Wikia

Religion Wiki

Atheism and deception

Talk0
34,036pages on
this wiki

This article expressess a personal opinion about a religion or a topic related to religion. Please be respectful in your talk page comments, even if you strongly disagree with the opinions expressed here. You can, of course, write another article about the same subject. Different opinions are welcome on Religion Wiki.

In respect to atheism and deception, prior to Charles Darwin publishing his evolutionist work On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a materialist, which is a type of atheist.[1] Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been a merely a deceitful ploy to downplay the implications of his materialistic theory. [2]

German scientist Ernst Haeckel was a very influential proponent of the evolutionary position and Haeckel was an advocate of atheism.[3] Ernst Haeckel attempted to portray himself as an ethical proponent of atheism, however, history shows he was a deceitful individual who committed a serious act of deception.[4][5][6] [7][8] The March 9, 1907 edition of the NY Times refers to Ernst Haeckel as the "celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical Atheism."[9]

Noted evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History:

"Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"[10]
File:Haeckel.jpg

Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: "I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically".[10]

Intelligent design theorist Michael Behe exposed the fraudulent nature of Haeckel's embryos in a NY Times article.[11] It appears as if Stephen Gould was irritated that the fraud was exposed in manner that publicly embarrassed the evolutionary community - namely though a high profile NY Times article.[12]

In addition, many of the ideas that Haeckel supported had a number of negative social effects.

Modern Proponents of Atheism and DeceptionEdit

A majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism since World War II have had the worldview of atheism.[13][14] The continued use of deceitfulness has continued by modern evolutionists. In recent times, evolutionists have tried to convince the public of the supposed validity of the evolutionary position by frequently using the term "overwhelming evidence" or similar terms in relation to the alleged existence of evidence that supports their position.[15] For example, prominent atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins claimed in an interview with journalist Bill Moyers that there is "massive evidence" for the theory of evolution.[16] However, the scientific literature certainly contains material which illustrates the deceitfulness of stating there is "overwhelming evidence" to support the evolutionary position. For example, in January 2000 scientist Simon Conway Morris stated the following:

When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd. -(Simon Conway Morris, [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)[17]

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati states the following in relation to the diluted definition of the word "evolution":

...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved. The PBS Evolution series and the Scientific American article are full of examples of this fallacy.[18]

Evolutionary Position Gradually Losing Public SupportEdit

There is evidence to suggest that the evolutionary position is gradually losing public support.

Folly and fruit of atheistic evolutionary deceptionEdit

Currently, the are a number of untenable "theories" of evolution and the evolutionary community currently is in disarray and lacking any real consensus on how evolution allegedly occurred.

See AlsoEdit

Notes Edit

  1. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877
  2. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03EFDD123EE033A2575AC0A9659C946697D6CF
  3. "Another Evolution Fraud Exposed" - Creationism.org, INVESTIGATING GENESIS SERIES.
  4. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03EFDD123EE033A2575AC0A9659C946697D6CF
  5. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1180
  6. http://www.iconsofevolution.com/Icons of Evolution
  7. http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf
  8. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03EFDD123EE033A2575AC0A9659C946697D6CF
  9. 10.0 10.1 "Another Evolution Fraud Exposed" - Creationism.org, INVESTIGATING GENESIS SERIES.
  10. http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf
  11. http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf
  12. Dr. Don Batten, A Who’s Who of evolutionists Creation 20(1):32 December 1997.
  13. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.,F.M., Refuting Evolution, Chapter 1, Facts and Bias
  14. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0612school-year.asp
  15. http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html
  16. Jonathan Sarfati,Ph.D., F.M. Refuting Evolution 2, Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
Conservlogo4
This page uses content from Conservapedia. The original article was at Atheism and deception. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. Conservapedia grants a non-exclusive license for you to use any of its content (other than images) on this site, with or without attribution. Read more about Conservapedia copyrights.

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki