Fixing America In 500 Words Or
DOES SCIENCE REALLY KNOW?
Unlike some modern educators pretend and many modern people assume, modern science doesn't know how life came to be. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica 2012 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". Newly emerging theories proposed by various astrobiologists and other scientists,
postulate that what causes life came out of the big bang, is refined in stars and, is "re-seeded" when supernovas and various other large cosmic events occur, eventually
ending up on untold "mega-zillions" of planets spread abundantly throughout the universe.
There is evidence this may be true, including estimated trillions of exo-planets in our Milky Way galaxy alone, evidence that some of life's necessary ingredients apparently
arrived on space rocks after the earth was formed and, evidence of molecules necessary for life found in space, including sugar molecules recently discovered in the planetary
accretion disk of a newly formed star. If it is true that life is spread abundantly throughout the Cosmos, then life never has "evolved" from scratch either on earth
or anywhere else as far as science knows. For all we know here in the 21st Century, life may have existed prior to the earth itself, may have existed long prior to
our universe and, life may go on existing forever and ever, long after our current universe fades away.
History teaches us that in relation to what is actually true. what the majority of scientists believe is often not correct. A majority of scientists believed in
Ptolomey's theory of an earth-centered solar system far longer than the theory of evolution has existed and some scientists continued to dispute the claims of Copernicus and
Galileo after their deaths. According to historian Will Durant, advances in medicine were held back several generations because of the relectuance of scientists
to accept basic evidence for how blood circulates (also see modern major genetic science blunder below). And as recently as the 1920's, most scientists including
Albert Einstein, believed there is only one Milky Way galaxy in a static eternal universe.
In my own lifetime, the universe has gone from being 11 or so billion to 18 or so billion to 25 or so billion to over 30 billion and back to a rather suspect 13.67 billion
years old. And although this current figure of 13.67 billion is presented in textbooks and on PBS to an unsuspecting public as an established science "fact", the
accuracy of it is highly questionable, given that many scientists suspect current theories of gravity and light may be wrong. Scientists shouldn't be blamed for
changing their minds as new evidence is discovered, but many scientists and educators refuse to admit they don't really know very much about what is really true, even
though the history of science repeatedly teaches us what is "science" today often becomes the discarded science fiction of tomorrow.
Rather than focusing on "facts" that 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 observe, 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, this does not change the shape of the earth. Other than influencing our actions and in turn
other people, what we believe or refuse to believe does not change what is actually true.
Something that most definitely is true based on the known historical record, is that scientists and educators are often fundamentally wrong and have
dramatically changed their mind over historical time. Unfortunately, it usually takes several generations for educators to admit science was previously
fundamentally wrong. And, just as unfortunately, many modern people assume the science of our generation is in the main correct, regardless
of how overwhelmingly the known history of science demonstrates otherwise. Consider for example, how science in the time of the Wright brothers compares to modern
space craft, quantum mechanics, nano-technology and post-Hubble telescope astrophysics and then, consider how quaint and outdated our current science is likely to appear
a century from now.
INSERT GENETIC EXAMPLE HERE
In my own lifetime, the universe has gone from being 11 or so billion to 18 or so billion to 25 or so billion to over 30 billion and
then rather mysteriously back to a rather suspect 13.67 billion years old. That is how frequently scientists have changed their mind in regards to the
age of the universe just within my own lifetime. Scientists shouldn't be blamed for changing their mind as new evidence is discovered, but many scientists and educators
refuse to admit they don't really know very much about what is really true.
If current theories of light and gravity are wrong, which many actual practicing scientists suspect, then the universe may well be considerably
older or younger than 13.67 billion years. Yet, this same figure is currently portrayed in modern textbooks, PBS videos and in general
press articles, as if it is an indisputable scientific fact. It is a well established historical fact that the "facts" of science today often as not, become
the discarded science fiction of tomorrow.
Modern educators during my own lifetime, instead of admitting evolutionary theory as taught in my high school text book was essentially wrong, have
instead gradually changed and tweaked the definition of evolution, so currently some even define evolution simply as "change". I have written
one of these educators who defines evolution as "change" asking why it is not called "change" instead of evolution, if that is what is meant by
the term. Or, why not call it "life in transition", which is what is really happening in the real world, rather than continuing to insist on
using the misleading term "evolution"?
This same unwillingness to admit past gross mistakes and stubbornness against change is exhibited by scientists and educators throughout the
historical record. Many scientists continued to dispute the claims of Copernicus after he died and the same is true regarding most if not
all major discoveries along the way. According to historian Will Durant, modern medicine was held back several generations because of
physician and scientist refusal to accept basic evidence for how blood circulates.
Evolution is a misleading term that causes theoretically educated people, including many educators themselves, to confuse in their own minds and thus
misrepresent, what the known evidence actually demonstrates. What is true, based on ALL of the known evidence, is that life is created so it can
survive by adapting and changing over time as changing survival circumstances dictate. A much better description for this is "life in transition"
or "creation-in-flux", rather than "evolution". Articles published in major media continue to mislead the public by presenting a simplistic model
of evolution taught 20 or more years ago, that is no longer true based on the current known evidence, nor is it agreed to by most current professional
It is critically important to understand the information in both this and the following paragraph, if one wants to have any hope of understanding what is
really true about either science or anything else. "Species" and other life classification categories such as "genus" and "family", are artificial
classifications invented by human beings. Terms like "nature", "natural world" and "natural selection" are artificially created interpretations of
reality made by human beings. They do not exist unto themselves in the real world, as many scientists in very great error treat "natural selection"
theory, nor do they prove or disprove anything concerning either God or the origins of what is rather biasedly and arbitrarily called the "natural"
world. Labeling something "natural" selection or the "natural" world, neither proves nor disproves anything. The way human beings choose to
interpret and classify evidence does not change the reality of how life functions in the real world, any more than changing the term "sin" to "social
maladjustment", somehow changes the grossly destructive behavior of modern human beings.
It is NEVER practicing good science to defend a theory. Rather, the purpose of a theory and of all science, education and human inquiry,
is to best explain the observable universal reality in human (or mathematical) language. The phrase "observable universal reality" in this case, includes
everything we can perceive and/or project by use of our senses and physical beings and technological and other creations, including invisible entities such as x-rays,
black holes and our Creator. We can believe in the existence of God, in the same exact way we can believe in the existence of black holes and invisible light; all three
are believed to exist based on the visible mirrored evidence and in the case of God, on the historical evidence of our shared human conscience. The universal reality
dictates how theories arise, evolve and change, NEVER the other way around, as many supposedly "educated" people view and apply evolutionary theory.
Evolutionary theory itself does not "prove" or change what is true about either God
or biological or other reality. Rather, what is true about reality is what dictates, improves, changes or otherwise, disproves a theory to such a
degree, to where it is no longer considered legitimate science (as has happened to the vast majority of previously believed and generally agreed to
"science" over historical time). What matters in legitimate science is what is really true and, that is ALL that matters. When science or
other education is approached in any other manner, other than as a legitimate pursuit, understanding and explanation of what is true, it then represents
the propaganda, practice and conclusions of baseless superstition, rather than legitimate science and education.
