A scientific theory against God and morality

0 views
Skip to first unread message

John Wilkins

unread,
Jan 28, 2006, 9:34:55 PM1/28/06
to
I am saddened and offended to have to report to you that there is a scientific
theory that is opposed to religion, God's word, and theology, as well as being
offensive morally, philosophically and socially. And yet, scientists will not
permit the teaching of any other theory in the classrooms, exposing children
to a pernicious influence that will ultimately cause a number of them to lose
their faith in God and become morally dissolute.

This theory, which is imposed upon the naive minds of children and adults who
know no better than to swallow the "faith" of scientists, tells us that
everything is just the outcome of random forces and blind mechanical laws. It
denies that there is a purpose in the universe. It supports the idea that life
came out of the accidental workings of the physical universe rather than being
the result of intentional and purposeful actions of the creator. Its
fundamental assumption is that everything "just happens". The influence of
this theory on biology, particularly genetics, underpins claims that humans
have no free will and are just guided by genes.

For centuries, this theory and the theories of atheistic philosophers from
which it arose, has been used to undercuts social order. These philosophers
believe that we are nothing more than the sum of our appetites, and some have
even suggested that the social order, the economy, sexual behaviours, and
religion are just physical causes operating upon us and within us. Epicureans
believe in this theory, and it may have played a part in both the fall of the
Roman Empire and in the Holocaust.

Theologians, mostly Christian, but also Jewish and Islamic, and increasingly
other religions, have identified this "theory" as the foundation for the ruin
of religion. Catholic theologians, although some have accepted this theory,
have been seriously concerned about how this will destroy the philosophical
foundations of doctrine, and have sought to either reject it outright or try
to reconcile and ameliorate it with Catholic teachings, in particular the
basis of Catholic philosophy, without much success. In the nineteenth century,
the Church was so concerned about it, they published many articles against it
as being contradictory to the teachings of the Divine Doctor, Thomas Aquinas.
Even Darwin had to admit that it underlay his views.

Many people who accept this theory have done horrible things, in the name of
science. Hundreds of thousands have been killed by it. Hitler accepted it and
used it as the basis for his war effort. Stalin made it Party doctrine, and
used it to reject Russian Orthodox religion. Medical doctors have used it to
"treat" mental illnesses and to castrate people. It has been used to cause
cancer, to poison the environment, and to underpin the monopolies of
pharmaceutical companies. The military have used in for generations. It is
used by the mass entertainment industry to poison the minds of children, in
computer games and so-called "educational" TV, as well as in the liberal media.

One cannot believe this theory and be a good Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox
believer. Fight it in the schools and in society. Teach the controversy
wherever you can. There *are* scientific alternatives.

Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Servum tui ero, ipse vespera

Milan

unread,
Jan 28, 2006, 9:47:24 PM1/28/06
to

"John Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:drh9ho$1hv8$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au...

Amen, brother! They shall not pass.

regards
Milan


John Burton

unread,
Jan 28, 2006, 11:47:12 PM1/28/06
to

No, no, it was Euclidean geometry!

John

John Wilkins

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 12:30:09 AM1/29/06
to

Everything in this post is historically true, so far as I can tell.
Epicureanism was regarded as the most dangerous opposition to religion from
Aristotle on, and in the mid-nineteenth century Thomists opposed atomism as
being inconsistent with Aristotle's hylomorphism duality of form and substance.

Woehler's synthesis of urea (without the aid of the kidneys of man nor dog) in
1828 underlay the decline of vitalism, based on the chemical properties of
living matter. The religious opposition to atomism was real, and although
religion has been forced to accept it, the issues of opposition to evolution,
which came rather late in the piece (around 1880 or later), are the same as
the issues of opposition to atomism.

I may get around to documenting all this sometimes.

Thurisaz the Einherjer

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 2:10:02 AM1/29/06
to
John Wilkins wrote:

> ...Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.

Good one. I almost fell for it. :)

--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."

Why I am not a christian:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus/nojebus

FiveLongYears

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 3:12:28 AM1/29/06
to
Ya know.. a while back, I posted that we should ignore you funky
types.. Now I just like to read it for entertainment. Question..
Why do all the fundies sound like they are brainwashed? I mean
granted, it's cause they are, but why don't they shake off the lyrics
to random christian rants? Everyone wants to sound like jessie
jackson, who is not worthy of capital lettering.

FLY

Ye Old One

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 6:40:14 AM1/29/06
to
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:34:55 +1000, John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

>I am saddened

You should be with a brain as poor as yours.

--
Bob.

Sla#s

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 6:53:52 AM1/29/06
to

"John Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:drh9ho$1hv8$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au...

<SNIP>...exposing children


> to a pernicious influence that will ultimately cause a number of them to
> lose

> their faith in God ..

Wow! You mean for the first time in two thousand years they will be allowed
to think for themselves?

Slatts


VoiceOfReason

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 8:57:11 AM1/29/06
to

John Wilkins wrote:

<...>

> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.

Indeed! Since it gave us atom bombs, it must be Evil!

Jesus H Christ

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 10:24:16 AM1/29/06
to
Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in
news:f5apt1lqkg486706h...@4ax.com:

You need to let up on the ol' posting trigger finger there dude.

You failed to read the last line of the body of the post.


Here's a hint; the sig says;

"John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Servum tui ero, ipse vespera"


cheers,
jesus!


Sanity's Little Helper

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 9:49:43 AM1/29/06
to

Read it again - carefully.

--

D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN

AA #2208, HB #6

Sanity's Little Helper

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 9:48:41 AM1/29/06
to
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:34:55 +1000, John Wilkins wrote:

<snip most of excellent spoof creationist rant>


> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.

You do Realise that a large majority of your audience is American, and
therefore most of the people reading this have absolutely no sense of
irony.

Sanity's Little Helper

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 9:52:57 AM1/29/06
to

Indeed, and the theory of Gravity gave us hanging.

TomS

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 10:29:06 AM1/29/06
to
"On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:30:09 +1000, in article
<drhjq8$1pp3$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
>
>John Wilkins wrote:
[...snip...]

>>One cannot believe this theory and be a good Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox
>> believer. Fight it in the schools and in society. Teach the controversy
>> wherever you can. There *are* scientific alternatives.
>>
>> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
>
>Everything in this post is historically true, so far as I can tell.
>Epicureanism was regarded as the most dangerous opposition to religion from
>Aristotle on, and in the mid-nineteenth century Thomists opposed atomism as
>being inconsistent with Aristotle's hylomorphism duality of form and substance.
>
>Woehler's synthesis of urea (without the aid of the kidneys of man nor dog) in
>1828 underlay the decline of vitalism, based on the chemical properties of
>living matter. The religious opposition to atomism was real, and although
>religion has been forced to accept it, the issues of opposition to evolution,
>which came rather late in the piece (around 1880 or later), are the same as
>the issues of opposition to atomism.
>
>I may get around to documenting all this sometimes.
>

Atomism was traditionally identified with materialism.

There is the interpretation of Galileo's troubles with the
Catholic Church which says that the real problem was with his
endorsement of the atomic theory. I don't think that this
interpretation has held up well with later investigators, but it
does bring up the point of atomic theory.

Moreover, the standard exposition of the atomic theory relied
upon the effects of *chance*, as opposed to divine power. Of course,
the anti-evolutionists have made a big deal about the supposed
reliance of evolution on "mere chance". Although evolution doesn't
rely upon "mere chance".

This provides just another set of examples of how the
anti-evolutionists rely upon arguments which are not about
evolutionary biology, but against something else altogether
(atomism, in this case). Or against and outdated version of
evolutionary biology (neo-lamarckian). Or, at most, against some
facet of evolutionary biology which the anti-evolutionists
themselves accept
(microevolution).


--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II

David Jensen

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 10:50:52 AM1/29/06
to
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 14:48:41 +0000, in talk.origins
"Sanity's Little Helper" <elv...@noshpam.net> wrote in
<1ecr6mgj2i12q$.fr4kh6z00lbt$.d...@40tude.net>:

>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:34:55 +1000, John Wilkins wrote:
>
><snip most of excellent spoof creationist rant>
>> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
>
>You do Realise that a large majority of your audience is American, and
>therefore most of the people reading this have absolutely no sense of
>irony.

I could probably drag a few people out of churches around here this
morning who agree that atomic theory is pernicious if it doesn't show
God's great works as they understand them -- and I live in one of the
most enlightened cities in the US.

John McKendry

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 12:32:26 PM1/29/06
to
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:34:55 +1000, John Wilkins wrote:

The atheistic Daltonists on t.o. don't like to acknowledge it, but it's
well known that Dalton was acutely sensitive to the criticism that atoms
are "only a theory", and spent his life trying to fabricate real evidence
to support his conjectures. Only hours before his death, he was still
performing his experiments, feverishly mixing chemicals and measuring the
resulting products.

In other words, he decanted on his deathbed.

John

loua...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 12:45:19 PM1/29/06
to

John Wilkins wrote:

(re: evils of atomism)

> Everything in this post is historically true, so far as I can tell.
> Epicureanism was regarded as the most dangerous opposition to religion from
> Aristotle on, and in the mid-nineteenth century Thomists opposed atomism as
> being inconsistent with Aristotle's hylomorphism duality of form and substance.

I don't have much data on this, but I read recently that the medieval
church was deeply opposed to the concept of zero when it worked its way
west from India via the Moslem world. Having a symbol for nothing and
treating it like any other number for computational processes was
apparently the height of nihlism. (Pointers to more detailed sources
on this subject are solicited and welcome.)

In other news: I'm just now getting to see seasons 1 and 2 of Penn and
Teller's "Bullshit!" via a friend's DVD set. I liked their creationism
episode. It was filmed at the time Cobb County GA was debating its
textbook disclaimer and ended with the school board upholding the
stickers to wide public applause. Good long interviews with both Gish
and Eugenie Scott.

Heck, just the intro scene was priceless. Penn gave the evolution side
of the story by rather formally reading a passage from Darwin (there is
a grandeur in this view of life...) and a short Dawkins quote about
evolution as randomly generated changes non-randomly selected in
replicators.

Teller was standing silent (of course) next to him while he did this,
holding a large leatherbound Bible. Then Penn invited him to give the
creationist side. Teller paused exactly long enough for maximum humor
value, and started hitting Penn in the head with the Bible.

Pretty much the same content as any five years of reading t.o., in
other words. <g>

Louann

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 1:04:12 PM1/29/06
to
John McKendry wrote:
>
> In other words, he decanted on his deathbed.

You are evil.

Bob Kolker

raven1

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 2:33:47 PM1/29/06
to
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:32:26 -0500, John McKendry
<jlas...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:

>
> In other words, he decanted on his deathbed.

AIEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!
--

"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"

Joe Cummings

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 2:31:27 PM1/29/06
to
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:30:09 +1000, John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au>
wrote:

Get Wilkins away from punning, and he can be quite interesting
at times.

Being an oldie around these parts, I was scraping the moss
from one of my legs when I read this.

I was reminded of a book that had lain unread for quite a
while:

The Atomic Debates.

Brodie and the Rejection of the Atomic Theory

Ed. W.H.Brock. Leicester Universitu Press, 1967

This deals with the attitude of British chemists towards atoms
in the nineteenth century, and how amongst many of them there was
scepticism about their existence.

Brodie even had a calculus of non-atomic chemistry.

The "fundamental equation" of this calculus was :

xy=x+y

Hmmm.

Have fun,

Hoe Cummings

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 3:19:12 PM1/29/06
to
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.

Yeah, right.

Nuke the bastards!

