Evolutionists: Spreading Ignorance and Superstition for 150 Years

dunceAccording to evolutionary theory, a vestigial organ is an organ that evolved to serve our ancestors, but as evolution marched on, it became useless and now serves little or no purpose. Of course to a creationist, who believes animals and humans were designed by God about 6,000 years ago, that is absurd.

One of the most famous examples of a vestigial organ, given in many science textbooks, is the appendix. About 1 in 20 people have had an appendix removed in necessary surgery. Most of them go on to live long lives. But does that mean that the appendix is completely useless? No. If my left arm were removed, I could live a long, happy life, but that wouldn’t mean my arm was vestigial.

It turns out that the appendix serves a purpose in the immune system. Creationists have been telling us this for some time , but it seems the secular scientific community has recently decided to leak this information. All of those enlightened geniuses who love to cite the vestigial appendix as a favorite piece of evidence now stand side-by-side with “backward-thinking” Christians.

How many people have been deceived by atheistic science, which is not science at all?

40 thoughts on “Evolutionists: Spreading Ignorance and Superstition for 150 Years

  1. “But does that mean that the appendix is completely useless? No.”

    Vestigal doesn’t mean completely useless. It just means it is no longer operating under the use it originally evolved to take.

    And isn’t it funny how it was creation scientists who discovered the use of the appendix?

    Oh wait, no, it was secular scientists.

  2. Hi Morse,

    You left your comment within 6 minutes of this article being posted. Are you independently wealthy, able to sit around debating atheism all day? I think you’ve commented on every article I’ve written on this topic in the last year. Why do you have such zeal for this topic?

    You clearly didn’t have time to read the articles to which I linked. Here’s the introductory paragraph of the AIG article I linked to:

    The standard definition of ‘vestigial’ is an organ that once was useful in an animal’s evolutionary past, but that now is useless or very close to useless. The list of vestigial organs in humans has shrunk from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999. Evidently to salvage this once-critical support for evolution, a new revisionistic definition of a vestigial structure is now sometimes used. This definition involves the idea that a vestigial organ is any part of an organism that has diminished in size during its evolution because the function it served decreased in importance or became totally unnecessary. This definition is problematic because it is vague and would allow almost every structure in humans to be labelled as vestigial.

    Your definition of vestigial isn’t the historic definition of vestigial.

    Have you learned anything new about the evolution of giraffes? As far as I’m concerned, you haven’t answered those questions. I don’t see any reason why you should move on to a new topic when the evolution of one of the most popular animals in creation remains a mystery to you.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  3. Bill,

    Those who are not redeemed by the Lamb of God cannot discern spiritual Truth – that’s in the Book! Therefore, fantasies that help them deny God and His revealed Word are necessary.

    Any redeemed child of the living Lord can read the creation account and study the Bible to discern that there is NO WARRANT for the gap theory or the day-age theory.

  4. But wait… isn’t ‘evolving’ something, and then losing it again anti- evolution?

    Does that mean that we will eventually turn back into the dust we came from?

    Well, look at that! My Bible already says that.
    :)

    – Jeff H

  5. At the most basic level, the Evolutionary Theory exists to attempt to dispense with the very existence of a Creator God. No God, no One to be accountable to. No sin, no judgment. How very convenient.

  6. Php 2:8-11 “And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
    And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

    One day it will change and they will have to give an account. They can no longer stick their heads in the sand and expect judgment to disappear but by then it will be too late! Evolution, after all, is JUST a THEORY!

  7. My thoughts precisely, when I heard this ‘discovery’. Funny kind of like ‘discovering’ America and claiming it.
    I might have to check this blog out more often (seeing such a good list of preachers–you’ve missed Albert Martin though).
    It was Albert Martin who pointed out that the ‘EXPERT’ of today is the subject of the critics tomorrow. As with all God defying/denying thoughts of man, he continually learns how wrong he’s been whether it’s history, science, pyschology and even medicine
    ‘we used to do/think —-this– but thanks to new ‘discoveries’ we now do/think this!’
    Yet it’s quite the opposite with the word of God which needs no defense, yet despite all the oppostion and denials of places/names/events and whatever else TIME bears MORE and MORE testimony to it’s accuracy!
    “Light has come into the world and men loved darkness more than light because their deeds were evil” John 3

  8. The damage, suffering, and devastation inflicted upon the world by the Evolutionary Theory can’t be overstated. Hitler used the Evolutionary Theory as justification to commit genocide on “inferior” races. In the name of science, late-term abortion is justified. Animals are viciously and inhumanely treated, since they’re just as “randomly evolved” as humans. Indeed, no living being can have any intrinsic value according to Evolution, since they all simply evolved by chance. Unfathomable atrocities have been committed since Evolution has made laws and ethics subjective and relative. In religion, the likes of Westcott, Hort and Lightfoot were evolutionists. As such, they had no regard for the Holy Word of God they butchered in 1881. The list goes on and on.

