Darwinism: A Triumph Of Intellectual Deception !!!!!

[Daanyeer]

Source: St. Philaret House
October 20, 2005 Author: James K. Fitzpatrick



......"the debate over Intelligent Design theory has illustrated that the advancement of atheism is indeed a central goal of the "intelligentsia" that promotes Darwinism in our schools. What we have witnessed, says our author is "a gigantic triumph of intellectual deception through which the essence of philosophical theism as religion" has been banished from our schools, to be replaced by "atheism's belief in atheistic materialism as Darwinian science."




In a recent edition of First Teachers, I asked for an explanation for the hostility of so many in the scientific community to the idea of introducing Intelligent Design theory in high school biology classes.
I was not being coy. I could not see how Intelligent Design theory threatened most scientists' view about evolution. I thought that even scientists who were militant atheists would be able to accept that there are reasonable people who contend that there is scientific evidence that the evolutionary process described by Darwin was initiated by a Creator, even if they disagreed; that they would be open to a free discussion of this disagreement in a classroom setting.
I thought scientists would accept that their role was to explain "what" happened empirically in the world of the senses, while philosophers and theologians were left free to explore the "why."
Until this brouhaha over Intelligent Design theory, I was convinced that the understanding of evolution that I had been taught by Marist Brothers and Jesuit priests in high school and college in the 1950s and 1960s would be seen as reasonable and nonthreatening by even the most secular biology teacher. My teachers taught me that it was likely that what Darwin described took place, but that it was a process initiated by God according to His design.
No one would object to that — I thought. Biology teachers would be free to teach the process described by Darwin. All they would have to do is accept is that it is not irrational to hold there may be an explanation for that process beyond the capacity of science to discern; that what appeared to be a random process of natural selection may be part of a Creator's design; that it was not necessary for a scientist to be an atheist.
One writer weighs in on this question. He argues that the debate over Intelligent Design theory has illustrated that the advancement of atheism is indeed a central goal of the "intelligentsia" that promotes Darwinism in our schools. What we have witnessed, says our author is "a gigantic triumph of intellectual deception through which the essence of philosophical theism as religion" has been banished from our schools, to be replaced by "atheism's belief in atheistic materialism as Darwinian science."
"Darwinism," says this writer, "is the linchpin of this deception. Darwinism's philosophical roots are in atheistic materialism, a truth so well hidden within pseudoscience that for over 50 years the public has not seen how their children are subtly being indoctrinated with the idea that there is no God."
This point must be stressed. Our author is arguing that Darwinism is not pure science, as its champions contend. It is also a philosophy; an ideology, "a stalking horse" used by secularists, "to fuel a cultural and political revolution, a revolution that has its philosophical foundation in atheism."


This is why the proponents of Darwinism are not open to what we [Roman] Catholics think is a reasonable compromise between the Bible and the theory of evolution. It is why they portray proponents of Intelligent Design with advanced degrees as if they are indistinguishable from the cartoon-like characters used to depict Christians in plays about the Scopes trial, such as Inherit the Wind.
It is why believing Roman Catholics find G.K. Chesterton's view of evolution so reasonable, and why those who like to think of themselves as freethinkers do not. Chesterton: "If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, it is stingless for most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as well as quickly."
Stingless for us, not for them. Why? Says our author, because "Darwinism's first principle is that there is no God, and then ─ arguing in a circle — insinuates that science has proven there is no God. The theory assumes that every living thing is the product of a purely material (Godless) universe, functioning without design or purpose, driven by mindless accidents." The champions of Darwinism in our schools hold to the philosophical belief that we live in a "Godless, morally neutral world" and that we are "unable to define any act as intrinsically good or evil." But they dishonestly promote this philosophical view as objective science!


This is why they must "stigmatize Intelligent Design theory as an unscientific product of religious fanatics, intent on imposing theocratic government upon our nation," even though "Intelligent Design theory is a reexamination by competent scientists who adhere to the scientific method of the science used to justify atheistic materialism. It is a theory that challenges the metaphysics of the meager science to be found in Darwinism.
"The problem posed for the established scientific community is the awareness that these challenges promise a paradigm shift that jeopardizes many prestigious careers. Initially, the challenge was ignored, but with the growth of public concern, those with a vested interest are fighting back with everything except an honest debate over science."
Why do the atheists hold back from openly declaring their goals and instead use stalking horses such as Darwin? Because atheism, says our author, "is absurd," and the atheists sense that. They know that the ideological atheist must close his mind to the fact that he believes that nothing has caused itself to become something. The nonexistence of God is the atheists' first principle, and they are willing to sacrifice reason itself to that principle.
"Throughout civilized history, atheism has been perceived as the philosophy of the local village idiot, until Darwinism provided a hook upon which a predisposition to deny the moral authority of God could be hidden within the illusion of intellectual credibility."
In other words, Darwin's process of random selection becomes compelling in scientific terms only if you stack the deck. His purposeless universe developing without design is the most rational explanation for the world as we know it only if you proceed from the premise that there is no Creator. But this is ideology, not science.

[dhuusa_deer]

[quote] Darwinism: A Triumph Of Intellectual Deception !!!!!{quote}

Blasphemey!!!

I will refute this unmitigated foul and baseless attack later. Firt gotta earn a living.

I'm out

[Daanyeer]

Back to top

[dhuusa_deer]

It looks the author is lampooning evolution theory as the bulwark of atheists, who are subversively using it to get their views into the public domain (ie schools). What he conveniently left out to mention is the fact Atheism existed thousands of years before evolution theory. Were it true there are NO atheist in the world today, Evolution would still be a fact and the theory explaining it would still be valid. The bottom line is there is NO connection between a atheism and evolution theory. Any connection drawn between them is one urged by self-serving purposes and evidentaly lacking any factual basis.

[LionHeart-112]

Darwin was a devout christian as a young man but when he died he didn't belong any denomination but still believed in the existence of God.