tft-short-4578168
Ken Ammi’s True Free Thinker:
BooksYouTube or OdyseeTwitterFacebookSearch

Question for atheists: is “God did it” a science stopper?, part 1 of 4

Is “God did it” a science stopper? Responding in the affirmative are the New Atheists.

There is a reason why the New Atheist movement is supported by young males: they confuse, rightful, rebellion against “religion” with rebellion against God, they are naturally rebellious as it is, they are in rebellion against their parents and they have a new found “freedom” as they abscond from mommy and daddy’s apron strings (see Atheism as a young white male phenomenon).

Thus, they make for good cheerleaders for the cenobites of the New Atheist movement: they exhibit zeal without knowledge, they are highly emotive and they are at the age of thinking that they know it all. Thus, they make for good and loyal unquestioning adherents of cult of personality cults of hero worship.

As one of the New Atheist’s head heroes, Richard Dawkins has voiced the claim that claiming that “God did it” is a science stopper. Being faithful adherents, the New Atheist street has turned this assertion into an ubiquitously promulgated well within the box atheist group think talking point de jour. It is noteworthy that when others tell foolish tales, we at first bear with them for fear of offending the weak, and then little by little we begin to listen willingly.

Richard Dawkins’ statement is as follows—as he quite literally sets up a straw man by playing the part of an imaginary, caricatured version of, his misunderstanding of, the claims of Intelligent Design theory:

A lot more work needs to be done, of course, and I’m sure it will be. Such work would never be done if scientists were satisfied with a lazy default such as ‘intelligent design theory’ would encourage. Here is the message that an imaginary ‘intelligent design theorist’ might broadcast to scientists:

“If you don’t understand how something works, never mind: just give up and say God did it. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries, for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. We need those glorious gaps as a last refuge for God.”

St Augustine said it quite openly:

“There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn.” [The God Delusion, pp. 132-133]

So, a critique of modern day Intelligent Design theory is premised upon an imaginary caricature and a man who lived 354-430 AD (we will end this series by considering Dawkins’ manipulation of what Augustine was actually stating). Such is the self-satisfaction of the New Atheist movement. Incidentally, keep in mind that Richard Dawkins admits to design in nature but, due to his adherence to his concoction of atheism and Darwinian evolutionary theory, reinterprets the design as caused by “time did it,” “matter did it,” “chance did it,” “‘selection’ did it,” “evolution did it,” etc. whilst encouraging the denial of direct evidence (see The Gap Filler):

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. [The Blind Watchmaker, p. 1]

Fellow atheist Francis Crick seconds this:

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. [What Mad Pursuit, p. 138]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here are the links to all four parts:
Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4


Posted

in

by

Tags: