Coffee!!: Should we reject Darwinism due to its obvious support for new atheism?
Recently, a group of friends was mulling over coffee whether one should reject Darwinism in principle because it is the creation story of atheism. One friend argued that we should not reject it just because its staunchest proponents are mostly atheists.
I am not so sure. Consider this: Approximately 80 percent of evolutionary biologists (= Darwinists) are pure naturalists (no God and no free will, according to William Provine’s recent study). Welcome to the world of Minority Report, where social engineering seems completely reasonable, even "humane." As in the "Humane Society."
Now let me put a case to you:
Assume that 80% of the members of a social group also hold memberships in a Communist or other type of Fascist political party. But I, as it happens, am a free speech journalist who supports an open society. Should I continue to hang around with them, or distance myself from them, repent, and then feel free to denounce them when they eventually perpetrate some fraud or evil?
In my humble opinion, it is NOT irrelevant that the new atheists are overwhelmingly Darwinists. That guides the way they interpret data, and the way they behave toward scientists who dissent from their orthodoxy, based on failure to replicate their results or legitimate suspicion as to how they were obtained.
The Darwinists' certainty that they are right is based on occult knowledge (= natural selection, in reality an important conservative force in nature, has unbelievable creative powers.) They need to believe that, so they do.
Madam Xerxa, our local psychic, is just as certain that she is right, based on occult knowledge, but on a much humbler level. In her dirty, ramshackle walkup, she can predict only the future, not the past. But, hey, she doesn’t charge as much for her nonsense.*
Classic unbelievable beliefs, both. But unbelievable beliefs have consequences. So I would argue that a high level of acceptance by atheists is a good reason for a high level of suspicion on the part of others.
The new atheists have the right to be atheists on their own time, but not to front a system dedicated to that purpose at tax expense - and call it science.
* The Darwinist claims to know what Stone Age man was thinking about religion or about shopping. Madam Xerxa can merely inform you that you will soon meet a tall, dark, and attractive-looking stranger.
Yes, of course, that traffic plod who caught you doing 50 km in a 40 km zone! $120 later in fines, Madam Xerxa is still right.
If either of these propositions is science, I am an apple pie.