Jan

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 3:47:47 PM1/29/06
to
John Wilkins wrote:
> I am saddened and offended to have to report to you that there is a scientific
> theory that is opposed to religion, God's word, and theology, as well as being
> offensive morally, philosophically and socially. And yet, scientists will not
> permit the teaching of any other theory in the classrooms, exposing children
> to a pernicious influence that will ultimately cause a number of them to lose
> their faith in God and become morally dissolute.

That would be Darwin's theory of evolution.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 4:59:14 PM1/29/06
to
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:

How can a biological theory, based on observed fact have any moral
import whatsoever? Is the atomic theory potentially immoral? What about
quantum field theory?

And scientists will agree to teaching alternative -scientific theories-
in science classes. ID is not a scientific theory. Neither is so-called
scientific creationism (the same thing really). Neither are empirically
falsifiable.

Bob Kolker

John Wilkins

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 5:18:18 PM1/29/06
to
No! Didn't you read to the end?! It's Dalton's theory of Atoms!!! It is
pernicious, I tell you!!!!!

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 5:45:08 PM1/29/06
to
Creationist fundamentalist William Jennings Bryan called the theory of
evolution immoral at the Scopes trial, where he helped convict a
teacher who taught from a eugenics textbook. W. J. Bryan also warned
against how Darwinism played out in Germany, calling it a theory of
hate. Most historians consider the influence of Darwinism on
intellectual climate of opinion the main thing that generated the
enormous rise in pseudobiological racism that precipitated Nazi's
biomedical racial vision of humanity. After the holocaust sociobiology
was sucesfully surpressed for over 40 years, but not under the new name
of evolutionary psychology darwinist racism rears it's ugly head again.
Over 90 percent of Chinese geneticists support China's farreaching
eugenics laws. The western scientists are basicly silent or
collaborating.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

wf...@comcast.net

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 6:03:36 PM1/29/06
to
On 29 Jan 2006 14:45:08 -0800, "nando_r...@yahoo.com"
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Creationist fundamentalist William Jennings Bryan called the theory of
>evolution immoral at the Scopes trial, where he helped convict a
>teacher who taught from a eugenics textbook. W. J. Bryan also warned
>against how Darwinism played out in Germany,

the problem with this creationist's view of history is that it's wrong

selective breeding was invented long before darwin was born.
creationists knew about this, and on this basis prohibited blacks from
marrying whites, and jews from marrying christians because the
creationists were worried about 'race mongrelization'.

creationists, in addition, murdered 2,000,000 blacks in pursuit of the
slave trade while enslaving 10,000,000 others

creationists expelled jews from every country in western europe,
conducted pogroms against jews, and confined them to ghettoes. they
also made them wear distinctive badges, an idea later picked up by the
nazis.

it was creationists who caused the bloodiest war in american history

to nando all of this is irrelevant. he thinks racism started in 1859.

calling it a theory of
>hate. Most historians consider the influence of Darwinism on
>intellectual climate of opinion the main thing that generated the
>enormous rise in pseudobiological racism that precipitated Nazi's
>biomedical racial vision of humanity

uh, no they don't. for example, in the document 'dabru emet', 200
jewish scholars and historians pointed out that, without christian
antisemtisim, the nazi holocaust could never have happened.

so nando is lying.

VoiceOfReason

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 6:15:01 PM1/29/06
to

Sanity's Little Helper wrote:
> On 29 Jan 2006 05:57:11 -0800, VoiceOfReason wrote:
>
> > John Wilkins wrote:
> >
> > <...>
> >
> >> Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.
> >
> > Indeed! Since it gave us atom bombs, it must be Evil!
>
> Indeed, and the theory of Gravity gave us hanging.

*Gasp* So the truth comes out. Science must be stopped!

VoiceOfReason

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 6:16:48 PM1/29/06
to

John McKendry wrote:

<...>

> In other words, he decanted on his deathbed.

There's another week in Purgatory for you...

