I came across this letter to Fredericksburg.com while looking for news to be skeptical about. I can certainly be skeptical about this:
The famous evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson stated, “The meaning of evolution is that man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.”
Do these writers believe they are just a mistake of life? What is the purpose of life if we really have no purpose?
First of all, just because we resulted from a natural process, that doesn’t make us a “mistake”. It also doesn’t mean we have no purpose. Our purpose is our own to choose, we don’t need any kind of higher being to tell us what our purpose should be. Resulting from a purposeless process does not make us purposeless.
In real life, evolutionists do not base their conclusions on “scientific” evidence.
Really?! This is going to be good…
The assumptions they make are based on naturalism, the doctrine that “nature is all there is,” and materialism, the belief that matter is all there is (i.e., the fundamental particles that make up both matter and energy).
Scientists don’t need to make those assumptions. If the evidence points to an all-natural explanation, then why do we need to look to the supernatural? The natural world provides overwhelming evidence to support current evolutionary theory. If the supernatural does exist, it is un-necessary.
There is nothing “scientific” about these evolution assumptions. (Ask any real scientist–no, I’m not one.)
No, you’re definitely not.
And it would imply that they make their conclusions hoping there is no God. If there is no God, then life is indeed purposeless.
Oh the fallacies just keep on coming. Firstly, there are plenty of evolutionary scientists who still believe in God (strange but true), and even those who don’t are not hoping God doesn’t exist, they just see no need for having any God in the picture. As for that second sentence, well as I said above, we don’t need any higher beings to tell us our purpose.
It takes more faith to believe in evolution and no God than it does to believe in creation of the human race by “intelligent design.” Therefore, evolution is just another religion, goes really well with New Age thought, and we should not teach it in public schools.
Accepting solid evidence requires no faith. Invoking the supernatural because you’re not happy with the explanation provided by science is what requires faith. If evolution is a religion, then so is aerodynamics, astronomy, botany, and any other scientific endeavour you care to mention.
And it is definitely humanism, which the U.S. Supreme Court has declared to be a religion.
This article will clarify what humanism is. Religious humanism is just one type of humanism. Teaching evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with religious humanism.
The letter I’ve referred to here is by Karen Kuzdzal. I did a quick search and found this letter also by her. A select quote:
I praise God for President Bush, and for the wisdom God gave him to pull us out of the environmentalist-wacko Kyoto global-warming agreement and for gutting the Clean Air Act.
It scares me that there are people like this.