Fixing America In 500 Words Or Less


Chapter 65

DOES SCIENCE REALLY
KNOW WHAT IS TRUE?


       Less than 600 years ago, the vast majority of scientists believed the sun goes around the earth.  Even after both Copernicus and Galileo died, many scientists still insisted the old Ptolemaic model was correct.  If we examine the evidence with any fairness at all, what humans call “science” has a historical track record of constantly changing it's mind regarding even the most fundamental of concepts.

       According to historian Will Durant, medical research was set back several decades because scientists refused to accept basic evidence for human blood circulation.  Until very recently in historical terms, most scientists believed disease spontaneously arises.  Two decades into the 20th Century, the majority still believed in an eternal static universe containing a single Milky Way galaxy.

       Since the mapping of the human genome and other recent evidence, today there are major revisions taking place in biology, astronomy, physics, quantum mechanics and virtually every other field imaginable.  Many if not most scientists today believe life existed prior to the earth itself.

       Emerging theory among various astrobiologists goes something like this: What causes life came out of the big bang, is refined in stars, is constantly re-seeded from supernovas and other cosmic events, finds it way around accretion disks of newly formed stars and from there, ends up on innumerable planets and space-rock debris.

       Then, as conditions allow within newly formed solar systems, life probably arises on untold zillions of planets, most likely in many exotic forms unknown to us.  At least one scientist has proposed exotic forms of life may hover on giant gas planets, needing no solid surface to survive.

       Additionally, many geneticists have begun to openly challenge fundamental Natural Selection theory, contending that reproductive survival is only one of several reasons why living forms change.  How to define “species” is still debated; the term itself is a human construct, part of an invented system artificially classifying life according to our very limited view and understanding of a much larger cosmic process.

       The modern evidence is overwhelming that all of life is created to adapt and change within an ever changing grand design Cosmic reality, very far over our collective heads.  And, though what we define as “species” arise and die out, life itself marches on, in spite of great cataclysmic events here on earth and, much larger and far more destructive events within a space/time continuum called “universe”.

       On the other hand, today there is zero evidence life ever has or ever will “evolve”, in the sense life somehow magically self-designed from scratch. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica article “Evolution”, modern science doesn't know how, when, where or why life first arose on earth, or what form it took.  Life adapts and changes in reaction to ever-changing universal environments and, that is all.

       For all we know, life may have existed prior to the universe we live in.  And, life may continue to exist forever and ever, long after our current universe passes away.  Does science really know what is true?  You decide.


FOOTNOTES:      

Although several other sources are quoted as well, the two main sources used for information discussed in the footnotes below are the Encyclopedia Britannica and Science Daily website. The reasons for this are, the Britannica is written by practicing scientists, educators and others who are considered experts in their particular field; important articles are extensively peer reviewed and often revised as new evidence and information becomes available.  And, the Science Daily website (linked below) posts many articles each week regarding the most recent emerging evidence and research available to the general public; research conducted by scientists from all over the world; as such, it is not an "opinion" based website but rather, it merely posts and reports on various new findings and diverse opinions of practicing scientists from around the globe.  Neither the Britannica or Science Daily are infallible sources, nor are any other scientific, historical or other intellectual sources likely to be without error.

Unlike some educators pretend and many people apparently assume, modern science doesn't know how life came to be.  According to the Encyclopedia Britannica article "Evolution", in regards to evolution and current scientific knowledge for how life came to be, "many matters are less certain, others are conjectural, and still others, such as the characteristics of the first living things and when they came about, remain completely unknown".  A minority of scientists today do not believe in the big bang theory, while considerably more question the existence of dark energy.

Many if not most astronomers and physicists suspect that fundamental theories of gravity and light might be either somewhat or very far off from what is actually true from a larger universal view and several have very different ideas challenging mainstream views.  Since the mapping of the human genome and very recent emerging evidence, several modern geneticists are openly challenging Natural Selection and other long held Darwinian concepts. Suffice it to say, history clearly teaches that what science believes today, is more often than not, gone with the historical winds tomorrow.

Information available to the public at Science Daily and other sources clearly demonstrates that rather than being in general agreement, there is a great diversity and wide range of opinion within the modern scientific community, often at the most fundamental of levels. Below are extensive footnotes, links to recent scientific research and other material, supporting and otherwise, enhancing what is contained in the relatively short essay above. Because science continues to move at an ever more rapid pace, much of what is contained in these footnotes below is already in need of revision and, this will likely continue to be the case as new evidence continues to emerge.  Due to the complexity of modern science theory, similar and sometimes same information is repeated in more than one of the footnotes below, in order to hopefully maintian clarity of content.


NOTE 1 - The research described at this link (below) is one of a great many examples of how new evidence is challenging long held positions of Darwinian and other biologists.  This article is interesting not only for what it says, but also for what it doesn’t cover.  Recent research has revealed that bacteria can recycle DNA, adding old scraps of DNA from dead organisms to their own genome.  This has major implications to the entire theory of evolution for several reasons besides what is noted in the article.  According to a scientist quoted in this article, “That DNA from dead organisms drives the evolution of living cells is in contradiction with common belief of what drives the evolution of life itself."

This adds to the growing pile of genetic evidence that what is called Natural Selection is only one of several reasons why forms of life adapt and change.  Besides what is noted in the article linked below, this new evidence adds a whole new wrinkle into theories of disease and disease origins and why disease exists and persists within a theoretically advantage driven system.  This discovery also throws a very big monkey wrench into long-held assumptions of “random” mutations, as this could help explain changes that are seemingly “random”.  For example, if bacteria living within us make changes to their own genome that results in us having to battle a new strain of disease, this could in turn cause us to have seemingly “random” mutations, eventually leading to what science classifies as a “new” species.  And if the lowly virus can do similar to bacteria, God only knows what seemingly “random” mutations might occur on up the chain of larger forms of plant and animal life.

These implications are fundamentally important to the entire theory and concept of evolution by Natural Selection, which has long assumed far too much without supporting evidence.  To observe changes and then conclude they are “random” requires a great deal of blind faith that many scientists criticize others for having, not to mention it contradicts the entire notion of our universe beginning with a big bang; if it began with a bang, everything that follows is by definition, not random.  From viruses to bacteria to ants and insect infestations, it is often the little creatures and small parts of matter acting like they supposedly should not, that manage to confound the wise.
Bacteria Recycle Broken DNA

EXAMPLE OF RECENT RESEARCH CHALLENGING CONVENTIONAL BELIEFS:

Science is so uncertain of what actually defines a true modern human being, that various scientists, archeologists, historians and others place the date anywhere between over 200,000 years ago to as recent as the emergence of farming (8-10 thousand years ago).  The majority opinion places the date somewhere between 30,000 and 80,000 or so years, but the majority opinion also once believed the sun goes around the earth and, any legitimate scientist will admit that what actually defines a true modern human being is highly arbitrary. For example, the ability to conceptualize farming represents a major rather sudden advance and once farming emerged, large civilizations followed virtually immediately in evolutionary terms, giving rise to pyramid structures, mathematics, record keeping and other technologies significantly separating modern humans from earlier beings defined as "human" by most biologists.

It was recently discovered that due to what is called species "cross-breeding", every European alive on the planet today shares a common ancestor no older than 1000 years ago and, everyone alive today may share a common ancestor no older than the biblical Eve and perhaps, considerably younger.  Such knowledge wasn't possible prior to the mapping of the human genome and it represents such a radical shift in thinking, that most people heavily indoctrinated by standard Darwinian evolution refuse to believe we could all share a recent common ancestor; "most people" in this case however, does not include geneticists, archeologists and others who study such things.
Recent Common Ancestry for Europeans About 1000 Years
Recent Common Ancestry for Modern Humans Estimates

MORE EXAMPLES OF RECENT RESEARCH CHALLENGING CONVENTIONAL BELIEFS:

Discoveries in astronomy since the dawn of the 21st Century, including the apparent existence of innumerable "zillions" of exo-planets and the existence of molecules for life around newly formed stars and elsewhere in space, significantly challenge any kind of notion that life either first "evolved" or otherwise began on earth.  As noted in the short essay above, for all we know today, life may have existed before our current universe and, may continue to exist forever and ever, leaving scientists with no theory and arguably, no hope of ever having a conclusive legitimate theory for the origins of life, other than the "God did it theory" that Socrates, Aristotle, DaVinci, Copernicus, Shakespeare, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Jefferson, Paine, Darwin, Harriet Tubman, Eleanor Roosevelt, Helen Keller, Einstein, Francis Collins, Martin Luther King, Jr., Cesar Chavez, Rosa Parks, Bob Dylan and billions of other rational people have long assumed.
Organics for Life May Have Arrived on Space Rocks
Organics Probably Formed Easily in Early Solar System
Building Blocks of Life Found Around Young Star
Did Comets Contain Key Ingredients For Life On Earth?
Key Ingredients Necessary for Life May Have Come from Beyond the Earth
Evidence Comets Could have Seeded Life on Earth

Long-Held Assumption About Emergence of New Species Questioned

Evidence Natural Selection Theory is Inadequate

Several recent discoveries indicate there are vast differences between humans, apes and chimps, apparently largely controlled by supposed "junk" DNA, which many scientists are now saying apparently isn't junk after all.  False assumptions based on standard Darwinian evolutionary theory that about 90% of our DNA is so much "junk", likely set disease research back at least 50 years.
New Genes Spring, Spread from Non-Coding DNA
Junk DNA Functionality; Differences Between Humans and Chimps
Hundreds of Small Regions of Human Genome Key to Uniqueness of Humans
Human Brain Development Guided by “junk” DNA
Junk DNA Plays Important Role
Junk DNA Has Vital Role in Evolution of Human Genome
Plant “junk” DNA Proves to be Highly Valuable
Short DNA Strands Key to Cognition and Disease Development
Divergence of Humans from Apes, Apes from Chimps

Genes Are Just Part of the Story

It was announced in 2014 that the efficiency of photosynthesis, the foundation for how life on earth obtains energy to survive, can only be explained by quantum mechanics and the processes cannot be explained by classical physics.  This strongly implies that science knows far less about how both disease and life itself functions at it’s most basic root levels than previously assumed.  The theory of evolution and virtually all of human thought is based on classical physics, which has for some time now been known to be inaccurate at basic root levels of how everything works, including gravity, light, motion, energy, evolution and life itself.  There is significant disagreement among quantum theorists over basic concepts and claims of quantum theory and as such, there is no agreed to theory for how either life or the universe itself works at root levels or from an accurate Cosmic (Logos) perspective.
Quantum Mechanics and the Efficiency of Photosynthesis

It was also recently discovered that DNA is encoded using at least a double code system (possibly more than two) and, that these codes operate in tandem yet independent of each other, as if someone were building a house while communicating in both Chinese and English and, both languages were necessary for the totality of the house to be produced.  In the 21st Century, the mystery of life has become far more rather then less complex and as such, creation will very likely always remain very far over our collective heads—human beings can logically no more understand how the universe works from a true correct view, than a microbe could be expected to grasp the existence and complexity of a human being and the computers, automobiles and other things we create.
Dual Code Language of DNA

According to biologist and militant atheist Richard Dawkins, all of life evolved from a singular source in the ocean.  Mr. Dawkins doesn't bother to qualify this statement as being an opinion not shared by all scientists but rather, he just states this in a video on YouTube to an unsuspecting public, as if it is an indisputable fact of science.  Some of Mr. Dawkins' peers over the past couple of decades have proposed that life, rather than beginning in the ocean, may have first arisen in or near fresh water, in caves, under the earth, in clay, in plain dirt and "where ever there is a little wetness"; one scientist even proposed life may have began inside of rocks and, several have proposed life may have arrived on space rocks.  Yet in spite of such claims, as far as I am aware, no living scientist has been brave enough to make the obvious leap and suggest that just perhaps, life may have arisen from all over the earth, rather than from an extremely coincidental chance singular origin in the ocean, as extremely narrow-minded Darwinists have long assumed.

Nevertheless, this grand diversity of opinion clearly demonstrates the bias of Richard Dawkins presenting his opinion as established scientific fact, when in fact many of his peers do not agree.  If life arrived on space rocks, it could well have arrived on many space rocks rather than just one and, if life can arise in some or all of these places noted, then indeed it is more legitimate to conclude that life probably arose from all over the earth.  A recent report pushes back the earliest evidence for colonies of bacteria to at least 3.5 billion years ago, making it even more difficult to determine exactly how, when, where and why life first arose on earth. Just because scientists like most human beings, prefer things to be simple, neat and tidy rather than complex, it does not necessarily follow that they are.  As a molecular biologist recently stated on PBS, both the origins of life and how life functions in true reality, is so overwhelmingly irreducibly complex, it is irrational to pretend that science will ever have a legitimate theory of either evolution or any other theory of life.
Life May Have Arisen in Clay
Evidence for 3.5 Billion Year Old Bacteria
Mars May Have Supported Life

Scientists recently discovered that micro-organisms living several miles deep into the earth's rocky crust are often similar all over the globe, rather than significantly different as evolutionists might assume.  This similarity can be explained if life arose from many tiny identical or nearly identical forms, rather than from just one as the standard Darwinian "tree" model has long assumed.
Similarity of Microbes Living Miles Deep Under the Earth's Crust

Another example of opinion posing as scientific fact is demonstrated by astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson in a PBS video program.  In this video, Mr. Tyson looks into the camera and says point blank to his public audience, that our universe will continue to expand indefinitely forever and ever, until it becomes a charred out remains of it's former self, with no visible light anywhere.  What Mr. Tyson fails to tell his unsuspecting audience is that only about one third of astronomers agree with this theory.  Another approximate one third still believe the universe will eventually roll back into itself, creating another big bang and new universe, the dominant theory not long ago back in the days of Carl Sagan.  And another approximate one third of astronomers are either uncertain or have other theories besides these two.

If one might ask where this divisions of opinion by thirds comes from, it was stated in a different PBS video that was released around the same time.  Such grand divergence of opinion does not equal "science", regardless of how accurate or inaccurate Mr. Tyson's claim may be.  What is presented as "science" is not fairly called science when two thirds or even ten percent of current scientists disagree.  According to the Bible, the universe will "pass away" and also according to the Bible, the heavens will "roll back like a scroll" and, a new heavens and earth will come into being. One might conclude according to the Bible, that Mr. Tyson is part right and, one third of is disagreeing peers are also part right.  Perhaps we'll all just have to wait and see.

Rather than the universe collapsing back in on itself in a "big crunch" due to gravity slowing and eventually reversing it's expansion, a theory believed by many scientists at the time Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" was written, today there is a different theory, unlike Mr. Tyson implies, of what will cause the universe to collapse.  According to this theory, the universe could completely collapse at any time, rather than just in a way distant future:  Scientists Say Collapse of the Universe is Closer Than Ever.  According to the Bible, God will make a "short" work upon the earth, perhaps indicating in biblical language something unexpected and dramatic will happen out of the ordinary, either in our local vicinity or the entire universe; this current theory most certainly matches such a scenario.

To be fair to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he does manage to virtually completely and entirely agree with the Bible regarding an entirely different space phenomena, although he may not personally be aware of this.  According to Mr. Tyson, there is a certain type of black hole unknown to science until the 1990's that, rather than like the more familiar kind residing at or near the center of galaxies, instead resides in dark voids in space where no visible stars are located. According to Mr. Tyson, this type of black hole contains an inner second event horizon that is like a "sea of fire", consisting of the fiery remnants of stars torn apart and devoured by the black hole.

To give Mr. Tyson a little help, we can turn to the Encyclopedia Britannica, which describes such a space object as a "bottomless pit".  And here's where this gets interesting:  According to the Bible, there is a "bottomless pit" located in "outer darkness", that contains a "lake of fire", from which no one can escape.  Some sources say that black holes are not a bottomless pit, while the Britannica distinctly describes them in this manner and, the Smithsonian online describes black holes as a "virtual bottomless pit"; Hubblesite.org also uses "bottomless pit" in describing black holes, as does NASA in an online PDF, as does the Science Center of Iowa in an online PDF.  Many other claims in the Bible that once seemed preposterous, such as the sun and stars not giving their light for a time, apparently due to a large volcanic eruption and another claim, of significant amounts of fresh water pollution occurring when the earth is struck by a large object from space and, claims of significant famine, disease and pestilence occurring because of either one or both of these cataclysmic events, are today considered to be "science" by modern scientists.
Smithsonian: Black Holes "virtual bottomless pit"
Hubblesite.org: Black Holes "bottomless pit"
NASA: Black Holes "like a bottomless pit"
Iowa Science Center: "a bottomless pit--a Black Hole"

Leading physicist and black hole theorist Stephen Hawking describes black holes as "bottomless", "black voids" in space.  Although Mr. Hawking recently has suggested that black holes as currently defined don't exist, this has been largely misunderstood by popular media. Apparently it is not that Mr. Hawking is saying that nothing exists where what is a "black hole" resides in space but rather, that what exists there is not in reality, truly a black hole, because according to Mr. Hawking, light and information may be able to escape by actually traveling faster than Einstein's established speed of light.  Whether or not science is accurate about the true nature of black holes, what the Bible claims regarding what is commonly called a "black hole" remains accurate as far as science knows and, it remains overwhelmingly far beyond chance coincidence astounding that an author 2000 years ago could precisely accurately describe the existence of a place located in "outer darkness", as a "bottomless pit" containing a "lake of fire", from which no one can escape.
Stephen Hawking: Black Holes are Bottomless Black Voids in Space
PBS Article Discussing Stephen Hawking's Recent Claims

In the television series "Cosmos", Neil DeGrasse Tyson takes a few swings at conservative religious folks who believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, while tip toeing rather carefully around the "God Question", a question militant atheist Richard Dawkins says is central to all of science.  Mr. Tyson chides such folks for not going by evidence, but then he randomly out of thin air invents "blind", "random", "unguided" processes in reference to evolution, failing to provide any supporting evidence or explanation as to why he would make such claims.  He never mentions that many scientists believe in both God and evolution, as if such a position isn't compatible with science, even though Charles Darwin himself said "one can be an ardent Theist and evolutionist".  It is no wonder our children and the public in general are confused.

In the next installment of Cosmos, Mr. Tyson states that modern science doesn't know how life came to be and, that scientists shouldn't be afraid to admit what they do not know.  This not only agrees with the Encyclopedia Britannica but also with many other scientists, who have publicly stated that how life came to be remains one of the greatest mysteries of modern science.  One might fairly ask why in the previous installment, Mr. Tyson says life came about by random, blind, unguided processes, if in fact neither he or the rest of his colleagues know how life came to be?  Why doesn't he just say science doesn't know and leave it at that, rather than inventing blind unguided processes out of thin air?  It is no small wonder that our children and the public in general remain confused.

There is abundant evidence that human beings can design great buildings with many inter-connected parts having both artistic and practical functions incorporated within the same design; grand spiral staircases, carefully crafted columns, ornate light fixtures and much more.  Isn’t it then rational to assume our Creator can design peacock feathers, an infinite variety of living forms and the rest of the universe with both practical and artistic functions woven into the grandly designed cosmic whole building?  There is abundant evidence humans can create computers and robotic machines that in turn can do many functions on their own and humans can create lottery machines that theoretically generate random numbers.  Isn’t it fair and reasonable to assume our Creator can do at least as well?

Why isn’t this evidence fairly discussed either on Cosmos, in our mass media or in our university, high school and other classrooms?  Why aren’t our children and the public in general fairly taught the scientific opinions of the great many historical and currently practicing scientists who believe the evidence demonstrates creation by a Supreme Intelligence?  Why are modern educators and the producers of Cosmos, Time Magazine, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times afraid of the historical and current truth regarding the scientific conclusions of many historical and currently practicing scientists?  Some scientists believe the evidence demonstrates creation, some believe it doesn’t and some claim they don’t know or otherwise refuse to give their opinion.  Isn’t this the real truth and, isn’t the real truth what we should be teaching our children, if we want them to respect us and, if we want to truly be free?