It is counter-productive and misleading to claim that a new "species" evolves from an already existing "species", which implies to the typically
poorly educated modern human being, that an already existing species is fully formed and not itself changing. In the real world, ALL of life is
changing and as such, there is no such thing as a "completed" species as opposed to a "new" species. The reality of the grand diversity of life
and how life functions in the real world remains the same, regardless of how we classify life or invent and define theories.
Modern ideas and theories of life origins, processes and functionality are now carelessly lumped together under a common heading "evolution", as if
there is general consensus where few if any scientists entirely agree. And, current knowledge may be far more naive and simplistic than any
scientist cares to admit or dares to even imagine. For example, there are at least fifty different often contradicting theories within the field
of “abiogenesis” alone, which itself is only a “sidebar” to evolutionary theory and, an idea so lacking in evidence and fundamental logic, that
some scientists don't believe the concept of abiogenesis even belongs in a legitimate intellectual discussion.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica article, "Evolution", in regards to what scientists actually have evidence for, "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". This hardly agrees with various misconceptions taught in many textbooks, media articles and by various propagandists of
atheism, pretending evolution can explain how life came to be and thus, there is no Creator. It would seem science knows no more today about
how, when or where life began than either Aristotle, Copernicus or Charles Darwin did, who in the introduction of his final version of "On The Origin
of Species", credits our Creator with being behind the evolutionary process.
Here below is a simplistic example of why evolution is not even really true, as apparently many modern educators and media pundits and most other
people perceive the term to imply. Unlike many modern educators and authors of popular books, Charles Darwin himself appears to have been a
careful scientist trying to go where ever the evidence trail leads. Rather, for example, than trying to defend "evolution" against "creation",
as if the Creator didn't invent the real processes of life and thus, belongs in a category of "religion" rather than "science". In light of the
much greater modern evidence, the term "evolution" itself creates gross mis-understandings and should long ago have been discarded.
Some modern scientists believe that life is so overwhelmingly complex at atomic and sub-atomic (quantum) levels, it is impossible for human beings to ever
have a legitimate theory of life origins, processes and functionality. Thus, this example below is deliberately simplistic; of course, in the real
world, what is called "evolution" is far more overwhelmingly (and some might argue irreducibly) complex than is illustrated by using this simplistic example.
Suppose 100 birds all classified by science as being the same "species", were living in San Pedro, California. Now suppose somebody caged 75
of these birds and put them 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 very 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 life
form has so dramatically changed due to 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.
That is a much different reality than the general public typically is taught, 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 the general public. 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 did not 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 claim is accurate.
What most biologists assume is that somewhere over at least 6 million years ago, both apes and humans shared a common ancestor. 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 non
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, they
can carry several times their 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 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, cockroaches which have survived and
reproduced for well over a hundred million years?
It remains unknown whether life "evolved" from multiple sources or from a singular source in the ocean, as many modern educators pretend is "proven
science". Various modern scientists have proposed that life first began on land, in or near fresh water, in clay, in plain dirt or, underground
and then, migrated to the ocean. Some have proposed life or the seeds for life arrived on space rocks. One secular biologist on PBS in 2009
stated that life may be able to form "where ever there is a little wetness", while in another PBS Video, a different secular biologist said that in his
opinion, the theory of evolution as commonly understood today will likely be mostly if not entirely discarded within fifty years. Based on the grand
diversity of life known today, isn't it is more likely that life sprang up from all over the earth from "zillions" of original tiny forms, most of which
failed to survive?
Because there is no geologic or fossil record for the first 800 million years of the earth's existence, it remains entirely unknown where, when or
how life arose on our planet and, many if not most scientists believe we will never know. Some current scientists believe that the "genesis" of
life has occurred several times during the earth's history, rather than just once as has long been assumed by most Darwinists. Charles Darwin
himself proposed the possibility of original life "forms" in the plural and, modern knowledge of DNA similarity among various species does not prove
the standard modern Darwinian assumption of singular origination, as some pretend. The known fossil record for macro-organisms traces less than
one billion years and there is a significant gap between evidence for micro-life and the earth's estimated age. In
the future, there may be traces of both macro and micro life found earlier, that due to cataclysmic events or other
currently unknown reasons, remains absent from present knowledge.
In his final revision of "On the Origin of Species", Darwin proposed the following: "There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several
powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one". Given modern knowledge of the grand diversity of life, micro
organisms living at least 2 miles down in solid rock and non-oxygen breathing, methane-based creatures living near deep ocean vents and, given modern
theories (and some evidence) that life may have arrived on "space rocks", which are believed to have bombarded the early earth, then life may have quite
literally sprung up from all over the planet. For NY Times Article March 5, 2001 detailing new evidence for life arriving on space rocks: Click Here.
There may well have been "zillions" of original tiny life forms inhabiting the earth, which eventually "transitioned" into the grand diversity of life
we can observe today. Scientists still debate what actually constitutes a "species" and our modern education institutional very bad habit of
separating and classifying things into neat categories of "religion", "science" and "history", is no doubt contributing to significant confusion and
bias and distorting the truth regarding how life came to be and actually functions in the real world.
What causes life may emanate from the "big bang" itself, be refined in stars along with most of the elements and thus, be abundantly spread throughout
the Cosmos like so much "living fertilizer", waiting for the right conditions to arise within untold "zillions" of diverse planetary
environments. Life may well be irreducibly complexly cross-integrated both on this planet and throughout the universe as a whole, beyond any and
all hope of science ever having a legitimate "evolutionary" or other theory.
As such, life may well not have "evolved" as the standard "tree model" of Darwinian single-origination theory has long assumed. All of life in
some significant on down to tiny minute way, may or may not be related to the so-called "ape" family. It is possible that human beings trace back
to some very tiny pre-life "seed" or tiny life form that never directly links to modern apes, in what has long been searched for and has yet to be
found, a true "missing link" common ancestor. Based on the current evidence, modern science doesn't really know (see new footnote below).
If life or the seeds for life arrived on space rocks, it may well have been spread all over the planet like so much "fertilizer", which could also
explain similarity of DNA. There are many different possible scenarios, far too long and complicated to outline here (see virus discussion in
footnote #3). How life came to be is not necessarily "simple", nor given modern knowledge of DNA complexity and the overwhelming complexity of
life at the atomic and sub-atomic levels, can a legitimate theory of life origins and functionality necessarily be contained in a trillion lengthy
volumes. Just because the majority of scientists prefer that the explanation remains simple does not mean that there ever can be any legitimate
simple theory of life.
Thus, it remains foolish to debate "evolution vs. creation" or to argue about what science does not know and, probably never will know. As a
molecular biologist recently said on PBS, life at the atomic and sub-atomic levels is so overwhelmingly complex, it is irrational to pretend that
science can ever have a legitimate theory of evolution, or whatever terminology one chooses to use. And as world leading DNA and human disease
expert Francis Collins has publicly stated, modern DNA knowledge alone overwhelmingly demonstrates design and not random processes.
