Posted by: FLPatriot | December 3, 2009

The ego of Darwinists is found

After given things a lot of thought toward the motive of Darwinism I have come up with some observations. First I started with the questions: “Why do some people favor a belief in Darwinian Evolution (DE) over God?”.

The most obvious answer was that they wanted to avoid punishment for their actions. Most use DE as a way to lower the bar when it comes to being a good person, comparing their faults to those of a child killer makes them feel really good about themselves. So through DE they are able to convince themselves their is no judge over their action other than the community around them. This puts man in charge of morals.

This then led me to my next thought, “In the mind of a DEer man is the only thing that can intelligently design something.” You all know the line of questions, when you look at a painting you know there is a painter and when you look at a building you know there was a builder, but when a DEer looks at creation they do not see a creator because man can not duplicate it. So in their minds nature can only select what parts of creation it likes but it can not intelligently design an organism to adapt to its environment because the ability to design is reserved for man.

Side Note: Now I know that part of the argument can be torn down by saying that other creatures design tools or habitats so saying that intelligently designing things is reserved for mankind is too narrow and there for false. So let me clarify before the DE-Trolls jump in. These other creatures are almost always placed by traditional DEers, such as Darwin himself, as lower life forms. So it is ok for them to design lesser items but mans creations are always more sophisticated and advance.

Back to the original thought. This is now where we see the ego of DEers shows itself. They refuse to admit there maybe something beyond their knowledge that could be responsible for creating things that man is not capable of duplicating. They will play the game of “well prove it to me”, but when evidence is presented to them they inevitably close their eyes and say they don’t see any evidence.


Responses

  1. So I DON’T believe that my species was specifically chosen as the ultimate creation by an all-powerful being…and that makes me have a big ego?

    “They will play the game of “well prove it to me”, but when evidence is presented to them they inevitably close their eyes and say they don’t see any evidence.”

    When are you going to present that good scientific evidence, by the way? You have a habit of saying it exists and then not presenting it.

  2. ““Why do some people favor a belief in Darwinian Evolution (DE) over God?”.

    The most obvious answer was that they wanted to avoid punishment for their actions.

    Uhhh….nooooo….
    Evolutionists believe in evolution because it is the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet (and probably other planets).

    [NOTE: Evolution does not describe how life started or what happened prior to the Big Bang]

  3. Count the logical flaws: non sequitur, strawman, begging the question, appeal to authority, I probably missed a few.

    What do pedophiles have to do with evolution? That’s like saying that most people believe the earth is round and revolves around the sun because it makes cheating on your taxes seem better.

    I’m actually kind of amused by the snowflakes, though. Subtle, not terribly distracting, charming. I like it.

  4. All three of these responders stole my thunder.

    You said,

    Most use DE as a way to lower the bar when it comes to being a good person, comparing their faults to those of a child killer makes them feel really good about themselves.

    Definitely, that has always been high on my list of reasons to believe in evolution. To hell with the evidence! I just want to feel good in comparison to child killers! (Note my sarcasm so you don’t take this as confirmation of your thoughtless accusation.) Hmm. I suppose creationists and IDers can also feel good about themselves relative to child killers to the extent that they abstain from killing children. So what exactly does this have to do with evolution?

    BTW, I also like the snowflakes.

  5. Mcoville,
    Besides the fact that just about no biologists have been strictly Darwinist since the mid-40’s, it’s interesting that you imply by your criticism that you are not ego-centric. By definition, you, a Christian, find every god ever invented by mankind to be ludicrous (rightly so), yet you fail to grasp the egocentrism in believing that a god exists that looks more or less like you and fits your image of what is godly. And not only that, but you believe that this god of yours created the universe just for you. And that your god blesses you but curses your enemies.

    Sure. And I’m Mary Queen of Scots.

  6. Dan “Mary queeen of Scots”, you made so many false assumptions about Christian beliefs that I actually laughed out loud, thank you. Lets see if I can address some of them:

    I have no idea what God looks like in physical appearance. I believe God created the universe to glorify Himself. I believe God blesses His people and curses His enemies.

    You are an example of the arrogance of Darwinists, just because you believe everything is about you does not mean I am the same. For a Christian it is all about God, Jesus who is the Christ. I am a wretched sinner that can only gain access to paradise through the sacrifice of a perfect God. It is only through His work that I can be holy, not of my own.

    Unlike Darwinists that believe that they are the highest evolution of animals in the world, through out history.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t Richard Dawkins a biologist? He is most definitely a Darwinist.

  7. I have no idea what God looks like in physical appearance. I believe God created the universe to glorify Himself. I believe God blesses His people and curses His enemies.

    What are you saying – that there is no imagery of Jesus Christ, or that he isn’t divine? I call shenanigans on your part. Or stupidity. I can’t tell which.

  8. Oh, and:
    Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t Richard Dawkins a biologist? He is most definitely a Darwinist.
    More stupidity. Or I guess calling this a strawman of an argument, since you’ve already previously demonstrated (in a comment on November 24) that what you mean by Darwinist is not what is historically nor academically meant by the term.

  9. Sorry, the November 24th comment in question is here

  10. There are no images of Jesus. The Bible offers very little to describe His appearance and no portraits where painted of Him. Here is a link to a study on this topic.

    Of course Jesus was divine, He said so Himself. Didn’t think this was difficult stuff for someone that claims to be as smart as you do.

  11. Does not Standard Christian Doctrine say that man was created in God’s image?

  12. Good question Mike. This is getting into Christian theology but it is basic stuff.

    The “image” of God we are made in is His character.

    The “image” does not mean physical appearance, other wise we would all look the same externally.

    What this doctrine, or theology, teaches is that if we look at what we can do it shows us a bit of what God can do, only He does it perfectly.

    The physical image we see most often in art is taking from the shroud of Turin, but no one knows who that is a image of. Besides, Jesus was from Galilee and was more than likely dark skinned and looked in appearance nothing like a white Caucasian.

  13. The shroud of Turin is pretty well discredited as a 14th century (?) hoax.

  14. I agree Mike, there is no evidence to who is on the shroud or where it came from. But it is often considered as the source for the modern depiction of Jesus and that was why I brought it up.

    No one knows what Jesus looked like. In turn no one knows what God looks like.

  15. Re: ‘Image of God’…

    Is there some analysis of scripture that objectively demonstrates that your ‘character’ interpretation is true and the visual interpretation is false?

    (and the image on the shroud is a painting…not from any physical contact with a person)

  16. Seems like you are a true expert. Did you study about the theme? haha..

  17. Ravedyday:
    If you are referring to the Shroud, I have made myself familiar with the available evidence over the decades. In fact, there was just a show called Secrets Of The Shroud that ran on National Geographic just a week or so ago that went over some of that information.

    Three independent labs returned consistent carbon dating results that were more than 1000 years removed Christ’s time. The only refutation of those results relies on a conspiracy theory that the church did NOT want the shroud to be found authentic. I just can’t wrap my head around that.

    Moreover; the image on the shroud…if made by physical contact…is not at all consistent with the contact patterns in controlled tests. Indeed, the image (at best) would mean the subject would have had an unprecedentedly narrow face. Images made by a draped cloth would make the face appear much wider than the subject’s face.

  18. There is no such thing as Darwinism. you are referring to the theory of evolution which I am sure you notice does not have Darwin’s name in it nor is it an ism as theism clearly is.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: