DOES SCIENCE REALLY KNOW WHAT IS TRUE?        A leading 21st Century scientist publicly stated, science is what is true . But, is this a fair and honest assessment when weighed in the balances of the known evidence?        Six hundred years ago, scientists believed our sun circles the earth.  Even after Copernicus died, many insisted he was wrong.  When examined with any fairness, what is called science has a historical track record of constant revision regarding even the most fundamental of concepts.        According to historian Will Durant, medical research was set back decades because scientists refused to accept evidence for blood circulation.  Not that long ago, many scientists believed disease spontaneously arises.  Two decades into the 20th Century, the majority believed in an eternal static universe containing one galaxy.        Due to modern DNA and other emerging evidence, significant revisions are taking place in virtually every scientific field.  While educators expound on the universal laws of physics , some scientists openly question if there are any such laws.  Meanwhile, emerging evidence suggests universal highly advanced mathematical design.        Many astrobiologists today believe life existed before our own solar system.  Modern theory goes something like this:  What causes life emerged from the big bang, is refined in stars and seeded from supernovas and other cosmic events, ending up in accretion disks surrounding newly formed stars.        Then, as conditions allow, life probably arises on innumerable planets, most likely in many exotic forms unknown to us.  Whether arising from a singular point on earth, long assumed by Darwinian evolution or, life arose multiple times from many or even zillions of original forms, remains entirely unknown.        Some geneticists openly challenge standard evolutionary models.  While it is indisputable life adapts and changes, exactly how and why such changes occur is hotly debated.  How to define species remains undetermined; the term itself being a human construct, part of an invented system artificially classifying life that has been revised significantly over time.        According to the Encyclopedia Britannica article Evolution , science doesn't know how, when, where, why or in what form life arose on earth.  The article Virus concludes, in regards to viruses alone, science knows almost nothing compared to what there is yet to learn.        And, though what science defines as species arise and die out, life itself marches on, in spite of catastrophic events on earth and far greater cataclysmic occurrences within the larger universe.  For all scientists know, life existed prior to the universe we inhabit and, will continue to exist forever and ever, long after our current universe passes away.        Many today embrace the worst imaginable science fiction, claiming without a shred of supporting evidence that the universe arose from random, blind, unguided processes, as if a microbe in a petri dish could honestly say no one created the dish, there's no scientist observing its actions, no laboratory, earth, solar system, etc., as if the universe we and the microbe inhabit somehow magically appeared.        Some scientists today have invented something called multi-verse , which some claim eliminates the necessity of God.  But this cannot be proven and even if there are an infinite number of universes, wouldn't this indicate an Eternal Creator?  This mathematically derived theory brings up interesting questions such as, where did math come from?  And why can math predict the existence of particles before they are discovered?        Animal researchers have learned that many animals, insects and even fish can do math.  This is strong evidence that mathematics existed before we did. And if the universe is mathematically designed, as many scientists suspect, this is much stronger evidence that humans did not invent math.        Can energy arise from no energy, motion from no motion, light from no light, life from no life and intelligence from no intelligence?  Can all of these along with mathematics, somehow exist unto themselves, without any Primary Cause?  These are all phenomena that atheists and agnostics must be able to prove by evidence, in order to remain honest.        Imagine someone looking at the first deep field photo taken by the James Webb Telescope and then pretending there is no Creator, as if they somehow would know.  Does science really know what is true?  Or are certain 21st Century 'scientists' just randomly pulling our DNA chain?  You decide. NATURE BY THE NUMBERS NOVA VIDEO: THE GREAT MATH MYSTERY INTRODUCTION: Space and the Lowly Cell There is no intention within the following chapters to dispute the irrefutable fact that life is constantly adapting and changing.  However, given modern-day knowledge of the size and scope of the universe and the modern-day fact that many actual practicing scientists believe life probably existed prior to our own sun and solar system, it is a great error to assume science knows when, where, how or why life came into existence either on earth or within the larger cosmic reality. Those who assume modern-day evolutionary theory explains the origins of life haven't really been paying attention and, best seller list profiteers who continue to prance around pretending that evolution satisfactorily explains either their own existence or the existence of the larger universal reality, are clearly promoting baseless science fiction.  No part of evolutionary theory has ever satisfactorily explained origins.  And to be fair to Charles Darwin, apparently he never claimed that it did. Here in the 21st Century, we've learned what Charles Darwin never knew, that what is called outer space is not permanent, static and rigid as was believed in the 19th Century.  Rather, today we know that not only life adapts and changes, but also so do planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies, super clusters and apparently even the universe itself.  And also unknown to Darwin, space is expanding and appears to have a beginning. Because of advanced telescope and related technology, we now have a larger window into the great infinity cosmic wonder of it all.  But, we also have a much better understanding today of the microscopic world of inner space and a strange and bizarre quantum reality unknown to Darwin.  Cells were first discovered in 1665 but the world of genetics and cell biology didn't really come into its own until the 20th Century. And herein lies a problem entirely unknown to Darwin.  This perplexing puzzle is the overwhelming complexity of living cells and, the proteins, DNA and other astonishing things found within them.  Unknown perhaps to the typical student or lay person, this tiny little thing called a cell has pretty-much derailed any hope of evolution by natural selection ever explaining its existence. Even the most avowed evolutionists today who are honest, admit that Darwin's theory cannot rationally explain the incredible complexity of cells and various parts within them.  And thus, this tiny thing called a cell is stubbornly refuting any and every theory of how life came into existence.  Some educators just don't want to discuss how life came to be and move on, but this is hardly fair to either their students or the rest of us who subsidize their salaries. Cells take up very little space.  In fact about a trillion of them can fit on the head of a pin.  Our bodies contain over 35 trillion of them, even though at conception we start out as only one single cell.  Cells are not the same but, each one has its own special function that make up our bodies as a whole.  And to make matters even more complicated, there are seemingly innumerable individual parts and pieces of parts within each living cell. One of the many scientific conundrums that cells pose is that, without the DNA and RNA within them, proteins could not exist and conversely, without the proteins within cells, DNA and RNA could not exist.  If a single cell was blown up to the size of an Amazon warehouse, on the outside it might appear like a gigantic space ship with port holes, while inside one would find a beyond incredible complex machine factory far beyond the capabilities of the human mind to even imagine, let alone conceive of and create. According to New York Professor Robert Shapiro, an expert in DNA: "The coincidental formation probability of the 2000 types of proteins found in a single bacterium is 10 to the 1040 power against."  Human cells contain 200,000 different types of proteins.  Even more improbable, the proteins in a cell must all be left handed, which even the Britannica admits, utterly defies any rational concept of odds.  And, to give one some idea of how great the odds against random self-design of cell proteins is, the number of all of the particles and photons that make up the entire known universe is less than 10 to the 82nd power. Chandra Wickramasinghe, a British professor of mathematics and astronomy: "The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it...  It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution.  There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." What is discussed here only covers the probability of proteins randomly existing and, doesn't consider the far greater improbability of DNA and RNA having somehow "self-designed".  And, the far beyond astronomically overwhelming improbability of a living cell as a whole somehow evolving by chance is a number so great, it would take volumes of normal type just to write out the zeroes.  The lowly cell, sitting proudly in space between the very incredibly small and, the very incredibly large, has virtually single-handedly brought what some call the religion of modern science to its knees. Although an evolutionist himself, astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle stated: "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance of a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard assembling a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.  This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by coincidence, and therefore it must definitely have been created." As the the lowly cell, so we too are existing somewhere in space, caught between the particles and pieces of atoms and the great vastness we know the universe today to be.  Since the existence of the physical universe is universally agreed to by human science, atheists, agnostics and the rest of us are all compelled to answer the same fundamental question, which is where did it all come from?  We cannot duck or ignore this question and, remain within the bounds of science and reason. The sheer size, grandeur and scope of the known universe should be more than enough to convince any thinking human being, that the cosmic grand design wonder could not have and obviously did not come about by random back and forth and sideways "totally blind" steps of natural selection chance.  Even if there was no such thing as a living cell, the only reasonable and rational conclusion is deliberate conception, design and creation.  This was science , the most likely conclusion based on the known evidence, at the time of Darwin and, it remains "science", the most likely conclusion today. Leading American scientist and DNA expert Francis Collins states, "DNA alone demonstrates design and not random processes."  And as leading physicist Paul Davies states, the majority of modern physicists now agree the universe appears to be "precisely fine-tuned for the emergence of life."  Renowned British scientist and mathematician Roger Penrose tells us the odds against the universe being a result of blind natural processes are at least 10 to the 10,123rd against. This is a number so large, there is nothing remotely within human experience to compare it to. And of course, this is exactly what one would expect if the universe is deliberately designed and created and, not at all what would rationally exist by totally blind processes.  Geochemist Jeffrey Bada: ". . .We still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the 20th Century: How did life originate on Earth?" The Encyclopedia Britannica article Evolution freely admits science doesn't know how life began on earth.  And, so does astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson in the television series Cosmos .  Unfortunately, he directly contradicts himself in another segment of the same series, claiming that life came about by natural blind "totally by chance" processes.  Obviously if science doesn't know how life came to be, then obviously science doesn't know what Mr. Tyson claims.  And not surprisingly, he doesn't provide any evidence but just moves on, as if evidence is no longer important for such a baseless grandiose blind faith belief. This same non-evidence based idea randomly appears in various forms in many university biology textbooks; textbooks that never ask the hard questions: How can energy arise from no energy?  How can motion arise from no motion?  Light from no light?  Intelligence from no intelligence?  Life from no life?  Can mathematics magically exist unto itself or, can any of these or anything else magically exist unto itself?  It seems the more science discovers, the harder and harder it becomes to be an atheist. Some astronomers, physicists and others are now claiming the universe is mathematically designed.  And today, scientists know that many animals, insects and even fish can do math some even geometry; some birds even understand the concept of zero.  This clearly demonstrates that math is not a human invention as formerly assumed, as most of these creatures that do math on a regular basis existed long before we humans arrived.  So, if the universe is not designed, where did math come from?  And, how is it that pi and the golden ratio seem to be so predominantly displayed in nature? Again according to the late Sir Fred Hoyle: "Creation is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident.  Rather than real science and education, the rejection of God's existence seems to be the main goal of many modern crackpots.  They go right on defending the mathematically impossible, rather than accepting the overwhelming obvious.  What humans call science has long been the most likely conclusion based on the known evidence.  Then Darwin published a book and from there, so-called 'science' has become less and less like science supposedly is. Some careful reader might point out that this diatribe seems to have little to do with space.  But what this introduction is really about is the space between 21st Century ears; ears that continue to hearken to one of the greatest lies in human history, rather than accept the astronomically overwhelming evidence for Eternal Master Grand Designer. As the world prepares for a great world war and, our planet becomes less and less inhabitable, perhaps we should re-consider that God and science just perhaps might belong in the same public school classroom.  Rather than the absurd notion that God is not a question for science; as if we know more than our Creator about how creation functions.  At least our Creator gives us life, rather than nuclear weapons, which can destroy us all many times over.  What manner of self-contradicting creature uses its 'science' to accomplish this? These chapters below represent just a small sampling of the many seemingly strange, difficult to believe and often mind-boggling things that scientists have discovered in just the past few decades.  Information available to the general public online and elsewhere clearly demonstrates that rather than being in general agreement, there is a great diversity and wide range of opinion regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection and virtually everything else within the modern scientific community, often at the most fundamental of levels. Because science continues to move at an ever more rapid pace, much of what is contained in these chapters is already in need of revision and, this will likely continue to be the case as new evidence continues to emerge.  While there are a wide variety of sources linked within the body of this work, the two primary sources used are the Encyclopedia Britannica and Science Daily.  The Britannica is highly recommended as the most reliable general source for human knowledge, while Science Daily offers a large database of recent science research from all over the world, containing information often largely absent from modern textbooks and earlier scientific works. Neither the Encyclopedia Britannica or Science Daily are insinuated to be sources without error and, there is likely nothing of any length anywhere on earth that doesn't contain human bias and error.  Neither is the information contained within this work likely to be without several errors.  Care has been extended to revise and minimize mistakes as much as feasible, while there are many links contained within the following chapters serving to underscore the various claims and information contained within them. Due to the complexity of modern science theory, similar and sometimes the same information is repeated in more than one of the following chapters, in order to hopefully maintain some context and clarity within the focus of each individual chapter.  Regardless of what any of us believe or fail to believe, we should never be afraid where the evidence leads, for as a very wise voice from the past implies, if we do not know or otherwise are afraid of what is really true, we have no hope of being free. Excerpt from Encyclopedia Britannica; article "Anthropic Principle":  "Clearly, humanity s very existence shows that the current structure of the universe and the values taken by the constants of nature permit life to exist.  Indeed, it appears that many features of the universe that are necessary for the evolution and persistence of life are the results of unusual coincidences between different values of the constants of nature quantities such as the mass of the electron, the strength of gravity, or the lifetime of the neutron.  The significance, if any, of these coincidences is not understood.  What is understood is that, if these quantities were slightly altered, then no form of complexity or life could exist in the universe." The obvious fair question is, why would an educated human being choose to refer to this universal reality as "unusual coincidences", rather than the far more obvious, "evidence for Universal Grand Design"? Unknown to Darwin: The Complexity of the Cell Directly Contradicts Darwin: DNA Mutations Are Not Random Darwinism Does Not Match Modern Evidence Eternal Creator Only Rational Explanation CONTENTS   1) BASIC BIOLOGY GONE WILD   2) GENETIC AND OTHER EVIDENCE CHALLENGING MODERN THEORY   3) RECENT RESEARCH CHALLENGING CONVENTIONAL BELIEFS   4) MILITANT ATHEISM AND MORE RESEARCH CHALLENGING BELIEFS   5) MYSTERY OF MATHEMATICS   6) HOGWARTS, ABIOGENESIS AND MAGIC   7) GOD AND CHARLES DARWIN   8) IS MODERN THEORY AS "ROCK-SOLID" AS SOME CLAIM?   9) IS EVERYTHING REALLY ABOUT REPRODUCTIVE ADVANTAGE? 10) EVOLUTIONARY "MONKEY-WRENCH" OF INDIVIDUAL CHOICE 11) UNIVERSAL TRANSITION 12) HOW BADLY ARE OUR OFFSPRING MISINFORMED? 13) PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE AND REASON 14) ADAM AND EVE AND MODERN SCIENCE 15) INTELLECTUAL BIAS AND WRONGLY ASSIGNED CAUSES OF WAR 16) MYSTERY OF THE VIRUS 17) CULTURAL AND LANGUAGE TRANSLATION 18) HOW DEPENDABLE IS MODERN SCIENCE? 19) EVOLUTION WEIGHED IN THE BALANCES OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR 20) GOLD AND REPRODUCTIVE SURVIVAL 21) EPIGENETICS AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR 22) SOLOMON AND ATHEISM 23) BIAS CREATED BY TERMS "EVOLUTION" AND "NATURAL SELECTION" 24) RANDOM APPEARING NON-EVIDENCE BASED POSITIONS 25) ON THE ORIGIN OF THE STANDARD DARWINIAN MODEL 26) RANDOMNESS, CAUSE AND EFFECT 27) SNOWFLAKES AND STAR SYSTEMS 28) SCIENCE, EDUCATION AND THE BIBLE 29) STRANGE BEHAVIOR OF WATER AND LIGHT 30) MYSTERIOUS COMPLEXITY OF THE HUMAN MIND 31) UPSIDE, DOWNSIDE AND UPSIDE DOWN 32) WHERE ARE THE ALIENS? CONCLUSION APPENDIX MIND-BENDING CLAIMS OF MODERN SCIENCE Chapter 1 - BASIC BIOLOGY GONE WILD What scientists have begun to uncover regarding basic life biological functionality since the mapping of the human genome forward, continues to grow seemingly evermore irreducibly complex.  Rather than having it generally at least sort of figured out, how life came to be and functions continues to grow more and more difficult to fully comprehend and explain, the deeper science digs.  Unfortunately, this doesn't even begin to consider the rather recently randomly appearing science of quantum biology, a field where no two scientists can seemingly agree on much of anything. It is as if modern science has a couple of pieces of the frame and a few miscellaneous non-related other pieces of a gigantic jigsaw puzzle of life, with the rest of the pieces either scattered on the floor or otherwise, entirely missing.  Darwinian evolution is gradually being left so far in the modern scientific dust, that it is hardly justified as being viewed today in the same manner as Newtonian physics in comparison to the theories of Albert Einstein. The term biology is derived from two Greek words meaning study of life .  According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, taxonomy, the branch of science concerned with life classification, "has been based on two major assumptions: one is that similar body construction can be used as a criterion for a classification grouping; the other is that, in addition to structural similarities, evolutionary and molecular relationships between organisms can be used as a means for determining classification." All this is fine and well as far as it goes, but how modern science decides to classify life has significantly changed in just a single generation and, it will likely continue to evolve for generations to come.  