Evolutionism is at root an ideological justification for atheism. —E. Michael Jones in Logos Rising

The theory of evolution by natural selection to explain the creation of new species is Satan’s most elegant and effective lie. No other scientific theory has done more in killing God and faith. When I first encountered the theory in high school, I accepted it without hesitation and quickly concluded that there must be no God, which removed any spiritual restraint for me to commit innumerable evils as an adult. All truth comes from God, and since evolution is a lie, any Christian who believes in it is most likely in a state of deception.

Let me first state that something resembling evolution does occur within species. Different environmental conditions, which can include variability in weather or food supply, can alter the physical characteristics of an animal over the long term (microevolution). Birds living on one side of the forest may have a different beak size or mating call than birds of the same species on the other side. Human beings living on one continent may have different mental and athletic abilities than humans on another. The lie is that these changes, over the course of millions or billions of years, can lead to the creation of new species that then cannot reproduce with the previous species it evolved from (macroevolution).

Intuitively, you would think that given an unlimited amount of time, it has to be the case that new species can come about, but in fact this does not occur and has never occurred. Humans have artificially bred dogs since the beginning of humanity to create innumerable breeds, some small enough to fit inside a woman’s purse and others large enough for children to mount like a horse, but they are still the same “dog” species that can mate with another through natural mating or artificial insemination. We can selectively breed dogs for a billion years and they will still be dogs. (From this point on, when I refer to “evolution,” I’m referring to macroevolution, the theory that attempts to explain the creation of new life and species.)

Evolution is absurd on its face. To think that a “random mutation” can be introduced into a working and functioning system to create the beginning of an intermediary transition stage that could then—through countless more mutations still within the same stage of intermediation—lead to a finished and enhanced protein, organ, or system, on top of the hundreds, thousands, or millions of other concurrently active intermediary stages within the same species, requires so much faith that it would be a simpler matter to believe in the Bible.

Let’s ignore for a moment the claim that life was created from absolutely nothing, for no reason, and without cause, in a primordial soup that the expert scientists of today simply cannot reproduce to a minute degree with all their expertise and equipment. Functioning organisms were existing, surviving on Earth, and then through an accidental miracle, a random mutational change happened which enhanced their ability to survive. By simple analogy, this is like me grabbing a heavy sledgehammer, opening the hood of my car, throwing in pieces of scrap metal, wiring, and plastic, and giving the engine one big whack with all of my strength. If I attempt this whack a trillion times on a trillion different cars, the scientists would say that one of my “mutations” will begin an intermediary stage that, with many more miraculous changes from many more whacks, will have a positive effect which increases the value and performance of my car compared to other cars that did not receive the blows, but the car is already a completed, functioning system. All mutations that are the beginning of an intermediary stage of eventual enhanced function will always, without fail, cause a decrease in performance and survivability by either breaking something or increasing the usage of energy for a non-functioning potential advancement that won’t work until further mutations over an extended period of time finally complete the evolutionary stage to arrive at the end design.

To explain life, scientists say, “It is through a series [i.e. millions] of beneficial mutations that a new protein is developed.” In other words, a lot of miraculous whacks in the same car will make its performance better compared to the ones that didn’t experience the whacks. You can give me trillions of cars, and randomly assort the whacks to hit different parts of the car, but not a single car will be improved with multiple whacks from the sledgehammer, which is what a mutation does when performed on a system that already works. And yet that’s what scientists want you to believe happened in order for you to have transformed from stardust into the exceedingly complex conscious being you are now—simply a series of death blows that stem from random chance. It’s clear from this analogy that the evolutionists do have faith: faith in creation over a long period of time through an infinite number of miracles that they call beneficial mutations, even though the benefit is not realized until more random mutations, all in the correct direction, make it so. This is supposed to be more plausible than what I believe—faith in creation during a short period of time through a loving and all-powerful God?

My field of study in university was microbiology, which included a year of biochemistry courses. I studied a class of proteins called enzymes that catalyze reactions in our bodies. These proteins are exceedingly sophisticated, created from long chains of genetic material that have to be constructed just so to interact with specific substrates whose concentrations and biological activity are controlled by other enzymes. Just one enzyme is so complex that you can give a computer simulator unlimited time and not even one of these proteins will ever be created through an evolutionary process that scientists insist on. Why should it? There’s no reason for a spontaneous assembly of such specific complexity.

Consider that we have tens of thousands of proteins in our body (scientists don’t know the exact number), all working together in a majestic symphony, and you will begin to see the absurdity of the evolutionary lie that we are expected to believe. And that is only describing the proteins—we still have to account for the multitude of cells comprising different organs, the organelles within our cells, the nature of DNA replication, cellular signaling via organic chemicals and electrical impulses, immune system response, cellular regeneration, fetal development, and on and on through every square inch of our bodies until we reach the big question mark that a study of these individual systems cannot explain: consciousness. To say that all of this—and I have only begun to scratch the surface of how impossibly complicated the human body is on a level that simply does not compare to a modern car which is complicated in its own right—came to life through solely an evolutionary process that the universe possesses for its own random reason, and yet of which there is no actual evidence of this claim, requires—if I may be frank—an insane mind that fits like a glove with the spirit of these times, one that is fast approaching a point where most human beings on this earth will perform the grossest of evils in the name of being a “good person” who is on the “right side of history” thanks to being “evolved.”

The atheists would counter by saying I believe in a “magic man in the sky” or “fairy tales,” but I argue that their fairy tale is even more improbable and based on less evidence than the existence of God. Consider that “all the evidence for human evolution, all the skulls could be put into a single small coffin” (Teilhard de Chardin). The entirety of the secular world view, which leads to a lifestyle of secularism, self-worship, idolatry, abortions, sodomy, and Drag Queen Story Time, is a fantastical construction based on only a few bones collected over the decades by scientists who desperately sought prestige and recognition from the world for possessing a genius mind who could piece together the meaning of the universe without God.

Who is the greater fool—the man who puts his faith in Jesus Christ, the Godman who lived on Earth in the flesh and performed miracles and other signs with authority to a multitude that then proceeded to re-orient their lives through the gift of grace to serve Him unto death despite horrible persecutions, or the man who puts his faith in a box of dead bones, looking upon their marks and etchings like a medium looks upon your palm? Even carbon dating, which is supposed to be a gold standard of examining those bones, is a dubious science on par with astrology, and that’s an insult to astrology.

For you to doubt evolution and even carbon dating means that you will also have to doubt the normalized and widely accepted scientific story for how and why the universe was created. What will you then depend on to explain the world? The Orthodox Church, which is scripture interpreted and realized. Observable and measurable science can certainly be true, especially when it concerns mathematics, chemistry, and physical sciences, but as you begin to wade into archaeology, anthropology, biology, medicine, and certainly the social sciences, which is not science at all but was grafted with the term because of how effective its “truths” were at controlling the population, you should discard anything which has the effect of reducing your faith or trust in God, because if an idea is capable of doing such a thing, the end result being the eternal condemnation of your soul, you must conclude that it originated from those who are in communion with Satan. God wants all to be saved, and would not enlighten the world with the “fact” of evolution if it so effectively and consistently does the opposite. The fruits of evolution are atheism, nihilism, and the condemnation of millions of souls. Therefore it cannot possibly be of God, and if it is not of God, it is not true.

The scientists of this age have replaced a God who loves you with a god who doesn’t—the god of natural selection and random chance. This false god is one whose guiding hand brings order to disorder, meaning to the empty vacuum, and intelligence to the black void of hydrogen and carbon. The god of natural selection lacks consciousness but must act consciously to create, improve, and enlighten. How could the unconscious create consciousness? Perhaps the more important question: whence did natural selection arise? How did it become the driving law or force of the universe since it was conceived from nothing, another impossibility of physics, for that which is created must be created from something, not nothing.