    Yet God has not left Himself without witness:
    “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them: for God has shown it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead: so that they are without excuse: Because that when they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were they thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1:19-22)

    It’s not a matter of man not knowing God exists. God has made Himself plainly evident. It’s that man doesn’t want to believe God exists.

  9. Vestigal doesn’t mean completely useless. It just means it is no longer operating under the use it originally evolved to take.

    morsec0de – I think your story is evolving… I don’t think it will ever grow any legs though…. it’s not very stable and is built on shifting sand.
    ;)

  10. Hi Jeff H

    Humorous comment : Ironic though when you state the remark about shifting sand. Jesus stated that those who reject His words have built on sand The theory of evolution of course is a thesis in crisis . If it wasn’t for the fact that the only credible alternative requires belief in an all-powerfull Creator to whom we must give an account, this fairy tale for adults would have dispensed with long ago

  11. Jesus’s words about creation and other things spoken of by Moses are sharp and to the point as always. John 5: 46& 47: “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

    God created man as he is (in HIs image). There are no disposable parts, no useless parts and no extra parts. Science being what it is may some day figure out that the earth is not flat, that God through Christ created all that is, and finally humble themselves before their Creator. I’ll be holding my breathe!

  12. morse said: If an organ can be removed with little or no negative effect, I would call that close to useless.

    Sorry, but that is a very ignorant comment. Can the body continue to run without the appendix? Certainly it can. Can it run as well without the appendix as it did with it, certainly not.

    If you can’t see it like this, think on it this way. Take an eight cylinder car. Are all eight cylinders a necessary part of the car as it was originally designed by its creator? Absolutely. Yet what would happen if you removed one spark plug? Would it continue to run? Certainly. Would it run as well with seven cylinders as it did with eight? Certainly not.

  13. Sorry, but that is a very ignorant comment. Can the body continue to run without the appendix? Certainly it can. Can it run as well without the appendix as it did with it, certainly not.

    Speaking of ignorant comments, you do realize that without modern medical intervention burst appendices significantly increase mortality in young adults? If that’s design, the engineer should be fired. Just one more example from a humungous list of bad ‘design’. Morse was quite correct in his statement, which is more than I can say for yours.

    And your analogy is rather silly. Removing a cylinder would be better represented by removing one of the four chambers of your heart. Removing the appendix is more akin to removing a cup holder.

  14. SA,

    “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools…”

    Rather than being grateful for what you have been given (which I have little doubt is a tremendous amount), you point out design flaws. Rather than wondering why there might be a design flaw, you reject the Designer, which is utterly foolish.

    I’d like to find out a little more about your story. Would you say that at one point you were saved? Have you ever been mistreated by Christians?

    Thanks,
    Bill

  15. “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools…”

    Rather than being grateful for what you have been given (which I have little doubt is a tremendous amount), you point out design flaws. Rather than wondering why there might be a design flaw, you reject the Designer, which is utterly foolish.

    Appeal to emotion. Argument rejected. Why would I thank something which as far as I can tell nonexistent? And no, I don’t feel anywhere deep down that gods really exist (another common myth of what atheists believe)? The evidence points to common descent like 100-ft neon arrow. Speaking for all other scientists in fields related to biology, Glenn’s assertion that ‘the theory of evolution of course is a thesis in crisis…’ gave me a good laugh!

    I’d like to find out a little more about your story. Would you say that at one point you were saved? Have you ever been mistreated by Christians?

    Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. You have no idea how impressed I am with those questions. Usually, I’m automatically labeled an immoral person because I’m an atheist without the believer bothering to get to know me. My ethics a wholly defensible and I strongly adhere to them.

    The caveat is that the second question is skewed towards the urban legend that atheists were at some point mistreated by a believer. And it IS a myth. A lot of people maintain that myth because the truth of the matter simple doesn’t fit into their world view.

