Evolutionists and Mass Mind Control?

Mine is just one voice in the debate.  Which debate?  Well, pick your choice!  Religious, political, scientific, philosophical...  When I venture forth with ANY truth, what I’m finding is thousands upon thousands of people who would be willing to debate it.  Belief in the Bible?  People will come out of the woodwork to tell you all the fallacies: How many of our Christian rituals these days are based on pagan ideas – Christmas, Easter, what Jesus looked like, the reliability of the Bible as a whole and the problems with the many translations – and they actually have a leg to stand on in such accusations!  Faith in the conservative movement?  People will produce reams of evidence to support crackpot theories that some of the people I admire were involved in alien conspiracies and some sort of hedonistic Satanism, and even though this is usually going way too far, the idea of government conspiracies and mass mind control (what is called NLP or Neuro-Linguistic Programming) isn’t, in itself, too hard to fathom in today’s day and age of Oprah and Obama!  The Evolution/Creation debate?  It’s always and forever ongoing, with cheap shots and underhanded practices.    

Matt Walsh

My blogs recently, when I haven’t been doing movie reviews, have been about this very thing:  Creationism vs. Evolution, particularly Darwinism.   Nobody really makes comments on my blog to refute me.  Unlike radio personality Matt Walsh and his wonderful, informative, thought-provoking, very enlightening, entertaining, and popular blog (linked here), mine actually has a very teensy readership by comparison.   For one thing, I’m not quite as informed or as gung-ho as my sister, or the conservative pundits you might see on TV or read on Townhall.com like Michelle Malkin, Todd Starnes, or Doug Giles.  

Malkin, Starnes, and Giles

For this, I’m actually kind of glad.  I’ve seen them rake these other people over the coals (unfairly, and without addressing the real issues they bring up) and I don’t invite their poisonous hatred.  The internet Evolution police task some of these other creationists for their “misconceptions” and “wrong thinking”, and bringing to the table a plethora of other terms and concepts I’ve heard before but that I haven’t mentioned in my blog posts that are already too long by most people's definition, and an obsession and “hot button topic” based on the amount I’ve already written about it (and truthfully, I’ve only really scratched the surface in this debate).

     And yet, what I see in the refutations of these other creationists I find to be personally disturbing and exasperating.  Here’s a sampling of 10 such arguments against creationism and creationists I see quite often:

1. The tone of the evolutionists is always one of superiority, mental or otherwise, as if to say, “You’re an idiot, and not really worth my time.”  They smirk, and belittle creation science, but, of course, don’t feel any sort of embarrassment over the mistakes and outright lies and hoaxes that Darwinian science has fostered on the public again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again!  I can’t even begin to tell you how many times they have done this!  Should they really be taking such a condescending, intellectual high ground here, especially when even their top scientists and philosophers have had to turn to such concepts as punctuated mutations, multi-verses, and alien seeding in order to explain how this theory could possibly work given the evidence?
2. Instead of presenting evidence for Darwinian evolution or against creationism, they end up giving the creationist homework assignments, as if to say (or actually saying), “We can’t continue the debate until you educate yourself properly.  Read this article or that book, and then we can continue the debate, once you have researched this topic sufficiently.”  This is basically the same argument you get from people of other religions.  From my point of view, I’ve already read and written a lot about this topic over the last 20 years, but apparently, it’s never enough, or I just haven't read the right books.  Creationists are always portrayed as mentally inferior no matter what – even think tank intellectuals like Dinesh D’Souza (whose main problems with Darwinian evolution deal with atheists trying to remove God from the equation).  Is this “homework assignment” really going to make any difference, say anything new I didn’t already know, or will it just be a waste of my time?  Is it going to clarify it all for me, spell it all out, or will it be simply another evolutionary dead end?  How about rephrasing it for me instead of giving me another homework assignment, or is that too difficult for you?  Besides, if I read this other person’s book or article, they’re telling me what THEY think.  What do YOU think, Mr. Evolutionist?
3. When not giving homework assignments to creationists they are debating, their arguments are rather general in nature, bringing up concepts that sound intelligent, but are not supported by any evidence – such as an infinite number of small changes producing a new species over time – but of course cannot back it up with scientific proof – such as that these small changes produced, or began to produce, a new species.
4. They make it sound like we don’t believe in evolution of any kind when, in fact, we do!  We just don’t see the evidence for their claim that these changes produced any new species over time, or that it ever produced life from non-life, particularly by accident.
5. Their “proofs” of evolution always seem to be rather obscure philosophies, mathematical formulas, and theoretical physics – far from the simple and obvious proofs they are always talking about – and not actual hard, indisputable evidence in the fossil record or with the life currently existing on this planet, nor are they able to create life from non-life in the lab, even though they are really trying!
6. They have the attitude that their theory has already been proven as fact.  They claim that there are no scientists – or at least, no legitimate scientists – who dispute speciation and big changes over time, and they claim the evidence has been documented hundreds and hundreds of times.  So where is it?  I go to their sources, and their leading biologists, philosophers, and scientists – Carl Sagan, Stephen J. Gould, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, etc. – and discover nothing substantial there.  I discover that even they say the universe “appears” to be intricately designed in the same breath they tell you that there is obviously no designer, and then we’re back to square one.
7. They say that if you’re not a scientist and don’t have a Ph.D., then you have no right to even engage in this debate.  Never mind that most of the people saying this don’t have Ph. D’s themselves, or that they also rake over the coals people who disagree with them and DO have Ph. D’s, like Jonathan Sarfati, and then they tend to dismiss them out of hand as someone who should know better or “dropped too much acid in the 70’s” or something.  Google “Creationists with Ph.D.’s” and see what negative stuff pops up!
8. They treat creationists with contempt, no matter who they are, portraying them as ignorant idiots asking ignorant questions, Neanderthals who don’t know what they’re talking about.  No creationist or creation debate is even worth their time.  This is a fallacy, for even the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Ehrman, and Harris have found formidable debates from the likes of Wallace, D’Souza, Lennox, and Craig.
9. They are usually forceful, aggressive, condescending, belligerent, and often invoke profanity, especially from the internet masses who can’t spell or write a coherent, grammatically correct sentence, and then have the gall to take creationists to task for being stupid!
10. It’s not just that they don’t believe in God.  They can’t ever admit that He exists.  They hate God with such a passion that they hate the very idea of His existence.  “It can’t possibly be true, end of discussion!”  They also see Christians as unenlightened fools since they put their faith in an obvious “myth”.

Well, you can make all the excuses in the world for why you shouldn’t believe in God.  But if you choose not to believe on intellectual grounds, then you should also know that many admirable and learned men – like C.S. Lewis and those on the list linked here don’t have a problem with it.  Many of these people really are intelligent, often difficult to debate, and DO believe in God.  It still all comes down to choice, and science and intellect are not such deciding factors to automatically wind up coming down on the side of atheism as you might think!  In fact, I started this little essay/commentary mentioning the concept of mind control and Neuro-Linguistic Programming, or NLP.  It seems to me the attitude of the Darwinian atheists to belittle the creationists and treat them as intellectually inferior might, in fact, be utilizing some NLP tricks of the trade to keep their simple minded followers in line.