According to both Jesus and all of the known historical and scientific evidence, what causes greed, hatred, irrational fear, envy, prejudice, stress, tension, murder, rape, theft, false witness, inequality of wealth, slavery, war and other human oppression, arises from what is within all people (source; Encyclopedia Britannica; "Human Sexuality" and related).  Children can be observed on a school playground ostracizing and being deliberately mean to other children.  This carries over into adulthood, where adults typically join groups of "like minded" individuals, ostracizing and shunning others from our perceived superior grouping.  The Mensa Society for example, openly practices human segregation, banning everyone from their club of self-anointed intellectually superior individuals who doesn't score 150 or higher on a so-called 'intelligence' test; a test that doesn't contain a single question about how to help humanity or otherwise make life on our planet a less stressful and more pleasant experience for us all.  This isn't surprising in a nation that views loving our neighbor as ourselves as a "religious" idea forbidden to be taught in public schools.

One might fairly ask, if we humans have no inborn obedience problem, why are there police, jails and Nobel prizes for adults, ethics and morality classes taught at major universities and gold stars, trophies and other enticements offered to both children and adults, enticing us to act as we perceive we already should be acting in the first place?  And one might fairly ask, why do both children and adults need to be threatened with punishment and enticed into being what we perceive as "good", while we are what we perceive as "bad" quite easily on our own, often in spite of severe threat to our physical health and well being and, in spite of threats of punishment, jail time and even execution?  Why is there a song entitled "We Shall Overcome"?  What exactly is it that we trying to overcome and, why?  If you don't believe in sin, try doing what you think is good all the time and, see how well you do--a simple test clearly demonstrating what scientists, educators and others continue to openly deny. Changing terminology and calling sin "negative behavior" or the "seething mass within" (as the Britannica calls it), in no way, shape or form changes the resulting stress, tension, hunger, pain, suffering, sorrow, death and other human oppression that sin causes.
Do Chimpanzees and Baboons Only Think of Themselves?

One Example of Many Challenges to Dark Energy Theory

Apparently according to the Bible, the universe is surrounded by water and an "expansion" divides the waters above us from the waters on earth.  This cannot be disproven by modern science, as we cannot "see" beyond the theoretical big bang and can only theorize what may or may not lie beyond the universe.  Interestingly enough, other than apparently claiming the universe is surrounded by water, the rest of Genesis One agrees with modern science as far as modern science knows, given that the "days" of creation refer to periods of time, which some scholars say is a more accurate translation.  According to the late Carl Sagan, there was a theory proposed by two scientists some time ago that the universe is surrounded by water, which would help explain the abundance of hydrogen and where it came from.  Recently, several scientists proposed an alternative theory to the big bang, that the universe formed when cracks appeared in a primordial liquid analogous to water.  And, if the universe is surrounded by water, this explains the existence of hydrogen coming out of the big bang prior to the existence of stars (deuterium, lithium and helium could have been created by the extreme heat from energy acting within a large cosmic ocean of water).

One of Several Alternative Theories to the Big Bang

Evidence Earth Originally Covered with Water, as Genesis Claims

Recent Scientific Evidence for the Great Flood of Biblical Fame

Both religious and secular sources claim there is evidence for the Garden of Eden, now underwater, discovered by recently improved NASA satellite imaging technology.
Lost River of Eden (confirmed in a separate History Channel video documentary)
Evidence for Garden of Eden

According to legitimate surveys conduced by Rice University and the University of Chicago, over 50% of American scientists, 70% of American physicians and 80% of American educators claim to believe in God, when asked the question straight up, with no other qualifying language.  These percentages vary dramatically from asking if they belong to a religion or, whether they believe in evolution or creation; not surprisingly, biased questions confusing belief in God with belonging to a particular religion or, with being on the opposite side of belief in evolution, tend to report much smaller percentages.  Percentages also differ among biologists and other scientists and among European biologists compared to American biologists.  Not surprisingly, an oft-cited survey based on a much smaller sampling of only British hard-core Darwinists, dramatically differs in results.
Link to Rice University Survey PDF

Unlike many modern educators and others pretend, belief in God as taught in the Bible, is an evidence-based view, the same as belief in invisible light and black holes are evidence-based views. According to the Bible, faith "is the evidence of things not seen" and, we believe in the invisible God based on the overwhelming mirrored evidence of God's visible creation, the same as modern scientists believe in invisible light and black holes, based on the observable evidence that invisible light and black holes create.  There is no rational difference between belief in God based on the mirrored physical evidence and belief in invisible light based on the mirrored physical evidence, except in the twisted imagination of self-contradicting atheists.
Romans 1:20

Militant atheist Sam Harris in a video on YouTube, anoints himself as being on the "side" of science and reason, while lumping everyone who believes in God as being on the same "side" as Pat Robertson and conservative religion, as if Jesus, Aristotle, Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Darwin, Einstein and Francis Collins all agree with Robertson and unlike Harris paints himself, are on the "side" of gross superstition, not to mention far grosser hypocrisy.  This is a common trick used by atheists to confuse evidence-based belief in God with religion in general and, religious fundamentalism in particular.  Harris and other athiests like Daniel Dennett waste countless hours talking about religion, which anyone with even a rudimentary education is aware has no relevancy to either the existence or true nature of God.  What human beings claim about the shape and nature of the earth has no relevancy to the actual shape, nature or existence of the earth.  Likewise, what human beings claim about the existence and nature of God does not change what is true about either the existence or true nature of God.

Modern atheists who attempt to marginalize belief in God by equating God with religious and other dogma, openly demonstrate a lack of rudimentary understanding, vainly imagining they are fooling the rest of us as to why they can't instead, provide a better explanation than Eternal Creator for their own existence.  A book written by militant atheist Richard Dawkins implies by it's title, that Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, Paul, Socrates, Aristotle, DaVinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Shakespeare, Newton, Descartes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Locke, Jefferson, Paine, Darwin, Tolstoy, Schweitzer, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Eleanor Roosevelt, Helen Keller, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Cesar Chavez, Francis Collins, Paul Simon and millions of noteworthy human beings of demonstrated intelligence and accomplishment, are all delusional, while Mr. Dawkins himself is on the "side" of logic, science, reason and the enlightened few and far between.  One would suppose each one of us can make our own decision as to who in fact, is most likely a victim of delusion.

It is not true that Natural Selection theory is wrong about reproductive advantage being why life adapts and changes.  Rather, the evidence indicates reproductive survival is only one of several reasons why all of life adapts and changes.  The word "natural" in Natural Selection itself represents human assumption and bias rather than science.  Labeling a process "natural" and referring to environmental reality as "the natural world" doesn't prove anything, other than that scientists like other human beings, are prone to bias and assumptions having no foundation in evidence.  Because there is only one universe, there is nothing that rationally compares to it.  But for purposes of discussion, if we view the universe as a giant computer, we can understand, based on our own human ability to create computers, that the universe represents a grand cosmic designed "machine", operating far beyond human ability to fully grasp and comprehend.  It is impossible to know how much or how little our Creator inputs within the grand Cosmic scheme of things, while on the other hand, there is no evidence at all that either a computer or the universe can magically exist unto itself.  All evidence known to humanity points in the other direction, that parts within parts working in combination together require intelligence, conception, design and creation and, cannot magically exist unto themselves, as the bottom-line gross superstition of atheism requires one to blindly believe.

Apparently even Richard Dawkins understands the superiority of the teachings of Jesus, as a photo of Mr. Dawkins wearing a t-shirt with the words, "atheists for Jesus" printed on the front, was at one time displayed on his website.  According to historian Will Durant in his epic volume, "Caesar and Christ", the teachings of Jesus as found in the four "gospels", represent a singular advanced mind, far greater than any other mind known in human history.  And as the writings of Durant clearly imply, to not study the Bible and the history and cultures surrounding the Bible, is to have no understanding of ancient history, Western history, American history, human rights, civil rights and essentially, no understanding at all.  How is it a reproductive or any other "advantage" to our children, for American education to ignore the greatest mind in human history?  Why did Jesus insist there is a God and claim that God told him what to teach us, if there is not one and, why did we crucify our greatest teacher?

The universe is known to be a whole lot more complicated today than was understood prior to the 21st Century.  In 2007, it was discovered the universe contains a very large void.  One theory proposed because of this discovery, is that all of the super-clusters in the entire universe encircle a very large black hole, similar to how large but much smaller black holes by comparison, reside at the center of galaxies.  If this theory is correct, then there is no need for the existence of dark energy to explain why the universe appears to be expanding faster than modern physics predicts it should.  This very large void known as the “Eridanus Supervoid”, is much larger than the Virgo Super-Cluster our own Milky Way galaxy is only but a small dot in comparison to.  This void is much larger than a typical super-cluster, the largest known structure in the universe. 

The “Eridanus Supervoid” is a good example of how little science actually knows about the universe.  The various explanations given at the link below, many of which are very different from each other, indicate that science doesn’t really know very well at all about how the universe works from true perspective.  What seems correct from our view here on earth has often been proven incorrect later on as more evidence is discovered and no doubt much of what seems correct today, will later be proven wrong by future generations of scientists.

It would be beneficial for us all if modern scientists and educators were a little less arrogant and a little more humble about it all.  The truth is, we don't really know very much about what is really true from true universal and beyond perspective; that is, from God's view.  Can a virus within a microbe trapped within a human being's small intestines, say there is no human being on who it depends on for survival and far less so, can human beings say there is no Creator, on who we depend on for the very breath of life itself?  The size of the Eridanus Supervoid in comparison to the Virgo Super-cluster of galaxies we ourselves live within:
Scale of Universal Sizes
Link to various explanations for the very large Eridanus Supervoid

According to the Britannica, Freud believed that human babies are born "blank".  However, modern psychologists working with infants have discovered that like the Bible says and Jefferson echoes in the Declaration of Independence, babies are already "hard-wired" with a moral sense at birth.  To be fair, not all scientists agree with these findings.  What may be more likely true, is that humans are born with an innate moral conscience that develops over time along with the rest of our brain.  It is well established that the human brain continues to develop long after birth into and beyond our teenage years, rather than representing a "completed" package out of the womb.  A complete understanding of the human mind, human consciousness, intelligence and awareness still today remains severely lacking and, obviously it is difficult to test and fully understand what is going on in the minds of very young infants.

According to various studies, babies as young as three months old in various tests display choices based on perceptions of goodness as opposed to meanness (infants younger than this are extremely difficult to test).  And again like the Bible says, babies appear to have inborn tendencies towards selfishness and bias, ostracizing humans who they perceive as being outside their own group.  Such tendencies are clearly displayed on grade school playgrounds, where children are often cruel and mean to other children, accepting some while rejecting others for being the "black" kid, the "Jewish" kid, the "fat" kid, the "uncool" kid, the "ugly" kid, the "weak" kid, the "stupid" kid and similar superficial reasoning.  However "moral" our perceptions may already be at birth, it is beyond dispute that young children clearly make selfish, moral verses immoral and related choices.

Such inborn bias carries over into adulthood, where adults separate themselves into various often highly divisive groupings.  The Mensa Society for example, openly practices human segregation, excluding other humans from their exclusive club of theoretically intelligent people who fail to score high enough on a test supposedly measuring intelligence, a test that doesn't contain a single question about how to improve human behavior or otherwise, leave a less violent, greed-filled and polluted planet for our children to inherit (as if caring about our neighbor and our own offspring has no relation to human intelligence).  History is filled with the carcasses of human beings who vainly imagine they are better than other human beings, and vainly imagine it wise to divide ourselves into groupings as races, classes, liberals, conservatives and a myriad of other superficial divisions, as if we don't all fall short of what our own conscience dictates, as if we are not all collectively part of the global human oppression problem; again, just like the Bible says.
Do Babies Know Right from Wrong?
The Moral Life of Babies
Disputes Among Various Scientists Regarding Infant Morality


NOTE 2 - Rather than changing the name of the theory itself, modern scientists and educators have rather cleverly taken up the misleading practice of continuing to call a supposed overwhelmingly agreed to theory "Evolution", while constantly tweaking and changing how evolution is defined as new evidence emerges.  So much so, that several scientists have recently stated biology 101 is in need of complete revision.  It is as if someone started out describing what is commonly called an elephant as an ant and, over many generations gradually tweaked and redefined their description until now, it is closer to how an elephant actually appears, but still very far away from being a complete and accurate description.  As one scientist implied a few years ago on PBS, it may be that the theory of evolution is more and more becoming the elephant in the room, out of sync with the rest of the furniture.

If life existed prior to the earth itself, as many scientists now believe, then of course life never has "evolved" on earth, as if it magically by some chance coincidence, somehow self-assembled from scratch into a conscious living being.  A few brave scientists long ago contended that what is called "abiogenesis" doesn't belong in a rational discussion and, based on the emerging evidence of theoretically zillions of planets harboring life, abiogenesis research more and more appears to be a huge waste of valuable time and energy that instead could be focused on eradicating horrible diseases and global mass pollution, not to mention being a complete waste of billions of taxpayer dollars.  One would suppose such theorists will eventually get over the obvious, that exactly how, where and when life actually began is so far over our collective heads, as to be like the rest of God's ways, "past finding out".

It is fair to say that the word "evolution" itself is misleading in relation to what the modern evidence actually indicates.  While educators often hastily sweep this under the rug, some publicly stating evolution simply means "change", in the minds of many if not most average people, the word evolution does not equate with the word change, nor does it equate with "adapt and change", as if these are equally interchangeable ideas.  While there is overwhelming evidence life adapts and changes within an ever changing universal environment, there is no evidence at all that life ever has or ever will "evolve", as the word is commonly understood by most people.  One might fairly ask, why not call the theory "life in transition" rather than evolution, which more clearly and accurately defines what the modern evidence actually indicates.

There is no reason to assume that our Creator defines a true modern human being in the likeness of Adam, the same as science define humans, nor can modern scientists make up their minds regarding what actually defines a true modern human being.  Estimates by various archeologists, historians, biologists and other scientists range anywhere between 10-12,000 to over 200,000 years for when true modern human beings first emerged, while the majority opinion ranges from 30,000 to 80,000 years.  Quite obviously with such diversity of opinion, how science chooses to define a true modern human being is quite arbitrary and open to significant speculation, error and revision.

If a minority of archeologists and others are correct, what represents a true modern human being is fairly defined as arising around the same time as when farming rather suddenly emerged, very quickly followed by towns, city-states and nations displaying pyramid construction and much other significant intellectual advancement.  If true modern human beings are defined as arising from the emergence of farming forward, then there could well have been a literal Adam and Eve.  Since the mapping of the human genome, there is evidence that everyone alive on our planet today descends from a recent common ancestor, no older than Eve in the Bible and possibly considerably younger (see Note 22 below and Note 1 above for links to scientific research of recent common ancestry).

According to the Bible, God's "understanding is infinite" and, God "counts the number of the stars" and "calls them all by name".  Although there are estimates for the number of stars in the universe, such estimates are highly questionable, as the size of our universe remains unknown and, there are far more stars in our galaxy alone than was assumed only a generation ago.  Some scientists believe there are multiple universes and at least one scientist has stated there may be as many universes as there are stars in our own.  It is fair to say that stars are "beyond number", far beyond the ability of humans to detect and human mathematics to conceive of or comprehend.  And yet, it has been established by science today that electrons and other particles swirling around the nucleus of atoms are woven in intricate patterns, giving the various elements distinct properties, rather than just haphazardly swirling at random.

If a human being could somehow size down to the sub-atomic level and reside on a single lepton that was inside of an atom, inside of a strand of DNA, inside of a virus, inside of a micro-organism, inside of a human being's small intestines, such a tiny human residing on the lepton would be far larger compared to the size of an average adult human, than we humans are compared to just the known universe.  Our "window" into the universal reality is indeed so very tiny compared to what may be, that it cannot be fairly represented by a period on this page.  Yet, there are scientists prancing around the earth today pretending to be "almost certain" there is no God, as if they would somehow know and we should all just bow down and take their word for it, rather than seek advice from the real God who unlike such gross liars, is worthy of our awe, honor and respect.  It is no small wonder that the Bible says, "he who sits in the heavens shall laugh".

Such scientists are living examples of why a common truck driver wouldn't waste his hard earned money having his children supposedly 'educated' by such obvious practitioners of gross superstition. It is fair to say that rational human beings, whether a scientist, a truck driver or a motel maid, do not believe in either the "spaghetti monster" or magically appearing universes, while anyone comparing God to the spaghetti monster openly demonstrates themselves to be devoid of understanding of basic logic 1-A, reason, science and the scientific method.  Perhaps someone should have explained a long time ago, that God by definition is Creator of the universe, while nobody is claiming the spaghetti monster created much of anything, other than scientists vainly imagining themselves to be less delusional than the rest of us.  How the ancient Greeks would laugh before banning such an individual from the Academy for life.

Is science being fair to artificially divide life up into species and then claim that one species evolved from another?  Isn't it more honest to say that all of life is in a constant state of transition and, human beings arbitrarily decide how to classify life?  Is it fair to say that a bird "evolved" a certain type of beak, as if a bird induced change on it's own?  Isn't it more honest to conclude that all of life is created to adapt and change within the grand cosmic scheme of things and, change is occurring because life is created to adapt and change, rather than change being somehow magically induced by a random appearing process?  Does changing the word "creation" to "natural world" change the reality of how God creates the universe? Isn't it more fair to say that God may conceive of an entire universal space/time continuum, speak and then the grand observable Cosmic reality unfolds accordingly, that life abundantly arises in the ocean and on land on earth and, far more abundantly arises throughout the greater cosmic reality?  Isn't it fair to conclude that science is slowly catching up to what the Bible already says is true, rather than the other way around?


NOTE 3 - The contents of the essay above and footnotes below have no particular quarrel with Charles Darwin, who appears to have been a careful scientist trapped within the science knowledge of his own times, as is every scientist of every age in every generation, including our own.  It would be interesting to know what Darwin would say if he was alive today and had the current post-Hubble Telescope DNA knowledge of our science to compare against his own earlier conclusions.  Perhaps he would have long ago called for the exclusion of the term "evolution" from modern science textbooks, who can say for sure?

Unlike many modern scientists and educators, Darwin was humble enough to credit our Creator, not with being behind evolution but rather, with being behind whatever processes there may be, however right or wrong Darwin's own theory or any other theory of science or other theory may be. How the term "evolution" today is often used by far less qualified and less intelligent people, strongly implies there is no Creator or brains behind the universal reality.  In doing so, such superstitious charlatans merely open themselves up to the ridicule such a gross baseless assumption richly deserves.

There is no evidence that motion can exist without Primary Cause, while there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  There is no evidence that finite beings of intelligence and conscious awareness can randomly arise from scraps of matter, while there is overwhelming evidence that intelligence and conscious awareness, if not eternal, requires previous intelligence and conscious awareness in order to exist.  There is no evidence that parts within parts can magically self-assemble, while there is overwhelming evidence that computers, automobiles and anything and everything else containing parts within parts, requires intelligence, conscious awareness, conception, design and construction in order to exist.  If the modern "big bang" theory is accurate, there is no evidence for "random" anywhere within our universe; whatever we can observe and otherwise detect, including in the quantum reality where scientists often carelessly apply the term "random", is a result of the big bang and by definition, is not random.  There is no known rational explanation, other than Eternal Creator(s), for the observable reality we call "universe".

There is far more evidence for God than there is for invisible light, black holes and all of the the rest of modern science evidence combined, yet many scientists and educators continue to pretend there is no evidence for creation, as if they would somehow know and we should just take their blind faith word for it; as if Jesus wasn't correct regarding the blind leading the blind into an eventual common ditch of deception and destruction, as if our modern science and education doesn't continue to produce scientists who work for the global war machine and bankers and politicians of extreme avarice and even less intelligence, who continue to deliberately rob the common masses out of life, liberty, health, homes, jobs life savings and any hope of a pursuit of happiness, as if a so-called "age of reason" hadn't resulted in global imperialism and slavery, violent and bloody American, French, Russian, Chinese and many other revolutions and far more destructive wars, as if our science and education had not resulted in weapons of mass destruction and a pollution filled environmental nightmare for our children and children's children.


NOTE 4 - Scientists and educators today grossly misleadingly refer to the reality we perceive as the "natural world" rather than creation, as if changing terminology somehow changes reality.  Many educators and others say God is not a question for science, as if we could somehow just accept there is such a thing as a computer without having any theory as to how computers happen to exist and, still have a legitimate science of computers.  Scientists often grossly misleadingly use the word "evolve", stating that a certain species of bird "evolved" a different type of beak or, a certain species of frog "evolved" new skin coloration, as if a living form of life somehow induced change by it's own will and volition.  There is no supporting evidence to ever use the term "evolve" in this manner or for that matter, in any other manner in relation to how life actually functions in true reality. Teaching students and the general public that all of life is in "transition" and species "adapt and change" to ever changing universal environments, is far more accurate and less misleading, based on the current known evidence.

The term "species" is itself a human invention and neither changes or affects how the processes of life actually function; this is clearly demonstrated by the fact that life adapted and changed for billions of years prior to any concept of either evolution or species.  Whether a child calls all snakes simply a snake or, a scientist divides snakes up into many distinct "species", this is no way, shape or form changes how snakes came to be as they are or, how life otherwise actually functions in true reality.  And, calling what we perceive to exist the "natural" world rather than creation, does not change either how life came to be or how life functions in true universal reality.  Rather, doing so creates significant bias.

Suppose 100 birds all classified by science as being of the same "species", were living in San Pedro, California.  Now suppose someone caged 75 of these birds and the cage was placed on a ship heading for the South Pacific.  Now suppose the ship began sinking near three very different island environments, the birds were mercifully released from their cage before it sank and, 25 of the 75 birds ended up trying to survive in each of three different island environments.

After many generations, assuming they all reproduced normally, a scientist might then happen along and discover three "new" species of birds, classifying the now several hundred of each population as four "distinct" species; three "new" species on each of the three islands being traced back as having "evolved" from the original "species" left behind in California. Given this simplistic scenario, what is actually true is that the same part of life (or life form) has so dramatically changed due to varying survival circumstances, that science now artificially classifies it as four distinct different "species" of bird. While in true reality, it is the same bird, the same life form, which has adapted and changed in order to survive.

Although what is called "evolution" is far more complex than this deliberately simplistic example, it illustrates a much different reality than what the general public typically is taught and believes, due to the misleading term "evolution".  Largely because of this misleading term, the general media, PBS and other science videos and school textbooks, continue to paint a false picture in the minds of students and others.  Such media often contains extremely biased, non-evidence based conclusions, such as human beings are often said to be descended from the "ape family", which Darwin himself denied.  Even Richard Dawkins admits that apes and humans represent two modern life forms that didn't exist in the not too distant past.  It is just as accurate to say that apes "evolved" from the human family as it is to say that humans "evolved" from the ape family, although neither statement is accurate.

What most biologists assume is that somewhere over at least 6 million years ago, both apes and humans shared a common ancestor, an ancestor that was neither an ape or a human as we perceive apes and humans to be today.  This may or may not be true, as a true "missing link" has so far not been found.  If it is true, then both apes and humans "transitioned" from the same life form which was neither a modern ape or a modern human being.  The term "evolution" creates a bias of evolutionary "advancement" where none necessarily exists, which in turn creates the bias of human beings descending from apes, rather than the other way around.

Certain kinds of spiders weave a complex differently patterned web every day; most ants are arguably far less lazy than most human beings and an ant's neck can withstand over 2,000 times it's own body weight.  Is it fair to conclude a very recent "species" that, even after 10,000 years of moral instruction to the contrary, continues to create weapons of mass destruction, frequently go to war for no rational survival or any other good reason at all and, continues to severely pollute the environment of its own offspring, is more "advanced" than an ape, a spider or an ant or, even cockroaches, which have managed to survive and reproduce for over two hundred million years?

Rather than focusing on what modern science "believes", modern educators should be focused on a search for what is true.  If we want to be free, what matters is what is really true, as opposed to what is not and only assumed to be true.  Regardless of what we human beings believe or disbelieve and, regardless of which theories, ideas, formulas and terminology we invent to describe and explain what we can perceive, what is actually true remains the same.  This is not entirely true, because what we believe influences how we think and act, but it is essentially true in the larger universal reality.  Whether we believe the earth is spherical, square or shaped like a pyramid or, whether we insist the earth does not exist, none of this changes the shape of the earth or the fact of it's existence.  Other than influencing our actions and in turn other people and the larger environment around us, what we believe or refuse to believe does not change what is actually true.


NOTE 5 - THIS NOTE ENHANCES SOME OF THE SAME INFORMATION FOUND IN NOTE 4 ABOVE: According to a 2010 PBS video, a scientist recently was able to demonstrate in the lab that RNA might have been able to form by first two of the necessary four RNA nucleotides combining in warm fresh water.  It is theorized that the first two in combination may have been carried by wind up into the air and later fell like raindrops, eventually combining with the other two that formed separately, perhaps one at a time.  As such, life could well have arisen from all over the earth, as the Bible apparently says is true, rather than “evolving” from a singular source in the ocean, as evolutionary theory has long assumed.

According to recent theories, what causes life to form came out of the big bang, is refined in stars and finds it’s way around the accretion disks of newly formed stars, which are formed from stardust left over from super-nova and other cosmic events.  These accretion disks eventually form planets, moons, asteroids, comets and various other left over debris and, as conditions allow, life then arises on unknown "zillions" of planets (and perhaps moons, asteroids and other space debris).  According to some scientists, it appears what caused life to eventually arise on earth included both molecules found on the original earth itself and, other molecules transported to the earth on asteroids and comets.

After planets are formed, the essential four repeating subunits of RNA, called nucleotides, eventually form.  Although some viruses contain RNA only, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, it remains unclear if or how any kind of life could survive without DNA.  As far as is known, neither RNA only or other viruses can survive without a host containing DNA and thus, viruses are believed to have arisen after both RNA and DNA existed.  Some scientists claim there is evidence life arrived on space rocks in an already living form and, there are many other theories besides what is discussed here.  A satisfactory explanation for exactly how life came to exist in the larger universal reality remains far beyond the knowledge of human science and very likely always will.  It appears virtually certain that life did not originally "evolve" or otherwise begin from scratch on earth and thus, any claim that life magically appeared without any creative brains behind the universal reality remains what it long always has been, nothing but gross superstition having no foundation in evidence.

According to the Bible, life came forth in abundance from the ocean and the land and, as demonstrated by newly evolving theory, life could well have sprung up from all over the earth; in the ocean, on land, under the earth, in caves and everywhere else there is a “little wetness”, as one scientist stated.  All of the known evidence indicates that God creates life woven within a grand universal design far above our collective heads, to change and adapt so that life itself can survive within ever changing universal environments.  From such changes, modern science artificially divides life into categories as species, genus, family, order, etc., on up to the highest classification of "life" itself. Such classifications are merely human constructs (inventions based on human perceptions) and have no bearing on the reality of how life either came to exist or functions.  This is self-evident by the fact that life continues to adapt and change today as it did long before human beings or any concept of science, evolution or species ever existed.

How we choose to classify life does not change how God creates life, any more than calling the shape of the earth spherical, flat or triangular in shape, somehow changes the shape of the earth. There is no evidence that species “evolve” from other species through some magically existing spontaneously arising process called “evolution”.  Rather, ALL of life has the ability to adapt and change, which is how God creates life so that life can survive.  What science comes along after the fact and classifies as a “species”, is an artificial human classification and has no bearing on the reality of life or how life functions, one way or the other.  And, though what science calls a “species” arises and dies out, life itself marches on, just as our wise Creator intended, so that life can survive in God's ever-changing universal environment.  Scientists and intellectuals need to grow up and get over the obvious fact that God is far greater and more intelligent than we are, far more so than ourselves in comparison to a bacterium or virus or, even a lepton.

Life is very likely far more complex and cross-integrated at root sub-atomic, atomic, virus and probably also higher levels, than science has long assumed.  And, modern scientists are recently waking up to that fact, as some have publicly stated on PBS that life is far too complex for human beings to ever fully comprehend and explain.  There are far more micro-organisms than visible macro-organisms and it is believed, far more viruses than all other known life forms combined.  Modern biological theory breaks down at virus and lower levels (atomic, quantum), which is where the explanation for how life arises most matters for a theory of "evolution" or any other theory to have any hope of being remotely accurate.


NOTE 6 - A secular non-creationist biologist in a 2009 PBS video discussing and detailing some of the most recent scientific evidence, stated that evolutionary theory as generally believed today will likely be mostly if not entirely discarded within fifty years.  And a secular molecular biologist in the same video stated that life is so overwhelmingly complex at the atomic and sub-atomic (quantum) levels, it is irrational to pretend that science can ever have a legitimate theory of life functionality and origins.  These were two currently practicing professional secular biologists merely trying to go by the evidence, stating their professional opinions in a public evolutionary science video.  This video was not produced by creationists, did not feature a single creationist, nor did it mention either God, creation or intelligent design.  More signifiantly, discoveries since then have caused many scientists and educators to call for a complete re-write of biology 101, underscoring what these scientists stated in this video to be correct.


NOTE 7 - It never seems to have dawned on many modern scientists, that just perhaps like God's human creations, God can create works of art that have both practical sexual reproductive and aesthetic design purposes in combination.  For example, human beings include non-essential aesthetic design in virtually everything we create, from paper clips to public edifices like the U.S. Supreme Court building; which has ornate columns that both hold up the roof and are also atheistically designed to be pleasing to the eye of the beholder, even though there is no practical reason for such design in holding up the roof.  Just perhaps, God is at least as capable of creative multiplicity in design as human beings are and just perhaps, the beautiful feathers of a peacock are created for BOTH sexual reproductive and aesthetic purposes in combination.  Who can say for sure?

Consider the incredible complexity of what science calls the “natural” world, where trillions of microbes, plants, insects, mammals and other living things react individually and differently within the same general environmental “scene” based on what kind of eyes, ears or other perception tools they may possess.  Just perhaps, a Being great enough to design the universe is capable of creating for both practical functionality and aesthetic purposes at the same time, given that such a comparatively lowly creature as a human being does so consistently on a daily and ongoing basis.  Even some species of spiders create a differently designed, yet practically functional web every single day of their lives.  Why wouldn't our Creator be at least as capable of combined artistic and functional design creation as a human being or a spider is capable of?  Like not being able to see the forest for the trees, atheistic science has become a victim of it's own narrow-minded egotistical foolishness.

As a side-note, it has never seemed logical to me why a great many organisms living deep below the ocean surface where there is no visible light, would represent a multitudinous rainbow of coloration, even when many of them don't have eyes and cannot either see or perceive color as far as can be determined.   Biologists provide satisfactory explanations based on Darwinian theory for why red is a dominant color among deep ocean marine life, but there seems to be no satisfactory explanation for why a large variety of other coloration can also be found. 

If the coloration of a male peacock arises and remains only as a reproductive advantage and if it would eventually disappear if it lost any and all reproductive reason for being there, why isn't all marine life below a certain depth mainly transparent, black, red or another singular plain opaque-like color, especially when it is located very deep into the blackness three miles or more below the surface?  Why does marine life at great ocean depths instead, vary from being sometimes transparent-like, to also often displaying not only red and black, which are explainable by Darwinian theory, but also a great rainbow variety of other coloration? 


NOTE 8 - WRONGLY ASSIGNED CAUSES OF WAR AND OTHER INTELLECTUAL BIAS:  In physics, bias created by Einstein's theories (though no fault of Einstein) is clearly abundant today, such as the fairly recent invention of "dark energy"; which essentially represents juvenile delinquent cart-before-the-horse science, postulating a non-proven entity invented solely in order to prop up existing theories.  Some astronomers and physicists suspect there may be no such thing as dark energy and that rather, existing theories of gravity and light may not be correct.  If the speed of light is not constant, as many modern scientists suspect, then virtually all current science theory may be way off the mark (see Note 11 below for some of the reasons why the constancy of the speed of light may be in question).

In biology, bias is seen not only in the writings of Richard Dawkins and other militant atheists, but also throughout the Britannica and practically every educational source, where nearly every subject related to science, history or human thought and activity in any way, is now seen through an artificial lens of evolution by Natural Selection, which has completely re-written former theories of animal behavior, to give just one example.  Animal behavior is viewed differently today than when I was in high school and very much differently than in the time of Darwin and even than in the first half of the 20th Century.  To be fair, some scientists object when they hear evolution applied to practically any and every discipline, such as the "evolution" of history, language, art, religion, psychology, morality and similar.  Such perceptions are a by-product of the theory of evolution, virtually absent from human civilization and thought prior to Charles Darwin.

Animal behavior is extremely important to human evolutionary science.  The Britannica under the heading "animal behavior", devotes some space comparing human behavior with non-human animals and insects.  Britannica admits that the science of animal behavior is essentially in it's infancy and there is far much more to learn than is currently known.  There are several conflicting ideas and thus, there's little unified consensus regarding how animals perceive, think and act.  A lot is assumed based on Natural Selection theory, rather than based on hard science evidence.  And, how animals typically act generally differs significantly from the human carnage of greed and avarice leading to every more war and rumor of war, splashed across the historical civilization map (see Note 12 for how the actions of of human beings gravely contradict modern evolutionary theory).

Quite obviously, it remains difficult for human scientists to think and perceive like a monkey, a dolphin, a bird or an ant.  Rather than any real "advancement" up a chain of from lower to higher, it might be more fair to say that all forms of life are more or less, equally "well adapted" within their own environmental needs; many insects and perceived "lower" forms of life are arguably more "well adapted" in some ways than human beings are.  It has been discovered that even microbes exhibit a type of individual choice and, it is known that the a small change in diet of a single termite can greatly affect an entire African eco-system.  There appears to be far more learned behavior among animals than what was once mainly dismissed as "instinct" and it may be true, that all forms of life possess some ability to make individual choices, rather than just being robotic-like creatures of genetic program and instinct.

Once any theory becomes “mainstream”, it tends to artificially “color” and influence emerging ideas forward.  Thus, human science, history and other intellectual pursuit contains a significant amount of bias built on previous bias, built on even earlier bias, built on still earlier bias and, stretching on back into the mists of historical time.  For example, similar to how Einstein's theories are based on the assumption that the speed of light is constant, modern evolutionary theory is based on a long held assumption that reproductive advantage is the singular primary drive of all species, including humans and, the fundamental "engine" that drives changes in all living things.  As some brave historians and even a few scientists have pointed out, this does not at all seem to agree with how human beings behave in the known historical record.

If this fundamental assumption is wrong or only partially correct, as some historians, geneticists and others contend, then such an error is likely to distort everything else that evolutionary theory influences.  Recent evidence discovered since the decoding of the human genome indicates that reproductive survival advantage is only one of several reasons why forms of life adapt and change (see Note 1 above).  And in the historical record, we find an insatiable drive of human greed causing people to act in all manner of irrational ways contradictory to reproductive survival.

According to the Bible, human beings have at least two primary drives or one "dual" primary drive, which can perhaps fairly be called singular, because our reproductive and irrational sub-conscious motivations (i.e., "irrational" equals against human rights and reproductive survival) are so interlaced and entwined at root levels, they are essentially inseparable from any fair observational level.  The Bible, in agreement with modern behavioral science evidence, says what we perceive within our own conscious minds and the actions we can observe in other people, are "results" of deceptive and "desperately wicked" motivations from deep within us.

Many modern intellectuals, entirely contradicting the known scientific and historical evidence, blame religion for war and other human violence, as if an external entity invented by human beings could somehow be the root cause of human oppression, rather than blaming human beings ourselves for our own actions.  If religion caused war, there would have been no such thing as the American, French, Russian, Chinese and many other revolutions and, no such thing as WWI, WWII, the Vietnam War or the recent war in Iraq.

Agreeing with the known historical and scientific evidence, a key teaching of Jesus is that murders, thefts and other anti-human rights actions originate from within individual human beings; see Mark 7:14-20 and Matthew 15:16-20.  According to the New Testament James, agreeing with Jesus and modern behavioral science evidence, war and other human violence comes from irrational desires at war with ourselves within our own beings; see James 4:1-2.  And according to the Old Testament Jeremiah, "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked"; Jeremiah 17:9.  And again, modern science has 'discovered' that human surface motivations are deceptive as to our true motivations at sub-conscious root levels, which the Encyclopedia Britannica refers to as the "seething mass within" (compare "desperately wicked").

Jesus, the authors of the Bible and the historical and modern behavioral science evidence agree, that greed, hatred, irrational fear, envy, prejudice, stress, tension, murder, rape, theft, false witness, inequality of wealth, slavery, war and other human oppression, are caused by what the Britannica refers to as "the seething mass within" individual human beings and, what the Bible calls "sin".  Changing the word sin to "negative behavior", "social maladjustment" or "seething mass within", does not change the resulting slavery, hunger, violence, pain, suffering, sorrow, death and global mass pollution that results from what is within us.  After thousands of years of moral and other education to the contrary, many scientists today continue to work for the global war machine and, educated bankers, politicians, lawyers and Wall Street brokers continue to bilk the common people who Jesus loves, out of jobs, home, health and life savings.  For more information, see Romans chapters 1-2 in the New Testament and "Human Sexuality", "Freud", "Jung", "Psychology", "Animal Behavior" and related articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

There is no evidence war is caused by either "religion" or "belief in God" (which are not the same thing), as many rather poorly educated modern people claim.  War can just as logically and fairly be attributed as being "caused" by science and education, pointing to the weapons created by science technology and idealism like "freedom and democracy" resulting from human education.  Since the invention of cheap printing, modern idealism like capitalism, communism, socialism, anarchism, fascism and nationalism, over which very much blood has been spilled, has gradually replaced religious excuses for war.

From the so-called "Age of Reason" forward, because of mass decimation of human knowledge previously reserved primarily for priests, the wealthy and scholars, excuses for war have been gradually shifting away from religion towards intellectual idealism and, this gradual historical shift is still in process here in the 21st Century.  War and other violence in recent history has often been fomented using both religion and intellectual idealism in combination.  While religion played a relatively minor role in the major wars of the 20th Century, as well as in the American, French, Russian, Chinese and other revolutions, emanating from a so-called "Age of Enlightenment".

Belief in God and institutional religion are often carelessly lumped together into a highly deceptive historical misrepresentation by modern intellectuals who should know better. Religion, science and education are all three often wrongly used as "tools" to foment war and other human oppression, but there is no evidence any of these three are the "cause" of war and other human oppression. Both modern science and the Bible agree that such oppression is actually caused by a deeper problem within all human beings.  War and other violence is a "collective" human problem arising from what is within human beings and emanating outward into both individual and collective group actions.  Historically, war at the surface bottom root level, including in particular the oft poorly understood European Crusades, is ALWAYS about either protecting property and other forms of wealth or, taking property and other forms of wealth and, war is almost always about both.  War differentiates from self-defense in that war is about the protection and taking of property, whereas self defense is about protecting the physical being of our own self, family and/or immediate group.

Human greed erupting on the surface as war and other violence, is caused by deeper problems within us tracing from both conscious and sub-conscious levels.  Is it just me, or does anyone else find it odd that Jesus and the Old and New Testaments agree a lot more with both the historical and modern science evidence, than do Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and comedian Bill Maher, who should perhaps stick to comedy.  Like Jesus, Mr. Maher is adept at making fun of conservative fundamentalists and in this, he is doing God and the rest of us a favor.  As I've inquired of the so-called Skeptics Society, why limit one's targets to the obvious easy television sham religionists and those who purport to bend spoons with their minds, rather than being more like Samuel Clemens and, making sport of puffed up intellectual demagoguery posing as 'science', as well?

So-called "religious" wars like the Crusades very clearly have their roots in human greed; various popes, kings, nobles and wealthy merchants teamed up together to take back valuable land and key trading positions which had been seized previously by Muslim invaders and various Crusade leaders and common foot soldiers were promised much "booty" to the victors.  There isn't a single war in human history that can't be traced to human greed at it's roots, just as the Bible long ago stated and, just as now modern science is beginning to grudgingly agree.  Reasons for why radical Muslims flew airplanes into buildings in the 21st Century United States, have their roots in the fact that the United States armed Israel to the teeth at the extreme peril of Israel's Islamic neighbors, while U.S. corporations earned billions of dollars in the process.  U.S. corporations were earning vast sums from both WWI and WWII long before the United States entered either conflict and, one of the consistent habits of Adolf Hitler was to seize much gold, art and jewels wherever his armies invaded. According to Britannica, in the days of Charlemagne, it was accepted standard practice to go to war simply for the sake of taking other people's "stuff", without even bothering to justify it for any other reason.

