“...deep intelligibility of nature itself couldn't be caused by evolution because it precedes all biological evolution, and further, the extraordinary human capacity to grasp this deep intelligibility of nature as evidenced in modern science exceeds by far a reductionist account of the evolution of human intelligence.”
“...only someone gone mad with ideological Marxism—and there have been many—would infer that everything about a society and everything about human nature, including all human thought, could be reduced to mere reflections of the economic modes of production of the particular society in which they occurred.”
The weirdness of atheist-Marxist Richard Dawkins and indeed of 1000 years of philosophical bunk called atheism and the 150 years of Marxist madness. Another atheist-communalist in the 'thought business' for the money and the glory. His ideas are about as new as say those of the insane-syphilitic Nietzsche, or the commune of the 13th century Cathars. Dawkins is another Oxfordian who believes that he is a god, or at the very least, the smartest evolutionary creation in history. The church of the Holy-Narcissist-Atheist – you need only a wall with a mirror on it. Dawkins like Darwin, believes that humans 'evolved' from a sponge, a worm, and a mouse. Perhaps with Dawkins and his fellow travellers evolutionary processes did indeed become confused and they ended up with the short-end of the evolutionary stick, stuck with the rationality of a sponge, encased within the body of a lemur, animated by the skill set of a guppy fish.
If you study bio-chemistry, cell-formation, genetic information, or the thousands of specific features that comprise a 'simple' cell; you will quickly discover that evolution is not only irrational and unscientific, but generally quite stupid. Add to science the fossil record which clearly illustrates climate catastrophes, and the mass emergence and mass disappearance of flora and fauna; along with zero missing links connecting say the frog to the human; and one has to wonder about the sanity of men like Dawkins who pray not only to themselves, but to the 'god' of chance, random genetic mutations, and a soupy mixture. In essence the evolutionists are irrational. In their hatred of 'god' they ignore science and reason. Yet these mini-gods so in love with themselves and with their face in the mirror, scream that they are the epitome of reason and learning.....yeah sure, and Chuckie Darwin was a 'scientist'....
Disproving evolution does not mean you believe that the earth is 6000 years old, or that Eve was flying on the back of a pterodactyl pet. Nor does it make one a 'fundamentalist'. In all likelihood we humans with limited rationality should admit that we don't really understand why life is here, or how the 2 million species of animals and flora were created. The immaterial will trump the material. Deism is as good of a theory as any though of course rather impossible to prove.
Evolution is however, quite easy to disprove.
In their book which deconstructs the little-mind of Dawkins and makes him appear about as smart as a grade 2 student; Wiker and Hahn make the following important points:
Dawkins is not rational enough. He follows reason up to a point, but it is a far too narrow point, one defined by his reductionism. Reductionism is a constriction of both reason and reality, one that paradoxically keeps the reductionist from giving an accurate account even of himself and closes off the possibility of understanding a demonstration of God's existence ....
Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and every bit the atheist as Richard Dawkins, so despaired of the possibility of the chance production of the first cell that he put forth his famous panspermia thesis, that intelligent aliens must have seeded the Earth with life. Of course, he gave no explanation for their existence
If we fill in the gaps between the universe's original fine-tuning and the multiple layers of finely-calibrated conditions that must be met on every level (from galactic, to solar, and finally to planetary) to produce the conditions that would allow for DNA and life on a planet, we find the odds against life growing much larger than Dawkins' billion to one, and the number of possible planets meeting these necessary, finely-calibrated conditions much smaller than Dawkins' billion billion.
even a very small protein with only 100 amino acids, we find that the probability of getting the right combination by chance is far, far beyond Dawkins billion to one. ..But when we do the actual calculations using only a very modest protein, we find the odds at about 12,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000 to one against getting the simplest protein structure by chance. Again, you don't have to be either a scientist or a statistician to see the difference in the number of zeroes.
problem for atheists that the chemical elements themselves did not always exist, and that the universe itself had a beginning rather than being eternal.
Nothing in bio-chemistry, cell-formation, or the complexity of brains, lungs, respiratory systems, gastro-intestinal systems, or even in the eye of a lowly mouse; is supported by evolution. Not a single jot or tittle of proof is offered for the vast array and differences between a frog and a snake; a bird and an elephant, or a whale and a shrew.
There is a direct line from Chuckie Darwin, to Marx, to Nietzsche, Lenin, the Nazis and to the modern day Atheist. Is this a line of 'thinkers' that you want to be associated with?
Jacobinism and Bolshevism can take new forms, and even now, there is more than a little resemblance between them and the contemporary apostles of political correctness. Dawkins is loosely connected with this latter group, planting his flag, as he tells the reader, with the liberalism of the moral zeitgeist
elimination of the feeble-minded in the first heyday of Darwinian eugenicism ran the spectrum from not allowing the unfit to breed to killing them....”
For Dawkins, compassion entails euthanasia; for the Christian, euthanasia is a species of murder.
The atheist love of murder:
Dawkins praises the evolutionist and atheist “philosopher Peter Singer” as the most eloquent advocate against the speciesist notion that human beings are somehow morally superior. [we are after just an evolved lemur....]
as with the Nazis, Singer would allow the retarded, the feeble-minded, the handicapped, in short, all the unfit, to be exterminated without a twinge of conscience.
Nazism—eugenics and racial extermination—appear to follow directly from the principles of natural selection.
Nazism, and its twin Communism, advocated the 'management' of the animal named 'human', and control over all aspects of education, work, living, and even breeding. Humans had to be controlled. Racial or ideological purity a must. The super-man had to be formed. There is no room within Nazism-Leninism for morality, compassion or love. The cult is uber-alles.
Within this vein the mantra 'Survival of the 'Fittest' simply means that those who kill everyone else will survive. Exterminate your enemies is surely the outcome of this dogma The more might, the more power, the more chance your genes survive and will go through the magic process [akin to a deistic process] of random-chance-genetic mutation, leading somewhat bizarrely to 'higher' life forms and new genetic code [the opposite occurs in reality, genetic code is lost through mutations]. Nature is war. So too is survival. Chuckie confirms this.
Darwin's affirmation of war as an essential aspect of human evolution in his Descent is mirrored in his presentation in the Origin of Species of the struggle for existence in all nature as a kind of war, speaking of the “great battle of life,” and the “war of nature.”
How charming. So for mental incompetents like Dawkins or Chuckie Darwin, life is a meaningless, random chance form of materialism. If you want your genes to survive and mutate then kill, exterminate, abort, euthanize and dispense with niceness, morality or ethics. There is thus no morality, higher purpose or ethos within the cult of Darwin and Atheism. All is blood and fangs.
And this irrational, unscientific cult is deemed 'intelligent' and 'rational'. How pathetic.