EvC Forum: Denouncing religions ? [New to debate]

Islamic creationist is pretty much the same as Christian creationism.

quote:
Another striking aspect of Yahya's material is how much of it is taken, with minimal changes, from Western creationist literature such as that associated with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Since the Quran is not as specific as the Genesis story, Islamic creationists usually allow an old earth, so Yahya discards flood-geology and is noncommittal about the age of the earth. But the rest is there, flavored with quotations from some "Intelligent Design" figures, and all set in a matrix of traditional Islamic apologetics hammering on how obvious it is that there is a designing intelligence behind all the wonders of nature. ICR-style creationism, which we tend to think of as a sectarian, evangelical Protestant peculiarity, turns out to be pre-adapted to an Islamic environment.

Yahya also promotes other beliefs far from mainstream science and scholarship, besides creationism. These tend to be his versions of conspiratorial ideas popular in the Muslim world, such as Masonic plots and holocaust denial. But even when indulging these politically-colored fantasies, Yahya has a way of getting back to denouncing evolution. Fascism: The Bloody Ideology of Darwinism (Istanbul: Kultur, 2002) begins with a "To The Reader" section, where Yahya explains that evolution is at the root of evil today:

The reason why a special chapter is assigned to the collapse of the theory of evolution is that this theory constitutes the basis of all anti-spiritual philosophies. Since Darwinism rejects the fact of creation, and therefore the existence of God, during the last 140 years it has caused many people to abandon their faith or fall into doubt. Therefore, showing that this theory is a deception is a very important duty, which is strongly related to the religion. It is imperative that this important service be rendered to everyone. Some of our readers may find the chance to read only one of our books. Therefore, we think it appropriate to spare a chapter for a summary of this subject. *

Same ol' same ol'.

Jewish creationism apparently looks exactly like Christian creationism. The Discovery Institute has Jewish members.

Hindu creationism is much the same, but with a twist. Hindu creationists believe that everything is much older than it actually is. So, for example, they use the "Paluxy tracks" as proof that the human race is millions of years older than those atheist scientists are admitting.

Here are some excerpts from the writings of a Hindu creationist:

quote:
Another idea was the theory of the BIG BANG, that all creation started from a single point or particle. This particle had unlimited depth and weight that somehow exploded to produce the universe. This, however, is mathematically indescribable. It is called a singularity, which means it is impossible. Nonetheless, this theory, as with the theory of evolution, is often taken to be a fact, upon which many other theories become based. However, they do not explain from where or how the original particle appeared.

The theories of the primordial soup and BIG BANG depend on the idea that inert matter can randomly organize itself into complex structures and various species of life. That is the fundamental trouble with both of these theories: How can inert matter by itself develop the incredible molecular arrangements to produce even the simplest cell? Matter does not organize itself that way. In fact, it can be seen that matter, once put into some form of construction and then left alone, always deteriorates. As scientists develop newer instruments to take a closer look at cells, they understand how truly miraculous such a random occurrence could be. Thus, it becomes obvious that nature needs to be directed by some higher force or intelligence for such combinations of material ingredients to come together to produce life. This immediately nullifies Darwin's theory of evolution. Even Darwin admitted that there were problems with his theory.

...

The problem is that even if something like the BIG BANG did occur without the supervision of a higher authority, what you would really end up having is a universe filled with dust. Why would such solid planets, suns, stars, and galaxies form out of this floating dust? And there certainly has been no scientific explanation why there is consciousness that inhabits the millions of species of beings. How could a BIG BANG bring about consciousness? From where did it come? These things are not explained by science. So it is not unreasonable to consider other theories about how this universe came into being, and how there was a development of so many species of life that have consciousness.

Another problem is that trying to apply simple physical laws on complex phenomenon like the creation requires the use of assumptions and guesswork which make such scientific theories no better than superstitions, even if such ideas are supported by other scientists or mathematicians. Their conclusions are misleading. This is why scientists are always changing or updating their conclusions as they make new discoveries. If they did not have it right the first time, why should we think they may have it right later on? And they will never get it right if they have only one theory and simply try to make all of their evidence fit that theory. They need to look at other possibilities.

Furthermore, the whole idea of a random reorganization of matter directly opposes the second law of thermodynamics. This law states that as time goes on, there is an increase in entropy, which is an increase in the state of random disorder or deterioration. This means that without a higher intelligence to intercede in the steady disorganization of elements, the universe is in a constant state of gradual decline. This is directly opposite to the idea that matter could organize itself into increasingly complex systems of stars, planets, and galaxies, or even cells, bodies, and various species. So such an organization of matter after a BIG BANG could never have taken place, nor could a BIG BANG have occurred. How could there have been a single particle of unlimited depth and weight floating around in the void universe waiting to explode? Someone had to have put it there. And how could it have exploded into unlimited atoms that formed the universe? Such theories are simply more scientific myths. So how else could the universe have been formed and from where does consciousness come?

First of all, consciousness does not come from a combination of chemicals. Consciousness is a non-material energy. Thus, consciousness exists before, during, and after the material creation. This means that the origin of the material cosmos and all life within it must also be consciousness, a Supreme Consciousness from whom come all other forms of consciousness that take up residence in the varieties of material bodies or species found in this material creation. This origin must also have intelligence and the ability to design in order to make the various combinations of elements come together to form even the simplest of cells. A single cell is formed by a combination of 300 amino acids that come together in a certain chain or pattern. Even scientists cannot figure out how that happened. And nature cannot do it by itself, as explained above. So there had to have been a guiding Creator to put this all together.

...

Our premise, on the other hand, is that all life comes from God. Almost every religion accepts this. Unfortunately, the problem is that most religions and traditions provide only a short and unscientific story or allegory of the universal creation. However, the Vedic literature, such as the Srimad-Bhagavatam, explains that the universal creation is but an expansion or a development from the original spiritual elements. These exist prior to, during, and after the material creation. By understanding the Supreme Creator and the spiritual nature, the cause of the material manifestation can be understood. Not the other way around. *

Same old lies, same old nonsense, same old ignorance (I found it by looking for a website mentioning both the Vedas and the Second Law of Thermodynamics) --- but this time it proves the truth of a completely different religion.

The reason all creationists sound alike is that of course they never put up any positive evidence for their myths, 'cos there isn't any. As a substitute, they whine about the aspects of science they don't understand; and muddle, bewilderment, and blank incomprehension of science can be shared by Hindu, Muslim, and Christian non-scientists alike.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

6 online now:	AZPaul3, PaulK, Phat, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Taq
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,436 Year: 3,693/9,624 Month: 564/974 Week: 177/276 Day: 17/34 Hour: 1/2