War has long historically been and will likely long be, about either protecting property or taking property and almost always, it is about both, in regards to any and all "sides" involved. There are great profits to be made in direct literal and other forms of human slavery, such as wealthy capitalists profiting handsomely off of so-called "illegal" aliens and homeless day laborers, in our own sick 21st Century American society.  Note how the sincere religious beliefs of millions of common people have been twisted to justify everything from the American Revolution to the recent current U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  And also note how the intellectual idealism of democracy, capitalism, socialism, communism and anarchism, is like religion, used as a "tool" of U.S. warmongers to stir up the often sincere masses of common citizens to support our "manifest destiny" battles for a few gold, oil and other dollars more, all wrapped up neatly in a red, white and blue blood-drenched bow of "patriotism" and "self-defense".

The known history of Columbus, Cortez, the United States expansion West and the Klondike Gold Rush overwhelmingly demonstrate that the Bible is correct and modern evolutionary theory is only half right at best (see Note 13 below for more details).  Perhaps a few abiogenesis theorists should spend a little more time in comparative analysis of the Bible against the human civilization historical reality and, a little less time lying to our children about how we and the rest of the universe happen to exist.  According to Richard Dawkins, the universe is exactly as one would expect it to be if there is no God, representing "nothing but blind, pitiless indifference".  If this were remotely true, there would be no concept of human rights, no laws against murder, rape, theft or false witness and, no such people as Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, Gandhi, Harriet Tubman, Helen Keller, Albert Schweitzer, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther king, Jr. or Cesar Chavez in the historical record.  Rather, we would all act far worse than the worst tyrants of human history and, humanity would have long ago ceased to exist.

Similar base laws against murder, adultery, theft and false witness are found all over the historical map, as are similar and often identical so-called "golden rules", clearly demonstrating like the Bible says and, like Thomas Jefferson and the modern scientist Francis Collins echoed, humans clearly possess a designed shared human conscience.  Parents who care about their children don't give them rules, instruction and guidelines because they don't care but rather, because they do.  And, our Father in heaven likewise, didn't give humanity a conscience, instruction and rules to live by because he doesn't care but rather, because he does care.  If God didn't care about us, he wouldn't care how much we murder, rape, steal or lie and, we would have no conscience dictating otherwise.

(These three paragraphs below are repeated from Note 1 above.) According to the Britannica, Freud believed that human babies are born "blank".  However, modern psychologists working with infants have discovered that like the Bible says and Jefferson echoes in the Declaration of Independence, babies are already "hard-wired" with a moral sense at birth.  To be fair, not all scientists agree with these findings.  What may be more likely true, is that humans are born with an innate moral conscience that develops over time along with the rest of our brain. It is well established that the human brain continues to develop long after birth into and beyond our teenage years, rather than representing a "completed" package out of the womb. A complete understanding of the human mind, human consciousness, intelligence and awareness still today remains severely lacking and, obviously it is difficult to test and fully understand what is going on in the minds of very young infants.

According to various studies, babies as young as three months old in various tests display choices based on perceptions of goodness as opposed to meanness (infants younger than this are extremely difficult to test).  And again like the Bible says, babies appear to have inborn tendencies towards selfishness and bias, ostracizing humans who they perceive as being outside their own group.  Such tendencies are clearly displayed on grade school playgrounds, where children are often cruel and mean to other children, accepting some while rejecting others for being the "black" kid, the "Jewish" kid, the "fat" kid, the "uncool" kid, the "ugly" kid, the "weak" kid, the "stupid" kid and similar superficial reasoning.  However "moral" our perceptions may already be at birth, it is beyond dispute that young children clearly make selfish, moral verses immoral and related choices.

Such inborn bias carries over into adulthood, where adults separate themselves into various often highly divisive groupings.  The Mensa Society for example, openly practices human segregation, excluding other humans from their exclusive club of theoretically intelligent people who fail to score high enough on a test supposedly measuring intelligence, a test that doesn't contain a single question about how to improve human behavior or otherwise, leave a less violent, greed-filled and polluted planet for our children to inherit (as if caring about our neighbor and our own offspring has no relation to human intelligence).  History is filled with the carcasses of human beings who vainly imagine they are better than other human beings, and vainly imagine it wise to divide ourselves into groupings as races, classes, liberals, conservatives and a myriad of other superficial divisions, as if we don't all fall short of what our own conscience dictates, as if we are not all collectively part of the global human oppression problem; again, just like the Bible says.
Do Babies Know Right from Wrong?
The Moral Life of Babies
Disputes Among Various Scientists Regarding Infant Morality


NOTE 9 - MYSTERY OF THE VIRUS:  Little is known about viruses compared to science in general, even though they are the majority living entity on earth (a virus is not properly classified as an organism because it can't survive independently of a host).   Viruses are not necessarily harmful to host organisms and viruses may be overall more beneficial than harmful.  Based on various information contained in a recent video on the science of viruses, even though the video itself did not conclude this, it may be true that all of life on earth began as something like a virus and adapted and changed over time from that level.  A virus is essentially a little ball or cylinder of DNA; some viruses contain a single strand of RNA only. As such, life may begin as something like a virus or pre-virus at a biological root level.  And as such, life may well have arisen from all over the earth and, be complexly cross-integrated at root levels, thus only appearing to have arisen from a singular origin from our view looking backward.

According to Britannica, it is currently generally believed viruses evolved after host cells rather than the other way around, but this is not conclusive because some viruses consist of a single RNA strand and contain no DNA.  One current evolutionary theory is that DNA evolved from RNA to allow for more complexity and thus, RNA viruses may not have appeared after a DNA cell host existed but rather, prior to an existing host.  One might contend they appeared at the same time because as far as is known, a virus cannot reproduce without a host, but such a conclusion is irrational if one “evolved” from the other; a scientist can't fairly have it both ways any more than a conservative religionist can.  Thus, even though a virus as far as science knows, cannot reproduce apart from a host cell, a certain type of RNA virus-like pre-organism could be a foundational element of life. According to Britannica, “other possible progenitors of viruses are the plasmids (small circular DNA molecules independent of chromosomes), which are more readily transferred from cell to cell than are chromosomes. Theoretically, plasmids could have acquired capsid genes, which coded for proteins to coat the plasmid DNA, converting it into a virus.”

Viruses are so prevalent in all living things, it may be impossible to separate the rest of life from viruses at any kind of legitimate scientific physical (non-atomic) root level.  Thus, the true origins of life may always remain an unsolvable mystery.  If life can arise from a type of virus-like pre-organism or pre-virus, pre-organism, then it may well have arrived on “space rocks” as some scientists believe. As such, tiny organism or pre-organisms may have been “seeded” all over the earth and thus, life may have sprung up from hundreds, millions or “zillions” of original sources, rather than from a singular origination point in the ocean, as long assumed by most Darwinists.

Consider the overwhelming molecular complexity of much smaller atomic and sub-atomic parts which make up what constitutes a virus and even what constitutes RNA within a virus and, consider how or why sub-atomic parts could or would somehow magically or otherwise formulate into a strand of RNA and/or DNA, which is somewhat infinitely larger by comparison.  Then consider modern science doesn't really know how RNA, DNA and viruses came to be; if or how an RNA virus could exist without a DNA host or how DNA could exist without first evolving from RNA or, how RNA could exist independent of the existence of DNA. As one can begin to see by such lengthy sentences of circular explanation, life may be irreducibly inter-entwined and complexly overlaid and inter-mixed beyond all hope of separation, rather than what would by comparison be, the simplistic Darwinian “tree-model” of evolution currently generally assumed to somehow, in some currently unexplainable way, have coincidentally "self-designed" from a singular origination source in the ocean.  Perhaps scientists should be reminded that most adults eventually stop believing in magic.

Some followers of Richard Dawkins might contend that it IS explainable how life came to be. But if it was truly explainable, there would only be one single universal general consensus theory of abiogenesis, rather than the pile of spontaneous generation trash heap contradiction currently pretending to be a legitimate theory of science.  Abiogenesis, which is arguably nothing more than an “ivory tower”-cloaked term for spontaneous generation, in current reality represents a great many different often contradicting theories in the plural.  Whenever several contradicting theories exist among current practicing scientists, it is a safe bet that in reality, SCIENCE DOESN'T KNOW, which historically has almost always proven to be the correct conclusion, as any legitimate historian will verify.  From a fair historical analysis, what is “rock solid” science today is tomorrow, gone with the winds and shifting sands of evidence.

Human beings may be intermixed with fish, insects, reptiles and everything else many times over, back, forth, crossways and every which way, rather than evolving up a simplistic chain from a singular origination point.  Virtually all of science historically moves from simple to more complexity as more evidence is discovered, rather than from complex to simple.  Just as a former comparatively simplistic view of a very large flat earth with a much smaller sun, even smaller moon and tiny stars fixed in a relatively tiny heavens, has gradually given way to the grand complexity of the micro and macro universal reality known to exist today.

Is it really true that life might be much more complexly crisscrossed and irreducibly inter-entwined and cross-integrated than either religious fundamentalists or evolutionary biologists wish to believe? Is it true that life came forth in abundance from all over the planet rather than from a singular origination point, as the Bible seems to indicate?  Is the universal reality created by the Grand Universal Designer logically simple enough in functionality, to be adequately explainable in human language, even in a trillion volumes?  Who can say for sure?

Albert Einstein said in an interview with G.S.Viereck, "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist.  We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages.  The child knows someone must have written those books.  It does not know how.  The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is.  That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."  And Einstein wrote in a letter to Guy Raner Jr.,“I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being.”

The reality of how life actually functions, changes and adapts in the real world is so overwhelmingly complex, it may be irrational to pretend science can ever have a legitimate theory of either life functionality or origins.  Problems begin at root sub-atomic (quantum) levels, where nothing works according to any "macro world" theory.  As such, the great mystery of life at the level of the very small, remains a very deep mystery that may well be beyond the ability of humans to ever rationally resolve.  (see Note 1 above for several supporting links and also, see Note 24 below for comparisons to what the Bible actually says and modern science claims).
Video on Comparative Micro and Macro Universal Sizes


NOTE 10 - THE EVOLUTIONARY "MONKEY-WRENCH" OF INDIVIDUAL CHOICE (part of the content in this footnote is also included elsewhere):  In it's article on animal behavior, Britannica does not go much into detail about microbial behavior, which is an emerging science.  It has been recently discovered that even theoretically "brainless" microbes exhibit types of individual choices, which greatly adds to the mystery mixture evolutionary pie, as there are virtually infinitely more microbes on our planet than visible organisms.  Individual choice no doubt greatly affects adaptive change within the animal kingdom, a fact virtually ignored by many educators and even some scientists. Like humans, various animals have been observed to be highly "choice-oriented", rather than being mainly robotic creatures operating from gene-inherited "instinct", a term seemingly used less and less these days.

Many actions of some if not all animals apparently represent learned behavior rather than inherited instinctual traits.  Scientists today are attempting to compile an "elephant language dictionary", which represents a very complex language, as does the "language" of dolphins, whales, birds and other forms of life.  Certain spiders weave a new differently designed web every day, some ants bury their dead and again, elephants have been observed holding a type of funeral procession, standing over and apparently mourning over a recently deceased member for days.  There is a plausible alternative explanation for why ants bury their dead, but science so far has not been so fortunate regarding mourning elephants.

If a termite by individual choice alters it's diet in some small way, it can eventually alter an entire eco-system in Africa on up the chain, which is one very tiny example of just how overwhelmingly complex the overall process of life functionality is in true reality.  Consider a more easily understood example, of Ray Kroc's influence on the modern fast food industry.  If Mr. Kroc had become a carpenter rather than a salesman, human disease may have been significantly affected by this one simple choice variation.  Not that the fast food industry and resultant mega meat, vegetable and fruit farms wouldn't have eventually thrived without the influence of Mr. Kroc but rather, the modern reality of corporate mega-farming would have likely been more slowly introduced without the rapid rise of the McDonald's hamburger franchise and, subsequent competing franchises would have probably arisen more slowly, thus altering the type of food human beings consumed for a decade or more and significantly altering human disease reality for a period of time. 

No modern scientist disputes that large corporate mega-farming affects human disease, some corporate lobby hacks even arguing it might "improve" the equation.  But nevertheless, grain fed and hormone injected cattle, compared to grass fed cattle does indeed, very much alter the human diet and human disease reality in significant ways.  Small choices that parents make, such as which church or club to join or where to send their children to school, can have global altering consequences in terms of raising a heart surgeon, a dictator, the inventor of the microchip, a plumber, a violin player or a violent anarchist. 

The reality of how life actually functions, changes and adapts in the real world is so overwhelmingly complex, it may well be irrational to pretend human beings can ever have a legitimate theory of biological functionality and/or life origins.  Primary problems begin at sub-atomic (quantum) and atomic levels, where nothing works according to Einstein or any other "macro world" theory. As one physicist recently stated in a PBS video, the only thing certain about quantum theory is that no two scientists entirely agree.  And problems are incredibly magnified, just in considering the overwhelmingly complex role individual choice can play in the environmental reality of various life forms.  As such, the great mystery of life at the level of the very small, as well as at every other level, remains a very deep mystery that may well be beyond the ability of humanity to ever resolve.


NOTE 11 - Modern scientists have discovered that light slows down about 40% when passing through a diamond.  Because space itself is made of a “fabric” and is not completely void, the fabric of space itself may alter the speed of light.  The speed of light may also be altered gravitationally when passing stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies (as compared to darker “void” areas of space) and, it may slow down or as more likely the case, speed up as the universe itself expands.  It may be true that the speed of light is constant in a complete vacuum, but otherwise it's speed may be altered by whatever it passes near or through. Thus, current estimated star distances may be off, as well as the current estimate of 13.67 billion years for the age of the universe (recently changed again to 13.8).  The speed of light may not even be constant in a complete vacuum.  Either way, virtually all of modern science theory may be slightly off or way off the mark of what is actually correct, from true universal and beyond perspective.  A scientist at Princeton University recently proposed that so-called universal "laws" may not be universal at all but rather, such "laws" may be dependent on one's position in the universe and, may differ throughout the greater cosmos.

If the speed of light is not constant, there may be no such thing as “dark energy” and, all current theories of gravity, light, evolution and practically everything else may be incorrect, as some scientists have publicly stated.  Newton's theories conclusively demonstrate, that just because a theory seems to work well within our earth-bound experience, this does not prove that the theory is correct from a larger view.  Just because science can create an atomic bomb, this does not prove Einstein is correct about the speed of light being constant and, just because science can use evolutionary theory in practical application ways on earth, this does not prove it is entirely, in the main or, even remotely correct from a true universal and beyond perspective.

Virtually everything modern science "believes" today remains suspect for at least two very well established reasons:  1) Nothing works as expected based on current "macro" theories, in the atomic and sub-atomic (quantum) reality.  And 2) The history of science clearly demonstrates that the vast majority of what scientists believe to be true within any given historical time frame, will no longer be considered true not long after.  In comparison to the Pythagorean Theorem, one of the oldest theories still considered to be "science" today, evolution is just a "baby" theory, barely out of the scientific womb.  It is also worth noting, that the "theory of evolution" is not at all like the Pythagorean Theorem or E = MC2 and, it is logically not even a theory by normal definition.  Rather, the theory of evolution is itself in a constant state of evolution.  While modern education spoon-feeds the unsuspecting student into accepting the grand mythology that evolution is a universally agreed to and accepted theory, in reality the term "evolution" to scientists merely represents the current "median norm consensus" of many different and often contradictory ideas, here today and gone with the winds of evolving evidence tomorrow.

While the Pythagorean Theorem and E = MC2 remain the same today as taught in my high school textbook, the "theory of evolution" presented to me in high school is so much changed today, as to not fairly even be called the same theory.  Several university level educators today say that evolution simply means "change", while such an idea wasn't even on the education radar map in my high school days.  No modern biologist today believes in the simplistic evolutionary chain portrayed in my high school textbook, where an ape was pictured in a drawing, with gradual step "creatures" "advancing" into a modern human being. Rather today, both apes and human beings are considered to be two current recent species, neither of which lived in the not very distant past and thus, neither of which "evolved" from the other.

Today, Natural Selection theory is openly being challenged by peer scientists and with the discovery of exo-planets, it appears that life may well predate the earth itself, negating any and all attempts to demonstrate how life "evolved" either on earth or anywhere else.  If life is abundant in the Cosmos as many if not most scientists suspect today, it is irrational to pretend science will ever know how, when, where or why life began.  In reality, there is no such thing as an agreed to "theory of evolution" but rather, how the theory itself is defined is constantly changing and adapting and, the theory has an evolutionary history of it's own. One might fairly ask, if evolution simply means "change", why not call it "change" or more accurately, "life in transition", rather than insisting on still using the misleading term "evolution"?

(this paragraph also appears in NOTE 2 above)  Is science being fair to artificially divide life up into species and then claim that one species evolved from another?  Isn't it more honest to say that all of life is in a constant state of transition and, human beings arbitrarily decide how to classify life?  Is it fair to say that a bird "evolved" a certain type of beak, as if a bird induced change on it's own?  Isn't it more honest to conclude that all of life is created to adapt and change within the grand cosmic scheme of things and, change is occurring because life is created to adapt and change, rather than change being somehow magically induced by a random appearing process?  Does changing the word "creation" to "natural world" change the reality of how God creates the universe?  Isn't it more fair to say that God may conceive of an entire universal space/time continuum, speak and then the grand observable Cosmic reality unfolds accordingly, that life abundantly arises in the ocean and on land on earth and, far more abundantly arises throughout the greater cosmic reality?  Isn't it fair to conclude that science is slowly catching up to what the Bible already says is true, rather than the other way around?


NOTE 12 - According to evolutionary theory, “there are costs as well as benefits to learning, so learning abilities will be beneficial, and favored by Natural Selection, only when the benefits outweigh the costs”; Encyclopedia Britannica; “Animal Behavior”.  In view of the consistent and ongoing war and rumor of war, slavery, murder, rape, theft, false witness and other anti-human rights behavioral history of human civilization, which many historians believe is increasing as a percentage of total human population, rather than decreasing, this fundamental conclusion of modern biology remains highly suspect.  Children and adults have to repeatedly be taught to behave, based on what parental and general societal peer conscience dictates to be morally correct.  In order to convince us to be "good", all manner of threats of punishment, rewards and various other pat-on-the-back “carrots” are dangled in front of our faces, from candy, ice cream and stars on primary report cards, to trophies and plaques and on up to the "Noble Peace Prize".  While on the negative side, we quite easily and consistently disobey on our own, without any parental or general societal approval, encouragement or reward and, quite often in the face of severe punishment, including lengthy incarceration, painful torture and even execution.

Why for example, are adults rewarded with an international "peace prize", which includes not only international recognition but also a substantial monetary reward, for behaving like we believe we all should already behave?  In particular, this modern evolutionary view is highly suspect because many of the most educated modern human beings continue to engage in the same highly destructive anti-human rights behavior as in ancient Babylon, Egypt and Rome. Highly educated modern scientists continue to create ever more destructive weapons of war and otherwise, pollute all hope of our species' reproductive survival into planetary oblivion, even in the face of dire warnings and predictions from peer scientists.  And educated bankers, lawyers, politicians and talk show hosts, most callously and deliberately continue to defraud fellow human beings out of what meager wealth they may possess and otherwise, continue to sell our children's future down the great historical river of tears for a few dollars more, regardless of how many millions or billions of dollars they may already possess.

Thus, this fundamental assumption of modern evolutionary theory is weighed in the balances of human behavior in both the historical and current record and found severely wanting.  As for example, if human babies are born morally “pure”, as many modern people pretend or, if babies are born neutral (i.e., morally “blank” and prone to act 50/50 in either direction) as Freud assumed, then it would be self-evident that what humans collectively perceive to be “good” would be just as easily acquired and adhered to, as what humans collectively perceive to be “bad”.  When in fact, the balances are heavily weighed towards disobedience, rather than obedience of societal moral norms and otherwise, moral uprightness consensus, derived from individual and collective conscience, custom and in the modern age, declared human rights law.

As the New Testament teaches, God did not give us laws and a conscience because God expected us to obey him but rather, to prove to us that we have a significant moral obedience problem, which the Bible calls “sin” and thus, we cannot save ourselves and need God's help.  Changing “sin” to more modern “anti-human rights behavior” or “anti-social behavior” terminology, in no way, shape or form changes the underlying fundamental human prone to moral disobedience problem.  Human beings both individually and collectively, represent a significant failure to live up to the fundamental human rights morality dictates of our own conscience, of treating others as we ourselves wish to be treated.  The legacy of a so-called Age of Enlightenment' of European and American imperialism, the American, French, Russian, Chinese and other revolutions, WWI, WWII, Vietnam and many other horrendous modern wars of unparalleled historical violence and destruction, very clearly demonstrates that science and education cannot save us from our sins.

World leading DNA and human disease expert Francis Collins has publicly stated, that modern DNA evidence alone overwhelmingly demonstrates design and not random processes.  And, as he has also stated, one would assume from a purely Darwinian perspective, that human civilization laws would be fundamentally significantly different, when in fact, basic laws against murder, adultery, theft and false witness are commonly shared throughout human civilization history, as well as a similar so-called "golden rule" appears in at least thirty-seven both connected and non-connected historical cultures spread across the historical civilization landscape.  Thus, clearly indicating as the authors of the Bible claim and Jefferson echoes, that human beings possess an "endowed" shared human conscience.  And, as Jefferson, Collins and others have pointed out, clearly demonstrating deliberate design and not random processes.  As noted in Note 1 above, all people who believe in God by default believe in some form of deliberate design and many such modern people like Francis Collins, also subscribe to the theory of evolution,  Belief in God based on evidence, which is how faith is taught in the Bible (unlike Christianity), should not be confused with creationism and intelligent design theories.

Based on dire predictions of modern science about our planet's future, which agree with many predictions made by Jesus and others in the Bible, there may soon come a time on earth when humans in large numbers wish we had never been born.  As the Bible predicts will happen, we are already losing a significant amount of green plant life and weather patterns, food and water supplies are already warning of major famine, pestilence, disease, anarchy and war on unprecedented scales looming on the global horizon.  Modern global warming computer models alone grossly contradict any notion of human science and technology benefit outweighing the horrendous downside of modern nuclear and bio weaponry and global mass pollution.  The ongoing human carnage of war and rumor of war differs significantly from how the actions of the rest of the animal kingdom, in that animals tend to war out of necessity, rather than being motivated by greed and engaging in irrational behavior for no good reproductive survival or any other rational reason at all.  The known history of Cortez and the Klondike Gold Rush alone, throws a giant question mark around any claim of human actions being based solely on reproductive survival (problems with Natural Selection theory are discussed in the footnotes above and also in more detail in Note 13 below).


NOTE 13 - NOTES ON NATURAL SELECTION: As already noted in several places above, modern geneticists and other scientists and intellectuals have recently began to openly challenge Natural Selection theory, publicly stating that modern genetic and other evidence indicates that reproductive survival is apparently only one of several reasons why forms of life adapt and change.  Because this has already been addressed above with links to the research evidence, this footnote rather than repeat such information, instead addresses issues, geneticists, biologists and educators otherwise, often tend to ignore.  For those questioning whether new research indicates Natural Selection theory is only partially correct, repeating just this one link from Note 1 should remove any such doubt:
Bacteria Recycle Broken DNA

In particular what is ignored by many scientists and educators is the way human beings often act when even the remotest possibilities for gold and other forms of wealth are dangled in front of them. Many people today who can ill afford it and who otherwise need their meager incomes for their own children's survival and well being, often spend vast amounts of time, money and effort playing lotteries with mega-millions to one odds.  Meanwhile, legal gambling, once reserved mainly for cities located in Nevada, has become a booming industry across the American landscape and, internet gambling is a significant growing global human addiction in process.  Any claim Natural Selection theory is correct must fairly address what all of this has to do with reproductive survival and advantage.  It is not enough to say wealth is necessary for survival or that enhanced wealth enhances reproductive opportunity, as many people of extreme wealth and limitless opportunity continue to engage in such practices, often dominaiting much time and energy that could otherwise be used in an arguably more productive manner.

One of the greatest flaws created by bias arising from the term “evolution” itself, is the modern evolutionary bias assumptions of "advancement" and "descent" from "lower" to "higher" forms of life, assumptions not necessarily having any validity in the real world.  Even Charles Darwin later in life opposed the idea of descent as commonly understood, in spite of the title of one of his works.  If there is a true evolutionary “advancement” based on reproductive “advantage” and, if this is the ONLY fundamental driving force within species or, as some try to explain, the “engine” that drives evolutionary change", then logically organisms would become disease free over time.  Otherwise, one must assume step-by-step "lock-sync” adaptive changes within disease organisms in exact lock-step synchronization with the host organism, rather than the overall evolutionary process involving even a tiny fraction of “randomness”.  This in itself would demonstrate "brains" behind the process and design, rather than randomness.

Otherwise organisms would logically gradually move away from anything that is not a reproductive advantage. And more logically, disease would never arise in the first place in an advantage driven system.  If what we can observe is a "blind watchmaker" “reproductive advantage” driven system, then why would disease or anything else against reproductive advantage ever arise?  From where did such disadvantages to reproductive survival come from and why?  And on a practical everyday level, why would an educated human being continue to eat at fast food restaurants in the modern 21st Century age, undoubtedly aggravating when not directly causing much human disease and, even though there is scientific medical knowledge today clearly demonstrating that eating certain foods can cause us and our offspring significant harm?  Why would we buy our offspring to "special treats" that physicians warn cause obesity, diabetes, heart and other disease and ongoing addiction to harmful foods, as in, the more our children eat, the more likely they are to eat far more of what we believe will harm them?  How is this a reproductive "advantage" and if not, why do modern highly educated as well as other people continue to engage in such practices?

Most practicing scientists today question the idea of "descent" in evolution as commonly perceived, but they almost invariably believe in reproductive survival advantage advancement and, that human beings are advancing morally, while based on the historical record, there is no evidence for and overwhelming evidence against such a conclusion.  How does the record of war and human oppression from the rise of British imperialism forward represent a moral advancement over ancient Babylon, the Roman Empire or Middle Age Europe?  Many if not most historians believe if anything, it represents moral regression rather than advancement. One is left perplexed by a so-called "Age of Enlightenment" resulting in the modern 21st Century reality of global mass pollution, rising global corporate dominance and mass human enslavement and civilization teetering on the brink of nuclear annihilation.  How does this represent moral "advancement" and, why do many educated scientists, bankers, lawyers and politicians continue to engage in far worse human oppression than the common thieves of human history ever dreamed of?

Perhaps the most significant problem with Natural Selection theory, as has been pointed out by a few brave historians, is that actions predicating "reproductive advantage" are grossly contradicted by human beings in the known historical record.  To claim that the sole fundamental drive of human beings is reproductive advantage, is essentially irrational in the light of the known history of Cortez, the American West and the Klondike Gold Rush; just a few of millions of examples of the severe reproductive downside to the overt human greed splashed all over the historical record.

Human beings throughout the historical record in droves forsake any and all hope of reproduction at the mere hint of a wisp of a few gold or other dollars more; often risking life and limb in the harshest of conditions, engaging in much violence, war and brutality and again, risking life and limb, enduring all manner of hunger, disease, pain and suffering and, often dragging spouses and children along with them, for a few dollars more.  People of vast wealth, power and ease and availability of reproductive opportunities, have been known to leave all of this far behind and engage in the most egregious brutality and severe risk of personal, family and extended group safety, traveling long distances in harsh, unforgiving weather conditions, to where there is little to no hope of finding any suitable mate, at the slightest chance of finding gold; often in the face of preposterous claims of wealth to be found that any sound mind would have rejected as gross exaggeration and complete fabrication long ago.  How does the history of the Klondike Gold Rush demonstrate reproductive survival or any other advantage? Wikipedia: Klondike Gold Rush

A common blunder that even Richard Dawkins admits is incorrect, an error often found in articles in the NY and LA Times science sections and often taught by poorly trained educators and popular pundits, is the notion that humans are "descended" from the "ape" family and as such, we belong to the "ape" family.  Several articles published in the NY Times and LA Times made this claim in 2010 alone.  And not surprisingly, this is a common belief prevalent in modern society.  This is one example of how the term "evolution" itself is misleading and why it should long ago have been replaced with "life in transition", a far more accurate general descriptive idea of what life actually does on theoretically, a universal level. 

Apes are just as logically a part of the "human" family and "descended" from humans, as that humans are part of the "ape" family, while Richard Dawkins and assumedly most professional biologists agree that neither one of these are accurate.  Some scientists might contend that evolution is in fact "life in transition", but if this is the case, why not change the terminology so that poorly trained educators and "science" editors don't continue to mislead the general public?  What reproductive or other advantage is there in continuing to use misleading terms, when improved terminology like "life in transition" could help minimize false assumptions? Mr. Dawkins, being a trained scientist, admitted in a 2010 PBS video that humans did not descend from apes but rather, apes and humans represent two modern species that didn't exist in the recent past.  There is no evidence evolution represents a "descent" or "ascent" of humans from the "ape" family.  Rather, the evidence demonstrates ALL of life is designed to be in a constant state of transition, so that life itself can survive within changing environments.  Any life form observed today didn't exist in it's current form not very long ago (in evolutionary terms).

The term "life form" is used frequently in these notes to help offset the fact that "species" and other classifications of science are human inventions, which do not dictate the reality of how life came to be or functions.  One way to view the actual reality of life, is to view everything living as being a "part" of life and thus, all "life forms" are part of the whole of life itself. Some life forms change a lot more dramatically than others; some forms of life remain about the same for millions years.  This is because change is predicated on necessity of survival and thus, life forms that don't need to change very much, change very slowly, whereas a life form introduced into a completely new environment or living in a dramatically changing environment, will tend to change comparatively rapidly.  The famous example of lightly colored moths changing into dark moths as industrial "soot" began clinging to buildings in industrial age England, is a good example of comparative rapid change due to a dramatically changing environment.

(this paragraph also appears in Note 1 above) It is not true that reproductive survival isn't why all of life changes and adapts.  Rather, the modern evidence indicates reproductive survival is one of several reasons why all of life adapts and changes.  The word "natural" in Natural Selection itself represents human assumption and bias, rather than science.  Labeling a process "natural" and referring to environmental reality as "the natural world" doesn't prove anything, other than that scientists like other human beings, are prone to bias and assumptions having no foundation in evidence.  Because there is only one universe, there is nothing that rationally compares to it.  But for purposes of discussion, if we view the universe as a giant computer, we can understand, based on our own human ability to create computers, that the universe represents a grand cosmic designed "machine", operating far beyond human ability to fully comprehend.  It is impossible to know how much or how little our Creator inputs within the grand Cosmic scheme of things, while on the other hand, there is no evidence at all that either a computer or the universe can magically exist unto itself.  All evidence known to humanity points in the other direction, that parts within parts working in combination together cannot magically exist unto themselves.

A significant reason why life forms change is due to their own individual choices, which is only part of "Natural Selection" in the vague larger sense, as well as another highly significant reason is due to dramatic environmental changes, whether caused by humans or caused by natural disasters, such as floods, fires, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc.  And, sudden introduction or elimination of predators and food sources can cause rapid significant changes that otherwise would not have occurred.  This includes Natural Selection in the vague larger sense, but it has little to do with slow selective step-by-step changes normally associated with the idea of Natural Selection as presented in textbooks and to the public at large.  Human pollution alone represents a giant thorn in the side of evolutionary science, as we have yet to learn the complete negative ramifications of our greed, which today is clearly sending us down a road of no return.

Natural Selection is a human invented term attempting to explain how and why life is able to adapt and change over time.  "Species", "family" and other categories of life science are artificial classifications and have no bearing on the reality of life or how life functions in the real world, any more than a formula E = MC2 has a bearing on the actual functionality of gravity, energy and light. They are not "gods" or processes or systems unto themselves, as atheists invariably treat and capitalize Natural Selection, but rather, they are just invented terms attempting to define and explain what is occurring in what is commonly and rather biasedly called "the natural world" and more accurately called, "the universe" or "the universal reality".  The term “universe” to most scientists means whatever human beings can detect in both macro and micro directions.

The only REAL system that we can unbiasedly observe is "the universal system" or what is commonly called, “the universe” or “the universal reality”.  Calling it the "natural" world and using a term "natural" selection creates bias between atheists and theists and causes all manner of debates to arise between "evolution and creation", which are just a big waste of everybody's time and energy, having nothing in common with either God or science or reality. Whether or not there is a Creator, deliberately creating bias serves no rational purpose and is counter-productive to human science, human rights and human survival itself.

Any description smaller than "universal system" or "universal reality", which includes all of life functionality and life itself, becomes biased and colored with human interpretation and terminology invention.  There are of course many "sub-systems" going on within the larger "universal system", but to be accurate, science needs to explain this accurately and to allow for human error and the bias that such terms as "nature" and "natural world" arbitrarily impose, rather than to place all of it's marbles in one "Natural Selection" basket, as Mr. Dawkins and other atheists tend to do.  The more a scientist just arbitrarily chalks everything up to evolution by Natural Selection, treating it as some sort of "Boogieman" god to explain everything, the more inaccurate such a notion becomes in terms of the larger universal reality.

What many intellectuals never learn or learn very well is the following axiom, which should be taught as basic to all education and other intellectual pursuit:  Regardless of what we believe or fail to believe, what is true remains the same.  In other words, we can believe there is no God or, we can believe the earth was created in seven days or billions of years or, we can believe the earth is the center of the solar system or is round or flat, but regardless of any of these things that humans beings have believed, what is true remains the same.  And whether or not we "believe" in evolution or even have a concept called "evolution", what is true about how life functions remains the same.

This not entirely true, because what we believe colors our perceptions and causes us to think and act in certain ways we otherwise would not think and act, but outside of how what we believe effects us and causes us to act, the above is essentially accurate and it should be emphasized in every first year college if not high school science and related classes. Ingraining this basic fact of universal reality in the minds of students would help minimize counter-productive and unwarranted bias.  As Socrates is reported to have said, he considered himself to be wiser than others because unlike others, he understood how little he knew and by extrapolation, how little "we" collectively as human beings know.

When education is presented accurately as “truth” being the goal, rather than defending what scientists believe against religion, then categories such as "religion", "science", "philosophy" and "history" become irrelevant to the greater whole, irrelevant to what modern science "believes" as opposed to what a conservative Christian believes or, what a liberal progressive "believes", as opposed to what a right-wing "tea-bagger” believes.  None of what any of us believe either overrides or changes what is true, other than the fact that human misconceptions have caused a great deal of human oppression, misery and woe.  Other than "coloring" how we think and behave, what is actually true remains the same, regardless of what any of us believe or fail to believe, at least in terms of the physical observable reality (some philosophers and others including myself, might otherwise quibble with such a statement).

And then there is the very large can of worms carelessly lumped together under one common heading "religion", as if belief in God based on evidence, institutional religion, morality, ethics and various television scam artists and pedophile leaning priests, all represent one and the same thing.  Bill Maher, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, the late Christopher Hitchens and others are fairly correct in their claims that institutional religion is far more harmful than good.  Unfortunately, such biased media voices insist on lumping belief in God based on evidence, as demonstrated by virtually all of human history's leading scientists, philosophers, sages and moral figures, as being in the same general bucket of slop as fundamentalist religious quacker-jackery of the most fundamentally egregious kind. 

Where many people in modern American society are in very great error, is in assuming that Jesus is the founder of Christianity or belongs in a category called "religion" and thus, not in a history, philosophy, behavioral science, psychology, human rights, political science, ethics, education theory, environmental science and various other categories where he more accurately and correctly does belong.  Any legitimate intellectual should have a huge quarrel with that, because it is completely historically irrational and plainly, very harmful and very wrong to teach our children that Jesus should be isolated under "religion" category or, that he even rationally belongs in a "religion" category.  It is inarguable that Jesus has had more influence in human history than any other single individual and, to not include his teachings and example in the main instruction of our children, remains an open shame.

As a few examples:

   a) You will know the truth and the truth will make you free. This saying is carved on the wall of one of the most liberal colleges in America.  Why does this belong in "religion" class, rather than "education theory", "philosophy" and "life motivation" classes?

   b) Solomon in all his glory was not clothed as well as a common weed flower.  Why doesn't this belong in "environmental science", rather than "religion" class?

   c) Whatever you want people to do to you, do also to them.  Why doesn't this belong in "human rights", "political and social theory", "psychology", "philosophy" and "morality and ethics" classes, rather than in "religion" class?

There is probably no such thing as a historian who does not believe that the life and teachings of Jesus are a major influence in human history.  Yet, I never once heard anything about the life or teachings of Jesus taught in any course I have ever taken in either a public high school or college history class.  Jesus is a profound influence on key European, American and other authors and artists from DaVinci, Michelangelo and Shakespeare on up through the present, on every scientist, philosopher and other thinker of the so-called "Enlightenment" and, on every American and French revolutionist.  Yet I have never once heard Jesus mentioned in any European or American history class, other than in speeches and texts quoting him, invariably without crediting the source.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the foundation of modern socialism is "to each according to need".  What the Britannica does not say in it's article "Socialism", is the same thing that modern educators fail to mention in American, European and other classrooms. Which is, that every member of the so-called "enlightenment" and every American founder attended schools where the Bible was required study.  And thus, it naturally follows that what is found in the New Testament book of "Acts", where they "distributed to each as anyone had need", would find it's way into modern human rights, political and social theory.  This is clearly why American citizens remain poorly educated, vote for the wrong people, often ignore those without homes, jobs and health care and, why many conservatives and liberals believe Pat Robertson represents Jesus, when in fact he represents the opposite of everything Jesus ever said or did.  Based on what the Bible says Jesus actually said and did, Jesus is far closer to Bill Maher and Gandhi than to Pat Robertson and, far closer to Helen Keller and Pete Seeger, two of the great liberals of American history, than any brand of modern Christianity.

(this paragraph also appears in Note 1 above) Apparently even Richard Dawkins understands the superiority of the teachings of Jesus, as a photo of Mr. Dawkins wearing a t-shirt with the words, "atheists for Jesus" printed on it, was at one time displayed on his own website. According to historian Will Durant in his epic volume, "Caesar and Christ", the teachings of Jesus as found in the four "gospels", represent a singular advanced mind, far greater than any other mind known in human history.  And as the writings of Durant clearly imply, to not study the Bible and the history and cultures surrounding the Bible, is to have no understanding of ancient history, Western history, American history, human rights, civil rights and essentially, no understanding at all.  How is it a reproductive or any other "advantage" to our children, for American education to ignore the greatest mind in human history?  Why did Jesus insist there is a God and claim that God told him what to teach us, if there is not one and, why did we crucify our greatest teacher?


NOTE 14 - As briefly noted above, it is arguably difficult to explain the existence of disease organisms in a theoretically overall "advantage" driven system.  In an overall advantage driven system, which is fundamental to the theory of evolution by Natural Selection, why would anything that is against reproductive advantage arise in the first place?  Why is there both advantage and disadvantage, rather than just advantage to greater advantage?  Why is there competition rather than integrated synchronized harmony among species?  Why would reproductive disadvantage ever arise and even though obviously it did, why wouldn't all of life eventually become entirely synchronized in integrated harmony, if evolution is driven by overall reproductive "advantage"? 

Even if it can be satisfactorily explained why disease arises, why don't host organisms eventually become disease free in an evolutionary "advantage" driven system?  That is, since Natural Selection assumes advantage will ultimately triumph over non-advantage, then one must assume disease organisms can somehow evolve in lock-sync, step-by-step advantage direction with the host.  Even very tiny "random mutations" within host organisms could not logically be copied in complete step-by-step synchronization harmony by disease organisms and thus, host organisms would logically eventually become disease free, which they do not.  Why wouldn't random mutations coupled with selective advantage eventually result in organisms being freed from whatever is a reproductive disadvantage?

