Seemingly ramping it up, sociobiology’s E.O. Wilson wants to eliminate “religion”

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 30, 2015

Darwinism, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Famed biologist: Religion ‘is dragging us down’ and must be eliminated ‘for the sake of human progress’

“So I would say that for the sake of human progress, the best thing we could possibly do would be to diminish, to the point of eliminating, religious faiths. But certainly not eliminating the natural yearnings of our species or the asking of these great questions.”

So the elderly Jehovah’s Witness ladies going door to door won’t be beat up then?*

We always knew Darwin’s mob thought this way. We just didn’t expect to see it all made so clear so soon.

Notice, these atheist types always talk about “religious faiths,” never about explicit beliefs, such as that members of one religion have the right to oppress and extort money from members of another one, or that men have the right to beat their wives or take women as sex slaves or murder people who convert to another religion.

Which religions actually teach this and which don’t? Can we have an honest discussion for once?

I (O’Leary for News) have two simple rules for discussing any such issue:

1) If you won’t discuss the real situation on the ground, I don’t have the time. Islamic terror is an issue in my own country; Jehovah’s Witnesses are not. Atheist cowards fudge this point by yattering aimlessly about “religion,” and it is high time to start calling them out everywhere for the useless cowards they really are.

2) I need facts. Some religious beliefs are compatible with civil liberties in the Western sense and some are not. For example, what beliefs are truly compatible with civil liberties for women and what beliefs are not?

*It was in fact a Jehovah’s Witness lawyer who helped engineer Canada’s first bill of rights “I am a Canadian”, because Witnesses’ civil liberties had been violated in World War II.

See also: Christians should be eradicated? (Incidentally, in an emergency, it finally became possible in Canada to talk beyond the secular burkha of political correctness. )

Sociobiology (Wilson’s clever invention.)

Soon, back to work.

Hat tip: Stephanie West Allen at Brains on Purpose

Comments

One other thought. Eliminating religion is absolutely impossible, unless you are talking about organized religion. It could be outlawed, but it can never be eliminated. Efforts have been made in the past to eliminate it. China tried and failed miserably. But, religion is impossible to eradicate simply because we all have beliefs. There is no way around that. Having beliefs is part of being human! Whether we are officially organized in an organization of some type or not makes no difference. We all have beliefs, atheists included, and you just cannot eliminate beliefs. What they are really saying is that they want to eliminate only certain types of beliefs - any belief having to do with a God or gods. All other beliefs are acceptable. Well, who gets to decide what should and should not be eliminated and what standard do they use to make that decision? And who gets to set the standard they use to make that decision? Why should we all agree to that particular standard? After all, it is simply one person's idea, or a group of people's idea and all standards are relative because absolute ones do not exist, right? So why should we agree to their standard when the vast majority of people in the world have a different standard? Does might make right? Does the majority rule? If so, I think atheists lose out. How do we decide what should and should not be eliminated? I'm the first to admit that not all religions are equal and some could actually be harmful if abused, but the same goes for the beliefs of atheists. The worldview of materialism can and has led to horrific abuses in the past as well, and numbers wise, completely overwhelms the abuses done in the name of Christ. Then you also have the other side of the coin - all the good that has been done in the name of Christ. Hospitals, education, poverty eradication efforts, people set free from bondages, influence on art, music, and literature, acts of kindness, personal rights of people, value of the individual/life, freedom, financial aid/gifts, personal life transformation, etc. The good done in the name of atheism pales in significance. Of course, it does happen and I am thankful for what atheists do do to help people, but it simply is embarrassing when you compare it to the good done in this world in the name of Christ. Eliminating religion might sound appealing at first glance, but even if actually possible, I'm afraid it would be a huge mistake that would produce lots of regret.tjguy_{January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PST}

Well, I guess the feelings are mutual. If I could, I too would like to eliminate atheistic beliefs and worldview. That is why I actively share the gospel of Christ with people and argue for the existence of God with people as well. I would never want to violate a person's rights or use violence to physically eliminate atheists, but I do want to propagate my beliefs and oppose their beliefs. I hope that is all they mean when they say that they want to eliminate religion. They want to actively oppose religious world views, argue against them, and hopefully destroy them. That is valid and again, the feeling is mutual. However, if they mean they want to outlaw those beliefs, do violence against those who hold them, etc., then we have a HUGE problem!tjguy_{January 31, 2015
January
01
Jan
31
31
2015
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PST}

What does a biologists know about these things/ how did biology lead him to these conclusions/ could a preacher opine on biology truths? All good things in our modern world are the result, after gods blessing, of the Puritan/Evangelical protestant rise especially amongst the English and Scottish. It raised the moral and intellectual common mean of the common man and with a progress curve we now enjoy. otherwise we would be like in roman days except not so nice1 its an absurdity to say christianity did not create the modern world and all good things. The other religions didn't hurt mankind but just not help. its human nature that hurts mankind.Robert Byers_{January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PST}

@REC IMHO, this documentry is worth the download charge. Check it out. "Primum non nocere - First do no harm" http://www.asiageographic.com/primum/view_film.htmmelvinvines_{January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PST}

It seems that Wilson is just one-off from the religious who would have all but their religion eliminated.Joe_{January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PST}

E.O. Wilson is an "atheist type"? " Islamic terror is an issue in my own country; Jehovah’s Witnesses are not. " Except when they deny their children life-saving medical care, declaring the dead "Youth who put God first."REC_{January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PST}