    In answer to the first question, no. Been to church, read the bible… None of it made an ounce of sense when I was a kid, and none of it makes sense to me as an adult. There is nothing which tells me that any religion is other than a product of human nature. I have no doubt that your beliefs give you great comfort and that you wish to share that with other people. The problem is that I don’t want it. I see no truth to it whatsoever. I have heard every argument under the sun, none of which stand up to scrutiny. And I think religion, while providing benefit to individuals, is a disaster for society at large when it becomes mixed with public policy. I need only look to such things as abstinence-only sex education programs. Not only do they fail utterly in their goals (all studies on their effects demonstrate no change in sexual behavior) but serve to withhold critical information on safe sex.

    All atheists want is a secular society where everyone is free to believe or not believe as they wish. Unfortunately, right-wing religious zealots want to convert everyone by injecting their values on everyone else. Hence the rise of the so-called New Atheists, as if there is a new way of not believing. (Even worse when we are referred to as ‘militant’, as if we advocate burning down churches and what not.) What’s happened is that we are no longer accepting the status quo where religion is undeservingly immune from criticism for actions and beliefs that would be criticized by everyone if it had nothing to do with religion.

    Contrary to what many believe about atheists, we do indeed believe in a great many things, though we do not have a consensus belief other than our lack of belief in gods. I for one believe strongly in individual freedoms, even for those who wish to remove mine a la George Bush Sr. I abhor his statement that atheists should not be considered citizens or patriots, but I would stand up for his right to say it. (Which is why I disagree with laws against statements of Holocaust deniers – they are so ridiculous that anyone listening to them will believe anything.)

    So, no- I grew up in a secular household. Science became my vocation and taught me how to apply critical thinking skills to life.

    In answer to the second question, no. Sure, there are jerk religious people just as there are jerk atheists. But one of the biggest problems with religion is religious people are often completely oblivious to when they are being jerks (and actually think they are the pinnacle of goodness while doing it). I have no illusions about when I am being a jerk. I say things online I that I would never say in person. But I think that that is true for everyone. There’s something about the relative anonymity and removal of personal interaction here that brings out the worst in people. But I digress. Proselytizers just don’t understand that their proselytizing is rather insulting. I mean, seriously- do they think atheists live under rocks? The very act of proselytizing implies that the proselytizer’s view is better than the non-believer’s. Can you not see how this could be construed as anything other than patronizing?

    Contrary to the fears of the religious, the vast majority of atheists have no desire to take away freedom of belief. We just want to be left alone without worrying that some religious group is trying to sneak in laws related to how their religion says its practitioners should live that will affect the lives of all, including those that do not share their belief.

    Sure, we atheists bitch about religion. It’s about time we realized that it is not above scrutiny. I have every right to point out how religion can be detrimental (so long as I can back it up) just as you do to promote its benefits. This dialog is hundreds of years in the making, but it’s finally here. If there’s anything that defines the so-called New Atheism, that’s it.

    Nor do I think that Christians acting badly is any reason to reject the tenets of Christianity (which I find incapable of standing up to even cursory scrutiny- now that’s a reason to reject Christianity). However, I don’t see that Christianity actually helps people’s behavior much. Statistics show that atheists are vastly underrepresented in prison populations. One Pew Study showed that church goers are more likely to accept the use of torture in gathering intelligence than atheists. Another interesting study showed that religious people lied less than atheists (self-reported data), but when I see a number like 99% of religious people always tell the truth, I see 1% who really told the truth to the poller (heh).

    Thanks for the questions!

    SA

  16. As a young atheist, I kept my opinion to myself. I even hung out with a Lutheran student group at the university campus because I enjoyed the company. What I thought was a noble notion was shattered through a knowledge of the existence of religiots such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, Jim and Tammy Fae Baker, etc. The never-ending Parade of Fools continues with the likes of Ann Coulter and Bill Donohue. Many people think that the so-called ‘new atheism’ (What the hell is that? Is there some new way to not be superstitious?) is some spontantaneous phenomenon that has arisen without cause.

    I’m sorry, I got lost in your quote…

    Were you taking about Christians or the people you mentioned in your quote?

    I think you’ve had your mind welded shut for a looooong time, friend.

  17. SA,

    Thanks for the response and your honesty.

    When I quoted Scripture to you, that wasn’t an appeal to emotion, that is a description of what God has done to you. You’ve failed to give thanks to Him, and your foolish heart has become darkened, and your thinking has become futile. I don’t say that to be mean, but because I care about you.

