| Line 73: |
Line 73: |
| | Many atheists when faced with the compelling data for [[creation]] and [[evolution|against the evolutionary position]] irrationally attempt to suppress the evidence and engage in denial like the [[Charles Darwin]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin] ) who late in life is reported to often have overwhelming thoughts that the world was designed.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref><ref>The Berkeley [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ "Understanding Evolution" website] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Wikipedia evolution article] are prime examples of liberal denialism when it comes to liberals denying the clear evidence for [[creation]].</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] describes such irrational thinking in the following manner: | | Many atheists when faced with the compelling data for [[creation]] and [[evolution|against the evolutionary position]] irrationally attempt to suppress the evidence and engage in denial like the [[Charles Darwin]] (see: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin#Religious_Views_of_Charles_Darwin religious views of Charles Darwin] ) who late in life is reported to often have overwhelming thoughts that the world was designed.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref><ref>The Berkeley [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ "Understanding Evolution" website] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Wikipedia evolution article] are prime examples of liberal denialism when it comes to liberals denying the clear evidence for [[creation]].</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] describes such irrational thinking in the following manner: |
| | {{cquote|Underpinning this abandonment of faith in God is the widespread acceptance of evolutionary thinking — that everything made itself by natural processes; that God is not necessary. There is ‘design’, such people will admit, but no Designer is necessary. The designed thing designed itself! This thinking, where the plain-as-day evidence for God’s existence (Rom. 1:19–20) is explained away, leads naturally to atheism (belief in no God) and [[secular humanism]] (man can chart his own course without God). Such thinking [[Professor values|abounds in universities]] and governments today.<ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter1.pdf</ref>}} | | {{cquote|Underpinning this abandonment of faith in God is the widespread acceptance of evolutionary thinking — that everything made itself by natural processes; that God is not necessary. There is ‘design’, such people will admit, but no Designer is necessary. The designed thing designed itself! This thinking, where the plain-as-day evidence for God’s existence (Rom. 1:19–20) is explained away, leads naturally to atheism (belief in no God) and [[secular humanism]] (man can chart his own course without God). Such thinking [[Professor values|abounds in universities]] and governments today.<ref>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter1.pdf</ref>}} |
| − |
| |
| − | Even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world as designed.<ref>[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed Children see the world as designed]</ref>
| |
| | | | |
| | The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[intelligent design]]er, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref> | | The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at [[Kansas State University]], perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal ''Nature''. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an [[intelligent design]]er, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not [[naturalism|naturalistic]]".<ref>http://creation.com/a-designer-is-unscientificeven-if-all-the-evidence-supports-one</ref> |
| Line 104: |
Line 102: |
| | | | |
| | Creationism has particularly been on the rise in step with the internet, which according to Peter Kjærgaard has made it much easier for people to become activists...<ref>[http://sciencenordic.com/scientists-warn-creationism-rise-europe Scientists warn: creationism is on the rise in Europe], February 24, 2015 - 06:25</ref>}} | | Creationism has particularly been on the rise in step with the internet, which according to Peter Kjærgaard has made it much easier for people to become activists...<ref>[http://sciencenordic.com/scientists-warn-creationism-rise-europe Scientists warn: creationism is on the rise in Europe], February 24, 2015 - 06:25</ref>}} |
| | + | |
| | == Government indoctrination and the sovereign states losing power == | | == Government indoctrination and the sovereign states losing power == |
| | | | |