What "progress" is Religion dragging down? EO did not give any examples or evidence.ppolish_{January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PST}

OT: I bet Darwinists would also like to eliminate these molecular machines that keep being discovered: A Third (Type Of) Rotary Motor Has Now Been Found in Bacteria - January 30, 2015 Excerpt: Howard Berg's latest paper in Current Biology announces an exciting find: another rotary motor has been discovered in a bacterial cell. The Harvard expert on the bacterial flagellum along with two colleagues, describe a new kind of rotating motor in a bacterium, separate and distinct from ATP synthase and the kind of flagella found in E. coli. The short title of the paper is dramatic: "A Rotary Motor Drives Flavobacterium Gliding.",,, This newly identified rotary motor is made up of protein parts that have no relationship to the other two rotary engines. Yet like them, it runs on proton-motive force. And it uses an entirely "novel" mechanism for movement. ,,, the highlights of their discovery: *The gliding motor, a novel rotary motor, spins tethered F. johnsoniae cells *The gliding motor generates high torque *The gliding motor runs at constant speed rather than at constant torque http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/a_third_rotary093141.htmlbornagain77_{January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PST}

I strongly agree with both Andre and BA. Let's start with the Darwin worshippers first and go from there. These terrorists do, and have done, a lot more damage than radical Islam has.humbled_{January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PST}

as to
Religion ‘is dragging us down’ and must be eliminated ‘for the sake of human progress’
I agree with Andre in post 1. The religion of Darwinism is dragging us down and should be eliminated. As to the fact that Darwinism is a religion instead of a science,,,, it is found that Darwinism is not based upon any mathematical foundation, (in fact Charles Darwin, who had a degree in Theology, was mathematically illiterate and used no math to try to prove his theory), or on any substantiating scientific evidence, but Darwinism was, and still is, based primarily upon faulty theological premises. 'Origin of Species' is rife with bad Theology:
Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html
To this day Darwinists use faulty theology, instead of rigorous science, to try to support their theory:
Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? - Dilley S. - 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous article, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky's theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists--such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould--also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740
Here, at about the 55:00 minute mark in the following video, Phillip Johnson sums up his, in my opinion, excellent lecture by noting that the refutation of his book, 'Darwin On Trial', in the Journal Nature, the most prestigious science journal in the world, was a theological argument about what God would and would not do and therefore Darwinism must be true, and the critique from Nature was not a refutation based on any substantiating scientific evidence for Darwinism that one would expect to be brought forth in such a prestigious venue:
Darwinism On Trial (Phillip E. Johnson) – lecture video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj9h9Zx6Mw
In this following video Dr. William Lane Craig is surprised to find that evolutionary biologist Dr. Ayala uses the theological argument of ‘bad design’ to support Darwinian evolution and invites him to present evidence, any positive evidence at all, that Darwinian evolution can do what he claims it can:
Refuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg
In fact, in the twisted world of Darwinian reasoning, Dr. John Avise used the fact that mutations are overwhelmingly detrimental, which is actually a powerful scientific argument against Darwinism, as a theological argument for Darwinism since, according to Darwinian theology, God would never allow such things as detrimental mutations:
“Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens.” John C. Avise - Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design – Pg. 57
I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:
Mutation total (as of 2014-05-02) – 148,413 http://www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/
Contrary to what Dr. Avise may believe, such an overwhelming rate of detrimental mutations is NOT a point of scientific evidence in favor of Darwinism! In fact, it is a very powerful scientific argument against Darwinian claims! That this fact would even have to be pointed out to Darwinists is a sad testimony to how warped their twisted Darwinian theology truly is in regards to the science at hand. That Darwinism would ultimately be reliant upon theology, however faulty it may be, to appear to be 'scientific' should be no surprise. Modern science, contrary to what many people have falsely been led to believe (i.e. Tyson), was born out of, and is reliant upon, Theology. Christian Theology in particular.
Christianity and The Birth of Science - Michael Bumbulis, Ph.D Excerpt: Furthermore, many of these founders of science lived at a time when others publicly expressed views quite contrary to Christianity - Hume, Hobbes, Darwin, etc. When Boyle argues against Hobbe's materialism or Kelvin argues against Darwin's assumptions, you don't have a case of "closet atheists." http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/
In fact, without a proper Theological foundation, science, as Plantinga has point out in his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, winds up in epistemological failure:
Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga - video (playlist) https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL80CAECC36901BCEE Philosopher Sticks Up for God Excerpt: Theism, with its vision of an orderly universe superintended by a God who created rational-minded creatures in his own image, “is vastly more hospitable to science than naturalism,” with its random process of natural selection, he (Plantinga) writes. “Indeed, it is theism, not naturalism, that deserves to be called ‘the scientific worldview.’” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/books/alvin-plantingas-new-book-on-god-and-science.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Thus E O Wilson is right, 'Religion ‘is dragging us down’ and must be eliminated ‘for the sake of human progress’'. But it is his own twisted theology, his twisted theology that he is not even aware of, that should be eliminated.bornagain77_{January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PST}

E.O. Wilson's rhetoric has all the earmarks of early Nazism, specifically their desire to rid the world of the undesirables.KRock_{January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PST}

New definition of "religion": that which assures press and increased book sales for those whose work would otherwise remain unknown to the general public.lpadron_{January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PST}

The Unsupported religion that believe that mud made itself and magically became alive should be eradicated. I agree with EO Wilson.Andre_{January 30, 2015
January
01
Jan
30
30
2015
01:35 AM
1
01
35
AM
PST}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply