Home » Intelligent Design » Darwinists are Atheists in Expensive Tuxedos

Darwinists are Atheists in Expensive Tuxedos

The claim has been made that ID proponents are just “creationists in cheap tuxedos.” Of course, the term “creationist” is used as a pejorative, meant to imply that all ID theorists are young-earth Biblical literalists who have lost their minds and want to destroy science.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Therefore, I’ll make the claim that Darwinists are atheists in expensive tuxedos.

By Darwinism I specifically refer to the hypothesis that random errors filtered by differential mortality can explain everything in biological reality. This means that accidents presumably transformed a “primitive” microbe (which was already an astronomically complex information-processing system) into Mozart and his piano concerti.

This is a transparently preposterous proposition, considering what is now known from modern science.

The motivation of atheistic Darwinists to defend the indefensible is equally transparently obvious: Darwinism is the clearly falsified creation myth of the ersatz religion of atheism.

The Darwinian tuxedo is expensive because all public funding is allocated to “researchers” who are motivated by the following goals: prove that Darwin was right, get more funding in order to engage in evermore unsubstantiated speculation, and suppress all dissent, no matter how logical, evidential, or scientific that dissent might be.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

16 Responses to Darwinists are Atheists in Expensive Tuxedos

  1. Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine

    What I’m asking for is the freedom to follow the evidence wherever it leads. ~ Richard Sternberg

  2. bevets,

    Darwinists don’t want us to have freedom of inquiry. If they are questioned or challenged, even on the most rational grounds, they want to destroy us.

    Darwinists represent the real threat to legitimate scientific investigation, in the name of defending science.

    It is disturbingly Orwellian.

  3. Naturalism is a useless, pointless religion for screwed up people. Weird.

  4. Darwinists are atheists in expensive tuxedos

    So, are you saying that all “Darwinists” are atheists?

  5. Atheistic Darwinists can delude themselves all they want, but the cell all by itself, shouts ‘DESIGNED’:

    Dr. Fuz Rana discusses the beauty and elegance of biochemistry – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zxYPO62Ygc

    Astonishing Molecular Machines – Animator Drew Berry – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/6861283

  6. Para,

    There’s such a thing as a fellow traveller [I won't use Lenin's term for such . . . ] .

    You need to think about the issues raised here on.

    And a lot of other things all the way back to Darwin’s 1880 letter to Marx’s son in law on so-called “free thought.”

    Let me snip:

    . . . though I am a strong advocate for free thought [NB: free-thought is an old synonym for skepticism, agnosticism or atheism] on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follows from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family [NB: especially his wife, Emma], if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.

    This letter makes it utterly clear that a key motive for Darwin’s theorising on origins science was to put God out of a job, thus indirectly undermining the plausibility of believing in God.

    Unsurprisingly, once Darwinian thought on the origin of the varieties of life had triumphed, for the first time in history Atheism became a movement with a mass following. This, because — on the authority of “Science” — there now seemed to be a way to explain the complex and tightly integrated structures of living organisms without reference to design. Instead, on the strength of “science,” we were invited to view features of organisms as the product of chance and laws of necessity acting on one or a few original “simple” forms.

    The modern design theory movement decisively undercuts that “scientific” prop for such atheism, and that is much more of the reason for the hostility and controversies we see than many would be willing to admit.

    But Lewontin has let the cat out of the bag that supposedly held a piglet. (Or whatever interpretation you favour.)

    GEM of TKI

  7. So, kairosfocus, are you saying that all “Darwinists” are atheists, regardless of their stated religious affiliations?

  8. paragwinn,

    Have you ever used the term “intelligent design creationist”? Have you ever made on-line comments about the religious motivations of ID proponents or UD contributors?

    Silly me….I thought there for a moment that you might subject yourself to the same standard you use to judge those you oppose. Never mind.

  9. It makes no such thing ‘utterly clear’. Darwin is stating that he prefers to dedicate himself to science rather than arguing over religion.

    You are reading, and spinning, others words to suit your own mind narrowing theistic agenda.

  10. The old man tells you he is “unduly biassed” not to directly attack the convictions of his family (for their sake) and you position that admission by suggesting he just doesn’t want to “argue over religion”.

    And it’s KF thats spinning here?

    Give it a rest Bot.

  11. I have never stated that all ID proponents are “creationists”. As for one’s religious motivations,I have little interest in the matter within the discussion of ID. Silly me, I thought someone might give a serious response to my question.

  12. OT: How’s this for nailing exactly what neo-Darwinism truly is:

    Darwin’s diabolical delusions by Ellis Washington
    Excerpt: Tragically, for over 150 years since the publication of Darwin’s diabolical, anti-scientific book, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” nonpartisan science, truth, logic and deductive reasoning have been ruthlessly suppressed and replaced with state-funded Darwinist propaganda, groupthink, education atheism, liberal fascism and Machiavellian tactics as demonstrated in the Sewell case representing the ongoing battles between the Darwin Gestapo and Intelligent Design scientists.
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?f.....eId=343445

  13. A person could reason that God created the earth, maybe lots of planets, and then sat back to watch what grew. Then they are a Darwinist but not an atheist.
    And typically to be “affiliated” with a religion doesn’t mean that you have to accept its beliefs, such as that God was more involved in creation. I’m not sure how that works that you can be in a religion but not believe it, but it happens every day.
    But I’m don’t know why anyone would prefer Darwinism unless they just want to fit in or appear more intellectual, which would be ironic.

  14. Paragwinn,

    Actually, I didn’t ask you if you had ever stated that all ID proponents are creationists, I asked you if you have ever used the term “intelligent design creationists”. Its a fair question, given that you post regularly amongst those who use the label without regard to its veracity, and indeed you post under a banner of “Intelligant Design Creationists, Bring Them On”

    You are now here thumping a question, despite the fact that you know very well that the contributors here recognize that not all darwinists are atheists. There have been a large number of threads and comments devoted to that very topic over the years, and I would find it hard to believe that you were unaware of that fact, given your involvement both here and elsewhere.

  15. So Bot, is that “science” with a capital “S”?

  16. ?

Leave a Reply