As discussed in more detail elsewhere, true modern human beings have been defined by various researchers as appearing from over 200,000 years ago to as early as the emergence of farming, very quickly turning to stratified societies of large city-states and nations.  Obviously, what criteria science randomly chooses to use has a lot to do with determining exactly when true modern human beings first appeared. The known scientific evidence has long demonstrated that new life can only come from preexisting life and thus, whenever science ventures beyond a living organism in order to try and determine the origins of life, it is more than likely bound to come up rather short (see Romans 3:23).  And, a truly satisfactory origins of life explanation is likely to remain considerably "shorter", as long as scientists pretend the universe somehow magically appeared without any intelligence or preexisting living Creator prior to the grand design universal creation reality we can observe today (and yes, it is fair to use the term "magically appearing", because at the bottom line, this is what such non-scientific snake-oil salesman would have us believe). There are millions upon trillions of carefully sequenced proteins in the adult human body.  Our bodies have as many as 20,000 different kinds of extremely tiny molecular machines .  It is believed that there are tens and even hundreds of thousands more both similar and different types of machines in all forms of life (viruses are sometimes themselves described as being molecular machines). Some scientists say that these unimaginably tiny incredibly well designed "motors" are indeed machines, as fine-tuned, precise and smoothly running as many machines created by human beings.  So-called "molecular machines perform innumerable 'jobs' incredibly extremely fast, adeptly, efficiently and accurately; "jobs" such as ATP synthesis and DNA replication, that are essential for the existence of ourselves and other living organisms.  There are many different types of such machines:  Molecular motors, propellers, switches, shuttles, tweezers, sensors, hinges and assemblers are some of the names invented by scientists to describe them. Molecular Motors Incredibly Complex in Both Design and Function As discussed in more detail in other notes, DNA coding is overwhelmingly very far beyond complex to ever have "evolved" by "natural selection".  The math for gradual evolutionary steps or even very quick steps simply doesn't remotely even begin to add up, based on the estimated age of the universe.  And then of course, there is the still far from resolved puzzle of the Cambrian explosion, which several scientists have labeled as scientifically inexplicable based on the standard Darwinian model. To illustrate just a little of the overwhelming complexity of RNA and DNA coding, at the root of the COVID-19 global pandemic is an RNA virus consisting of positive-sense single-stranded RNA. Attempting to decode this virus has been compared to trying to translate a Rosetta Stone-like language consisting of several quadrillion individual letters and symbols.  Consider the insanity of proposing that an organism such as a human being, which is essentially infinitely more complex than this RNA virus, just randomly magically appeared out of nowhere, without any input from a Grand Designer.  Obviously, it requires far more blind faith to be an atheist than the stars in our universe have time left to burn. In spite of a seemingly bottomless black hole sewer of hardcore Darwinian evolutionist attempts to demonstrate otherwise, there remains no rational mathematical or other evidence that a single protein or any type of meaningful language phrase or specific instructional code can every randomly occur, no matter how many zillions upon zillions of blind "totally by chance" evolutionary attempts are made.  In simple language that even a small child can easily grasp, the mighty evolutionary Casey seems to have irreducibly complexly overwhelmingly totally by chance, randomly struck out. Complex molecules have been discovered by the Hubble Telescope to be floating in space between solar systems and, they may be partially responsible for life emerging not only here on earth, but throughout the vast Cosmos.  The discovery of such molecules strongly indicates that life didn't originate on earth.  For more information, feel free to check out these various links. Revolutionary: The Mystery of Molecular Machines Your Body's Molecular Machines Wikipedia: Molecular Machines Cambrian Explosion and The Failure of Darwin's Theory Darwinian Evolution Inadequate to Explain Cambrian Predator New Evidence from China; Darwin's Tree of Life Turned Upside Down The Evidence of the Fossil Record Archaea and the Scientist Who Scrambled Darwin's Tree of Life Science in the past couple of decades has discovered that DNA is far more complex than previously assumed and, that so-called junk DNA is apparently fully 100% non-junk.  There are at least three major different types of DNA all mixed up in combination within DNA strands, while about 6 feet of DNA is contained in each living cell. One part is called coding DNA which is what actually produces the various parts and kinds of plants, animals, microbes and insects.  Another part is non-coding DNA switches that instruct the coding DNA when to turn on and off.  The third part is like a master controlling part of DNA, controlling what the switching part of DNA does, above what the switching part in turn is instructing coding DNA to do.  