Opinions on faith and life

Exceptions to the Rule, Part 2

2007-07-30

Speaking of exceptions to the rule, I was sent This Link today showing how the same flawed logic is used in other areas like evolutionism (which, as I have pointed out before and the article also confirms, is a religious philosophy). Here again, a rule is devised (naturalism) which is supposed to explain the causes and origins (philosophy) of what we observe (science), but when observations to the contrary are made, we keep the flawed (i.e. stupid and false) rule and call this an exception!

The evos call this sort of attempt to cover their hind ends “scientific progress”, but all it really does is expose the complete incompatibility between science and the religion of naturalism, a.k.a. evolutionism. This current study’s conclusion is just as laughable as the claim I heard on a documentary about dolphins once. They said the reason dolphins were known to leap out onto the shore to catch stranded fish was that it was the beginning of an evolutionary step back to the land from which they originally came! (And of course, polar bears spend so much time in the water that surely the god Evo is [aimlessly] directing them to turn back into sea creatures. Riiiiight.)

So get the picture here: Christians have tons of evidence of design on their side, as observed by science. Evos have evidence of design as well, but instead of acknowledging this as evidence of design they choose to accept all the exceptions! Now who is showing more blind faith in their “cause”?

While true observational science has indeed progressed, naturalism has a long history of being proved false. Yet the faithful cling to it like a life jacket that they hope will save them from God. It’s blind faith, it’s naive, and it’s not science. I guess you could say that evolutionism is an exception to the science rule, eh?