John Wilkins

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 6:27:03 PM1/29/06
to
Week? *Week*? Several centuries. But it's OK, John - we can spend that time
telling each other our best puns.

Hmmm, on second thought, that might be the punishment.

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 8:34:28 PM1/29/06
to
nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:

The PRC will handle its population problem however its leaders see fit.
That is the way it works there. What are they supposed to do in a
country that has four times the population it can reasonably carry.

Bob Kolker

catshark

unread,
Jan 29, 2006, 9:48:47 PM1/29/06
to
On 30 Jan 2006 01:24:16 +1000, Jesus H Christ <j...@catholic.religion.com>
wrote:

>Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in
>news:f5apt1lqkg486706h...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:34:55 +1000, John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au>
>> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>>I am saddened
>>
>> You should be with a brain as poor as yours.
>>
>
>You need to let up on the ol' posting trigger finger there dude.

Hush! John gets unintentional loki points for things like this, redeemable
at the Panda's Thumb for beer, which greatly improves the finances of his
friends.

>
>You failed to read the last line of the body of the post.
>
>
>Here's a hint; the sig says;
>
>"John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
> University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
> Servum tui ero, ipse vespera"
>
>
>cheers,
>jesus!
>

--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

Nunc Id Vides, Nunc Ne Vides

- Unseen University Motto -

Geoff

unread,
Jan 30, 2006, 8:10:06 AM1/30/06
to
"FiveLongYears" <fivelo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1138522348....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Ya know.. a while back, I posted that we should ignore you funky
> types.. Now I just like to read it for entertainment.

Try being entertained again...especially the last line.


nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 30, 2006, 8:48:11 AM1/30/06
to
Gee, another eugenicist on the Darwinist side.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 30, 2006, 8:55:26 AM1/30/06
to
> in the document 'dabru emet',

http://www.icjs.org/what/njsp/dabruemet.html

"Nazism was not a Christian phenomenon. Without the long history of
Christian anti-Judaism and Christian violence against Jews, Nazi
ideology could not have taken hold nor could it have been carried out.
Too many Christians participated in, or were sympathetic to, Nazi
atrocities against Jews. Other Christians did not protest sufficiently
against these atrocities. But Nazism itself was not an inevitable
outcome of Christianity. If the Nazi extermination of the Jews had been
fully successful, it would have turned its murderous rage more directly
to Christians. "

Obviously you are lying, and I'm telling the truth.

regards,
Mohammed Nor Syamsu

Matt Silberstein

unread,
Jan 30, 2006, 10:11:51 AM1/30/06
to
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:34:55 +1000, in talk.origins , John Wilkins
<jo...@wilkins.id.au> in <drh9ho$1hv8$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au> wrote:

[snip]

>Oppose, as best you can, the theory of atoms.

Atoms have been doing their best to oppose me, I see no reason to
treat them any better. Certainly the atoms in my chair oppose me with
far more force than would seem appropriate.


--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

Matt Silberstein

unread,
Jan 30, 2006, 10:10:51 AM1/30/06
to
On 29 Jan 2006 00:12:28 -0800, in talk.origins , "FiveLongYears"
<fivelo...@aol.com> in
<1138522348....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:

>Ya know.. a while back, I posted that we should ignore you funky

>types.. Now I just like to read it for entertainment. Question..
>Why do all the fundies sound like they are brainwashed? I mean
>granted, it's cause they are, but why don't they shake off the lyrics
>to random christian rants? Everyone wants to sound like jessie
>jackson, who is not worthy of capital lettering.
>
Did you catch someone or is this another bit of bait?

Matt Silberstein

unread,
Jan 30, 2006, 10:13:21 AM1/30/06
to
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:40:14 GMT, in talk.origins , Ye Old One
<use...@mcsuk.net> in <f5apt1lqkg486706h...@4ax.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:34:55 +1000, John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au>
>enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>I am saddened
>
>You should be with a brain as poor as yours.

I know that I am saddened, at times, with John's brain. To think of it
as poor makes me quite a bit sadder.