left biblioblography: Darwin As Devil Worshipper - And They Wonder Why They're Not Taken Seriously

Sunday, May 06, 2007

Darwin As Devil Worshipper - And They Wonder Why They're Not Taken Seriously

I chanced across this piece of tomfoolery recently - and the inherent  stupidity of it just crosses my eyes.

I can only hope this person teaches Kindergarten - because they're not fit to do much else.

I'm going to just cherry-pick a few of the choicer idiocies.

A long time ago, don't know when and don't know where, because there wasn't any where and there wasn't any time. But, a long time ago there was nothing and it was no where that makes sense. Nothing can be no where. Nothing doesn't have to have somewhere to be, because it is nothing, and nothing can be no where. A long time ago there was nothing no where, a long time ago when there wasn't anywhere.

Silliest damn fool thing I've read in a while. For those of you not well versed in this kind of foolspeak, this is obviously a moronic effort at misrepresenting a misconception we all know as nihil ex nihilo (how many scientists posit something from nothing? Exactly ZERO). I confess I'm startled (not shocked anymore: it happens way too frequently) that these bozos blather on about something violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. So said dilettante blathers on in a bad fit of simplistic reductionism for some time.

It's all too silly for words, isn't it? But think about those eyes. Oh dear! The sun kept playing on a freckle until an eye came out, they say. But why did it choose a freckle beside the animal's nose? And then choose another freckle on the other side of its nose? Why didn't it choose a freckle on the back of its head, or on its legs, or possibly on its tail? Indeed, why didn't eyes start bobbing out all over its body?

A freckle is the result of melanin, you idiot. The larger part of the reason species have eyes, is that life shares a common ancestor.

And then, if it really were the rays of the sun that caused the freckles to turn into eyes, why didn't they make them strong enough to bear the light? Why, after making eyes, did the same sunbeams form eyelids to keep the light out?

(Human) eyelids are to keep the eyes moist. To protect them, as they are very poorly constructed, and the mechanisms are right out front, something an intelligent designer wouldn't have done.

And now we come to those poor monkeys who are supposed to have turned into men. They lost their hair because they discovered fire, and so didn't need it any more!

Smacks of Lamarckism. More stupidity follows:

Did they, indeed? Why, then, didn't they lose it off their heads at the same time? And why don't cats lose their hair nowadays when they sleep by the fire? And why do monkeys that live in hot countries still have their hair today?

It's called Thermoregulation, you simp.

No, children, this story that is going around is neither true nor sensible. It has been made up by people who do not love the Bible and are trying to find some other explanation of how things carne on this earth. And if you ask me, I think their story is a thousand times more difficult to believe than the simple Bible story of Creation.

Christlation: "Ooooh, it's too hard to engage my brain and try applying logic or do research! Let's just say someone (you know who) waved their magic wand over everything, and it all sprouted up from nothing!"

This dimbulb tries to swat some flies:

Evolutionists believed that one animal gradually could change into a different one through ‘mutations’. That means an ‘accident’ happens in the genes, and the animal is born different than its parents. They believed that with all these generations of fruit flies they could see this happen.

Surprise! This did happen. And again, not good enough for the magic wand-ers:

But even though some flies would hatch out with different colours, or longer legs, or more or less bristles, or facets in their compound eyes, they were still fruit flies, nothing more, nothing less. How would you like to spend years counting bristles on a fly or facets on their eyes? Trying to prove evolution isn’t much fun.

Like most religious folks, they expect that this experimentation would produce an absolutely distinct family that wasn't 'fly' anymore.

Let's skip over the more pompous declarations, and cut to the quick:

Darwin had no aim in life so His dad decided to get him a nicely paid job as an Anglican minister. Darwin did not object.

But a relative got him a chance to go as unpaid "naturalist" on a ship planning to sail around the world, the Beagle. The voyage lasted from December 1831 to October 1836.

So far, so good. Here's where it gets jiggy.

It is of interest that, after getting into spiritualism, certain men in history have been seized with a deep hatred of God and have then been guided to make evil teachings that have destroyed large numbers of people, while others have engaged in wars, which have killed millions. We think of such known spiritists as Sigmund Freud and Adolf Hitler.

