The Religion of Atheism

So for one of our classes Kevin and I are reading a book called “Legislating Morality”. This book takes a hard look at morality, relative morality, and an absolute moral law given by God. In this book I stumbled across a few quotes that I thought were interesting. The part of the book where these quotes are found focus on the “deity of evolution.” The overarching point is that evolutionists are atheists by nature, thus making evolution and atheism a belief system. Atheist’s strongly argue against this point, however a conclusion must be drawn as to the origin of the universe and man, and atheists (by definition) must accept evolution as the origin of both universe and man.

The Bible of Atheism?

To illustrate this point consider the words of Charles Hodge: “What is Darwinism? It is atheism. This does not mean as before said that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic; that the exclusion of design from nature is…tantamount to atheism”. This is logical and well-reasoned. If you believe in evolution, you deny the creation. If you deny the creation, you deny God. You can deny the logic presented by Hodge, but you cannot deny the direct conclusions of the fathers of Darwinism. They conclude that evolution in and of itself is a deity.
Consider the words of Darwin himself who wrote: “I speak of Natural selection as an active power or deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets?… It is difficult to avoid personifying nature.”
Alfred Wallace stated that “Natural Selection is supreme”. He went on to say “There is a power not only adequate to direct and regulate all the forces at work in living organisms but also the more fundamental forces of the whole material universe”
Thomas Huxley (Darwin’s bulldog) stated: “I can see no reason for doubting that all are coordinate terms of nature’s great progression, from formless to formed, from the inorganic to the organic, from blind force to conscious intellect and will”.
What must be the logical conclusion of the above individuals? God is dead, or more accurately, He never existed. Intellectualism and natural process rule everything. In other words “science” and natural selection are the new deity, the new creator, the new god. According to the premier evolutionist (Darwin), evolution has replaced God.
With atheism and evolution bound to one another we can see that atheists do, in fact, have a god to worship – and worship it, the do. Because not only does it give their own creation narrative it ultimately defines moral values as well.

Consider the following:
Friedrich Nietzsche: “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comfort ourselves?” He answered the question with the following “must not we ourselves become gods simply to seem worthy of it?”
With God (the moral law giver) dead, all absolute moral standards died with him.
Fyodor Dostoevsky stated the following: “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted”. This is quite true.
Consider the following statement: “If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile. But preservation goes hand in hand with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the best who must triumph and that they have the right to endure. He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist”.
The above statement fits with the evolutionist ideology. Survival of the fittest, strongest will survive. The author of this text was Adolf Hitler. The Evolutionist/atheistic ideology was the foundation for the genocide of 12 million people. People who were “weak” and needed to be weeded out. With god dead anything is permitable, including genocide. In fact, one could convincingly argue that the theory of evolution is a foundational cause for most all racism today, but that will have to wait for another post.

Atheism is its own religion. Think about it. It has its own story of creation of the universe, and its own set of moral values because of this belief of creation. Are these not characteristics of a religion? These principles are religious in nature. The Bible defines creation, and comes with a set of moral values. In this sense Atheism, is just another religion.

SHARE THIS:

MISSING LINK FOUND!

I have found the missing link.  In a recent archeological expedition in my own back yard I discovered a tooth.  From this tooth I was able to recreate the missing link based on keen scientific evidence.  I have an artist’s rendering of what this missing link looks like based on the tooth.  I will be sure to post that once it has been completed.

 

If I had a dollar for every time a “scientist” had discovered the nail in the coffin of Christianity I would be a rich man by now.   Scientists are always claiming to have found evidence that disproves Christianity or something in the Bible.   Take evolution for example.   There are a number of instances where “scientists” have discovered the final piece of evidence to prove evolution.   

Ever since Darwin published his evolution model scientists have been looking for the “missing link” that would bury the idea that God created man.   What do I mean?   Since 1891 scientists have discovered the missing link.   Java man was claimed to be the originator   of humans.   [1] All that was found? A skullcap (from a gibbon), three teeth and a femur.   To add to that, the femur was found a year after the skullcap was found.

Neanderthal man, discovered in 1908, is probably one of the more popular discoveries.   The common image of Neanderthal man is that of a knuckle dragging half man, ape being. [2] The truth, Neanderthal Man is a normal human being.   He just suffered from rickets, and arthritis.

[3] Piltdown man was found in 1912.   Like Java man, Piltdown man was the discovery that would disprove the Bible.   41 years later it was proven to be a forgery.   The skull was found to be a modern skull (circa 1912), the bone fragments were chemically stained, and the teeth had been filed down.

Nebraska Man, discovered in 1922, was created from a single tooth found in Nebraska.   That’s right, one tooth.   This tooth provided for an entire evolution model and picture.   [4] The only problem was that the tooth that was discovered was from that of a pig.

One of the more recent missing link found was in 1999.   This missing link was discovered in China, and was hailed as being the missing link between reptile and bird.   Once again this discovery was proven to be a complete forgery. [5]  This finding combined the head and body of a primitive bird and the tail and hind limb of a dinosaur…all glued together by a Chinese farmer.

I can understand how something like this may have you questioning your faith.   But remember, in over 150 years they have not been able to discover any evidence of the missing link.   This is but a sampling of the biggest “discoveries” of those who reject God.   If it were me responding to this…I would lean on the most historically proven document known to man kind.   The only document in the history of the world, to be 100% correct.   A document that has upheld to centuries of scrutiny.   The document that holds the holy word of God.   I will stand by the Bible everyday of the week, and twice on Sunday.

 1.      Richard Massey, “The “Missing Links” Of Evolution,” Christian Evidences – 19 ^th Century Mid-West Lectures, (2001), http://www.kc-cofc.org/39th/Lectures/2001%20Manuscripts/RichardMasseyMissingLinks.PDF (accessed October 7, 2010)

 2.      “Science: Upgrading Neanderthal Man”, Time 97, no. 20 (1971),   http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944380-1,00.html (accessed October 7, 2010)

 3.      Susan S. Lukesh and R. Ross Holloway, “The non-fraud of the Middle Bronze Age stone goddess from Ustica: a reverse Piltdown hoax,” Antiquity 76, (2002), 974. Ebscohost.   http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=10&sid=f174706e-e868-4cbb-93cc-1e36b1641f98%40sessionmgr4 (accessed October 7, 2010)

 4.      Gary Parker, Ed.D., “Origin of Mankind”, Institute for Creation research. http://www.icr.org/article/183/ (accessed October 7, 2010).

 5.      Hillary Mayell, “Dino Hoax was mainly made of Ancient bird, study says”. National Geographic, (2002).   http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_raptor.html (accessed October 7, 2010)

What else can be said?

Probably one of the more hotly contested topics discussed (when it comes atheist versus Christian) is that of evolution versus creation.  So many have discussed this topic, that as I was sitting thinking about  a post topic I wondered if there was anything I could add to the conversation.  Think about how hot this topic is.  School boards deny the teaching of creationism because it is based on faith.  School boards allowing evolution because it is based on “science.”  Hollywood has even taken up the banner with movies like Expelled and Religulous.  One has to wonder…why does the debate continue?  I think this is a fair question. 

The Bible offers a fairly simplistic explanation for how the universe began, “In the beginning God created”.  Nothing extraordinary…except for the fact that God created everything.  He had his hand in everything that was created.  Now, there are many different camps inside of Christianity when it comes to the interpretation of Genesis.  Some will look at 7 days as being a flat 7 days.  Others will look at the verse in the Bible that a day to us is 1,000 to god, and suggest that each day was 1,000 years…7 days = 7,000 years.  I am not going to focus on that difference here. 

What I would like to focus on is the response one might receive when having a conversation with someone who believes in evolution as opposed to creation. 

Most Evolution supporters will make the following statement “Overwhelming evidence supports this fact”.  If that is the case why is it then a theory?  Case and point look at this link.  Notice anything?  The first sentence of the second paragraph describes evolution as a fact.  My question then is why describe it as a theory as well (in the first paragraph)? 

ALL evolution defenders will tell you about the transitional form.  This is commonly known as the missing link.  Everyone has seen the picture of the chart showing the transition from monkey to man.  The truth is that there has been no evidence found that supports the theory of transitional forms.  This is the lynch pin of evolution.  Without it evolution can never be proven.

I find the idea of a “transitional form”  fascinating.  Man evolved from monkey.  Did that evolution stop?  Think about it.  If evolution is the reason that we are here, where are the living transitional forms from monkey to man?  Unless evolution just said…”okay I’m done” once man had taken present shape.  I mean, evolution has to be ongoing.  Meaning that the evolution of the monkey would be ongoing as well.  If this was the case (evolution) where is the living missing link?  If evolution is ongoing as evolutionists would describe, then surely evolution would be continuing for monkeys (and other species) as well.  Where is it?

Another fascinating question is “how”.  It is possible to “how” the evolution theory to extinction.  How?  By simply asking “how did that happen?” If you ask this question enough one must admit at some point the ultimate conclusion that evolution is nothing more than an improbable theory, not a fact as it is portrayed by many.

The fact of the matter, both Evolution and Creationism are a matter of faith! Evolution is NOT science… In fact, Creationism is technically more scientific!  In order for something to be “science” one must be able to observe and record the phenomena and reproduce it with a differing variables… (this is the very definition of the scientific method that most of us learned about in middle school).  No scientist has observed the macro-evolutionary process happen and they certainly have not been able to recreate the generation of life, nor have they been able to cause the mutatation of any species into another! However, if one accepts the biblical principle that there is a God, then it is plausible (even probable) that He then recorded His “observations” in a record that most Christians would agree is reliable and infallible… So, again, the Christian understanding of creation is technically more scientific than the theory evolution could ever hope to be!

Yeah, I know….when compared to some of the other articles written online this seems pretty simplistic.  I don’t have to be convinced that creation is right, because I know that it is.  Atheists that tell you that creation can’t be proven because it requires faith are deluding themselves.  It requires more faith to believe in evolution than it does creation.  Evolution involves too much chance for me.