    I certainly believe you when you say you have ethics for yourself. I doubt that you live up to them, unless they’re nearly meaningless, because none of us are able to really live up to any reasonable code of ethics.

    However, when you criticize the ethics of others, implicit in that statement is that there is some universal code of ethics–a standard for ethics that is beyond ourselves. That is something that someone with a consistent atheist worldview could not do.

    I have no doubt you would say that it’s wrong for you to rape and murder a child, however if someone else were to do that, you have no basis for condemning that. The rapist/murderer has just as much right to determine his ethics as you have to determine yours.

    That is why your thinking is futile, because the world we live in is consistent with rape and murder being wrong, but your worldview doesn’t allow for that reality.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  18. Shamelessly Atheist:
    I’m a Christian. I do not personally believe Christians, nor any religious people, have the right to force, coerce, or manipulate anyone to be Christian or even religious. Much harm has been done throughout history in the name of religion, even in the name of Christ. And that’s one reason for this site: to attempt (in our own imperfect way) to tell people the difference between true Christianity and false, between truth and error in “religion”.

    I happen to believe the Bible, in an Almighty Creator God, and in the Savior Jesus Christ. And for anyone who chooses to listen, I will tell them about God, about Jesus, about what I understand the Bible to say. But you are certainly free to believe as you choose as well. I support your right to think and choose for yourself.

    I will say, it is a mistake to discard the validity of Christianity by the misdeads of some so-called practitioners. It is a mistake to discard the possibility of a Creator God because He may not make sense to you. And it is a mistake to reject eternal life. What if you’re wrong? I encourage you strongly to think more about it.

    This is the good news in a nutshell, and you are certainly free to accept or reject it: There is one God, eternally existent, Who created the universe and all life. Mankind sinned against God, thus forfeiting eternal life. God sent prophets to explain God and His ways to man. Man killed His prophets. God came to earth as a man Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ (Messiah, Annointed One). Jesus lived a sinless life, so He could satisfy justice by taking man’s penalty upon Himself, even the death on a cross. Jesus rose from the dead, and now is seated in Heaven. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes (has faith in, trusts himself to) Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (Jn. 3:16). Thus He gives eternal life to all He has called to follow Him.

    Now you’ve heard it. As I said, what you do with it is up to you.

  19. You’ve failed to give thanks to Him, and your foolish heart has become darkened, and your thinking has become futile. I don’t say that to be mean, but because I care about you.

    I appreciate the sentiment, but you could not be more wrong. I do not accept the bible as authoritative (and indeed, I have a number of good reasons to reject it as being anything other than written by numerous human authors). You assert scripture as fact and coming from god, but I reject that because I see no reason to accept it. My reasons for disbelief are entirely defensible, and if that is not acceptable- well, too bad. But do leave us alone to maintain our disbelief. If not, we do have teeth and claws, and we are starting to use them.

    I have no doubt you would say that it’s wrong for you to rape and murder a child, however if someone else were to do that, you have no basis for condemning that.

    Sadly, I find this to be a common opinion. Absolutely I do have such a basis. While atheism in-and-of itself does not give ethical guidance (no atheist I know of says it does), there are fully-defensible ethical systems available based on principles and reason. I, for one, am a secular humanist. As such, in your example when the actions and beliefs of one person affect another in a non-consenting way, then that action or belief is wrong. Quite simple and fully justifiable. Thus, if it is wrong for me to harm others, why on earth would it be okay when applied to anyone else?

    So, yes. Contrary to your opinion, my world view totally allows for reality. I certainly would not want someone to murder me or someone I know and care about. Even the ones I don’t care for. Or anyone, for that matter. If we were all allowed to go around raping and murdering, society would be devastated. I don’t think that’s good either because a stable society is a happier society on the whole, and I value society because I benefit from being a part of it. If everybody is happy, then I’m happy because I am a part of ‘everybody’. We are a social species, and rules governing behavior between individuals maintains a less stressful environment and thus a happier one. Wanna tell me what the prohibition against mixed-fiber clothing was all about? Not even the most orthodox practitioner of Judaism can justify it, or even where the heck it came from.

    Based on the principles of secular humanism, I can tell you why. Does that mean that secular humanism is objective? Certainly not. So, far from implying it, I reject the idea of an objective morality. I apply an ethical model to my behavior based largely on the principle of reciprocity. I treat others how I myself wish to be treated. The concept of an objective morality is meaningless in light of a constantly changing moral zeitgeist. Even the prohibition against murder in the Ten Commandments means something quite different now than it did when it was first written. Today, it means don’t kill anybody else. Back then it meant don’t kill another member of the tribe. Outsiders were fair game. Even as late as the 13th century the latter meaning was the interpretation in Jewish law (read up on Maimonides some time). And if morality comes from a deity, then that deity is impaled on one or other of the forks in the Euthyphro Dilemma.

    I criticize from the point of view of MY ethics, a set of defensible principles. I don’t for one second believe that they are the only set of defensible ethics available. I don’t for one second believe they are objective. But after much reasoning I find they work for me and I can justify them, as I try to do with all of my beliefs.
    ___________________________________________________________________________________
    Were you taking about Christians or the people you mentioned in your quote?

    I don’t mind most Christians at all. I no problem with the right of the individual to believe as they wish so long as it does not interfere with the same right for others. Such people that I listed believe in the freedom of the individual right up until the point it interferes with their perceived and fictitious right to impose their belief systems on others. On this continent they happen to be almost always Christians, but I am critical of all religions.

    I think you’ve had your mind welded shut for a looooong time, friend.

    And yours has been open so far that the contents have spilled.
    ___________________________________________________________________________________

    But you are right, Jeff- I have to reword that.

  20. Shamelessly athiest

    I’m glad my comment gave you a good chuckle…..but the theory of evolution is indeed a thesis in crisis and here’s why.

    It’s unscientific! Something can not come from nothing.It’s an exercise in adsurdity to dogmatically declare it can.Incidentally athiesm is also unscientific.Until you have ALL the facts you can not declare “there is no God”and no one has all the facts.
    Evolution is also unscientific because it has never been observed.It has never been tested in a controlled enviroment and what has been observed works against the thesis eg symbiotic relationships ,the complexity of organs that would be useless in a half evolved condition the lack of ANY fossil evidence for missing links (the missing link is still missing!) etc etc.

    Logically the evidence of design points to a Designer .Then the challenge simply becomes to identify who the Designer is.
    Science rightly applied will point to God. Fundamentalist athiesm is a religion that offers no hope no answers and no truth

  21. It’s unscientific! Something can not come from nothing.

    You’re right Glenn.

    Not only that, but even if you add energy (like from the sun), an undirected energy source will not cause an increase in the complexity of life forms.

    The only way to ‘evolve’ (if it were possible) would be to ADD INFORMATION.

    So…

    I know that the sun doesn’t possess the ability to add information to DNA to produce more complex (or even different) life forms…

    The earth does not possess that capability either.

    I have to ask: Where is this additional information coming from?

  22. Shamless Athiest said:
    …without modern medical intervention burst appendices significantly increase mortality in young adults? If that’s design, the engineer should be fired. Just one more example from a humungous list of bad ‘design’.

    New flash Athiest – people die not because the original design is flawed but because death is in the world due to sin. People die from drinking water. Is water necessary? People die from eating food. Is food necessary? Death happens in countless ways and citing an appendix busting as poor design is an empty argument. If you believe the body is poorly designed then you have not spent much time studying it where even the most brilliant doctors admit they know next to nothing about all the intricacies of how it works.

    A cup holder – ok – right; guess you did not read the latest findings on the appendix.

  23. >>Wanna tell me what the prohibition against mixed-fiber clothing was all about? Not even the most orthodox practitioner of Judaism can justify it, or even where the heck it came from.<>You assert scripture as fact and coming from god, but I reject that because I see no reason to accept it. My reasons for disbelief are entirely defensible, and if that is not acceptable- well, too bad. But do leave us alone to maintain our disbelief. If not, we do have teeth and claws, and we are starting to use them.<<

    Interesting because someone was kind enough to answer your questions and comments. Now you say you have "teeth and claws and are starting to use them". If you don't want a discussion maybe you shouldn't be on this blog. No one coerced you to make comments on here. You've done this on your own. Everyone has been polite to you and allowed you to have your say but you are already bringing out your "teeth and claws" as you said. No one has forced you to believe what we believe and this IS a "Christian" blog. No atheist has to continue chatting if this is not his or her desire but these are the things we believe. We are NOT going to stop saying them just because you don't want to hear them on this blog! We do leave people alone in their unbelief because as the comment is, "A person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still," so we believe. Only the Lord can convince someone that HE is real. It's not our responsibility to do so.

    We don't mind someone staying if they have questions and are truly seeking the truth but it sounds like you just want to argue.

    Our responsibility is to share and if that person doesn't want to hear than we are free to let him or her go their own way. If they truly want to find themselves in hell after they die and they have heard the gospel then that's up to them! So it is with you. I don't understand why you begin showing your true colours when NO ONE is trying to change your mind. All they have done is give you a chance to hear the gospel and now it's up to you to choose but leave us alone to continue saying what we want to say on this blog. We don't plan on following you to your blog and arguing with you over your beliefs or even trying to demand that you believe the way we do. You said you felt everyone should have their say…well, you've had yours and we disagree with it. We've had ours and you disagree with it so please go on your way if nothing we say is going to change your mind and you can continue your atheism on your own blog!

    I hope you find what you're looking for but I don't think it will be this blog if all you want to do is argue needless points. The only way you are going to find the truth is by the Lord opening your understanding. I hope He does one day! Have a good day!

  24. Hey SA,

    Didn’t you know that it’s a scientific fact that if you leave a vacant lot sit long enough, a house will build itself there!

    I mean, it takes a LOOOOOOOONG time, but it’s true!

    Cities? They evolved by themselves.

    My car evolved in an iron mine up state (of course, it took a long time)… but yup, some miners were digging one day, and there she was.

    Oh yeah… my laptop computer – you guessed it. It evolved.

    The software, though, now THAT took a REALLY long time to evolve…

    I mean, it’s information ya know. And information always takes longer to evolve. Just ask Bill Gates.
    ;)

    SA, you better hope you’re right.

    Otherwise:

    Romans 2:5
    “But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.”

    And whether you believe the Bible or not… well, on that day it won’t really matter will it?
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    Oh, SA, I forgot to share a quote with you:

    My new theory is that perhaps atheists evolved from the chicken, because they not only have chicken characteristics–a head, eyes, mouth, skin, neck, heart, earlobes and legs (homology structures), but they also have the chicken’s tendencies–they are chicken livered. They hang around Christians like annoying little bugs hang around light, trying to inject their poison whenever they can.

    If you are an atheist, I hope I’m ruffling your feathers. I want to get under your skin and ask why you don’t have the courage to even whisper to Moslems what you keep shouting at Christians. Prove me wrong. Get onto a Moslem website and tell them that you don’t believe their god exists. Do your little “I don’t believe in Zeus” thing. Tell them they believe a myth. Talk about Mohammed as you do Jesus (use lower case for Mohamed). Do your “I don’t believe in the flying spaghetti monster” thing. Tell them that we weren’t made by a god (lower case), but that they evolved from primates (that will go down well). Also, let them know in no uncertain terms that the Koran is full of mistakes (give some examples), and that their mosques are full of hypocrites.

    You wouldn’t dare, because you are chicken-livered. You know that they are not like Christians. Despite the “anonymity” of your little chicken coop, they would come after you to lop off your head. And when they find you, you would fall on your knees and be praying to God for help . . .

    – Ray Comfort

  25. Hi SA,

    …there are fully-defensible ethical systems available based on principles and reason. I, for one, am a secular humanist.

    I don’t doubt that there are good reasons to believe in the Golden Rule.

    As such, in your example when the actions and beliefs of one person affect another in a non-consenting way, then that action or belief is wrong. Quite simple and fully justifiable.

    You’ve chosen an ethical system for yourself, but you have no right to impose that on anyone else.

    Thus, if it is wrong for me to harm others, why on earth would it be okay when applied to anyone else?

    Because they have chosen a different system, and you have no basis on which to say their system is inferior or superior to yours. If someone else decides that it’s a good thing to rape and murder, then apart from an absolute standard, you can’t say that’s wrong for them. You can give your opinion all day long, but you’re just a glorified ape, right?

    Thanks,
    Bill

  26. I spent a day thinking about this one, and I feel I must mention that the concept of deteriorative, negative, evolution is not beyond the scope of creationism. That is to say that, while the idea of a tumor evolving into a colon is patently absurd, the idea of anything degenerating into something useless is rather the nature of things. In the beginning, God made life and it was good. With any time comes change, and any change from the ideal will always be degeneration. The irony, though, is that the Evolutionists try to have it both ways. If a thing has even the slightest advantage, then it remains in the population, on the one hand, but then things that are vestigial got that way because they no longer provided enough of an advantage. Their ball rolls both up and down the hill just as easily.

    I can believe that your car is worse than it was when you bought it ten years ago. I cannot believe that a single dent, clog or broken part did anything to improve it. I am a Creationist.

  27. My mom told me about this not too long ago. I had no idea until then that the term “Vestigial Organ” even existed. I’m glad the research is finally showing the truth. Great article. I’ll pass it on to my mom.

  28. Hi Bill. I agree with you that the concept of vestigial organs was misguided, and poor evidence for evolution. I don’t understand the usefulness of the photo, however – with the dunce cap and all. It just seems, I dunno… sneering?

    Also, not to take sides against SA or anything, but I want to compliment your form here:

    ..none of us are able to really live up to any reasonable code of ethics. However, when you criticize the ethics of others, implicit in that statement is that there is some universal code of ethics–a standard for ethics that is beyond ourselves. That is something that someone with a consistent atheist worldview could not do.

    I can’t thank you enough for the way you articulated that. I’ve been searching for just those words lately (and again, my mention of this relates to another discussion on another blog entirely, and should not be taken as a position in anybody’s personal disagreements). Although, I would caution that atheists can criticize the ethics of others without contradicting their general denial of a universal code of ethics. For example, implicit in American citizenship is the idea that one would abide by the laws and honor the Constitution. The atheist need not accept a universal code of ethics to justify criticizing the person who rapes and murders a child; the offender’s obviation of his or her own moral responsibility – implicit in his or her American citizenship -can be fairly judged because as far as Americans are concerned, abiding by the laws and honoring the Constitution is our universal code of ethics – it’s the one we all accept in theory.

    morsec0de said,

    If an organ can be removed with little or no negative effect, I would call that close to useless.

    No offense intended, but I think that’s a foolish proposition. Not all effects are immediately recognizable, and that science lacks understanding of organ X today doesn’t mean such will be the case tomorrow. It’s difficult to demonstrate a lack of negative effect.

    DavidW said,

    At the most basic level, the Evolutionary Theory exists to attempt to dispense with the very existence of a Creator God. No God, no One to be accountable to. No sin, no judgment. How very convenient.

    Although certainly some atheists use evolution to skirt accountability, I think your statement paints an inaccurate picture of those who believe in evolution.

    The damage, suffering, and devastation inflicted upon the world by the Evolutionary Theory can’t be overstated. Hitler used the Evolutionary Theory as justification to commit genocide on “inferior” races. In the name of science, late-term abortion is justified. Animals are viciously and inhumanely treated, since they’re just as “randomly evolved” as humans. Indeed, no living being can have any intrinsic value according to Evolution, since they all simply evolved by chance.

    I don’t know if it matters to you at all, but many who accept evolution would take issue with this. Hitler also claimed to be a Christian. People commit atrocities in the name of all sorts of things. And nobody I know who believes evolution – not even atheists I dialog with – believe that no living being can have any intrinsic value.

    I will say, it is a mistake to discard the validity of Christianity by the misdeads of some so-called practitioners. (to SA)

    Wise words with which I fully agree.

    juluis mickel said,

    It was Albert Martin who pointed out that the ‘EXPERT’ of today is the subject of the critics tomorrow. As with all God defying/denying thoughts of man, he continually learns how wrong he’s been whether it’s history, science, pyschology and even medicine..

    Indeed there is some truth to that.

    Shamelessly Atheist – I’m with you regarding “being left alone,” wanting a secular political structure and also science’s position and evolution (though we probably disagree in the conclusions we draw from evolution).

    Speaking of ignorant comments, you do realize that without modern medical intervention burst appendices significantly increase mortality in young adults? If that’s design, the engineer should be fired. Just one more example from a humungous list of bad ‘design’.

    I think you’ve taken brother Michael‘s claim out of context: his argument was that the body plus a functioning appendix is preferable to a body without one, and that’s correct. Also, I reject your conclusion that the necessity of tending to burst appendices entails “bad design.”

    Usually, I’m automatically labeled an immoral person because I’m an atheist without the believer bothering to get to know me.

    I’m not an atheist, yet I just had that same experience here. I really enjoyed your comments here, by the way.

    Jeff H. / glenn christopherson: While we agree that God (a Designer) is a logically acceptable choice, that “something came from nothing” is not a claim of evolution so that argument won’t do much.

