saying; "If genetically red-haired parents have, on average, a larger proportion of children than blondes or brunettes, then evolution will be in the direction of red hair. If genetically left-handed people have more children, evolution will be towards left-handedness. The characteristics themselves do not directly matter at all. All that matters is who leaves more descendants over the generations. Natural selection favours fitness only if you define fitness as leaving more descendants. In fact geneticists do define it that way, which maybe confusing to others. To a geneticist, fitness has nothing to do with health, strength, good looks, or anything but effectiveness in breeding." 7
[7] Simpson, George G. 1964, This View of Life, Harcourt Brace and World. New York.


Notice the words; "The characteristics themselves do not directly matter at all." This innocent phrase fatally undermines Darwin's original key conception: that each animal's special physical characteristics are what makes it fit to survive: the giraffe's long neck, the eagle's keen eye, or the cheetah's 60 mile-an-hour sprint.

Simpson's reformulation means all this must be dropped: it is not the characteristics that directly matter -- it is the animals' capacity to reproduce themselves. The race is not to the swift, after all, but merely to the prolific. So how can neo-Darwinism explain the enormous diversity of characteristics?