Faith Statements of Evolutionism
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Evolutionists and atheists make statements of faith as if they were secular holy writ. Their fans adore this, and some people can be intimidated when such statements are made with confidence and authority. This is often mixed with pseudo-intellectual philosophical jargon. However, when people know the truth of what is being said, there is no cause to give heed to such assertions.
Have you noticed that people tend to pay attention when someone speaks with confidence and authority? Imagine this: A crisis situation, and someone who is not in uniform takes charge of the situation. Even though that person is a stranger to everyone else, they often follow instructions. Of course, if someone toting a badge shows up, that's the one most likely to be obeyed.
People who are popular and make strong statements get attention and often get adoration. (Why people care about the opinions of musicians and movie stars, I have no idea. But since they're popular, that gives influence. Basketball player Michael Jordan seems like a nice guy and I liked him in Space Jam, but I'm not interested in his Democrat political views.) Add to the peyote-like delirium the pronouncements of someone in a lab coat, whether a real scientist or someone who plays one on television, they get extra credibility — even if it's unearned.
When Bill Nye the Evolution Propaganda Guy gives opinions about the Patriots' football fiasco, global warming, or uses logical fallacies and sneaky rhetoric in the debate with Ken Ham, his fans are thrilled and accept his "authority". Similarly, Clinton Richard Dawkins, an embarrassment to thinking atheists, gets wealthy writing books and giving speaking engagements, and makes vituperative comments about Christians and creationists. Atheists like this sound like they know what they're talking about, but in actuality, they engage in sophistry.
Atheists and evolutionists use both confident assertion and popularity to their advantage. Unfortunately, there are Christians who follow the unbiblical wimpy Jesus, and also haven't bothered to learn what and why they believe, so when an assertive unbeliever makes declarations, they light a shuck out of there. Fortunately, there are some knowledgeable Christians who stand up to the bullies, which causes a bit of confusion (and often, considerable anger) in the bullies.
When flaws in evolution are pointed out, or when when one of their heroes is shown to have spoken foolishly, their devotees circle the wagons to protect their own, and then go on the attack against Christians and creationists. This image of Dawkins drew both wrath and discussion, and some atheopaths received the left foot of fellowship. When Ray Comfort made Evolution vs God, he was swarmed with attacks by evolutionists and atheists, but they were unable to come up with anything factual against it. Similarly, Ben Stein's intelligent design movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed also drew a great deal of ire. In fact, the evolution propaganda mill called the National Center for Science Education did a hit piece on it, which in turn received a reasoned response.
Many statements are given as axioms, but only have the appearance of truth. These are statements of faith. When composing this article, a comment at The Question Evolution Project dropped in:
The flat Earth thing he is citing is a lie that was started to bash Christians!
Similarly, we receive comments like, "You talk about religion, but we have science!" That is fallacious in many ways, including the implicit falsehood that "religious" people don't use science. Problem is, "science" is a system of examining the natural and physical world through experimentation, observation, and so on. Science is subject to the worldviews of the scientists who are doing the science itself. For that matter, scientists have been wrong in the past, are wrong about evolution now, and will be wrong in the future.
A more interesting comment runs along the lines of, "You creationists agree that microevolution exists. If there is a little evolution, then there is a lot. Macroevolution is just a lot of small changes adding up into large ones", he sniffed in disdain. It sounds impressive, but is completely false and demonstrates his lack of knowledge of not only his own false science, but uses the assumption that "a little evolution leads to a lot". This has not been demonstrated scientifically, and has been contradicted. It also includes the assumptions that all mutations and other changes are positive, but the opposite has been shown to be the case. Variations exist within limits, but nothing changes into something entirely new. By the way, although both evolutionists and creationists use the terms macro and micro evolution, there are biblical creationists who advise against using microevolution because of the assumption made above; no new information is added to an organism, which is what scum-to-skeptic evolution requires. Ironically, we often have to correct evolutionists on their own belief system.
Another noteworthy remark from Dawkins:
The old Dobzhansky saying, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", is often chanted as a mantra. (Maybe Darwinoids throw this at creationists because Dobzhansky was a theistic evolutionist, but I'm speculating on that.) Assertive, philosophical sounding — and dead wrong.
Claims in documentaries and by typical Darwin supporters similar to, "The creature evolved this ability ages ago..." How do you know that? Were you there? Such a remark is just another faith-based statement, with nothing to support it and having nothing to do with actual science.
These people may as well be saying, "There is no true religion but Evolutionism, and Darwin is its prophet".