Since evolution and continual improvement denote intelligence, and intelligence denotes consciousness, it’s clear that evolutionists are still relying on a god-like explanation for the universe. Instead of a living god, they choose a dead one, a watchmaker who they don’t admit exists but which must be the source of the principle reality from which all evolutionary theories hold true. You don’t have to hold your breath waiting for an answer from evolutionists when you ask them why natural selection?—they simply don’t know. They don’t know why the most important justification for the explanation of their existence exists and from where it originated, but they have admirable faith that it is the cause and driver of all.

I’ve given only a brief summary of why evolution is a lie. I could labor to turn this article into a book, but thankfully another man smarter than I has done that: David Stove wrote Darwinian Fairytales to poke huge holes in a supposed infallible theory that is anything but settled science. When a Christian comes to the realization that evolution is a lie, he need not much convincing that it is a lie from Satan, the father of lies. What other argument do you need to know that believing in a lie is incompatible with Christianity? If your faith is based on believing in tempting lies that allow you to feed your passions and fit into a secular world then your problem is not with evolution but your desire to go against God’s commandments due to a lack of faith. You don’t believe God has given you—through his Church and Bible—the most essential truths so that you can pick up and carry your cross to live a life that leads to salvation, and so you’ve put him aside to be willingly deceived by the world.

Christians who believe in evolution are lukewarm Christians, and this makes a questionable assumption that the evolutionist still believes in God—most of them completely lose the little faith they had after representatives of the secular world in public schools and universities jammed into their brains the myth of evolution and the false god of natural selection, the unconscious guiding force that has a preference for advanced consciousness for no reason at all. Such a deceived individual no longer believes that God made them from dust in His image and likeness. They don’t believe that they are in need of a Savior to redeem their sins. They believe that after this life it will be as if they were never born, a state of ignorant blackness, or if they’ve bought into the New Age lie, that they will become one with the collective unconscious of absolute nothing, but the truth is they return back to God from where they came to be judged, and from that judgment they either go to heaven or hell for all of eternity. Pardon me if I’m hard on evolution, but you can easily calculate the untold number of souls that it has helped lead to damnation, all consensually by those who wanted to believe in scientists over the Church, who received their sacrament not in the form of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ administered by an ordained priest but medicines, vaccines, drugs, and silly health fads enabled and disseminated by the princes of this world.

Ultimately, evolution is a gateway to atheism. This is why Satan designed the theory and why it is pushed so forcefully on young people. I consider it Satan’s best work, but he alone cannot take the blame when people choose worldly explanations that enable them to be their own god on Earth instead of postponing pleasure and serving their fellow man with love as commanded by God to receive a reward not in this life but the next. May all of us be ready to wholeheartedly account for the decisions we make that affect our salvation when we arrive at the Judgement Seat of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Read Next: Nihilists Are Spiritually Dead

Loading new replies...

It’s clear from this analogy that the evolutionists do have faith: faith in creation over a long period of time through an infinite number of miracles that they call beneficial mutations, even though the benefit is not realized until more random mutations, all in the correct direction, make it so.

For me, this was what killed evolution for me. Not only do you have to have this statistically improbable set of random mutations, they have to also even more statistically improbably be a set of random mutations all working in concerted effort toward a common design schematic.

Also, natural selection is a culling effect, not an additive effect. Natural selection does not favor the fittest, but rather, the most average. That is, the "good enough" to reproduce. Think the bell curve: most people in the middle of the bell curve end up reproducing, even when female hypergamy would have you think it's just the top 20% of men. But when you go out into the streets and see all the children that are clearly not well-sired, that illusion flies out the window very quickly. Heck, even the adults themselves don't look very well-sired. You don't see many Chad Thunderfists walking around. Just look at Portland. And that's with human intelligence guiding the reproductive act. A peahen isn't going to wait until it can find the absolute perfect Mr. Peacock; it's just going to mate with the first peacock that meets its standards.

This tendency for populations to gravitate toward a genetic mean is actually a biological mechanism to ensure the stability of the gene pool. In fact, biology shows us that there are many mechanisms in place that are designed to mitigate the effect of mutations, because mutations are rarely beneficial. Better instead to maintain the integrity of the gene pool so that more creatures are born with a lower chance of some kind of debilitating or self-sterilizing disease. Just like how in microbiology, there are cellular mechanisms for preventing mutations during mitosis, there are also macrobiological mechanisms to stabilize genetics.

But they don't teach you that in biology classes because that flies in the face of the theory of common descent by evolution. Evolutionary biology says mutations are good, but it says so out of necessity because that's the only way they can explain their theory. But in reality, mutations are bad. You do not want to have mutations. You want to be like your father and your mother, because then you have similar fitness as them. And if your father and mother reproduced to have you, then it really does benefit you to be more like them, because then you are more likely to reproduce as well.

Sounds to me like biology points a lot more to "Go, be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth," rather than "goo to you via the zoo".

Reply 7 Likes

click to expand...

I'm convinced that evolution is the cause of tyranny.

Reply 2 Likes

I would like to contribute this excellent article that illustrates how much of an absurd and shameless lie the "scientists have replicated life in a lab" claim is:

Stanley Miller's Bombshell

In 1953 a graduate student named Stanley Miller set out to verify the Oparin-Haldane-Urey hypothesis with a simple but elegant experiment.1 The results of this experiment have been taught to every high school and college biology student for nearly four decades.

Using a system of glass flasks, Miller attempted to simulate the early atmospheric conditions. He passed a mixture of boiling water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen through an electrical spark discharge. At the bottom of the apparatus was a trap to capture any molecules made by the reaction. This trap prevented the newly-formed chemicals from being destroyed by the next spark. Eventually, Miller was able to produce a mixture containing very simple amino acids, the building blocks of proteins.

Miller drew on decades of knowledge of organic chemistry in setting up his experiment. The proportions of the various gases used, the actual apparatus, the intensity of the spark and the chemical trap, were all carefully adjusted to create maximum yield from the experiment.

On the first attempt, after a week of electrical discharges in the reaction chamber, the sides of the chamber turned black and the liquid mixture turned a cloudy red. The predominant product was a gummy black substance made up of billions of carbon atoms strung together in what was essentially tar, a common nuisance in organic reactions.2 However, no amino acids used by living systems, or other building blocks of life, were produced on the first attempt.

After rearranging the apparatus, the experiment produced two amino acids, glycine and alanine, the simplest amino acids found in living systems. If we search the remaining products, we find a number of simple amino acids, but in yields so low that their concentrations would be insignificant in a body of water.

Table 1. The Products of the Miller Experiment Tar 85%

Tar

85%

Carboxlic acids not important to life

13.0%

Glycine

1.05%

Alanine

0.85%

Glutamic acid

trace

Aspartic acid

trace

Valine

trace

Leucine

trace

Serine

trace

Proline

trace

Treonine

trace

Regarding the products of the Miller-Urey experiment, evolutionist Robert Shapiro stated:

"Let us sum up. The experiment performed by Miller yielded tar as its most abundant product....There are about fifty small organic compounds that are called 'building blocks'.....Only two of these fifty occurred among the preferential Miller-Urey products." 3

In the past forty years, many scientists have repeated the work of Miller and Urey. Electrical sparks, heat, ultraviolet radiation, light, shock waves, and high energy chemical catalysts have been used in an attempt to create the building blocks of life. 4 In general, when amino acids have been made, they occur in approximately the same proportion, with glucine and alanine predominating, as in the Miller's experiment.

The Case of the Missing Letters

In the English language convention there are twenty-six letters that are used to write sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and books. These letters are strung together according to hundreds of predetermined rules. Anyone with a knowledge of those rules can understand the information conveyed by the sequence of letters.

In all living systems there are a special set of four chemical "letters," called nucleotides, which are used to "write" the information stored by the code of life, the Genetic Code. Millions of these nucleotides are strung together, end to end, in long chains, thus forming the DNA molecule (Figure 1). The instructions necessary to produce all the living structures on earth are "written" by the rules of the genetic code and carried by these chains of chemical letters. These chemical letters represent only a tiny part of the "hardware" that must arise by chance in order for spontaneous generation to occur. However, nucleotides are much more complex than the simple amino acids made by Miller and Urey, and would require much more chemical expertise to produce.

Many claims have been made that nucleotides of DNA have been produced in such "spark and soup" experiments. However, after a careful review of the scientific literature, evolutionist Robert Shapiro stated that the nucleotides of DNA and RNA,

"....have never been reported in any amount in such sources, yet a mythology has emerged that maintains the opposite....I have seen several statements in scientific sources which claim that proteins and nucleic acids themselves have been prepared... These errors reflect the operation of an entire belief system...The facts do not support his belief... Such thoughts may be comforting, but they run far ahead of any experimental validation." 5 (Emphasis added).

Figure 1

DNA

Deoxyribonucleic Acid

Nucleotides

A= Adenine

T= Thymidine

C= Cytosine

G= Guanine

The DNA molecule is formed by two chains of nucleotides which are bonded together to form the structure of a spiral double helix. Somewhat like a ladder which is twisted from the top down.

After nearly four decades of trying, with the best equipment and the best minds in chemistry, not even the "letters" of the genetic code have been produced by random chemical processes. If the letters cannot be produced by doctorate-level chemists, how can we logically assume that they arose by chance in a chemical quagmire?

A Troubled Paradigm

Stanley Miller's experiment was seen by believers as virtual proof that organic chemicals, and ultimately life, could be produced by chance chemistry. It brought a greater measure of scientific respectability to the theory of spontaneous generation and evolutionary thought. Evolution, according to the purists, could now be taught as a virtual certainty. The impact of this experiment on the scientific community is expressed by evolutionist and astronomer Carl Sagan:

"The Miller-Urey experiment is now recognized as the single most significant step in convincing any scientists that life is likely to be abundant in the cosmos." 6

This opinion, however, is not universally held by evolutionists. With the advantage of three decades of hindsight, and extensive discoveries in molecular biology, evolutionist Robert Shapiro comments on the significance of the Miller-Urey experiments:

"The very best Miller-Urey chemistry, as we have seen, does not take us very along the path to a living organism. A mixture of simple chemicals, even one enriched in a few amino acids, no more resembles a bacterium than a small pile of real and nonsense words, each written on an individual scrap of paper, resembles the complete works of Shakespeare." 7

After a careful examination of the Miller experiment, Shapiro recognized that the simple chemicals he produced are a far cry from the incredible complexity of a living cell.

In the last 20 years a number of scientists have spoken out regarding the problems with the Haldane-Oparin paradigm. Most of the assumptions of the primordial atmosphere, even the existence of the "primordial soup," have been seriously questioned by origins researchers. Carl Woese, of the University of Illinois expressed the inadequacy of the Oparin thesis:

"The Oparin thesis has long ceased to be a productive paradigm: it no longer generates novel approaches to the problem... These symptoms suggest a paradigm whose course is run, one that is no longer a valid model of the true state of affairs." 8

Let's look at some of the evidence that has threatened the Oparin-Haldane-Miller thesis.

THE MYTH OF THE PRE-BIOTIC ATMOSPHERE

The Oxygen Problem

The atmospheric conditions proposed by Oparin, Haldane and Urey were radically different from what presently exists. Because oxygen destroys the chemical building blocks of life, they speculated that the early earth had an oxygen-free atmosphere. However, in the last twenty years, evidence has surfaced that has convinced most atmospheric scientists that the early atmosphere contained abundant oxygen.

In the 1970's Apollo 16 astronauts discovered that water is broken down into oxygen and hydrogen gas in the upper atmosphere when it is bombarded by ultraviolet radiation. This process, called photo dissociation, is an efficient process which would have resulted in the production of large quantities of oxygen in a relatively short time. Studies by the astronauts revealed that this process is probably a major source of oxygen in our current atmosphere.

2 H2O + uv Radiation -- H2 (hydrogen gas) + O2 (oxygen gas)

The assumption of an oxygen-free atmosphere has also been rejected on theoretical grounds. The ozone layer around planet earth consists of a thin but critical blanket of oxygen gas in the upper atmosphere. This layer of oxygen gas blocks deadly levels of ultraviolet radiation from the sun. 9 Without oxygen in the early atmosphere, there could have been no ozone layer over that early earth. Without an ozone layer, all life on the surface of planet earth would face certain death from exposure to intense ultraviolet radiation. Furthermore, the chemical building blocks of proteins, RNA and DNA, would be quickly annihilated because ultraviolet radiation destroys their chemical bonds. 10 It doesn't matter if these newly formed building blocks are in the atmosphere, on dry ground, or under water.11,12,13

So we have a major dilemma. The products of the Miller-Urey experiments would be destroyed if oxygen was present, and they would be destroyed if it wasn't! This "catch 22" has been noted by evolutionist and molecular biologist Michael Denton:

"What we have then is a sort of 'Catch 22' situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, but if we don't we have none either." 14

Even if the building blocks of life could survive the effects of intense ultraviolet radiation and form life spontaneously, the survival of any subsequent life forms would be very doubtful in the presence of such heavy ultraviolet light. Ozone must be present to protect any surface life from the deadly effects of ultraviolet radiation from the sun.

Finally, the assumption that there was no oxygen in the early atmosphere is not borne out by the geologic evidence. Geologists have discovered evidence of abundant oxygen content in the oldest known rocks on earth. Again, Michael Denton:

"Ominously, for believers in the traditional organic soup scenario, there is no clear geochemical evidence to exclude the possibility that oxygen was present in the Earth's atmosphere soon after the formation of its crust." 15

All of this evidence supports the fact that there was abundant oxygen on the early earth.

Ammonia and Methane Short Lived

The assumption of an atmosphere consisting mainly of ammonia, methane, and hydrogen, has also been seriously questioned. In the 1970's scientists concluded that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, as well as simple "rainout," would eliminate ammonia and methane from the upper atmosphere in a very short time.16 In 1981, Atmospheric scientists from NASA concluded that:

"the methane and ammonia-dominated atmosphere would have been very short lived, if it ever existed at all." 17

The Myth of the Pre-biotic Soup

During the last two decades, the notion of a primordial soup has not fared too well either. Studies of the atmosphere, ultraviolet radiation, and the dilutional effect of a large body of water, have convinced many scientists that the ocean could not have developed into the "hot dilute soup" that was envisioned by Darwin, Oparin, and Haldane.

Oparin envisioned the production of cellular building blocks in the atmosphere as a result of lightning or ultraviolet radiation. Stanley Miller's experiment attempted to validate this concept. Once produced, these chemicals would theoretically build up in the primordial oceans and combine to form the first living systems. However, since Miller's experiments in 1953, it has been estimated that it would take up to two years for amino acids to fall from the atmosphere into the ocean. 18 This is a problem because even small amounts of ultraviolet radiation would destroy the building blocks before they reached the oceans. Furthermore, as we saw earlier, lack of ozone would further expedite this destruction. 19

Saved By The Trap!

A problem seldom noted by textbooks is that the chemical reactions that produced the amino acids in Miller's experiments are reversible. That is, the same energy sources that cause the formation of the building blocks of life will also destroy those same building blocks unless they are removed from the environment where they were created. In fact, the building blocks of life are destroyed even more efficiently than they are created. This was foreseen by Miller and Urey, so they included a chemical trap to remove the newly formed chemicals before the next spark. Of course, this luxury would not be available on the early earth.

These problems have convinced many origins researchers that the idea of a primordial soup is quite unlikely. Michael Denton comments on the lack of evidence for the primordial soup:

"Rocks of great antiquity have been examined over the past two decades and in none of them has any trace of abiotically produced organic compounds been found...Considering the way the pre- biotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence." 20 (Emphasis added).

Reply 4 Likes

click to expand...

From what I've seen evolution taught in school is the biggest reason for disbelief in the youth, at least in my country.

Reply 4 Likes

From what I've seen evolution taught in school is the biggest reason for disbelief in the youth, at least in my country.

Indeed. I remember a father of a united radtrad Catholic family, where the children were immersed in a very religious atmosphere and worldview from their day of birth, telling how one day one of the kids came back from school full of doubts about religion all of a sudden, and further inquiry revealed that his teacher had just started to expound evolution (the boy was unsure in his pronounciation of the word, as this was the very first time he had heard it). Talk about instantaneous effect ...

Reply 7 Likes

David Stove wrote Darwinian Fairytales to poke huge holes in a supposed infallible theory that is anything but settled science.

There's also The Transformist Illusion by Douglas Dewar. Though it contains absolutely discussion of the religious/political implications of the theory of evolution, and just contains strictly scientific collected data and their interpretation, you'll not often hear about it in the unprejudiced scienfitic academe of today.

Reply 1 Like

From what I've seen evolution taught in school is the biggest reason for disbelief in the youth, at least in my country.

push for tyrannical control of the entire economy.

"The humanism religion teaches that humans are our own gods and we determine our own destiny. This is the religion that is taught in the public schools today, which has replaced Christianity in 1963 in the America, when the Bible was removed from public schools.

Of course no one admits that humanism is taught in the public schools today, because the bible was removed in order to claim that public tax money cannot be used to teach religions. Yet, creationism was replaced with the teaching of evolution, which is one of the foundation values of the humanistic religion.

Humanism is the belief that we are self justification, there are no absolute truths, and right and wrong are determined by each individual’s personal values.
In part 1 I listed the 7 causes of tyranny that are gaining support."

Reply 5 Likes

click to expand...

So you don’t accept evolution, but you do accept a theory of Genesis, where “some guy” created everything in 7 days - that seems more probable to you. Without having any evidence, just because some people said so. And you wonder your kids don’t buy it…

Side note - they’re still “dogs” because they were named and catalogized as such by humans. That does not mean they’ve stopped evolving.

Reply 3 Likes

The atheist fedora-tipping redditor has actually moved away from the macroevolution perspective because of how asininely stupid it is, and the in vogue theory is now the "simulation" theory, where some mysterious alien-thing created everything with computers or something. They recognize that macroevolution doesn't make any sense, so they created their own stupid atheist version of creationism.

Reply 9 Likes

So you don’t accept evolution, but you do accept a theory of Genesis, where “some guy” created everything in 7 days - that seems more probable to you. Without having any evidence, just because some people said so. And you wonder your kids don’t buy it…

Side note - they’re still “dogs” because they were named and catalogized as such by humans. That does not mean they’ve stopped evolving.

No, you're right, it's totally more reasonable to believe that consciousness randomly evolved from a single cell organism that spontaneously appeared in some primordial soup billions years ago. That's the thinking man's position.

Reply 5 Likes

Evolution is absurd on its face. To think that a “random mutation” can be introduced into a working and functioning system to create the beginning of an intermediary transition stage that could then—through countless more mutations still within the same stage of intermediation—lead to a finished and enhanced protein, organ, or system, on top of the hundreds, thousands, or millions of other concurrently active intermediary stages within the same species, requires so much faith that it would be a simpler matter to believe in the Bible.

Indeed, this is the most absurd part of the theory. Once one realizes the stupidity of it, it's impossible to unsee it.

A Nile Crocodile has a membrane in its eye that makes it waterproof and it closes automatically when it enters the water. To think that this is a result of random mutations and not a Supreme Designer just boggles the mind.

Reply 1 Like

click to expand...

It is possible to believe in (macro)evolution, while being a Christian. However, there are certain conditions that make this unlikely:

  1. You cannot believe that human beings evolved. To do so contradicts Scripture, which claims that God uniquely created man in His own image. Also, to believe otherwise implies that Jesus Christ has ape ancestors -- anathema!
  2. Genesis tells us that Creation was perfect prior to the Fall. This does not fit with evolutionary theory, which assumes corruption. Thus, you'd have to believe that the Garden of Eden existed in some other realm besides the earthly, or that there was a 'pre-Fall' corruption prior to the Garden. So you'd have to construct an elaborate view of the Garden of Eden that does not square perfectly with the Bible, or you'd have to claim that the Garden is a metaphor.
  3. You must believe that God guided evolution towards a final goal.

These three points are of course strange bedfellows, and it's much simpler to just believe the Biblical account. That doesn't necessarily mean Young Earth Creation, but it does preclude evolution.

Reply 3 Likes

click to expand...

If evolution works, why so many idiots? Unknown author.

Reply 8 Likes

This is a great article.

Satan's tactics are so clear: attack the first book of Sacred Scripture, and you've essentially killed the whole narrative. People learn evolution and become atheist, or, I think it might be even worse when you have the "theistic evolution" big-brained "Christians" who want to serve both God and mammon. So in the Christian world it creates this quasi-agnostic narrative of "there is a God and he set this in motion and let it go." But how can you believe that if you call yourself a Christian? You're no better than agnostic who says "maybe there is a God, maybe not" because you cannot know, love, and serve an indifferent god, but only the True God.

Everyone who believes the evolution narrative believes in a metaphysical impossibility. They can't see the truth because it is the complete inversion of the truth. The world is getting worse and humans are getting weaker and weaker. There will never be another Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, or Mozart. We cannot build another Notre Dame even with the technology we have today. But it always comes down to this: the pygmies must bury the giants who came before them. That is modernism in a nutshell. The pride of man and of course the rejection of the Logos. It's freemasonic and ultimately Jewish.

Reply 4 Likes

click to expand...

Greetings,

Didn't God created satan?
Didn't He knew what He was creating?

Either:
a) the Universe was created perfect, is perfect and not subject to nor requiring "evolution"; or
b) the Universe is a work-in-progress (with monads, gods, angels, demons and men all playing relevant - and apparently conflicting - parts.)

Beware of the lukewarm: take your pick and act accordingly.

"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth." (Revelation 3:14-16, NIV)

Reply Like

click to expand...

Greetings,

Didn't God created satan?
Didn't He knew what He was creating?

You're testing us here ... Simple answer : do you deny that Satan (or any other angel) had free will ?
God knew what Satan might do, but that doesn't mean he wanted Satan to do what he did.
God allows the possibility of evil so that His Glory be greater, His Justice be revealed as well as His Mercy, but that doesn't mean He wants evil.

Reply 8 Likes

You're testing us here ... Simple answer : do you deny that Satan (or any other angel) had free will ?
God knew what Satan might do, but that doesn't mean he wanted Satan to do what he did.
God allows the possibility of evil so that His Glory be greater, His Justice be revealed as well as His Mercy, but that doesn't mean He wants evil.

Furthermore, @a kullervo ‘s question presumes that God is limited by time, which is just preposterous.

Reply 1 Like

"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth." (Revelation 3:14-16, NIV)

The NIV doesn't slap you in the face quite like the Douay-Rheims does (translation of the original Latin Vulgate), get this translation:

"And to the angel of the church of Laodicea, write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God: [15] I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot.
[16] But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth."

Reply 3 Likes

click to expand...

David Berlinski's videos, among others, are quite good on this topic.

Reply 2 Likes