It is quite arguably beyond irrational to pretend that motion can exist apart from primary cause, a universal complexity of zillions of parts within
parts can randomly arise, intelligence can arise from non-intelligence and, beings of creative intelligence, conscious awareness, identity of "self",
moral conscience and the ability to analyze our own thought processes, could arise from unconscious sub-atomic scraps of matter, without any Supreme
Intelligence behind the process. To pretend there is no God represents a more biased and baseless superstition than all of the myths and other
superstitions of human history combined.
Apparently, God presented as “I AM" is unique to the Bible and not found anywhere prior to Moses in human civilization history. This is the ONLY
known idea in all of human history that satisfies "origins" and thus, ETERNAL CREATOR(s) remains the correct fundamental postulate of true science
until proven otherwise. Apparently all other theories, including all theories of modern science, fall as the author of Romans might say, rather
"short" of being able to rationally explain the known observable universal reality. (Just how short, the majority of modern scientists
are apparently afraid to admit even to themselves.)
Even though what is properly called the "universe", that is, whatever human beings can detect, is much larger today than when both Moses and later
Jesus walked the earth, this still remains the ONLY known theory, idea or concept in all of recorded human civilization, that satisfies
origins. A different idea does not qualify as “science” unless and until it can BETTER satisfy origins. Based on the known history of
philosophy, science and reason, the BEST idea is ALWAYS and remains, CORRECT SCIENCE until replaced by a better one (see footnote #12).
There is a video on the history channel website that is an overview of what is called the “micro-universe”. If this video is taken in context with several other recent
articles released by actual scientists, then what a secular (i.e., non-creationist) biologist predicted on PBS a few years ago is already happening. According
to him, his words, not mine, the theory of evolution will “likely be mostly if not entirely discarded within 50 years” Micro-Universe Video.
There are some very good reasons why this is true. Emerging theories include the now seemingly obvious fact, that science does not remotely understand the
macro-universe (visible reality), in large part because it is theorized we can only detect a small part of it. Emerging theories are that so-called “dark”
energy may exist in dimensions beyond our ability to detect and thus, the part of the universe we can detect is only a small percentage of what is actually
there. If we could “see” every dimension the universe is made of, then there may be very little space at all, rather than the vast apparent mostly empty
distances between stars and galaxies of stars.
It is believed that in the quantum reality, communication between particles can occur at speeds vastly and perhaps even infinitely
greater than the speed of light. Science doesn’t know how this can happen and, isn’t certain about anything any more, because at very small levels, everything
that science believes breaks down and, there remains nothing predictable by human intelligence. For among other reasons, it is believed the universe has at
least six and maybe eleven or more dimensions and, we are trapped within four (including time). Because we are trapped within four dimensions, science
does not remotely understand the origins of either life or the universe itself, nor does science remotely understand how the universal reality or life within the
universe actually functions at root atomic and sub-atomic levels.
Atoms were once thought to be the smallest part of the universe. In my lifetime, quarks were once thought to be the smallest part and, it is now believed
“strings”, which are theoretically incredibly smaller than quarks, might be the smallest part. And, new theories even question whether or not strings are made
up of yet smaller parts, even though parts far larger than strings theoretically have "zero" radius. Some physicists propose that the reason things appear so
strange in the quantum reality, is because particles are zipping in and out of dimensions beyond the ability of human beings to detect, thus they only seem to act
strangely from our four-dimensional rudimentary viewpoint.
Newly emerging theories include that life may well have existed prior to the formation of the earth and, that life is continually spread around and re-generated
throughout the Cosmos, as various supernovas, collisions of galaxies and other major phenomena occur. All that science really knows for certain about
life, is that life adapts and changes in a constantly changing universal environment. As such, there is no such thing as evolution, which is based on the
grand assumption that life “began” from scratch on earth (and now grudgingly admitted, perhaps somewhere else).
If life is spread abundantly throughout the
universe and existed before our planet even existed, then there is no such thing as a theory adequately explaining the origins of life, other than that God creates universes
and life and everything else in them to adapt and change. There is zero evidence life has ever “evolved”, as if life magically takes root somewhere through
some self-assembly magically appearing process. There is no evidence for evolution, there never has been and, there very likely never will be. To have knowledge
that human beings can invent robots and software that can then work independently of human input, while pretending that God cannot do likewise and far more, is beyond any
and all definition of shallow narrow-minded thinking and elementary school juvenile delinquent junk science.
Modern often proud and egotistical educators and other intellectuals tend to have a hard time admitting they don't know and, a harder time still
admitting that just because something might appear "random" from our view, this in no way proves it is random from a true multi-dimensional and beyond correct
view. Pretending there is such a thing as "random" anything within the observable universal reality, is similar to a lepton inside of an atom inside of DNA
inside of a virus inside of a bacterium, located somewhere on one of the first comparatively very large-sized computer chips, claiming that the larger computer
reality somehow magically "randomly" appeared. To be fair, the lepton holds a supreme advantage over atheism, quite obviously the most ignorant and least
plausible of all known human superstitions.
This article has no particular quarrel with Charles Darwin, who appears to have been a careful scientist and, who was 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, who credited our Creator with being behind the
processes of life, would say if he was alive today and, he had the current post-Hubble knowledge of modern science to compare against his own earlier conclusions.
I challenge any and every atheist and other human being living today, to demonstrate by evidence, a more satisfactory and accurate evidence-based
theory of origins than “before Abraham was, I AM”. I could say "good luck", but there is no such luck to be found anywhere in either the known
or yet to be discovered universal reality, at far as I am aware. And, I challenge the same to defend the term “evolution” against “life in
transition”, as being a better and more accurate definition for how life actually functions in the real world, as far as science knows.
[ this article deliberately avoids addressing “natural selection” because of length, but a lengthy footnote is included below ]
NOTE ON FOOTNOTES BELOW: I don't claim to know everything about modern science and, I have never met anyone else who does, nor is it
very likely that any one biologist knows everything or even most of what is known about biology on a global level. Thus, much of the content
of these footnotes represents questions as much as it does conclusions and, there may be more than a few “bonehead” assumptions that a trained
biologist could easily answer. And, I would welcome anyone to do so, as I do not respect either scientists or non-scientists who attempt to
defend their own views, rather than being interested in what is really true. Whenever I can be proven within my own satisfaction to be incorrect
or just plain wrong, I am more than willing to concede such and move on.
Additional Footnote (this note was added later, several months after this article was first published) 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 theory, what causes life to form came out of the big bang, is refined in stars, finds it’s way eventually onto
planets from out of the early planetary accretion disk, which is blown out from newly forming stars. 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 or other viruses can survive without a DNA host and thus, they are believed to have arisen after both RNA and DNA
existed. Thus, a satisfactory explanation for exactly how life arises continues to remain beyond the knowledge of current science.