Assertions and contradictions are not refutation, even when they're presented by popular or respected people. Nice phrases are just nice phrases, and when someone makes a challenging statement, they need to support it. There's no reason to be intimidated by them, because the truth is shown to be on our side.
For people who want to do some serious digging, I have some recommendations for your edification. First, this article by Carl Wieland,"The evolution train’s a-comin’(Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction)". Next, "Evolution's Evangelists". Now comes the time-consuming part. Sorry that these videos are each an hour long, but they're worth your time. Dr. David Menton's "Where is Evolution Going?" Then...
Dr. James White shows that facts are not a problem, it's when someone tweaks the facts and interprets them from a faulty worldview, such as Bart Ehrman. The emphasis is on how biblical scholar James Brownson is be wrong on the issue of homosexuality. Note that you can watch the videos on the site, go to YouTube for them, listen to the audio on the site, or download the MP3s. First, "Demythologizing Scholarship: James Brownson Examined", followed by "The Moral Insanity Grows Worse — Continuation of Review of James Brownson" (continues at the 26 minutes mark, to be concluded and all part consolidated later). Because of the icreasing loss of speech and religious freedoms, Dr. White encourages downloading of this material.
I sincerely hope that people will find time to get into the two articles and three videos. Yes, I'm asking a lot, but it's important to learn how to think, and not just accept what you're told to think. In fact, this article became more important to me as I was writing it over a period of three days; it was supposed to be a short bit!
Evolutionists and atheists make statements of faith as if they were secular holy writ. Their fans adore this, and some people can be intimidated when such statements are made with confidence and authority. This is often mixed with pseudo-intellectual philosophical jargon. However, when people know the truth of what is being said, there is no cause to give heed to such assertions.
 |
| Actual quote from Clinton Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, page 1 |
Have you noticed that people tend to pay attention when someone speaks with confidence and authority? Imagine this: A crisis situation, and someone who is not in uniform takes charge of the situation. Even though that person is a stranger to everyone else, they often follow instructions. Of course, if someone toting a badge shows up, that's the one most likely to be obeyed.
People who are popular and make strong statements get attention and often get adoration. (Why people care about the opinions of musicians and movie stars, I have no idea. But since they're popular, that gives influence. Basketball player Michael Jordan seems like a nice guy and I liked him in Space Jam, but I'm not interested in his Democrat political views.) Add to the peyote-like delirium the pronouncements of someone in a lab coat, whether a real scientist or someone who plays one on television, they get extra credibility — even if it's unearned.
When Bill Nye the Evolution Propaganda Guy gives opinions about the Patriots' football fiasco, global warming, or uses logical fallacies and sneaky rhetoric in the debate with Ken Ham, his fans are thrilled and accept his "authority". Similarly, Clinton Richard Dawkins, an embarrassment to thinking atheists, gets wealthy writing books and giving speaking engagements, and makes vituperative comments about Christians and creationists. Atheists like this sound like they know what they're talking about, but in actuality, they engage in sophistry.
Atheists and evolutionists use both confident assertion and popularity to their advantage. Unfortunately, there are Christians who follow the unbiblical wimpy Jesus, and also haven't bothered to learn what and why they believe, so when an assertive unbeliever makes declarations, they light a shuck out of there. Fortunately, there are some knowledgeable Christians who stand up to the bullies, which causes a bit of confusion (and often, considerable anger) in the bullies.
When flaws in evolution are pointed out, or when when one of their heroes is shown to have spoken foolishly, their devotees circle the wagons to protect their own, and then go on the attack against Christians and creationists. This image of Dawkins drew both wrath and discussion, and some atheopaths received the left foot of fellowship. When Ray Comfort made Evolution vs God, he was swarmed with attacks by evolutionists and atheists, but they were unable to come up with anything factual against it. Similarly, Ben Stein's intelligent design movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed also drew a great deal of ire. In fact, the evolution propaganda mill called the National Center for Science Education did a hit piece on it, which in turn received a reasoned response.
Many statements are given as axioms, but only have the appearance of truth. These are statements of faith. When composing this article, a comment at The Question Evolution Project dropped in:
"The [Genesis Flood] can easily be demonstrated to not have happened. So forget whatever little corner thing you think you can explain better (spoilers: you can’t) with [G]enesis, because the [F]lood didn’t happened. End of story?"Not hardly! That is just an assertion, and all that he offered, and easily dismissed. A few days later, he returned with this bit of bigoted prejudicial conjecture:
 |
| Used under provisions of Fair Use for instructional purposes |
The flat Earth thing he is citing is a lie that was started to bash Christians!
Similarly, we receive comments like, "You talk about religion, but we have science!" That is fallacious in many ways, including the implicit falsehood that "religious" people don't use science. Problem is, "science" is a system of examining the natural and physical world through experimentation, observation, and so on. Science is subject to the worldviews of the scientists who are doing the science itself. For that matter, scientists have been wrong in the past, are wrong about evolution now, and will be wrong in the future.
A more interesting comment runs along the lines of, "You creationists agree that microevolution exists. If there is a little evolution, then there is a lot. Macroevolution is just a lot of small changes adding up into large ones", he sniffed in disdain. It sounds impressive, but is completely false and demonstrates his lack of knowledge of not only his own false science, but uses the assumption that "a little evolution leads to a lot". This has not been demonstrated scientifically, and has been contradicted. It also includes the assumptions that all mutations and other changes are positive, but the opposite has been shown to be the case. Variations exist within limits, but nothing changes into something entirely new. By the way, although both evolutionists and creationists use the terms macro and micro evolution, there are biblical creationists who advise against using microevolution because of the assumption made above; no new information is added to an organism, which is what scum-to-skeptic evolution requires. Ironically, we often have to correct evolutionists on their own belief system.
Another noteworthy remark from Dawkins:
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)", (Dawkins, R. April 9, 1989. Book Review of Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey's Blueprint. The New York Times, Section 7, 34.)Most people know that Dawkins is loaded with anti-Christian, anti-God, anti-Christ, anti-creationist remarks that clearly show his bigotry. God has something to say about that (Psalm 14:1, Isaiah 55:8-9, 1 Cor. 1:20).
The old Dobzhansky saying, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", is often chanted as a mantra. (Maybe Darwinoids throw this at creationists because Dobzhansky was a theistic evolutionist, but I'm speculating on that.) Assertive, philosophical sounding — and dead wrong.
Claims in documentaries and by typical Darwin supporters similar to, "The creature evolved this ability ages ago..." How do you know that? Were you there? Such a remark is just another faith-based statement, with nothing to support it and having nothing to do with actual science.
These people may as well be saying, "There is no true religion but Evolutionism, and Darwin is its prophet".
On a bit of a side note, sometimes religious-minded people will appeal to a pastor's or priest's authority. However, liberal preachers and Roman Catholics do not cotton to what the Bible says, so they resort to using their own opinions and traditions; even noted theologians can get things wrong when they don't do their homework. I had an experience where I gave a small presentation in a group at the United Methodist Church I was attending about why we can trust the Bible. My liberal pastor father made some remarks about why we can not trust it, and that destroyed all my efforts because he's the pastor, don'tcha know. (His claims had been debunked by scholarship decades before!) There are also conservative pastors who deny Genesis (and therefore undermine the authority of the New Testament, which refers to Genesis as literal history), and again, people trust the authority figure instead of relying on the Word of God.
Assertions and contradictions are not refutation, even when they're presented by popular or respected people. Nice phrases are just nice phrases, and when someone makes a challenging statement, they need to support it. There's no reason to be intimidated by them, because the truth is shown to be on our side.
For people who want to do some serious digging, I have some recommendations for your edification. First, this article by Carl Wieland,"The evolution train’s a-comin’(Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction)". Next, "Evolution's Evangelists". Now comes the time-consuming part. Sorry that these videos are each an hour long, but they're worth your time. Dr. David Menton's "Where is Evolution Going?" Then...
Dr. James White shows that facts are not a problem, it's when someone tweaks the facts and interprets them from a faulty worldview, such as Bart Ehrman. The emphasis is on how biblical scholar James Brownson is be wrong on the issue of homosexuality. Note that you can watch the videos on the site, go to YouTube for them, listen to the audio on the site, or download the MP3s. First, "Demythologizing Scholarship: James Brownson Examined", followed by "The Moral Insanity Grows Worse — Continuation of Review of James Brownson" (continues at the 26 minutes mark, to be concluded and all part consolidated later). Because of the icreasing loss of speech and religious freedoms, Dr. White encourages downloading of this material.
I sincerely hope that people will find time to get into the two articles and three videos. Yes, I'm asking a lot, but it's important to learn how to think, and not just accept what you're told to think. In fact, this article became more important to me as I was writing it over a period of three days; it was supposed to be a short bit!