The larger question that atheists continue to ignore is, how can universal or any other laws and/or, a functional system of any kind, exist unto themselves, without any “brains” behind them.  Can a factory of robots and computers, with the ability to “self-design” and perform many complex functions all by themselves, somehow magically exist unto themselves, apart from a designer somewhere up the chain?  Why would any scientist or other rational human being even consider such a question?  And, it is fair to ask, why would a concept of God and atheism both exist in an advantage driven system?  What advantage is there for a species to deliberately lie to itself and it's offspring?

And the obvious unanswered question for atheists is, why would anybody be an atheist? What evidence is there for magically appearing universal laws and complex universal systems containing zillions of parts within parts within more parts and more importantly, what is the point?  What reproductive advantage does an atheist bring to the table, that can't be surpassed by a totally uneducated Catholic Bolivian farmer, who believes in God but is rather atheistic when it comes to contraception?  From a fair and unbiased Darwinian perspective, is someone with more offspring and no educational degree, less or more intelligent than someone with several educational degrees and no offspring?

I don't personally know if an evolutionary disease expert can satisfactorily answer the questions of why disease would arise in an advantage driven system or, why it would continue to persist within an advantage driven organism.  I am by no means a qualified expert on disease or how disease factors into the theory of evolution by Natural Selection.  But it remains illogical to me, that any such theory can satisfactorily explain either the origin of, or the persistence of disease in host organisms.

Jesus said, "before Abraham was, I AM".  God as "I AM", as far as I am aware not found anywhere in else in human history prior to Moses, remains as far as I am aware, the only ancient concept of God that matches the current modern evidence.  And, again as far as I am aware, it remains the only known concept in all of human history that satisfies origins.

The question remains, why would a modern educated man or woman choose an inferior explanation, rather than the best explanation currently known?  Or as in the case of atheism, why would an educated human being choose an irrational position that can't rationally explain either their own existence or rationally explain anything at all, rather than instead choosing the best explanation currently known?  It doesn't take much of a "Solomon" to ask the obvious question:  What reproductive or any other advantage is there to being an atheist?


NOTE 15 - EXAMPLE OF ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS CREATED BY THE TERMS "EVOLUTION" AND "NATURAL SELECTION":  This quote in bold below can be found here on FreeThoughtPedia.com.

"The class struggle of Marxism contradicts the individual competition implied by Natural Selection of Darwin's theory. Pol Pot tried to erase individuality as he thought that differences create conflicts.  With his artificial equality, abolishing private possessions and so erasing natural selection from society he was doomed by Evolution to fail, like all other communists."

This is a good example of why the shallow claims of modern evolutionists should be openly challenged by any honest rational human being.  Many biologists demonstrate only a rudimentary understanding of history at best and thus, they often make erroneous conclusions that clearly contradict historical reality, as some modern historians have bravely pointed out.  Likewise, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins (and Bill Maher, who should perhaps stick to being a comedian) and other militant atheists have a bad habit of equating God with the religious beliefs of human beings and otherwise, contradicting the known facts.  The late Christopher Hitchens perhaps more than the others, pretends to be historically astute while grossly contradicting fact anyone can easily research for themselves.

For example, Hitchens states in a YouTube video posted prior to 2010, that "all Jewish historians now admit that Moses probably didn't exist"; Hitchens could then use such complete fabrications to build on a fictional foundation, claiming that "Jesus also probably didn't exist".  According to the 2010 Britannica article on Moses, which is written by a Jewish historian, the majority of historians, including Jewish historians such as himself, believe that either Moses or a leader like Moses probably did exist.  In his book "Caesar and Christ", learned historian Will Durant, who may be human history's most educated man, concludes it is historically irrational to pretend that Jesus didn't exist, based on the "singular" advanced mind his teachings alone clearly represent.

According to Durant, Jesus is far more intelligent than any other known person in history and, there is no known person or group of people capable of inventing his teachings.  As such, it is completely and entirely irrational to pretend Jesus is an invention of first century common fishermen and laborers.  Durant goes on to point out, that Paul mentions Jesus was known "in the flesh" by some of those he is writing to in his First Letter to the Corinthians, which is considered authentic by virtually all historians; this letter casually mentions elements of the Jesus story as if Paul's readers are already familiar with the story.  Thus, there is convincing evidence the story of Jesus existed in some form prior to 54 A.D. when I Corinthians was written and most likely, considerably earlier.  In light of Paul's letter alone, the story of Jesus cannot rationally be an invention of monks or anyone else in a later century, as many atheists for generations have long pretended; a claim having no foundation in evidence and representing incredibly poor scholarship over the most likely historical conclusion.

The term "evolution" creates all manner of bias in fields unrelated to biological science, as clearly demonstrated in this biased article about Pol Pot linked above.  Modern atheists often try to apply Darwinist theory to historical social and political reality, in a twisted and vain attempt to minimize criticism of what violent atheists like Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Engels, Pol Pot and others are known to have done, as well as to cover for dangerous promoters of human selfishness and greed like avowed atheist Ayn Rand.  Whatever these historical people actually believed, to claim their  agenda did not succeed because communism violates Natural Selection, is very clearly historically false, based on the successful influence of Jesus alone, a true communist and denouncer of human aggression, selfishness, violence and greed if there ever was one.

This should also be a wake-up call to any and every human being who consider themselves "progressive", as modern progressivism by common consent, is an attempt to "communize" social and political reality by creating legislation and political systems that take wealth from the top and distribute it back from the bottom upward; contradicting the bias quoted above based on misconstrued notions of Natural Selection.  As noted previously, the foundation of modern socialism, "to each according to need", traces directly from Acts in the New Testament, on up through the so-called "ages of reason and enlightenment" and, is alive and well today in many diverse forms, including modern progressivism and human rights theory.

Both Marx and Engels considered themselves to be socialists--apparently Marx, a student of the Bible in his youth, eventually viewed himself a communist as being somewhat distinct from a socialist, while the avowed atheist Engels may never have done so (in spite of the title "Communist Manifesto").  Socialism and communism share a common historical root tracing from Acts in the Bible, which teachings also find their way in various ways in the ideas of Descartes, Rousseau, Locke, Paine, Jefferson and a host of others.  For example, the idea of "we the people", which has an uncertain origin, is highly communistic in historical root, tracing from Jesus and his "common people" theory of socio-political activism.  The importance of focusing on the poor and common masses was later effectively demonstrated in various ways by Gandhi, Schweitzer, Keller, King, Parks, Huerta, Chavez, the formation of workers' unions, women's movements and, in many other modern examples.

Jesus and his original followers promoted a share all things in common lifestyle, communism in it's purest historical form, upon which later perhaps Marx, being a student of the Bible, based some of his ideas.  However poorly either Marx or modern Christianity may represent Jesus and his 1st Century followers, the fact that the world now contains over 2 billion professing Christians and a whole lot of communists, socialists and anarchists, clearly demonstrates this statement above is patently false.  Even if nobody alive today professed to follow Jesus, the fact that ideas attributed to Jesus survive and continue to be published and influence many people, very clearly demonstrates this statement to be without historical, scientific or any other rational merit.  One does not have to believe in Jesus or accept the Bible as accurate to grasp the obvious and overt bias created by the terms "Natural Selection" and "evolution". 

The term "evolution" itself is probably responsible for more bias and misinformation than any other word in the modern English language.  Other than perhaps "religion", which also manages to create an overwhelming volume of extreme bias and false conclusions, largely because of the utterly foolish modern notion of lumping belief in God and the teachings of Moses, Jesus, Buddha and others, in with organized institutional religions and all manner of pontiff / tv evangelist quacker-jackery, all together under a common heading "religion"; as if this represents one and the same thing and can somehow, be exorcised from scientific, historical and educational reality.  Such lumping together of diverse beliefs and opinions represents an extremely inaccurate and twisted view which Socrates, Newton, Descartes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Jefferson, Paine, Einstein, Durant and a host of others, would likely openly challenge today.

Unfortunately, what is contained above in this footnote only represents a token faction of the extreme bias prevalent today caused by human invented terminology like "evolution", "natural" selection, "nature" and, "natural" world.  Many modern people are probably unaware that throughout much of human history, what today is called "nature" was referred to as "creation".  And likewise, what today is called "social maladjustment", "negative behavior" and "human nature", was for a very long time simply referred to as "evil" and "sin", as if changing terminology somehow changes reality or, somehow changes the human oppression, sorrow and death caused by the sin within us all.


NOTE 16 - Many modern intellectuals pretend that because the earth and universe are billions of years old and apparently God doesn't create species individually one at a time like some great doll maker in the sky, as many religious fundamentalists once believed and some still believe, therefore this proves there is no God.  While they typically don't say this directly, this is invariably the conclusion many draw, claiming there is no God simply because the evidence doesn't agree with fundamentalist religious claims.  All this in reality proves, is a) God doesn't create like we do and b) atheists and conservative religious fundamentalists are two extremely narrow-minded peas, sprouting from the same corrupt pod of arrogance, hypocrisy and gross superstition.

There is no evidence that either the big bang magically went boom or that life, so-called "universal" or any other processes or the larger universal reality magically appeared or otherwise, can exist unto themselves.  The existence of motion alone requires a Primary Cause, as far as the known evidence demonstrates.  If the majority opinion of astronomers is correct and there was a big bang, then any and all motion observed today is a result of the big bang, including in the "quantum" reality, where scientists often carelessly apply the term "random" and arbitrarily claim particles can be observed going in and out of motion.

Based on the majority opinion of modern science today, anything that can be observed today in the quantum or any other reality known to human beings, is a "result" of the big bang and by definition, is not random.  Educated people claiming to go by evidence should know better and, any scientist or educator using the term "random" or anything remotely like random, should be publicly reprimanded for lying to our children.  There is no such thing as random as far as modern science knows.  Those who pretend otherwise need to grow up and get over the obvious fact, that God is very far greater than we are and, creation is very far, way over our collective heads.

Interestingly enough, Genesis agrees with modern science, that what science calls "fauna" arose in "abundance", first in the ocean and, later on land; the Bible does NOT say that God creates either "species" or elephants as opposed to snakes, dolphins and spiders, individually one at a time.  What the Bible does say, is that God created every living thing and, God allowed "adam", which in Hebrew means "humanity", to name life whatever Adam chose to name it.  No where in the Bible does it say that God creates "species" individually, one at a time.

The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 appears to deliberately weave back and forth between "adam", as referring to humanity in general and, "Adam", as referring to a single human being, so much so that it becomes difficult to separate them, which is accurate as far as science knows.  As noted in Note 1 above, since the mapping of the human genome, it appears that all people alive today share a common female ancestor no older than Eve, impregnated by a single male.
Recent Common Ancestry for Europeans About 1000 Years
Recent Common Ancestry for Modern Humans Estimates

The creation story in Genesis 1 stresses that types of living forms reproduce "after their own kind", which remains scientifically accurate today.  It is well established by modern science that life forms have distinct reproductive boundaries which cannot be successfully crossed and, the story in Genesis repeats this several times, as if deliberately emphasized for a reason.  When human beings engage in bestiality for example and even when we choose to eat harmful foods, such "sins of the fathers" can adversely affect the human gene pool for generations, just like the Bible says.

As far as we know, the Creator of life does not divide life up into various categories such as "genus" and "species", we do.  Classifying life into various categories is an artificial system invented by human beings, billions of years after life first arose on our planet.  As such, what we call a "species" has no bearing on how life actually functions in the universal reality, as life functioned as it does now long before humans even existed.  Nor is it accurate to claim one artificially classified part of life "evolves" from another artificially classified part of life.  To claim this is grossly misleading, because how we classify life does not affect how life functions; artificial human classifications do not dictate either how or why life forms adapt and change.

What is true, is that all of life adapts and changes and then, we humans come along and artificially divide life up however we choose to do so, which according to the Bible, is something our Creator allows us to do.  Science arbitrarily decides that one part of life now differs enough from another part of life enough, to now be classified as a different "distinct" species.  It is childish and irrational to claim that one of our artificial divisions of life evolves from another artificial division.  Rather, life adapts and changes and we then arbitrarily determine that a "new" species has arisen.  To say that one species "evolved" from another species implies that the first species is fully formed and no longer changing, which no modern scientist believes is true.  And far worse, to say that one species evolved from another species, is to say that how we artificially divide life determines what life actually does, as if we ourselves created the universal processes of life.

Because the concept of "species" is a human invention, claiming that one species "evolved" from another species doesn't rationally follow in the larger reality of life; in the larger universal reality, life adapted and changed long before any such concept as "species" existed and apparently today, long before even our planet existed.  Life would continue to adapt and change, even if a concept of "species" and evolution had never existed and, even if for some reason science re-invented the wheel, defining life processes and classifying life in a very different manner.  Whether or not a child calls all snakes simply a "snake" or, a scientist divides snakes up into a thousand or more separate "species", has no bearing whatsoever on how life actually either came to be or functions within the reality we call "universe", where life marches on, in spite of great earth based disasters and cataclysmic supernova and other cosmic events.

According to the Bible, God defined himself to Moses as "I AM".  And Jesus later in the New Testament says, "before Abraham was, I AM".  As far as I am aware, this concept does not exist prior to Moses anywhere in human history.  And again as far as I am aware, not only is this the only ancient concept of God still matching the current modern evidence, it is the only concept known in all of human history that satisfies origins.  All other theories, ideas, concepts and claims, like Paul implies in his Letter to the Romans, fall rather "short" of rationally explaining the observable reality we call "universe".  If there is no Eternal Creator, there is no rational explanation for the observable reality, there is no such thing as science or reason, there is no rational explanation for our existence and, there is no rational explanation for anything at all.


NOTE 17 - NOTE ON DESCARTES, PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE AND REASON: Atheism at the bottom-line, is asking us to embrace magic and baseless superstition, asking us to embrace the opposite of science and reason, asking us to blind faith believe that the universe and everything contained therein, somehow magically appeared all by itself.  Modern atheists tend to not relish standing naked and peeled back accordingly and, they have emailed from all over the world protesting loudly that they don't believe in magic and that somehow, I have just misunderstood their bottom-line position.

Atheists often email me the same exact talking points which they apparently believe to be unique clever positions, as if they all have a copy of the same atheist bible.  One of the most common talking points sent by atheists is the following: "Atheism is the default position; atheism makes no claims, it just disbelieves in God or gods".  The problem with such a lie is, there are five claims contained in this one statement alone; 1) atheism is the default position; 2) atheism makes no claims; 3) the universe is not created and 4-5) there is no God and, no plurality of gods.

It is self-evident claim #2 is a lie, as this single sentence itself contains five claims. Regarding the first claim, which is also a lie, the default position of science and reason is, there is a physical reality containing various phenomena called "universe" or to be more concise, simply "there is a universe". The default question then becomes, how and why is there a universe? Atheism isn't a default position of anything, nor can it rationally explain anything at all and as such, it has no value to the human race.  Regarding claim #3, God in the modern age is defined by billions of people as Creator of the universe.  Thus, to claim to "disbelieve" in God is to claim the universe is not created.

Language is not a science and at best, language is an imperfect communication tool.  If someone claimed to "disbelieve" in love, it would be understood by most rational people to mean they don't believe in love.  Perhaps someone should point out to such self-contradicting atheists, that trying to hide behind human language in order to worm out of the scientific requirement of having to provide evidence to back up a claim, doesn't serve to make them look any brighter in the intelligence department.

The universe and everything contained therein is evidence for God, just like what are commonly called "x-rays" taken by a physician and noise on an automobile radio, is evidence for invisible light. Atheists, just like the rest of us, are required to provide evidence for any claim they make, however magical based or otherwise absurd it may be.  As far as there being no plurality of gods, I have no particular quarrel with such a claim, although one might fairly ask, how would they know? And one might also fairly ask, how would atheists know any of the other claims contained in their above ridiculously absurd grossly superstitious position?

It is often said in the modern age, "God is not a question for science" and it is common practice to divide science and religion, including belief in God, into two neat non-connected categories, as if God doesn't know anything about how the universe came to be or functions. Belief in God is labeled "faith based", while science is supposedly based on evidence, even though throughout the vast majority of human history, no such distinction existed.  According to the Bible for example, "faith is the evidence of things not seen" and we believe in God based on the overwhelming evidence revealed in creation.

There is no difference between believing in God based on the visible mirrored evidence, than believing in black holes and invisible light based on the visible mirrored evidence, except in the minds of self-contradicting modern people.  Belief in God based on evidence is found in the historical record long prior to Socrates and the Greeks, who undoubtedly would laugh to scorn any foolish notion of separating God from science.  Even militant atheist Richard Dawkins has publicly stated, the "God question" is central to science.

It is both dangerous and illegal for a teacher in the United States to discuss deliberate design in a public high school science class, even though according to unbiased surveys taken by Rice University and the University of Chicago, over 50% of American scientists, 70% of American physicians and 80% of American teachers believe in God and by default, believe in some form of design.  Rather than teach our children the truth, that some scientists believe in deliberate conception, design and creation and some don't, those who pretend to speak for Thomas Jefferson and the other American founders, prefer that we deliberately lie to our children by omission instead, omitting the scientific opinions of over 50% of American scientists, 70% of American physicians and 80% of American educators.

It is more than fair to say if these same pretenders to the throne of freedom were to whisper a little too loudly near the grave of Thomas Jefferson, that he couldn't discuss evidence for creation in a science classroom, that Jefferson would rise from the dead and immediately make plans for a second revolution.  Based on everything known to history that the American founders said and did, it is very fair, correct and accurate to conclude they firmly believed in the right of a public science school teacher and anyone else within our borders, to freely say what they believe the evidence demonstrates anywhere within our borders, on both public and private property and especially, in a public school classroom, without fear of any economic or other recrimination.  That is the foundation of what freedom of speech is, to be able to freely speak without fear what one fundamentally believes, regardless of who may or may not agree and, regardless of how accurate or wrong one may be.

Descartes stated as his first rule of the mind (i.e., Descartes' primary foundation of philosophy, science and reason), "accept nothing as true that is not self-evident".  This statement by Descartes is not invented out of thin air but rather, it comes from an analysis of the known history of science, where scientists have long assumed what is self-evident to be true until proven otherwise.  Self-evidence, rather than being non-scientific, represented the highest bar in science at the time of Descartes and, also in the time of Jefferson.  It was "science" at one time to conclude the earth is flat, until there was evidence indicating otherwise.  It was practicing correct "science” for Ptolemy to conclude the sun revolves around the earth, which remainded the majority held scientific theory for much longer than the theory of evolution has existed, until there was conclusive evidence otherwise. And, as Einstein himself initially believed, it was practicing correct “science” to maintain there is only one galaxy in a static universe, until conclusively proven otherwise by Edwin Hubble using the Mount Wilson 100 inch Hooker Telescope.

It is NEVER correct science to just say the earth is spherical instead of flat, without providing any evidence or, that there is no Creator of the universe, without providing conclusive supporting evidence as to how otherwise the universe happens to exist.  What is self-evident remains true and correct "science", until proven otherwise, even if some hypothesis eventually proven accurate may have already been stated; such as some scientists disputed the earth-centered theory prior to Copernicus and, some disputed a static theory of the universe with only one galaxy  prior to Edwin Hubble.  It is one thing to suspect a long held conclusion is wrong, such as many scientists today suspect some if not all of Einstein's theories are inaccurate; it is quite another thing to “prove” they are wrong and overturn the theories of Einstein, by providing conclusive evidence supporting a BETTER explanation regarding time, energy, gravity and light.

If Einstein had not provided a BETTER explanation than Newton, he most likely would never have been included in a history book.  Just having a different explanation is not “science” unless and until it is conclusively demonstrated by evidence, to be a BETTER explanation than what the majority of scientists previously believed.  Until someone provides a BETTER explanation for the observable universal reality, that BETTER and more accurately explains and satisfies origins than Jesus has already taught us, "before Abraham was, I AM", ETERNAL CREATOR remains “correct science”.  In order to overturn this long held historical view, atheists are required, by the established history of science and rules of science and evidence, to provide a BETTER explanation.  A different explanation is not "science" unless and until it can BETTER satisfy origins, which so far no human being has been able to do, nor will any human being likely do so in another trillion or more years.

I have never met or heard of a successful gambler who would remotely consider taking odds in favor of atheism.  As former atheist Antony Flew relates in his book "There Is a God", an actual scientific experiment conducted in the United Kingdom provided six caged monkeys with computer keyboards and after a month of random banging away, not a single word resulted on fifty pages of randomly typed digits, not even an "a" or “I” properly spaced.  From there, the odds of a Shakespearean sonnet being randomly created were calculated as base 10 to the 690th power.  To provide a comparison to how great of a number that is, the atomic parts which make up all of the stars, planets and everything else in the entire universe, are estimated to be base 10 to the 80th power. And, that is just to randomly produce a single Shakespearean sonnet.  Consider how much greater of a number would be necessary to produce Shakespeare's brain and then, how much greater to produce all of the other life forms, planets, stars and everything else in the universe and, one can kind of begin to grasp just how how utterly and entirely insane a position of atheism truly is.

Consider for example, that the sun was believed to be larger and warmer than the moon by people far and wide across the earth, long before there was conclusive scientific evidence or even a concept of "science".  This conclusion was based solely on self-evidence that the sun appears to be larger than the moon most of the time and, usually appears to be warmer.  Yet, the self-evidence for deliberate design and creation of the universe is far beyond any evidence for the sun in relation to the moon.  Even before more conclusive evidence based on modern science observations and calculations, why would anyone in their right mind conclude the opposite, that the moon is larger and warmer than the sun?  Yet, that is what atheism continues to do today in the face of the astronomically overwhelming evidence of creation.  At least in ancient times, people had the observable evidence of the moon as a counter-intuitive possibility, while there is zero evidence for a conclusion of atheism, not even an obviously smaller and cooler moon to offset the overwhelming glaring evidence demonstrating deliberate conception, design and creation !!!

It is not up to believers in the self-evident obvious to prove that the obvious it is true.  What is self-evident is not always correct, but it is often correct and it remains correct until proven otherwise; such as the self-evident conclusion that the sun is warmer than the moon, the self-evident conclusion that rain will always eventually stop, that colder weather will always eventually follow warmer weather, that a given amount of seeds planted in spaced rows at certain depths, will in normal weather years, yield an approximate amount of food, that stones and timber beams constructed in certain ways will support a roof and keep a human being from falling threw a second-story floor.  These are long held human civilization conclusions based on self-evidence, all of which existed long before a concept of "science" existed.  Just as it was up to Copernicus and others to provide a BETTER explanation than Ptolemy and, just as it was up to Einstein to provide a BETTER explanation than Newton, it is up to the atheist to demonstrate by evidence, a better explanation for universal existence, rather than the other way around, as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett in very great historical, philosophical, scientific, logical, rational, intellectual and other very great error, pretend.

There is no evidence for a position of atheism while there is overwhelming evidence that randomness can never produce anything at all.  If matter has always existed, as some scientists postulate, why doesn't it just stay in whatever state it was initially in?  There is no evidence that energy can magically cause a big bang to go boom, that motion can exist apart from Primary Cause, that conscious awareness and intelligence can arise from bits of non-conscious matter, that so-called "universal laws", systems or life processes called “evolution”, "Natural Selection" or any other process or system can magically exist unto themselves. There is no evidence for a conclusion of atheism and thus, to say there is no God, probably no God or might be no God, is to embrace gross superstition.  One might as well say, "I don't believe in the overwhelming evidence in front of my eyes, ears, nose and mouth, nor do I trust the reasoning capability of my own brain!"  The question of "where did God come from" is answered by "before Abraham was, I AM".  This statement satisfies origins and thus, it remains the correct primary postulate of science, philosophy and reason, until proven otherwise with conclusive evidence--good luck on that one.


NOTE 18 - ON THE ORIGIN OF THE STANDARD DARWINIAN MODEL:  One would assume that something as grandiosely promoted and universally accepted as Darwinian evolution would be based on a very carefully thought out and documented theory from the ground up.  But in the case of the standard Darwinian model (which is no longer agreed to by some scientists), such is far from the reality.  The vast majority of Darwinists don't like to be called "Darwinists" and unlike Charles Darwin, they have long assumed that all of life traces from a singular origination point in the ocean. A gross assumption with no foundation in evidence, because there is no surviving geological or fossil record for the first 800 million years of the earth's existence.  It is known today that life in colonized microbial form has existed for at least 3.5 billion years and how much longer viruses and/or microbes have actually existed on earth remains unknown.

Evidence for multicellular life is less than 1 billion years old.  Because there are no existing fossil records of multicellular life earlier than this of course, does not prove that even relatively large forms of life didn't exist on both land and in the ocean much earlier than this. It is entirely feasible that cataclysmic events and other unknown conditions erased any and all trace of much earlier life forms.  As some scientists have proposed, there may have been several "genesis" of life rather than just one and, 800 million years of unaccounted for planetary life history may well hold currently unforeseen mysteries of great future significance.  It is possible that sometime in the future, there will be some evidence found of much earlier forms of plant and/or animal life.  It has been discovered fairly recently that very early macro life forms appear to have been much more complex than previously assumed.

Many scientists today contend that because of similarities in DNA, this proves that all of life arose from a singular source.  This however has already been demonstrated in footnotes above to not necessarily be correct.  The basic Darwinian assumption of life originating from a singular source is not supported by Darwin himself, who allows for either a singular origin or multiple origins in his final revision of "On the Origin of Species".  And unlike Richard Dawkins and other atheists like to admit, in this same final edition, published about five years prior to his death, Darwin credits God as "Creator" with being behind whatever processes of life there may be, however right or wrong human science and his own theories may be.

The basic Darwinian assumption of life originating from a singular source “evolved” long before modern DNA knowledge and thus, similarity of DNA has no relevance to any reason for why this idea originated.  Even though it is not written down and historically documented for certain, it appears that this idea arose simply out of the incredible biased assumptions of certain atheistic scientists, assuming that no one designed the universal reality and thus, the appearance of life must be an extremely rare, happen-chance and most likely, one time random freak accident chance event.

Thus, it was believed by some scientists for generations after Darwin that earth might be the only place in the entire universe where life exists or at best, life is extremely rare.  Not every scientist of course believed this and this rather narrow minded view has gradually given way, especially since the launch of the Hubble telescope, to a relatively more open-minded viewpoint that perhaps, life may in fact be somewhat common and even abundantly found in the universe.  Which is of course what the Bible claimed a long time ago, as well as it just makes plain old fashioned common horse sense that such is probably the case, given modern knowledge of the vastness of the Cosmos.  After all, why would God create such a vast grand universal reality simply so life could arise on one planet?  As one scientist recently stated in a PBS video, life may be able to appear “where ever there is a little wetness”, indicating life could have arisen virtually anywhere on earth or, from all over the earth.

Some scientists today believe there may be as many as 100 million or more earth-like planets in our Milky Way galaxy alone, capable of supporting life similar to as we know on earth.  And they assume there are a lot more larger gas-like planets similar to those in our own solar system, since a large number have fairly recently been discovered.  However, many scientists continue to assume that only smaller rocky-like planets with water like earth could possibly allow for life to appear, even though non-carbon based methane breathing creatures have been found on our own planet and, even though some scientists have proposed that methane, helium, hydrogen and possibly other exotic forms of life may well exist in the larger universe, even possibly hovering in gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn.  Again, given the known vastness of the universe, possibilities for types and quantities of life appear to be far beyond any number conceivable within the human mind.

The main point of this footnote being, modern science in reality knows very little about life or even how, when, where and why life first arose on our own planet.  And, most scientists continue to be extremely conservative and narrow-minded in approach.  It is one thing to say if we have no experience of something, then we don't know if it could be true.  It is quite another thing to continue to come from a biased position of, if there is no evidence of something, therefore it is not true or probably not true.  Or worse yet, when there is no conclusive evidence something is in fact true, to continue to pretend to know and present to a gullible general public, that mythology posing as science, is in fact true.

This type of regressive and non-productive behavior is openly displayed today by many scientists, educators and other intellectuals, which in reality represents a very proud and dishonest position, since the vast majority of what exists in our universe remains largely unknown and, yet to be discovered.  If one is uncertain, they should say so and, if we don't know very much about how life actually came to be, we should freely admit this to ourselves and our offspring.  As one of several particular bad examples and as already noted above, a well known scientist recently looked straight into a PBS camera and stated, the universe will continue to expand forever until it becomes burned out charred remnants of it's current form. What he failed to tell an unsuspecting public is, only about one-third of modern astronomers and physicists agree with his position, this according to another PBS video released about the same time.  When what is "science" depends on which PBS video one chooses to believe, then it is fair to say modern American education is in serious trouble.

Given that the earth is believed to be 4.4 billion years old and evidence for all of life is nearly a billion years less than this, there exists a rather large “gap” in the known sequential evidence for how, where, when and why life first arose on our planet.  Pretending in front of our children and the general public at large, that science knows what in fact, science may never know, serves no rational purpose whatsoever, regardless of what anyone believes or fails to believe.  To blatantly lie and otherwise misrepresent the known evidence, remains the rather questionable ongoing anti-human rights bad habit of a reproductive advantage contradicting species called “human”.  It should be noted that estimates for the earliest microbial life on earth range between a conservative 2.5 billion to Wikipedia's liberal 3.8 billion years; only very recently in late 2013, it was reported that Australian scientists have verified colonized microbes existing 3.5 billion years ago.

Scientists often fundamentally strongly disagree among themselves, in spite of the fact that PBS, the LA & NY Times, other mainstream publications and American educators in general, often pretend otherwise.  Today, a growing number of several hundred scientists claim to have a better and different explanation than mainstream "big bang" theory, while a scientist at Princeton University has publicly stated there is no such thing as a "universal" law, claiming that what science has long called "universal" is different in every part of the universe, depending on how much total physical mass there is bending the fabric of space in any specific location.  As noted with several supporting links in Note 1 above, many scientists today are saying so-called "junk" DNA actually has very important functions that make us far different than chimpanzees and other forms of life; some scientists are calling for a complete revision of biology 101 and all of the many disciplines basic biological knowledge affects.  And last but not least, a medical scientist recently released a complex theory explaining why the human appendix actually does have an important function after all.

How incredibly arrogant to pretend there is no God, given the known size and scope of the macro and micro worlds and, given that virtually everything known to humanity has some type of function and in the case of disease and negative human actions, malfunction, as if there are forces of both good and evil behind the universal vale, just like the Bible has long claimed to be the case.  One might ask why these footnotes keep referring to the Bible, as if God doesn't know the end from the beginning and, as if God couldn't reveal what God chooses, while hiding the rest.

Before the Greeks, the Bible mentions the "circle of the earth", long before modern science, the Bible claimed the universe is an "expansion" and talked about multiple heavens and, long before modern computer science models predicting the same, Jesus predicted the earth will one day lose a significant amount of green plant life, including all grasses we and cattle depend on to eat.  And, these are only a few of well over a hundred claims in the Bible that today agree with modern science evidence unknown prior to the 20th Century.  One might fairly ask, how could the Bible possibly not be inspired by our Father in heaven?


NOTE 19 - ON MILITANT ATHEISM:  As noted above, militant atheists often grossly misrepresent the generally agreed to historical and scientific facts.  Daniel Dennett for example, opens a video on YouTube by placing himself on the “side” of evolution and science, as opposed to those who believe in God supposedly all being on a separate non-scientific “side”.  He completely ignores the well-established fact that many people in the modern age who believe in God also believe in evolution, including many noted scientists, educators and other intellectuals, as well as virtually every major scientist prior to the 20th century claimed to believe in God.

Like many modern atheists, Dennett draws an artificial line between science and people who believe the evidence demonstrates Supreme Intelligence, which it clearly does, that doesn't exist in the real 21st or any other Century world.  He then goes on to base erroneous conclusions arising from a fallacious platform built on this and other total inventions, that have no foundation in either science, logic, reason or, the historical or any other known reality.  Atheists like Dennett would have us believe the universal reality somehow magically appeared all by itself and then, try to marginalize anyone who disagrees by pretending they are on the wrong side of sanity, science and reason.

What is true in the real modern 21st Century world, is that many people who believe in God also believe in evolution, while many who believe in God do not believe in evolution.  Many people who believe in science, as well as those who believe in a particular religion, contribute to the global war machine and other global human oppression reality, while many use science and faith in God for more rational and constructive purposes.  There is no scientific and historical fallacy quite like the fallacy of those who have an obvious ax of superstitious bias to grind against people who sincerely and legitimately believe in God based on evidence.

It is common for militant atheists to pretend all people who believe in God are on a fundamentalist religious “side”, while everyone who believes in practicing legitimate science agrees with them. Atheists often pretend “religion” in general and belief in God in particular, is the cause of war and other human oppression, completely ignoring the evidence of the American, French, Russian and Chinese revolutions, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq; completely ignoring the fact that Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ayn Rand and some of the other bad apples of human history were atheists, while the the rest in the misguided apple cart quite obviously clearly demonstrated no regard for God or his creation, regardless of what they may have claimed to believe.  And, they just ignore the fact that modern highly educated bankers, lawyers, political leaders and others continue here in the 21st Century, to bilk the common masses out of jobs, homes, health and life savings, while many modern scientists, in spite of the overwhelming downside evidence, continue to create weapons of mass destruction and otherwise, pollute the fragile home of their own children's future far beyond any and all hope of human reproductive survival.

These same militant atheist self-anointed gurus of supposed “science and reason” invariably fail to point out the many millions of examples in human history of God-fearing people helping other human beings in often dramatic and far reaching ways.  A great many people who openly professed to believe in God, have helped the sick, fed the poor, built hospitals, orphanages, hosted telethons and otherwise, contributed positively to human society, often in the name of God or their particular religion.  Even a few atheists have tried to help other people; after all, "God is love" and we are created in his image, whether they like it or not. The teachings and positive influence of Jesus alone no doubt offset any and all pretense of theoretical "good" contributed by all of the atheists of human history combined.

World leading DNA and human disease expert Francis Collins, one of the greatest of all modern scientists, who has publicly stated modern DNA evidence alone overwhelmingly demonstrates design and not random processes, refers to himself as a Darwinist.  And virtually all historical scientists of note believed in God based on "evidence of things not seen", the same as scientists today believe in black holes based on “evidence of things not seen”; the Bible agreeing that true faith, like true science, is based on evidence.  Mr. Collins alone in a couple of short sentences, clearly demonstrates what great liars militant atheists are, by the mere fact that he professes to believe in both God and evolution.

A common gross historical error among 21st Century educators and intellectuals in general, is to pretend that science is based on evidence, while belief in God is based on "blind faith". Such gross error is abundantly displayed throughout the modern world in scientific, educational and other literature and media, while there isn't a single shred of historical evidence for drawing such a conclusion.  The Bible itself very clearly teaches that faith is based on evidence, thus anyone who pretends differently is either poorly educated, a deliberate liar, or both.

Such language quacker-jackery of militant atheists directly contradicts Charles Darwin himself, who wrote in a well-known and oft published letter, "I have never been an atheist" and "one can be an ardent Theist and evolutionist".  Darwin went on to say in the same letter that one might best describe his mind as “agnostic, but not entirely” and in his final edition of “On The Origin of Species”, Darwin credits God with being behind the universal reality and processes of life.  Thus, whenever a militant atheist is found pretending that science and evolution are on one “side” and people who believe in God are on another “side”, we can just dismiss them as most egregious and obvious liars and move on.  In fairness to Mr. Darwin, “agnosticism” in the time of Charles Darwin sometimes referred to distrust in religions and other human claims about God, rather than questioning the existence of God, thus in Darwin's day, one could be “agnostic but not entirely” and credit the Creator with being behind the evolutionary process, without contradiction.

Richard Dawkins, who holds degrees in science and education and a chair at Oxford University, often displays a complete lack of scientific method and otherwise, overtly promotes and practices gross superstition of the most egregious kind.  For example, in an article published in 2010, Mr. Dawkins states he is “almost certain” there is no God, without providing evidence that tips the scales in such dramatic fashion, as a scientist who upholds the rules of science and evidence is required to do. Previously he wrote he is 6 of 7 certain, again without providing evidence as to why he would come up with such numbers, rather than 99 of 100 or 2 of 5 instead.  In this same 2010 article, he compares belief in God to believing in the spaghetti monster, apparently without considering that the spaghetti monster isn't defined as Creator of the universe and, if one eliminates the spaghetti monster, they aren't left having to explain how they and the rest of the universe happen to exist. Ancient Greek philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, would no doubt have a hearty laugh over such utter juvenile delinquent nonsense uttered by a professional scientist, before sending him back to logic 1-A class and banning him from the Academy for life.

Mr. Dawkins entitled one of his books “The God Delusion”, implying such historical giants as Moses, Isaiah, Confucius Buddha, Zarathustra, Jesus, Socrates, Aristotle, DaVinci, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Descartes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Bacon, Locke, Jefferson, Paine, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Darwin, Gandhi, Tolstoy, Albert Schweitzer, Einstein, Eleanor Roosevelt, Helen Keller, Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks and Cesar Chavez, among millions more, were all delusional, as compared one would suppose, to such a great human rights luminary and beacon of reason and light such as himself.  Militant atheist Sam Harris in a video actually draws a line on a chalk board, anointing himself as being on the “side” of science and reason, while placing everyone on the above list and everyone else who believes in God, as being on the same irrational “side” as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.  It doesn't take much of a monkey's uncle or baboon's ass to determine who in fact, is delusional.

As I have questioned in some of my other writings and videos that can be found on YouTube, just exactly what do Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris, Bill Maher and other militant atheists bring to the human rights table, that represents a better idea than Jesus already long ago taught us for free? Based on the evidence of Who Jesus clearly was and is, this isn't really being very fair to them, but why should anyone be fair to those who pretend to be scientific and then, overtly lie to our children, openly denying the overwhelming universal evidence for God and instead, choosing to promote the greatest of all known human superstitions and grandest delusion of them all?

According to Mr. Dawkins in an article published after his book of delusions, the universe "represents nothing but blind pitiless indifference".  Didn't Mr. Dawkins learn about Jesus, Gandhi, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. in grade school history class and, didn't his grade school science class inform him that these fine people along with the rest of us, are all part of what scientists call "universe"?  One is left wondering if Mr. Dawkins has ever told his wife or children he loves them or, bothered to give his own mother a card on Mother's Day; after all, wouldn't want to upset the postulated apple cart of "nothing but blind pitiless indifference".

How is it a "reproductive survival advantage" for our species to teach our children there is no God who can help us and thus, they are stuck relying on the same "science and education" that apparently utterly failed Mr. Dawkins, the same science and education that gave us weapons of mass destruction and global mass pollution?  Who is the extremely poorly educated individual who came up with the utterly foolish notion that "God is not a question for science", as if our Creator doesn't understand how his own universe came to be and functions?  It is no small wonder that a so-called "Age of Enlightenment" is turning towards an age of unprecedented global disaster; an age of unbridled human greed and avarice, corporate globalization and mass human enslavement, violent global anarchy, war and rumor of the real war to end all wars, fear of global terrorism and soon to be nano-tech mega-bombs in a briefcase, an age of men's and women's "hearts failing them for fear" of the self-evident planetary disaster Jesus long ago predicted, assuredly looming just around the global warming corner.


NOTE 20 - ADAM AND EVE AND MODERN SCIENCE:  The majority of what is contained in this footnote pertains to recent evidence which is typically not found in standard education texts, most of which represent a "science" 20 or more years behind current evidence.  It wasn't possible prior to modern computer technology and mapping of the human genome, for science to confirm what has long been claimed in the Bible regarding recent common ancestry of human beings.

According to the Bible, all modern humans alive today trace from Noah's family after a great flood in the general region of the ancient Fertile Crescent area occurred.  "Adam" in Hebrew literally means mankind or humanity and "Eve" literally means mother of humanity or mother of us all.  According to the Bible, Noah and his descendants trace back to Adam and Eve. According to modern DNA evidence, all human beings alive today trace from a single female no earlier than 12,000 years ago and possibly as recent as 4,000 years ago.  The Bible also says the offspring of Adam and Eve were farmers.  Modern evidence supports that farming emerged rather suddenly (in evolutionary terms) in and around the same historical time frame window as Adam and Eve.

The emergence of farming represents a 2-4,000 or so year window on a global basis, depending in part on how one defines farming.  This extremely "sudden" emergence in evolutionary terms of the ability to conceptualize farming, is considered a significant evolutionary "advancement" by many scientists, archeologists and historians.  Very quickly after farming, neolithic villages gave way to towns, city-states and larger nations with highly sophisticated pyramid structure and other comparatively complex technology, demonstrating a significant difference between such people and other earlier creatures defined by modern science as "human".  There is no rational reason to assume God defines a true modern human being in the likeness of "adam", the same as the majority of modern scientists arbitrarily define human beings, often disagreeing with each other as detailed in the next paragraph.

A minority of researchers in various disciplines have suggested over the years, that perhaps true modern human beings are best defined as arising from the emergence of farming forward.  The majority scientific view places humans as emerging between 30,000 to about 80,000 or so years ago, while a minority on the other extreme stretch this to as high as over 200,000 years.  Quite obviously, given such a rather large diversity of opinion among scientists themselves, what actually defines a true modern human being is quite arbitrary and, open to significant debate and revision. If God defines a true modern human being as emerging somewhere around the time of farming, then the story of Adam and Eve and later Noah can quite literally be true.  And a later claim in the New Testament that Jesus descends directly from Adam, is accurate as far as science knows.

In spite of the fact that the Bible and modern science now agree concerning the genealogy of modern human beings, as far as science knows and, have long agreed concerning the general time frame for the emergence of farming, many atheists and others severely denigrate and dispute with anyone trying to point this out, even though it is documented by modern science evidence (links below).  Research linked below was independently confirmed by a leading anthropologist in Tennessee with many years of field experience in Africa and elsewhere, who confirmed this is well known within his field of anthropology; he also confirmed that having been raised in a biblical environment, he personally finds it quite interesting.
Recent Common Ancestry for Europeans About 1000 Years
Recent Common Ancestry for Modern Humans Estimates

NASA in the late 1990's, using improved satellite mapping technology, discovered that there is a region in the greater Mesopotamian area now under ocean water, where four rivers at one time converged north/south/east/west, exactly as described in Genesis in relation to the Garden of Eden. According to scientists in a secular video describing this recent discovery, this region during the historical time frame for Adam and Eve, would have been on dry ground and would have been the "lushest" most Eden-like area in the entire region.  Thus, the known modern evidence now agrees with the Bible as to a) when farming arose; b) when modern human beings could share a common ancestor; and c) where such an ancestor could well have been located in a literal garden of Eden.
Lost River of Eden (confirmed in a separate History Channel video documentary)
Evidence for the Garden of Eden

To explain in more detail for the intellectual hard of hearing, there is something in science known as species "cross-breeding", which is not the same thing as evolving from one species into another, as certain poorly educated atheists apparently assume.  Speciation is when a "new" species theoretically "evolves" from one species to another.  Cross-breeding on the other hand, refers to breeding within an existing species, such as in the case of human beings, natives of Australia breeding with Europeans and natives of the Americas breeding with people of African descent; it also refers to Americans (or citizens of any other nation) of German descent breeding with Americans of Irish descent, Asian descent, African descent, Norwegian descent and, so forth.

According to Natural Selection theory, what are called stronger "strains" in human cross-breeding will "weed out" what are called "weaker" strains along the same extended human family lineage "tree", thus over a relatively short several thousands of years time, based on global DNA statistical analysis conducted since the mapping of the human genome, all human beings alive today now trace back to a common female ancestor in the recent several thousand years past.  All "weaker" strains along the human lineage family tree have died out. Thus, even though human beings as defined by the majority of scientists, trace back 30 to 80 or more thousand years ago, depending on which scientist one chooses to believe, how God may choose to define a true modern human being in the likeness of Adam, may trace back only 5-10 or so thousand years.  God does not bow to human science but rather, as has been clearly demonstrated over historical time and is still in process today, science eventually bows to God.


NOTE 21 - OF SNOWFLAKES AND STAR SYSTEMS:  It is commonly assumed by perhaps most people here in the Twenty-First Century, that God couldn't possibly have anything to do with snowflake design, hurricanes or earthquakes, as such are all a result of so-called “natural” processes of what is arbitrarily called the “natural world”.  In true reality, it is entirely unknown and as far as we know, unknowable, how much or how little our Creator “plays” with his creation.  For all we know, God can design individual snowflakes, individual micro-organisms and super-clusters of galaxies all at the same time, just because he feels like doodling around.

Great human artists like Rembrandt are known to paint very large murals and yet spend a great deal of time on minute brush strokes and intricate shadings and slight variation of hue.  And likewise, human beings today design both microchips and entire cities.  Thus, it is entirely rational to assume our Father in heaven can design at both the very large and the very small scales of universal reality, just as it is entirely rational that the beauty of design and color has a multiplicity of both reproductive, other functional and aesthetic purposes, as do many of our human creations.  No one really knows what God engages in behind the scenes and, anyone who pretends they know is quite obviously, only fooling themselves.

According to leading DNA and human disease scientist Francis Collins, "modern DNA evidence alone overwhelmingly demonstrates design and not random processes".  It is known by science today that particles swirling around individual atoms are woven in intricate patterns, giving the various elements their distinct properties, rather than just haphazardly swirling around as random processes would suggest.  There are estimated to be over 100 trillion micro-organisms contained within an average adult human, which is 100 times the number of stars estimated to be in the great galaxy in Andromeda.

In spite of how incredibly tiny such living things are, they are much larger than most viruses, which are incredibly large compared to a strand of their DNA, which is incredibly large compared to an atom, which again is incredibly large compared to various particles traveling around it's nucleus. And yet, if a we could somehow shrink down to a tiny replication of ourselves, so that we could perch on a lepton inside of an atom inside of a tiny scrap of DNA inside of a virus inside one of the 100 trillion micro-organisms inside of us, we would still be much larger compared to our normal size, than our normal size is in comparison to just the known universe.  And yet, we have scientists today prancing around pretending to be "almost certain their is no God" and, "God is not necessary for the universe to exist", as if they would somehow know and, we should all just bow down, kiss their Oxford ring of blind faith deception and take their word for it.

Scientists attempting to “prove” abiogenesis theories that life and everything else in the universe somehow randomly appeared all by itself, are fairly comparable to a scientist who was able to shrink into a very tiny version of himself or herself, crawl down inside an automobile engine and observe as the car was being driven down the road, apparent “random” sparks and dust particles flying around inside the automobile engine.  And then concluding, that since these sparks and dust particles have been declared as being “random”, there is therefore, no designer of the automobile engine, nobody is driving the car, there is no road and, no one designed anything at all.

At the bottom line, to say there is no Creator, is to say that computers and everything inside of a computer and, human brains that design computers and, everyone on our planet and everything we design on our planet and, everything else on our planet and, everything else in the universe, magically appeared all by itself.  There is no evidence evolution or any other process can exist unto itself, while there is unfortunately, overwhelming evidence that self-contradicting people claiming to be scientists habitually violate the established rules of science and evidence.
GOD: a perspective; a video of comparative sizes


NOTE 23 - LIFE IN TRANSITION: As far as human beings know here in the 21st Century, the entire universe is in a constant state of transition.  No observed structure in the universe is permanent, whether it is a strand of DNA, a microbe, a frog, a planet, a star, a galaxy, a cluster or a super-cluster of galaxies.  Everything that human beings can detect is in transition, constantly re-arranging, adapting and changing.  Our planet itself and everything contained within our planetary environment, including all of life and everything life is made of, exists in a state of constant and ongoing transition.

If the modern "big bang" theory is correct, everything we can observe traces back to what came out of the big bang.  Life, like everything else tracing back to the big bang, is in a constant state of transition--life is constantly re-arranging, adapting and changing.  If life didn't adapt and change, it obviously wouldn't survive in a constantly changing universal environment.  The modern evidence clearly demonstrates, as far as we know, that the universe and everything contained therein, is created to adapt and change on a grand cosmic scale, very far over our collective heads.

There is no evidence that structures like the universe could magically arise all by themselves and, there is no rational reason for considering that they could, any more than for considering a house could magically arise without any trees for wood, iron for nails or other parts necessary for a house to exist and far more absurdly, without any Builder to conceive of, design and build the house.  Yet, this is precisely what atheists would have us believe, that something as overwhelmingly incredibly complex as the universal reality, could magically arise all by itself.

Rational adults don't believe in magic, nor do rational adults believe in a magically arising process called "evolution".  What we arbitrarily classify as "species" come and go, but life itself marches on. As far as we know today here in the 21st Century and arguably, as far as human science can ever know, life may have existed prior to our current universe and, life may continue to exist, long after our current universe fades away.  Beyond what human scientists can observe, modern science simply doesn't know.  Lack of evidence does not prove non-existence, any more than lack of evidence for billions of galaxies prior to the 20th Century, proves that there is only one single Milky Way galaxy.

What human beings can observe is neither fairly or legitimately called "evolution".  Rather, it is fairly and legitimately called creation in flux or, creation in transition.  Given the current 21st Century evidence reality, the term "evolution" does not rationally apply to any known observed reality.


NOTE 24 - SCIENCE, EDUCATION AND THE BIBLE:  What is true or false is not dependent on how old or recent or what kind of source the information is found in.  Rather, what is true or false from a human perspective, is subject to evidence.  Something claimed by modern science that is contradicted by known evidence is incorrect, the same as something contained in an ancient book that is contradicted by known evidence, is incorrect.  People for thousands of years, long prior to any concept of "science", practiced a type of science, education and technology, from shaping sticks and stones into tools for grinding and cutting food and defending themselves, learning to use fire for warmth, cooking and shaping tools, to comparatively more advanced wheels, spears, bows and arrows, bronze and later iron tools and weapons.

Long before any concept of science, it was deduced based on evidence, that the sun is warmer than the moon, the rain will eventually stop, warmer weather will eventually be followed by cooler weather, seeds planted in certain manner and number will yield an approximate amount of food and, much fundamental but very important knowledge taken for granted today.  Whether information is found in a modern science textbook or an ancient text on astrology does not in itself dictate whether or not the information is either true or false. Rather, what is true or false as far as human beings can know, is subject to evidence. Claims and conclusions without supporting evidence represent superstition, not science.  It is superstitious to say there is a God just because the Bible says so and, it is grossly more superstitious to claim to "disbelieve" there is a Creator, without providing a better explanation supported by evidence, for how else the universe happens to exist.

According to the Bible, "God is love" and if this is true, then it logically follows we need God's help in order to care about ourselves and other people.  And, given the violence, greed, avarice and other human oppression on prime-time display around the globe today, it is inarguable that we humans need to learn how to care about each other better.  The focus of the so-called "God question" invariably becomes a debate over whether or not the universe represents design, rather than if our Creator is willing to help us and if so, how can we actually get God to help us, far more important and valuable questions for humanity. Consider for example, that our Creator just might be able to help us achieve more love, justice, peace and freedom on earth and, help us clean up the mass pollution left in the wake of our science and education.

Although often not treated as science in the same breath as physics and biology, human behavior and in particular, how human beings act in the historical record, are very much a significant important part of science.  According to modern behavioral science evidence, which very much agrees with what Jesus and later Paul taught, greed, hatred, irrational fear, prejudice, envy, stress, tension, murder, rape, theft, false witness, inequality of wealth, slavery, war and other human oppression, arises from what is within all people (source; Encyclopedia Britannica; "Human Sexuality" and related).  What Jesus calls "sin", what the Britannica calls "seething mass within" and what today is sometimes called "human nature", "aberration of the norm", "social maladjustment" and other often deceptive terminology, has not changed since prior to the dawn of human civilization.  Human terminology does not dictate reality, nor does calling sin "social maladjustment" or "human nature" change the reality of human oppression, sorrow, suffering and death.

In the New Testament, Jesus doesn't even bother to address the question of God's existence, nor is there any theology found in the teachings of Jesus, other than simple concepts like "father" and "friend".  Jesus made much use of what was for most of human history called "creation" and today is arbitrarily called "the natural world", as well as use of simple stories of human interactions, to help illustrate what according to Jesus is true.  Rather than religion, the focus of Jesus is centered on human behavior, on how people should treat each other, if we want to live in a more just, peaceful and less oppressive planetary reality.  It was Jesus who insisted on teaching the poor and common people for free.  Unlike some pretend, there is no one else in history remotely like Jesus, who rises head and shoulders above us all.

Jesus very deliberately associates with common average people, those considered less moral than others, "sinners" and tax collectors, the sick and poor and those who are most shunned, trampled and stepped on by society in general; the short of stature Zacchaeus, the blind, the lame and the Samaritans, similar to those branded "illegal aliens" in modern American society.  The pacifist Jesus went out of his way to treat soldiers with dignity and respect and he lifted women up, accepting them into his inner circle, unheard of in his place and time in history.  The story of Jesus is not a story of twelve male disciples following an isolated religious cult leader but rather, the story of Jesus is of thousands of men and women leaving their normal jobs and tasks behind, often dragging their children along with them, flocking to hear a poor unheralded common man speak, who without benefit of modern theaters, microphones or entertainment, could hold thousands of tired, thirsty and hungry people in awe for several days at a stretch.

Unlike the Greek philosophers and many others in human history, who focused on teaching a select few, Jesus is perhaps the first prominent person of note to teach the common people, sinners and poor for free.  Jesus is a true advocate for free public education if there ever was one.  Compare modern United States society, which extracts huge sums from taxpayers to support public education and requires students to pass difficult entrance exams and spend vast sums to attend modern universities, while they and/or their parents often remain indebted for many years.  The concept that we can know the truth and the truth will make us free is a profound teaching, providing us both the correct goal and correct purpose of education; the goal to know what is true and the purpose, so we can be free.

Compare this to modern education, which divides reality up into non-connected and often non-correlated categories, pretending that God is not a question for science.  Thus, implying there is no God and otherwise, insinuating to a student that God doesn't know how his own universe works and what God knows is unimportant to learning, as if our teachers are somehow wiser than our Creator. In the United States, typically the motivation provided for learning is focused on money; students are taught to study hard so they can earn a scholarship, so they can afford to go to college, so they can earn a better income.  Meanwhile, it is forbidden by law for a public school teacher to teach students we should love our neighbors as ourselves and to teach the other concepts and ideas of who historian Will Durant called by far, the greatest mind in human history.  Quite obviously, given the growing poverty and widening gap between the wealthy and poor, what is called "education" in the United States today isn't working out very well.

The message of Jesus is that the common people, the average people of human society, are individually of extreme value to God and, each one of us has the potential to significantly help humanity and leave a lasting, positive footprint.  It is not that the wealthy, powerful, educated and elite of society aren't valuable but rather, that we are all of great and value and, God can use the "least" of us to help humanity in profound and positive ways.  Rather than conservative or liberal, Jesus and the New Testament Paul focus on freedom verses non-freedom and, love verses hatred, selfishness and self-importance at the expense of others. Freedom is a much better idea than either liberal or conservative; someone who is free can be as liberal or conservative as they choose, on any issue and in any given situation.  Love and freedom go hand in glove and, there is far more to freedom than meets the casual eye. Freedom is learned through experience in the reality of our daily lives, like Jesus taught us, one day at a time.

Jesus seems to condemn no one other than conservative religious leaders, who he repeatedly roundly and soundly condemns openly to their face, even while eating in a religious leader's own home.  Jesus very much seems to think the famous, powerful, well-heeled, well-educated and self righteous religious elite of society are no better than the rest of us.  Not only did no one every speak like Jesus, no one ever remotely acted like Jesus either, nor did anyone remotely share the same common people and sinner vision and focus clearly demonstrated in his life and teachings.  Jesus insists we all need God's help in order to "overcome" evil with good and have love, justice and peace on earth.  It would be easier to make the sun disappear from a cloudless summer sky, than to win an argument with Jesus.

Some people have been heard to ask, "what kind of God would sacrifice his own son?" and, "how could a God who cares sacrifice his own son?".  Such questions fail to consider a well-known fact many who work in hospitals can readily confirm.  Human parents of a child who is suffering badly from disease or has been severely injured in an accident, have been heard to cry, "I would gladly take the place of my child if I could", "only if it could be me instead of my child" and similar expressions of deep sorrow, when witnessing their child severely suffering.

Thus, the story of the cross becomes the story of the greatest expression of love known in the history of humanity, the story of a God who cares so much about human beings, that he is willing to endure the immense agony of his only son in order to help us.  Based on how human parents are known to react when seeing their own son or daughter badly suffering, it is fair to say that our Father in heaven sacrificing his only son for us, represents a far greater sacrifice than if he had instead, sacrificed himself.  It is fair to say those who fail to understand why, have no idea what love is or what is meant by, "for God so loved the people".

Below is a link comparing what modern science claims and what the Bible says is true.  Some of the information at this link is well over ten years old and though considerable new evidence has been discovered since, much of the content remains relevant today:
Random Chance A-Z Primer of Science and the Bible


MIND-BENDING CLAIMS OF MODERN SCIENCE

1) There are estimated to be as many tiny particles in one grain of sand, as there is sand in all of the Sahara Desert to an average depth of ten feet.  And yet, the vast majority of what makes up a grain of sand appears to be empty space.

2) A very recent theory suggests that matter might not really be mostly empty space but rather, what appears to be empty space might in fact be filled with unimaginably tiny bits of energy much smaller than a neutrino.  However, matter from our view today appears to be mostly empty space, so much so, that all of the particles of matter that make up all of the people on earth would fit in an area about the size of a cube of sugar, if all of what appears to be empty space was removed.

3) The Great Galaxy in Andromeda, also known as M-31, contains an estimated 1 trillion stars and is estimated to be 2 to 5 times as large as our own Milky Way Galaxy.  Yet there are an estimated ten trillion microbes that inhabit an average adult human being, ten times the number of estimated stars in Galaxy M-31.  And still, most viruses are about ten times smaller than most microbes.  It is believed there are more viruses inhabiting the earth than all microbes and other forms of life combined.  According to the Britannica, virus science knows almost nothing about viruses compared to what there is yet to learn.

4) It is estimated there are over eight times as many molecules in cup of water (8.36 x 10 to the 24th power) as there are estimated stars in the known universe (10 to the 24th power), although some scientists believe there may be many more stars than current estimates assume.  Many scientists believe the “known” universe is only a small fraction of the size of the total universe and, that the universe has 10-11 or more dimensions, of which we can detect only 3 of them plus time. At least one scientist has proposed that there may be as many universes as there are stars in our own.  Some quantum physicists have proposed that the reason the sub-atomic world seems to act strangely to us, in comparison to the macro-world, is because particles of matter might be traveling in and out of dimensions that we cannot detect.  Thus, bits of matter may only appear from our 3-dimensional view (plus time) to “randomly” arise and disappear.

5) If we could turn on all of the universal "lights" and see everything in every dimension all at once, what we perceive of as being mostly "empty" space might appear to be more crowded than a large city on earth.  Given the established historical track record of science, it is very likely that modern humans know virtually nothing about what is really true about our universe, from a true universal and beyond (logos) perspective.  What is proudly viewed as "science" today only a century or two from now, may well appear as rudimentary and backward as the 'science' of the pre-Neolithic Era appears to us here in the 21st Century.


SOME RELATED CHAPTERS IN BOOK
(listed in order of appearance)

DOES THE ACLU REALLY DEFEND THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

IS THERE REALLY LIFE IN THE FUTURE?

DO CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS REALLY FOLLOW JESUS?

IS ATHEISM SCIENTIFIC?

SHOULD WE LAY DOWN OUR SWORDS?

IS RICHARD DAWKINS SMARTER THAN JESUS?

ARE ATHEISTS REALLY HONEST ABOUT WAR?

ARE PEOPLE REALLY SHEEP?

IS THE BIBLE REALLY ACCURATE?

DOES BELIEF IN GOD CAUSE HUMAN OPPRESSION?

IS THE GOLDEN RULE REALLY THE BEST IDEA?

GOD: a perspective

ARE PEOPLE REALLY SINNERS?




Click Here to Go Back to Contents

Click Here to eMail the Author

Copyright © August 20th, 2003 by Richard Aberdeen.
Copyright © January 7th, 2014 by Richard Aberdeen.
Copyright © February 1st, 2014 by Freedom Tracks Records.

No part of this material may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including printing, photocopying, recording or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher and signed by the author. Inquiries: Freedom Tracks Records or requested via eMail.  Essays entitled Revolution and Revolution ~ Side B are open copyright and may be reproduced and distributed as desired.