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 to change and adapt, so that
life itself can survive within changing environments. From such changes, 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 inventions
(human constructs) and have no bearing on the reality of how life 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.
Thus 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. Species do not “evolve” from other species through some magically
existing spontaneously arising process called “evolution” but rather, ALL of life is created with 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, for life to be able to
survive, in God's ever-changing universal environment.
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 at root levels for human beings to ever comprehend and explain. There are far more micro-organisms than
visible macro-organisms and, 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 1) As noted in the main body, 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 that was not produced by creationists, did not feature a single creationist, nor did it mention either God, creation or intelligent design.
Note 2) It never seems to have dawned on many modern scientists, that just perhaps like his 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 based on what kind of eyes, ears or other perception tools they may have, within the same general
environmental “scene”. Just perhaps, a Being great enough to design the universe is capable of creating for both practical functionality and
aesthetic reasons at the same time, given that such a lowly creature as a human being does this 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 God be at
least as capable of combined artistic and functional design creation, as a human being or a spider is capable of? Talk about someone not being
able to see the forest for the trees!!!
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 found 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, but also often displaying not only red and black, which are explainable
by Darwinian theory, but also a great rainbow variety of other coloration?
Note 3) 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 began as something like a virus and changed and adapted 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.
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 begun from a singular
origination source in the ocean.
Some followers of Richard Dawkins (talk about following the wrong god) 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 gone with the winds and shifting sands of evidence tomorrow.
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 the other way around 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?
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 evolution and/or life origins. Problems begin at the atomic and sub-atomic (quantum) levels, where nothing
works according to Einstein or any other "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 also Footnote 15 below and link to video of comparative “macro” and “micro” universal sizes).
Note 4) WRONGLY ASSIGNED CAUSES OF WAR AND OTHER OBVIOUS 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, because it contains 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 also Footnote 6 below for some of the reasons why the constancy
of the speed of light may be in question).
In biology, bias is very clearly seen not only in the writings of Richard Dawkins and other militant atheists, but also throughout the Britannica
and practically ever 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 natural selection, which has completely re-written former theories of animal behavior, to give just one
example. Animal behavior is viewed much differently today than even when I was in high school and very much differently than in the time of Darwin
and even in the first half of the 20th Century.
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
why or how animals perceive, think and act. A lot is assumed based on natural selection theory, rather than based on hard science
evidence. Quite obviously, it remains difficult for human scientists to think and perceive like a monkey, a dolphin, a bird or an ant.
A significant intellectual problem well known to scientists, historians and other discipline specialists is, once a theory becomes “mainstream”, it
tends to artificially “color” and influence emerging ideas forward. Thus, human science, history and other intellectual knowledge 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
Darwinian theory is based on the long held assumption that reproductive advantage is the singular primary drive of all species, including human
beings. As some brave historians and even a few scientists have pointed out, this does not at all agree with how human beings behave in the
known historical record. Thus, if this fundamental assumption of Darwinian evolutionary theory is
wrong or only partially correct, as some historians have contended, then such an error distorts everything else that Darwinian evolution influences, in
terms of correct perspective and accurate conclusions.
According to the Bible, human beings have either 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
motivations and deeper problems at the root sub-conscious level. 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.
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 7:10-20 and Matthew
15:16-20. According to the New Testament James, agreeing with both Jesus and modern behavioral science evidence, war and other human violence
comes from irrational desires at war 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. Thus, war and other human oppression is cause by what the Britannica refers to as "the seething mass within" individual
human beings and, what the Bible calls "sin". Of course, changing the term sin to "social maladjustment" or "seething mass within", does not change
the reality of the evil that men and women do; for more information, see Romans chapters 1-2 in the Bible and articles "Human Sexuality", "Freud", "Jung",
"Psychology" and "Animal Behavior" in the Encyclopedia
Thus, war is not caused by "religion" or "belief in God", as many rather poorly educated modern intellectuals pretend; war can just as logically and
fairly be attributed as being "caused" by science and education, such as the weapons created by science technology and modern idealism like capitalism,
communism, socialism, anarchism, fascism and nationalism; such idealism, over which very much blood has been spilled, has gradually replaced religious
excuses for war since the invention of cheap printing. From the so-called "Age of Reason" forward, because of mass decimation of human knowledge
previously reserved primarily for priests, scribes 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; wars today often being excused by a combination of both
religious and intellectual idealism. 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".
Today, weapons of war and intellectual idealism tracing from human science and education, religion and belief in God, which is not the same thing as
institutional religion and often carelessly lumped together into a highly deceptive historical misrepresentation by modern intellectuals, are
ALL wrongly used by modern human beings as "tools" of war and other human oppression. Both modern science and the Bible agree that such wrong usage
is actually caused by a deeper problem within the human species. War and other human oppression is a "collective" human problem arising from within
human beings and emanating outward into both individual and collective group actions. Historically, war at the surface bottom root level, including
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.
Such surface displays of human greed are caused by deeper problems emanating from both conscious and
sub-conscious motivational levels within human beings. Is it just me, or does anyone else find it odd that Jesus and both the Old and New
Testaments agree a lot more with both the historical and modern science evidence than Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris
and comedian Bill Maher, who should perhaps stick to comedy and like Jesus, making fun of conservative fundamentalists; which Mr. Maher is relatively
good at and, which he could undoubtedly be better at, if he listened more to Jesus and less to Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris? As I've
inquired of the so-called Skeptics Society, why limit one's targets to the obvious easy television sham religionists, rather than being more like Samuel
Clemens and, making sport of puffed up educational 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 united to
take back valuable land and trading positions that had been seized previously by Muslim invaders, while 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 lust and 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 modern 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 later WWII, long before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and, one of the main consistent bad habits of Adolf Hitler was to seize much gold,
art and jewels wherever his armies invaded. According to the 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 historically 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 twisted 21st Century American
society. Note how the sincere religious beliefs of millions of common people are twisted to justify everything from the American Revolution to
the current U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And also note how the intellectual idealism of democracy, capitalism, socialism, communism and
anarchism, is used like religion, 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 nicely together in a red, white and blue twisted 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 Footnote 8 below for more details). Perhaps a few abiogenesis theorists should spend a
little more time in comparative analysis of the Bible against the history of human civilization record and, a little less time lying to our children
about how and why we happen to exist.
Note 5) THE EVOLUTIONARY "MONKEY-WRENCH" OF INDIVIDUAL CHOICE: 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 is virtually ignored by many educators and even some scientists, in terms of overall
adaptive change affect. Various animals have been observed to be highly "choice-oriented", like human beings in many ways, rather than robotic
creatures operating solely by gene-inherited "instinct".
Arguably animals "learn" things over generational time, in similar fashion to how human beings acquire "inherited cultural consensus" over time, rather
than that all observable animal activity is merely gene instinctual related. For example, 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 life forms. 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 and 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 likely thrived anyway without the influence of Kroc but rather, the modern reality of corporate mega-farming
would likely have been more slowly introduced without the rapid rise of the McDonald's franchise and other competing franchises would have arisen more
slowly, thus altering human disease reality and the quality of food human beings consumed significantly 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 raised cattle and grass raised cattle do indeed, very much alter the human diet and human disease reality
in very different and 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.
(Portions of this next paragraph are also found in Note 3 above) 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 evolution 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 on 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 humans to ever rationally resolve.
Note 6) 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. 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
(i.e., Logos; God's view).
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 true universal and beyond
perspective. Everything that 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 timeframe, will no longer be considered true not long
after. In comparison to the Pythagorean Therom is one of the oldest theories still considered "correct science" today, modern evolutionary
theory is just a "baby theory", barely out of the scientific womb.
It is also worth noting, that the so-called "theory of evolution" is not at all like the Pythagorean Theorem or E = MC2 and, it is logically not
even a theory by standard 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
to scientists merely represents the current "median norm consensus" of many different theories and often contradicting hypothesis, ideas and conclusions,
which are here today and gone with the winds of evolving evidence tomorrow.
For example, "the theory of evolution" taught in my own high school
textbook is not remotely the same as the theory of evolution typically taught today, while the Pythagorean Theorem and E = MC2 remain exactly the same
as stated in my high school texts. Several university level educators today teach evolution merely means "change", while such an idea isn't
found in any textbook in use when I was in high school and, wasn't even on the education radar map. No modern biologist today believes in the
simplistic evolutionary chain pictured 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 two current recent species, neither of which lived in the not very
recent past and thus, neither of which "evolved" from the other. Thus in reality, there is no such thing as a "theory of evolution" but rather,
how the theory itself is defined is constantly changing and, has an evolutionary history of it's own.
Note 7) According to modern 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, thru 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
Why for example, are adults rewarded with an international "peace prize" for behaving like we believe we all should already behave? And 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. As well as 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 nation'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 so-called “educated” liberals 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 laws.
As the New Testament teaches, God did not give us laws and a conscience because God expected us to obey them but rather, to prove to us that we have
a significant built-in aversion to moral obedience, 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 so-called Age of
Enlightenment's legacy of European and American imperialism, the American, French, Russian, Chinese and other revolutions, WWI, WWII, Vietnam and many
other wars of unparalleled historical violence, very clearly demonstrates that science and education will not 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 often non-connected historical cultures
spread across the historical civilization landscape. Thus, clearly indicating as the authors of the Bible claimed and Jefferson echoed, that
human beings possess an "endowed" shared human conscience, again clearly demonstrating design and not random processes.
Note 8) NOTES ON NATURAL SELECTION: One of the greatest flaws created by bias arising from the term “evolution” itself, is the modern
evolutionary bias assumptions of "advancement" and "descent", assumptions not necessarily having any validity in the real world. Even 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
adaptive 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-synchronization” with the host organism, rather than the overall evolutionary process involving even a
very tiny fraction of “randomness”. This in itself would demonstrate "Brains" behind the process and design rather than randomness.
Otherwise organisms would gradually move away from anything that is not a reproductive advantage. And more logically, disease would never arise in
the first place. If what we can observe is a "blind watchmaker" “reproductive advantage” driven system, then why would there be any such thing as
disease? From where did such disadvantages to species 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 world, which undoubtedly aggravates if not causes much human disease, even after we
have knowledge that doing so can cause us significant harm? How is this a reproductive "advantage"?
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, for which there is no evidence for and overwhelming evidence against such a
conclusion based on the historical record. The record of war and human oppression from the American Revolution forward does not at all represent
a moral advancement over ancient Babylon 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 Reason" resulting in the modern 21st Century reality of global mass pollution
and human civilization teetering on the brink of nuclear annihilation.
Perhaps the most significant problem with modern natural selection theory, as has been pointed out by some brave historians, is that actions predicating
"reproductive advantage" are grossly contradicted by human beings in the 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 history of the American West and the
Klondike Gold Rush. 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 war and brutality and again risking
life and limb, for a few dollars more. People of already vast wealth 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 risk of personal and collective group safety, traveling long distances
where there is little to no hope of finding any suitable mate, even at seemingly preposterous claims of gold and similar wealth to be found that
any sound mind would reject as gross exaggeration and most likely, complete fabrication (see also Footnote 4 above, which describes behavioral
science, historical and other evidence in more detail).
A common blunder that even Richard Dawkins admits is incorrect, often seen in articles in the NY and LA Times science sections and often taught by
poorly trained educators and popular pundits, is the idea that humans are "descended" from the "ape" family and as such, we belong to the "ape"
family. Several articles in the NY and LA Times made this claim in 2010 alone; it is a common assumption blunder prevalent in Western society,
that humans are part of "the ape family". Which is one reason since high school, I have opposed the term "evolution", a very poor term that
creates much bias and should long ago have been replaced with "life in transition", a far more accurate general descriptive idea.
What is really true as far as the evidence leads, is that apes are just as logically a part of the "human" family and "descended" from humans, as that
humans are part of the "ape" family. Neither one of these statements is accurate and actual practicing modern biologists generally
agree. Some scientists might contend that evolution is "life in transition" but if that is the case, why not change the terminology, so that the
general public and poorly trained "science" editors of the NY and LA Times don't continue to mislead the general public? What reproductive or other
advantage is there in continuing to use misleading terminology, when improved terminology like "life in transition" would help minimize false assumptions?
Dawkins, being a trained biologist, admitted in a 2010 PBS video that apes and humans represent two modern species that did not exist in the recent
past. There is no evidence at all that evolution represents a "descent" or "ascent" of humans from the "ape" family. Rather, the evidence
demonstrates that ALL of life is designed to be in a constant state transition, so life can survive within changing environments, thus any life form
observed today didn't exist in it's same form not very long ago (in evolutionary terms).
Some life forms change a lot more dramatically than other life forms, which sometimes remain about the same for a million or more 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.
It is not true that I do not believe in natural selection but rather, I don't believe that natural selection theories are entirely accurate and the
term "natural" represents human assumption 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 not based on evidence.
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.
"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 to do with either God or
science or reality. Whether or not there is a God, 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 Dawkins and other atheists do. The more
a scientist just arbitrarily chalks everything up to Natural Selection, treating it as some sort of "Boogieman" god to explain everything, the more
inaccurate it 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 if we did not believe what we do, but outside of how what we believe effects us as human beings, the above is essentially accurate and it should
be taught 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.
When education is presented accurately as “truth” being the goal, rather than defending science 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 them believe matters in relation to what is actually 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 religions, morality, ethics and various television scam artists and pedophile leaning priests, all represent one and the same
thing. Bill Maher, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and others are likely correct in their claims that institutional religion
is far more harmful than good. Unfortunately, such poorly trained at best media hacks, 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 Protestantism and Catholicism and fundamentalist religious quacker-jackery of the most fundamentally egregious kind.
Where 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 belongs. 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.