Well, Freud never destroyed anyone that I know of: and Hitler thought he was doing gawd's will. But hey, we're engaging in character assassination (as if this even has any bearing on the subject whatsoever), so what the hell?

Most people don’t know that Charles Darwin, while a naturalist aboard the Beagle, was initiated into witchcraft in South America by devil worshippers. He took part in their ceremonies and, as a result, something happened to him. Upon his return to England, although his health was strangely weakened, - he spent the rest of his life working on theories to destroy faith in the Creator.

I just got through watching PBS's Evolution series, 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea'. He was a quiet, thoughtful man, who wrestled with himself over publishing his observations (and married to a deeply religious woman, to boot). This, again, has absolutely no bearing on the matter whatsoever. But this presuppositionalist Dr. Seuss seems to think it does.

After leaving South America, Darwin was on the Galapagos Islands for a few days. While there, he saw some finches, which had blown in from South America and adapted to their environment, producing several varieties. He was certain that this showed evolution and change into new species. But they were still finches; they weren’t something different. This theory about the finches was the main evidence of evolution he brought back with him to England.

This is just idiotic. Much of it is left out: the finches in question were so different, that at first, some of them were mistaken for alternate genuses. Major variations in size, color, plumage, beaks: it had to be pointed out to Darwin that these were all finches.

This fucktard goes on to say:

His book, Origin of the Species, was first published in November 1859. The full title, On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, reveals the viciousness of the idea; this theory led directly to two of the worst wars in the history of man-kind.

Say what?!?!? So this clown is blaming Darwin for World Wars I and II? No proof, no citations, just errant crap.

In his book, Darwin had little evidence if any for what he had to say. Modern evolutionists are ashamed of the book with its foolish ideas. Most people believe it is a wonderful, scientific book, but they haven’t read it. Evolutionists today prefer that people don’t read it. But because it said what people who didn’t want to obey God wanted to believe, it became very popular.

Oh, you're kidding me, right? People only pay attention because it's popular? Because dat ole debbil wants folks to stray away from the 'straight and narrow'? God who? That silent voyeur who micro-manages our little lives (and poorly at that, from the state of the world), who mis-designed not only his children (if we were built in his image, the prototype must be a mess), but everything else as well?

Darwin would say he would have more evidence later to prove what he was saying; But, although he wrote other books, try as he may he never could find the proof for his stories. No one since has found it either. Basically the whole thing is a fairy-tale for grown-ups. With thinking like this, who needs science? But remember that Charles Darwin never had a day of schooling in the sciences.

These folks just get right up my nose. There's mountains of forensic evidence that validates these observations: because that's what science does. It observes and catalogues. You want the why of it? Read the philosophers. You want the who, what, where, and how of it? You go to science.

I'll just top this off.

As mentioned earlier, scientists today are ashamed of Darwin's ideas. He frequently commented in private letters that he saw that there was no evidence for his theory, and that it could destroy the morality of the human race.

Who? What? Where does this mental midget get this crap from? Answer: it was pulled straight from a specific orifice.

"Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without in some degree becoming staggered" (*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 1860, p. 178. "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy" (*Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229).

So there were doubts and problems? So BFD. Most of which as been resolved. The gaps are closing daily. This was back in the 19th century: a lot has happened since then.

After taking part in the witchcraft ceremonies, not only was his mind affected but his body also. He developed a chronic and incapacitating illness, and went to his death under a depression he could not shake. What a sad life story to have written in the books of heaven!

Ummm...excuse me? He died of a heart-attack at the age of 72. Where do these prats get their...? Oh, never mind, I answered that earlier.

It's a tu quoque wrapped in a non sequitor with a liberal dose of poison-the-well.

If evolution was about philosophy, or it even qualified as a 'religion', this would all be most damning.

Problem is, it's not and it's not, it's about scientific observations and the deductions drawn from them.

It most distinctly not about old Scratch whispering sweet nothings in our ears to distract and confuse us. Since there's no such critter.

Stumble Upon Toolbar


PastaLaVista said...

This kind of crap just boils my blood. Amazing how theists can twist, contort, take out of context, etc, anything in order to spin it in their favor. I didn't see an author listed for that article. Perhaps it is the effort of many, who knows. Speaking of the orifice of origin, those steamy nuggets of wisdom were ejected with such fervor they didn't even touch the sides. Aimed straight for the non-thinking masses of course.

