The evolution of Creationism, and other darwinian fables

As Darwinism continues to expand into more areas of culture and society, the ideas get ever more absurd, and the explanations ever more dubious.

Quotes and comments

A. 'If you are a creationist, you can’t help yourself, because evolution made you that way. It might have also made you moral and religious, especially if you are a woman. These and other evolutionary stories are making the rounds.

Evo-creationism: New Scientist says humans may be primed to believe in creation. Studies show that humans tend to see purpose in things. That can only mean they evolved that tendency, said some psychologists at Boston University. A good education can help cure them of this and show them that the world is really without purpose or design.' [1.]

- This makes no sense to me. On what basis should we be 'cured' of what the evolutionary process instills in us? Maybe these gurus of scientism could tell us this. What standard are they using for this diagnosis? (i.e. this diagnosis of the 'sick' populace.) If all is evolution they can only be using a standard that evolved. Why then should we accept one thing evolution has given us and not another? and on what basis?

Instead of curing creationism (a soviet sounding idea) why shouldn't we cure people of the evolved tendency to criticize theism? Why should we 'cure' anyone at all? Isn't the idea of 'disease' just an evolved concept? By what standard do we judge worldviews? By some evolved standard? If all is evolution there can be no right or wrong, so how do we judge anything? (Other than by hypocritical bias of course.)

- If creationism evolved well then obviously evolutionism evolved; and so maybe the gurus can tell us how natural selection managed to do both at the same time. Is mother nature schizophrenic?

- Despite continual attempts to confuse the issue, only biblical theology teaches creation by an all wise, all good, personal creator. This alone shows how fallacious this 'idea' is.

- I guess if a belief in creation is an evolved tendency animals must have it (to some extent) as well. They then need to tell us how animals evolved their creationist tendencies. (If animals have it, then plants must have it, etc.)

- I wonder if these people imagine there's any purpose in what they do? I wonder if they imagine there's any purpose in their so called study?

- If the world is without purpose so is this study, and so is everything.

- How do these gurus know there is no purpose in the world? Is this a conclusion of their evolved thinking? If it is, this statement cant be true or false.

- They say there's no design in the universe. How do they know this? Did some evolved chemicals in their brain tell them this? (Weren't their studies designed?) This is a mere claim, it's not a fact. (Perhaps their evolved chemicals have deceived them into believing there's no design; and their selfish genes have presented them with what they want to see; namely a materialistic universe.) People who play this game don't seem to understand that their claims can be used against them.

- Clearly there's design in the universe. We live in the middle of an ocean of things designed by human beings. The question isn't whether there is design, but whether or not there is extra-human design. (Materialists have to explain how atoms or particles can engage in intelligent, purposeful design; and I've seen no creditable account of this.)

- Evolutionists are making sillier claims all the time, as they push the theory into ever more areas. What's next? the evolution of anti-creationism? the evolution of creation apologetics? the evolution of anti- anti-creationism? the evolution of punctuated equilibrium theory? the evolution of the hopeful monster theory of evolution? the evolution of atheist apologetics? the evolution of an anti-creationist judiciary? the evolution of an anti-creationist, cultural snobbery? (One wonders where the humorists are, as we've long since passed into the land of the absurd, with all these endless attempts to explain all of life in terms of Charles Darwin's beard.)

- Never in the history of science has a theory become so bloated and overextended. A simple observation of nature has been turned into a major worldview. [2.] Natural selection has gone from an accurate observation of how 'nature' weeds out certain individuals within a group, to a fallacious, and semi-mystical theory that pretends to account for all aspects of human and non-human existence.

Summary; Evolutionary theory can't account for 'creationism' anymore than it can account for the color of my socks.

Notes;
1. The Evolution of Creationism and Other Intangibles: Creation/Evolution Headlines 03/06/2009
2. Natural selection was written about by men like Edward Blyth long before Darwin appropriated the idea and pretended it was his own. The Darwinists still pretend this was Darwin's idea; despite all the talk we hear about science being self-correcting. (Apparently the Darwin myth trumps all.)