As for 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 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) As you want people to do to you, you do also to them likewise. Why doesn't this belong in "human rights", "political and
social theory", "psychology", "philosophy" and "morality and ethics" classes, rather than in "religion" class?
I have never heard of 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 authors and artists from DaVinci, Michelangelo and Shakespeare on up through the present
and every thinker and author of the so-called "Enlightenment" and, on every American and French revolutionist, yet I have never once heard Jesus
mentioned in any European history or American history class, other than in speeches and texts quoting him, invariably without crediting the source.
This is very clearly why American citizens remain very poorly educated, vote for the wrong people and why both American conservatives and
American 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 claims 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.
Note 9) It is difficult for me personally to logically 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
advantge? Why is there competition rather than integrated synchronized harmony among species? Why would reproductive disadvantage ever arise
and if it did, why wouldn't all of life eventually become entirely synchronized in integrated harmony, if evolution is driven by overall reproductive
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 it must be assumed that disease
organisms can somehow evolve in lock-sync, step-by-step advantage direction with the host. Otherwise, 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; as if a factory robots and computers, which can “self-design” and perform many complex functions all
by themselves once programmed, could 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? 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 largest unanswered question of all 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 not as many 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 natural selection theory. But it has never seemed logical to me, that Darwinian (single origin) natural selection
theory can satisfactorily explain either the origin of, or the persistence of disease in host organisms.
Note 10) 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. Typically
most biologists have only a rudimentary understanding of history at best and thus, they often make erroneous conclusions that very clearly contradict
historical reality, as some modern historians (and even a few scientists) have bravely pointed out; Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett
and Richard Dawkins (and Bill Maher, who should perhaps stick to being a comedian) being some prime examples. Hitchens perhaps more than the
others, pretends to be historically astute, but Hitchens perhaps more than the rest, often grossly contradicts commonly agreed to historical facts.
As for example, Hitchens states in YouTube videos posted prior to 2010, that "all Jewish historians now admit that Moses probably didn't exist" and
then goes on to use this entirely fabricated statement as a basis for concluding 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 believe that either Moses or a leader like Moses
probably existed. In his book "Caesar and Christ", very learned historian Will Durant, who may be human history's most educated man, essentially
concludes it is historically irrational to pretend that Jesus didn't exist, based on the "singular advanced mind" his teachings alone very clearly
According to Durant, not only are they not an invention of any known capable person or group of people in recorded history, but Jesus was far more
intelligent than any other known person. As such, it is completely and entirely irrational to pretend Jesus is an invention of first century
common fishermen and laborers. And as Durant points out, since Paul mentions Jesus having been known "in the flesh" by those he is writing to in his
letter 1 Corinthians, considered authentic by virtually all legitimate historians, the story of Jesus existed in some form prior to 60 A.D., most likely
prior to 50 A.D. Thus, the story of Jesus could not rationally be an invention of later religionists, as many atheists have long pretended is true,
without a single shred of historical evidence to back up such an obvious and complete fabrication of the most likely historical conclusion (history, like
science, is based on "weight of evidence", rather than absolute proof, as atheists often very erroneously pretend).
The problem with the term "evolution" is that it creates all manner of bias in both the biological and other sciences and, in fields mostly unrelated
to biological science, as clearly demonstrated in this biased article about Pol Pot linked above and quoted from below. Modern atheists often try
to apply Darwinist theory to historical social and political reality (even the normally careful and astute Britannica is guilty of this), in an
obviously twisted and vain attempt to minimize criticism of what atheists like Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Engels, Pol Pot and others historically
do. Whatever these historical people actually believed, to claim their agenda did not succeed because communism violates natural selection, is
very clearly historically false (some of these listed publicly claimed to be atheists, while the rest are generally considered to have been atheists).
This should also be a wake-upcall to any and every human being who considers themselves "progressive", as modern progressivism by definition, 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, which very clearly contradicts this bias created by modern notions of "natural selection". This base root
of socialism traces from Acts in the Bible and on up through the so-called "age of reason"; 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"). Both socialism and communism share a common
historical root tracing from Acts in the Bible, which also finds it's way in lesser degree in the ideas of Descartes, Rousseau, Locke, Paine, Jefferson
and a host of others--the notion of "we the people" is highly communistic in historical root and very clearly traces from Jesus and the "common people"
theory of socio-political activism, as demonstrated by Gandhi, Schweitzer, Keller, MLK, Chavez, the formation of workers' unions, women's movements and
many other related modern examples.
Jesus and his original followers promoted a share all things in common lifestyle, communism in it's purest historical form known, upon which later
Marx (and probably Engels) based his theories. However poorly modern Christianity may represent Jesus and his 1st Century followers, the fact
that the world now contains over 2 billion professing Christians very clearly demonstrates this statement above is patently false. Even if nobody
alive today professed to follow Jesus, the fact that statements attributed to Jesus survive and continue to be published, even if they are inaccurate
or inventions of later people, very clearly demonstrates this statement to be patently false and without historical, scientific or other
intellectual 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".
There are many reasons to not like and otherwise discard the term "evolution", which is not nearly as accurate as "life in transition" and the
assumption bias of "natural" in "natural selection" and, a good example of why modern Darwinism should be openly challenged at it's obvious
historically contradictory root bias core. The term "evolution" itself is probably responsible for more bias and mis-information than any other
word in the modern English language. Other than perhaps the term "religion", which also manages to create an overwhelming volume of extreme
bias and false conclusions, largely because of the modern utterly foolish notion of lumping belief in God and the teachings of Moses, Jesus, Buddha
and others, in with organized institutional religions and religious pope/tv evangelist quacker-jackery, all under a common heading "religion"; as if
this all represents one and the same thing and is somehow, divorced from scientific and historical reality (an extremely inaccurate and twisted view
which Socrates, Newton, Descartes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Jefferson, Paine, Einstein, Durant and a host of others, would very likely openly challenge today).
The world would undoubtedly be a whole lot better off if the terms "religion" and "evolution" were eliminated on a global basis, as if the true God
would claim either one of them, rather than piss all over both of them from now until kingdom come; i.e., "he who sits in the heavens shall laugh" at
the utter foolishness embraced in a predicted age of global mass communication confusion, a prediction made 2000 years ago that has very clearly come
true, imagine that!
Note 11) Atheists often pretend that because the earth and universe are billions of years old and that God doesn't create species individually
one at a time, like some great toy maker in the sky as many religious fundamentalists once believed, therefore this proves there is no God. What
this in reality proves, is that atheists and conservative religious fundamentalists are two extremely narrow-minded peas, sprouting from the same
hypocritical and self-contradictory, corrupt superstitious pod.
"Before Abraham was, I AM" is unique to the Bible; God as "I AM" is not found anywhere prior to Moses in human civilization history as far as I am
aware. This is the ONLY known statement in all of human history that satisfies "origins" and thus, it remains the correct fundamental postulate
of true science until proven otherwise. All other theories, including all theories of modern science, fall as Paul's letter to Romans says,
"short" of being able to rationally explain the known observable universal reality. Even though what is properly called the "universe", that is,
whatever human beings can detect, is much larger today than when both Moses and later Jesus walked the earth, this remains the ONLY known theory, idea
or concept in all of recorded human civilization, that satisfies origins. I challenge any and every atheist and other human being living today,
to demonstrate by evidence, a more accurate evidence-based conclusion. I could say "good luck", but as far as I am aware, there is no such luck
to be found anywhere in the known universal reality.
Note 12) NOTE ON DESCARTES, PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE AND REASON: Descartes stated as his first rule of the mind (i.e., the 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. For example, it was "science" at one time to conclude the earth is larger than the sun, moon and stars, until it was proven
otherwise by evidence; it was as Ptolemy concluded, correct “science” to believe the sun revolves around the earth until proven otherwise by
evidence; and, it was as Einstein thought, correct “science” to believe there is only one galaxy in a static universe, until proven otherwise.
It is NEVER correct science to just say the earth is round instead of flat, without providing any evidence it is round 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 Ptolemy earth-centered theory before Copernicus and, some disputed a static theory of the universe with only one galaxy
before Edwin Hubble. It is one thing to suspect a long held conclusion is wrong; it is quite another thing to “prove” it is wrong by providing
conclusive evidence. If Einstein had not provided a BETTER explanation than Newton for gravity and light, he most likely would never have been
included in a history book; just having a different explanation is not correct “science”. Until someone provides a BETTER explanation for the
observable universal reality, that BETTER and more accurately explains and satisfies origins, ETERNAL CREATOR(s) remains “correct science”.
That is not only basic to all philosophy, science and reason, it is basic to human sanity and, common horse sense. As W.C. Fields is said to have
remarked, “horse sense is what horses have that keeps them from betting on people” and, as a quote attributed to Samuel Clemens states: "Evolution
couldn't possibly be true, it does such a great dis-service to the ape". Being a former professional gambler, I have never met 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 in 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 was 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, you kind of get the idea of
just 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 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 thousands of years old 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 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 even 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, that there is no God, 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 is "correct science".
The fundamental problem atheists have is, there is no evidence for a conclusion of atheism and, there is astronomically overwhelming evidence that
randomness can never ever produce anything at all. There is no evidence that motion can exist apart from primary cause, that intelligence can arise
from non-intelligence, that so-called "universal laws", systems or life processes called “evolution”, "natural selection" or anything else can exist
unto themselves. Or that beings of creative conscious awareness and creative intelligence can arise in “blind watchmaker” fashion from sub-atomic
"stuff" without any intelligence behind the process. There is no evidence for a conclusion of atheism and thus, it is embracing gross
superstition and completely and entirely non-scientific for anyone to say "I don't believe in God". 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 is the only known statement in all of human history that satisfies
"origins" and thus, ETERNAL CREATOR(s) remains the correct primary postulate of true science, philosophy and reason, until proven otherwise.
Note 13) 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 have long
assumed that all of life traces from a singular origination point in the ocean, which of course nobody could possibly know, because there is no
surviving geological or fossil record for the first 800 million years of the earth's existence.
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, well over a billion
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 relatively large forms of plant and/or animal
life. And, 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 argue that because of similarities in DNA, this proves that all of life came 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
“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, 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 said a long time ago, as well as it just makes plain old fashioned common
horse sense that such is probably the case. After all, why would God create such a vast grand universal reality simply so life could appear on
one infinitesimally small planet? As one scientist recently stated in a PBS video, life may be able to appear “where ever there is a little
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, most 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-based creatures may well be able to exist hovering in gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn and,
that other exotic forms of life may exist as well.
The main point of this footnote being, modern science in reality knows very little about life; about 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 I have no
experience of something, then I 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 such mythology is in fact true.
This type of regressive and non-productive behavior is openly displayed today by many scientists 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 not certain, they should say so and, if they don't know very much about how life actually came to exist on our own planet, they should say
so. As one of several particular bad examples, a scientist this year looked into the 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, that only about
one-third of modern astronomers and physicists agree with him.
Given that the earth is believed to be 4.4 billion years old and evidence for all of life is considerably 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; the earth itself is nearly a billion
years older than any known form of life. 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
mis-represent, 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 extreme
3.8 billion years; scientists often don't agree among themselves, in spite of the fact that PBS and the LA & NY Times often pretend otherwise.
Note 14) NOTE ON MILITANT ATHEISM: As noted in footnote 10 and elsewhere above, militant atheists today such as Christopher Hitchens,
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. 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 Century or any
other century world. And, 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 or reason or, historical or any other known reality.
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. Just as many people who believe in religion and/or science contribute to the global war machine and other global human
oppression reality, while many use religion and science for more rational and constructive purposes. There is no scientific and historical fallacy
quite like the fallacy of those who out the self-contradicting gate, have an obvious ax of superstitious bias to grind against people
who sincerely and legitimately believe in God based on evidence.
This is a common trick of militant atheists, pretending that ALL people who believe in God are on a fundamentalist religious “side”, while ALL people
who believe in practicing legitimate science agree with them. And again, 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, Iraq and the fact that Mussolini, Stalin and some other of the worst leaders known in human history were atheists, while
the rest quite obviously, clearly demonstrated no regard for God whatsoever, 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 their meager life savings, while many modern scientists, in spite of the overwhelming 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 throughout human
history, have helped the sick, fed the poor, built hospitals, orphanages 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, although the scales are in reality, tipped very heavily in
favor of those who believe in God. The teachings and positive influence of Jesus alone offset any and all pretense of "good" contributed by the
atheists of human history.
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, also calls himself a Darwinist. And virtually all historical scientists of
note believed in God based on evidence, the same way that 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. 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 very 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 not based
on evidence. Such gross error is abundantly displayed throughout the modern Western world in scientific, educational and other literature of
all kinds, 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 common language trickery 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 evolutionary processes. 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”, one can just dismiss them as a most egregious and obvious liar and move on. In fairness to
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, Dawkins
states he is “almost certain” there is no God, without providing evidence that tips the scales in such dramatic fashion, as normally a scientist would
provide when making such a grandiose statement of conclusion. 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 out of 100 or 2 out of 5, for example. In this same 2010 article, he compares belief in God
to believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, without bothering to point out that if one eliminates the Spaghetti Monster, they aren't left having
to explain how they and the rest of the universe happens to exist. Ancient Greek philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, would no doubt
have a hearty laugh over such utter juvenile delinquent nonsense being spouted in public by a supposed learned intellectual, before kicking Dawkins out of
logic class 1-A and banning him for life.