    Desert Pastor’s Wife,

    Interesting because someone was kind enough to answer your questions and comments. Now you say you have “teeth and claws and are starting to use them”. If you don’t want a discussion maybe you shouldn’t be on this blog. No one coerced you to make comments on here. You’ve done this on your own. Everyone has been polite to you and allowed you to have your say but you are already bringing out your “teeth and claws” as you said.

    Although SA can speak for his or herself, from the vantage point of an objective observer, may I politely suggest that you’ve over-reacted? I think you may have taken Shamelessly Atheist‘s “teeth and claws” remark a bit out of context. Unless I’ve overlooked an iteration of it, it wasn’t directed towards this blog, it was directed towards intrusive religious groups in the public sector [SA, I understood what you meant, hopefully you can find some consolance in that ;) ]

    M. Patterson,

    I spent a day thinking about this one, and I feel I must mention that the concept of deteriorative, negative, evolution is not beyond the scope of creationism.

    While I’m sure we’d probably not agree 100% on evolution and how it relates to God, I think you have the right approach. Just taking the time to think things through is commendable. I enjoyed your comment.

  29. Hi cl,

    I just noticed your comment, and thought I would respond.

    You said:

    Although, I would caution that atheists can criticize the ethics of others without contradicting their general denial of a universal code of ethics. For example, implicit in American citizenship is the idea that one would abide by the laws and honor the Constitution.:

    Of course there are many examples of immoral laws. A Nazi killing a Jew was submitting to the authorities of Nazi Germany. Just because he was submitting to the laws doesn’t mean that his actions were moral. Morality is not subject to a constitutional convention or the law.

    Assuming I understand you correctly, you would say:
    1. Consistent atheists would say there is no authority for moral absolutes.
    2. It is right for Americans to submit to the constitution and laws.

    However, I would add:

    3. Number 2 is an appeal to a moral absolute.

    Clearly, that doesn’t work. A consistent atheist cannot criticize others for breaking any law, no matter how dispicable it might be. The only consistent position would be moral relativism.

    Regarding the dunce picture, the Bible says that those who deny the existence of God are fools (Romans 14:1). I don’t think it’s doing anyone any favors to pretend otherwise.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  30. Bill,

    Thanks for getting back. Your original comment mentioned a “standard of ethics outside ourselves.” This is what I’m saying an atheist who rejects objective morality cannot believe in. IOW, I agree that someone with a consistent atheist worldview has no grounds to argue a universal code of ethics – so we agree there.

    All I was saying was, in a situation like America – its implied by us being here that we agree to follow the rules. Therefore, even though an atheist might not accept the existence of the “standard of ethics outside ourselves” you mention, the atheist still has grounds on which they can base their own moral decrees. IOW, one doesn’t need to adhere to a “standard of ethics outside ourselves” in order to justifiably pronounce judgment on immoral behavior.

    That’s all I was trying to say. It seems we’re in agreement for the most part.

  31. C.L.,

    I’m glad we’re in agreement for the most part. However, you are incorrect that an atheist doesn’t have to believe in moral absolutes to make moral judgments. Anytime an atheist makes a moral judgment, he’s borrowing from a theistic worldview to make his point–even if he’s American.

    Thanks,
    Bill

  32. Interesting article. I agree that it was a mistake to say the appendix is useless, and some evolutionists definitely used that remark to support their belief in evolution. It’s a pity so many creationists still cling to that as ammunition against evolution – I guess there’s not much else they have. (Bill not talking about you here – I know this article is old).

    I’m glad to see that such comments as “The theory of evolution of course is a thesis in crisis” can now be looked on, almost 3 years later, and seen for what they are – presumptuous and hopeful on the authors part, and of course, wrong.

    Bill:
    Do you still think that an atheist has to believe in moral absolutes to make moral judgements? I make moral judgements all the time and believe that morality is 100% subjective.

    I don’t expect others to behave according to my morals, but still act on my own morals. So if I see someone behaving immoral (according to my morals) I would intervene because my subjective morality tells me that it would be immoral not to.

    As Shamelessly Atheist pointed out reciprocation plays a large part in our behaviour too.

    Jeff H:
    I know you were trying to be funny – but seriously do you know what the theory of evolution is? And I don’t mean what you’ve learn’t from fellow Christians over an atheist-mocking session, I mean have you read about it from a non-biased source at all? It may surprise you, it may not, but then you would be in a better position to make “jokes” that make sense.

    ________________________
    Apologies for reviving an old post – but quite an interesting one I thought.

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