Krystalline Apostate said...

PLV - in short, a loada crap.
Gee, what a surprise, no? ;)

Sword Girl said...

Hey KA!

It's Ocean Lady; I've had another change of address and alias name.

My new alias is:
Sword Girl

and the new addy is:

This should be it. lol :-D

Sadie Lou said...

...and Hitler thought he was doing gawd's will.

It's funny how so many people groups try to blame Hitler on the opposing group. Atheists love to thank gawd for Hitler and God fearing people like to blame atheists (wasn't Hitler's agenda the perfect arian race? Survival of the fittest?). Can't the evils that Hitler promoted transcend humanity altogether? He was just evil, plain and simple. What he did--his ideologies--are a creature/monster all by itself. I mean, if he was doing gawd's will--why would he focus his evil on God's people?
Freakishly stupid--I hope you don't by that crap.

Krystalline Apostate said...

SG - I take it by your moniker changer, you're learning the jian now?

sadie - It's funny how so many people groups try to blame Hitler on the opposing group.
I'm in the middle - I say AH wasn't really an xtian OR an atheist. He was religious, there's no doubt of it. Also Catholic.
I mean, if he was doing gawd's will--why would he focus his evil on God's people?
His anti-Antisemitism was a clear holdover from xtian doctrine - "Let his death be upon our heads, & our children's heads" - Matthew. Martin Luther also was a raging antiSemite.
wasn't Hitler's agenda the perfect arian race? Survival of the fittest?)
It's Aryan (Arian refers to a 2nd-to-3rd CE heresy), & 'survival of the fittest' is a holdover from social darwinism (not quite the same thing).
No, AH believed strongly in a 'holy race', thought that the Germans were descendants of Atlantis (true story), & mentioned multiple times that he was doing gawd's will (Mein Kampf). He also outlawed atheism during his reign, shut down freethinker societies.
He was equal opportunity on the persecution front. Not German, not xtian? Wait in line for the next train car.
His was a cult of personality - the Reichmark took advantage of the concept that 'gawd's on OUR side'.

Chris Bradley said...

Hitler was way more religious than "scientific". His governmental policies were vastly anti-science, cutting off profitable lines of scientific inquiry because it didn't fit into Nazism.

Most clearly, history and anthropology. Goebbels was crazy about archeology but Hitler cut him off because he didn't want it to be emphasized while the Greeks and Romans were reaching "the heights of culture, Germans were living in mud huts". Likewise, any genetics research that disagreed with Nazi eugenics was destroyed -- it could be literally fatal for scientists to propose genetic theories that didn't agree that the Jews (and, generally, non-whites) were inferior to Aryans.

In short, there is nothing scientific about Hitler's Nazism, as supported by the way he attacked sciences that he didn't like, or came to conclusions that were in opposition to state doctrine.

In most ways, what Hitler did with science reminds me of what creation scientists and their ilk are trying to do with science -- they are trying to appropriate the credibility of science for their own non-scientific projects.

This sort of thing is pretty common, too. No idea can be successful without unscrupulous people subverting it for power.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Didn't AH burn copies of the OoS?

Sadie Lou said...

So we agree--Hitler was a some kind of freak a-hole. Hell-bent on destroying anyone that opposed his daydream of world domination.
But he wasn't a Christian and neither are PLENTY of people that go around promoting "gawd's will" for everyone. It's an instant red flag when a person claims to know "gawd's will" or "gawd's plan". For me, if it doesn't look Christian, smell Christian, walk Christian, talk Christian--then most likely--it's not. Hitler--I can assure you--was not.

Chris Bradley said...


Yeah, Hitler burned a bunch of Darwin books. They were part of biology that didn't support Aryan superiority.

I mean, I hesitate to put Nazism on anyone's doorstep, but to the extent that Nazism was influenced by Darwin it was through misreadings (or EXTREMELY biased readings) of Nietzsche and Spencer. And their "genetics research" ignored virtually everything about the actual field of genetics. Tho', in anthropology, I think there are disturbing connections between mainstream anthropological and psychological research in the 20s and 30s and Nazism. Some of the scientific literature in anthropology and psychology is truly terrifying to read.