Dawkins entitled one of his books “The God Delusion”, pretending such historical giants as 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 assume, to such a great human rights beacon of light 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 who believes in God, which includes all those on the list above, as being on the same irrational “side” as Pat Robertson
and Jerry Falwell. It doesn't take much of a monkey'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? 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 people who pretend to be scientific, overtly lie to our children and openly
deny the overwhelming universal evidence? How is it a "reproductive survival advantage" for our species, to teach our children that there is
no God who can help us and thus, we are stuck relying on the same "science and education" that created weapons of mass destruction and global mass
pollution in the first place? Who is the extremely poorly educated man or woman came up with the modern ACLU battle cry, that "God is not a
question for science", as if the Creator of the universe somehow is not relevant to how we the people of Planet Earth behave and the rest of life
functions in the real world? It is no small wonder that a so-called "Age of Enlightenment" is turning into an age of corporate globalization
and mass human enslavement, fear of global terrorism and WMD-equiped rogue states and, global panic of the planetary warming self-evident obvious.
Note 15) Footnote 15: As an example of how difficult it can be to have a legitimate theory of how life originates and functions in the
real world, there are over 1 million micro-organisms in a single drop of typical sea water and an estimated 10 trillion in the average adult
human gut. And although many are only one-celled organisms, they are considerably larger than a virus, which in turn is considerably larger than
the DNA and/or RNA within a virus, which in turn is considerably larger than the atomic parts that make up the DNA and/or RNA within a virus, which in
turn is considerably larger than sub-atomic particles at what is called the “quantum” level, where any true legitimate theory of life must
begin. And in reality, a legitimate theory of life origins must, by use of the term “origins”, begin prior to the big bang itself.
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 somehow able to shrink into a very tiny version of him or her self, 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 by us as being “random”, therefore there is no designer of the automobile
engine, nobody is driving the car, there is no road and, thus there is no Creator who designed either the road or anything else.
In reality, there is no such thing as random in the observable universal reality. Everything that can be observed is viewed within systems upon
systems already in motion, such motion a “result” of the big bang itself and is therefore by definition, not “random”, any more than apparent random
sparks in a scenario such as that described above, are truly random. Even if the big bang itself is pretended to be a “random” event, there is
no evidence that such an event could take place without Primary Causation somewhere up the chain or, that so-called “universal” or any other laws or
systems could exist unto themselves. Any postulate other than Eternal Creator(s) falls “short” of rationally explaining the observable
reality. For more on relative sizes of the macro and micro universe, see video GOD: a perspective.
Note 16) OF SNOWFLAKES AND STAR SYSTEMS: It is commonly assumed by perhaps most people in the 21st 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 “nature” or the “natural world”. In true reality, it is entirely unknown and arguably unknowable, how much or how little our Creator “plays”
with his creation. For all we really know, God can design individual snowflakes, individual micro-organisms and super-clusters of galaxies all
at the same time, just because he feels like fiddling 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 that our Father in heaven can design at both the very large and the very
small scales of universal reality. Nobody really knows what God engages in behind the scenes and, anyone who pretends they know is
quite obviously, only fooling themselves.
Note 17) ADAM AND EVE AND MODERN SCIENCE: The majority of what is contained in this footnote is pertaining to very recent evidence and
thus, it is not found in standard education texts, most of which represent a "science" 20 or more years behind current evidence. It was not
possible prior to the rise of modern computer technology and the mapping of the human genome, for science to confirm what has long been claimed in the
Bible regarding the common ancestry of the human race.
According to the Bible, all modern humans trace from a single recent female apparently between 6-10 thousand or so years ago (exact length is unclear); the
name "adam" in the Bible literally means mankind or humanity in Hebrew and the name "eve" in the bible literally means mother
of humanity or mother of us all, in Hebrew. According to modern DNA evidence, all modern living human beings 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 among
the first farmers. Modern evidence supports that farming emerged rather suddenly (in evolutionary terms) in and around the same historical time
frame window for a literal Adam and Eve. The emergence of farming represents a 2-4,000 or so year window spreading on a global basis, depending in
part on how one defines farming, which is extremely "sudden" in evolutionary terms. This is considered a significant evolutionary "advancement"
in brain conceptualization ability.
In spite of the fact that the Bible and modern science now agree concerning the genealogy of modern human beings and, have long agreed concerning the
general time frame for the emergence of farming, many atheists and other intellectuals immediately severely denigrate and dispute anyone trying to
point this out, even though it is documented post-human genome mapping science evidence, which can be reviewed at this link: Common Ancestry. I have
independently confirmed the research discussed at this link with a leading anthropologist in Tennessee with many years of field experience in Africa
and elsewhere, who confirmed to me personally that this is well known within his own anthropological field of study; he also confirmed he found
it quite interesting personally, having been raised in a biblical environment himself.
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 share a common ancestry; and c) where they could well have been located in
a literal garden of Eden. Imagine that !!!
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 an existing species. 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 so-called "weaker" strains along the human lineage family tree have died out. Thus, even though human beings as
defined by science, trace back at least 25 to 70 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 ten or so thousand years ago.
Not surprisingly, several historians and scientists over the years have proposed that, because the ability to conceptualize farming represents such a
significant evolutionary advancement, perhaps a true modern human being (homo sapiens sapiens) is more correctly defined as having arrived about the same
time as the emergence of farming, which appears to be in close proximity to how God defines a true modern human being in the Bible. The genealogy of
Jesus as presented in New Testament Luke tracing back to Adam, roundly and soundly scorned and condemned by intellectuals for centuries, now is quite
literally scientifically accurate, as far as modern science knows. God does not bow to science but rather, as has been clearly demonstrated over
historical time (see Footnote 18 below), human science eventually bows to God.
Note 18) Link to comparison evidence of what modern science claims and what the Bible says is true: Science and the Bible.
Note 19) SOME CREATIONIST THEORY VIEWS: While I don't personally agree with all or probably even most of the positions taken at
this link, nevertheless, many of them are interesting and raise serious questions about the standard Darwinian “tree” model theory of evolution from a
singular “accidental” origination point, which I have concluded ever since the obvious contradictions I saw in my high school text book, is most likely
not correct. It is far more likely true in my opinion, based on the known evidence, that life arose from all over the earth, rather than from
a singular origination point in the ocean. Exactly when, where, how and why life first appeared remains a mystery to modern science (according
to many secular non-creationist scientists themselves) and, may well always remain a mystery, given the overwhelming complexity of life and causes
of adaptive change and, the limited brain capacity and lifespan of human beings: Science Itself Refutes Darwinism.
Note 20) NY Times Article March 5, 2001 detailing new evidence of life on space rocks: Click Here. If life arrived on space rocks, it is very likely life sprang forth abundantly
from all over the land and seas, as the Bible has long claimed is true. And, if it did, than the long assumed standard Darwinian "tree-model"
evolutionary theory, which Darwin himself did not believe but which Richard Dawkins has long insisted is "science", is entirely wrong. For all
we know, life may have appeared in abundance all over the earth and, may be so highly-complexly cross-integrated to such a degree, that human science
may never have a truly legitimate theory. Because there is no existing geologic or fossil record for the first 800 million years of the earth's
existence, it is fair to say it is not only a lie, but completely and entirely irrational to pretend that science knows how life came to be.
SOME RELATED CHAPTERS IN BOOK
(listed in order of appearance)
DOES THE ACLU REALLY DEFEND THE
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?