The faith of an atheist

How Atheistic Is Darwinism?

Quotes and comments;

1. 'Many evolutionary biologists argue that the theory of evolution is religiously neutral. Why then, does Nature, arguably the most widely read pro-evolution journal in the world, seem to go out of its way to glorify atheism and present religion as an evolutionary artifact? Clearly, whatever evolved as an adaptation by an unguided process cannot have any claim to Truth or correspondence to reality. Faith is contrasted with science, the closest thing man can ever come to knowledge of what is really out there. It goes without saying that this assumption leads to a completely atheistic view of the universe. Consider the latest issue:

2. 'Rapprochement or human sacrifice? In an Editorial in the July 12 issue,1 Nature praised theistic evolutionist Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project for “reaching out, from an exalted position in the world of science, to the realm of faith” in his new book, The Language of God (Free Press, 2006). While calling his overture a “laudable ambition,” the editors also expressed anti-religious sentiments when criticizing the moral positions of religious leaders who oppose presumably scientific positions about stem cells and condom use:

- there is nothing scientific about stem cells; there is nothing scientific in being in favor of using them; there is nothing scientific about not wanting to use them. One wonders why people can't see this. The fact a scientist takes a position on it has nothing to do with making that position 'scientific.' This is a joke.

3. "They ['religious' leaders] also irritate or enrage those (probably comparable in number) who are agnostics and atheists. After all, to many people, including scientists, the world simply makes more sense without the existence of God, and religious interventions are either offensive or irrelevant."

- one gets tired of these silly word games. These intellectual children never stop to define 'religion' for us; and play the game of pretending secular, e. humanism isn't a religion. (The word religion is obsolete, and needs to be replaced with world view.)
- makes sense? makes sense? is that a scientific theory of some kind... pray tell us all about it.
- apparently they can't imagine that christians are offended by atheism, and the things atheists do. (Like tearing down churches, like turning churches into museums for atheism, like endless disparagement, like banning churches by zoning bylaws, like forcing down steeples and stopping church bells, and on and on...

4. "In response, some scientists are tempted either to publicly dismiss religious belief, or else to argue stridently against it. The latter approach is valuable in that it exposes religious dogmas to rational consideration and leads to their abandonment where they conflict with reality.''

- that's real pc precious that is. Apparently we're supposed to believe the secular elite don't hold dogmatic positions. Yeah right.
- reality? now what's that boys? Is that a 'scientific' concept? Tell me what reality is... and how you know it. Prove that such a thing as reality exists, and how you know it.
- one gets tired of the idiot claim christians aren't rational. (And who is speaking anyway? some mindless bag of chemicals? some mindless gene carrier? who? what? and how do chemicals know what is or is not rational?)

5. 'The editorial also pointed out Collins’ book was “unsparing in its criticism of both creationism and intelligent design,” but then was not impressed by his case for a Creator of any kind: “Even so, his reasons for believing in God and for becoming a devout Christian are unlikely to sway anyone who doesn’t already believe.”

- now boys, you aren't being nice to Francis. Here he went out of his way to dump on creationists and ID people and you smack him for it. That's being ungrateful.

6. Erika Check reported on Collins’ book in the same issue.2 Her opening lines were not particularly friendly to religion:
"Is it really possible to combine dedication to science with belief in God? In a new book, prominent US scientist Francis Collins sets out his case for combining a strong religious faith with a zeal for the scientific method. But his views have already sparked debate, with critics suggesting that more talk of religion is the last thing that science needs."

- apparently debate is an evil of some kind :=)
- I know you're trying desperately to be sophisticated Erika but you apparently don't realize personification is a logical fallacy. Science isn't a person, and it therefore has no needs. Science is a word. Okay? Got it?

7. "Many scientists disagree strongly with such arguments. Some suggest that science is on the defensive today – not just in the United States – and that society needs exactly the opposite of what Collins suggests: less talk about faith and more about reason."

- dear Erika, you haven't thought very deeply about issues philosophical have you? All human beings operate in terms of faith, even those really, really clever people called scientists. (And even yourself Erika.)
- in this single issue of your lovely magazine people have spoken as if truth exists, as if rationality exists, as if we know whether things make sense or not, as if a thing called reason exists, as if reality exists, as if people knew what was right or wrong in terms of stem cell use, as if moral truth existed, that it's possible for a person to know what society needs (is anyone really that smart Erika? even you? and isn't society an abstraction anyway?) and so on. It takes faith to believe these things Erika. They can't be proved Erika.

8. "Religious concerns are largely behind the US law restricting federal funding of stem-cell research, for example. And many feel threatened by the influence of intelligent design in science education.''

- you seem to know what religion is Erika. (And I presume what it is not.) Maybe you'd like to define it for us, and then tell us why the definition you favor (out of the many dozens, if not hundreds) should be taken as valid.
- tell us what a 'religious concern' is Erika. We'd like to know. (And we'd like to know How you know this.)
- do you or don't you believe in a democratic society Erika?
- we all feel threatened Erika.

Summary;
The atheist requires a great deal of faith to be able to believe the materialistic account of the universe.
a. He or she has to believe the universe somehow popped into existence on its own... gave birth to itself... somehow. As far as I'm concerned this is impossible, and makes no sense.
b. the atheist has to believe that living forms somehow 'emerged' from inert chemicals. Again, I find this impossible... but the atheist has to find the faith to believe this incredible story. (Unless they just accept this idea and others as if they were some kind of cultural furniture.)
c. the atheist has to believe that the first two miracles happened, then he has to believe living organisms somehow climbed a ladder of biological sophistication.... a ladder of information.... a ladder with no rungs... Somehow the necessary information 'emerges' out of the void to make this possible.
d. the atheist has to believe intelligence came from non-intelligence.
e. the atheist has to believe personality emerged from the non-personal.
f. these are just a few of the impossibilities the atheist has to hold by faith. None of these can be proven... they are faith claims.

Notes;
1. source; http://creationsafaris.com/crev200607.htm#20060712a
07/12/2006
2. Erika Check, “Genomics luminary weighs in on US faith debate,” Nature 442, 114-115(13 July 2006) | doi:10.1038/442114b; Published online 12 July 2006.