This third part of DNA is similar in most if not all living things, including one of the oldest still living visible forms of life, a type of worm that has existed for about 600 million years. DNA is a marvelous type of thing to explore, as it just keeps getting more and more complex rather than simple, the deeper one digs.  For example, even though human beings share over 99% of the same DNA as chimpanzees, the way in which the DNA is instructed to turn on and off makes us extremely incredibly different.  Our brains alone are astronomically different than a chimp s brain. It is as if life is designed with the same basic kind of DNA (like the similar basic DNA we share with the worm noted above), but DNA is itself designed with an overwhelmingly complex informational code that produces the extreme variation we see in creation today.  This is completely and entirely different than Darwin s theory of evolution by natural selection and, an overwhelmingly more likely conclusion based on the modern evidence. It is not so much what kind of DNA an organism has that matters but rather, what makes organisms so different from each other depends on how the basic DNA of life is directed by switching DNA (formerly called junk DNA because Darwinian evolutionists very wrongly assumed it has no purpose).  Such switches, which in turn are directed by master controlling DNA , are what makes an elephant so much different from a fish, bird or ant.  Darwin of course, knew nothing about any of this. In addition to such overwhelmingly complexity, there is a dual language informational code embedded in DNA that is itself overwhelmingly complex, as if it is operating back and forth using two entirely different languages in tandem.  The informational code in DNA, while apparently and thus originally assumed to be comparatively simple, is extremely incredibly complex and has been experimentally demonstrated to be mathematically overwhelmingly absurdly impossible to exist without any intelligence behind the code.  Such findings, now well-known within the scientific community, are serving to shake the comparatively simplistic Darwinian "tree" model of evolution beyond any and all ability to remain standing. As noted, information cannot be demonstrated to ever randomly appear  Every experiment ever conducted leads to the exact opposite conclusion, that information like life itself, can only come from previous intelligence and previous life.  So called random mutations always demonstrate to downgrade any type of informational code or language phrase of information, turning them quickly into gibberish, rather than ever even once randomly improving them. As a general rule and theory of what science is, while virtually anything is possible, many things remain mathematically far beyond absurd.  While some scientists even claim "nothing is impossible", science in theory lends itself to the most likely conclusion based on the known evidence.  That is, except when it comes to Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, which has perhaps far more than less become the orthodox fundamentalist blind faith sacred religion of modern science. As such, no matter how astronomically mathematically absurd it may be, it would seem that modern scientists would rather attempt to prove the moon is larger and warmer than the sun, than to admit their narrow-minded randomly invented out of very thin air universal "totally by chance" theory is what it obviously is, astronomically overwhelmingly totally and completely wrong.  There is no such thing as a random magically appearing totally by chance universe, strand of DNA, human hair, bird brain or anything else known within our collective human experience.  Any grade school child born deaf, mute and blind knows far better than that (just ask Helen Keller). Consider for example, a simple arranged string of information such as, an old man went for a walk with his dog .  Scientists have run actual experiments demonstrating that such a simple sentence cannot possibly randomly exist unto itself, carried out to extreme lengths of numbers very far larger than the number of photons and other particles and/or waves in the known universe.  The same holds true for a short string of deliberately arranged computer code.  And, because the language of DNA is anything but simple, these are far from adequate examples. It is more than fair to conclude that even weeds most likely need every single last bit of their so-called "junk" DNA in order to proudly stand tall, as a weed among our Creator's meticulously down to the sub-atomic quantum biological root level, magnificently designed flowers.  Like the psalmist of old said, "I am fearfully and wonderfully made" and, no matter how hard they try or how many legions of liars they deceive into joining their non-evidence based blind faith narrow-minded freedom-less army, modern intellectuals who deny deliberate design just keep digging themselves a deeper and deeper black hole, as the modern emerging evidence continues to bury them, accordingly. New Evidence Indicates ALL of Our DNA Has a Purpose The Information Enigma Signature In the Cell Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance Human Brain Development Guided by So-Called junk DNA "Junk" DNA Responsible for Differences Between Humans and Chimps Non-Coding 'Junk' DNA Determines Male Gender Importance of Non-Coding DNA for Regeneration Plant junk DNA Proves to be Highly Valuable Chapter 2 - GENETIC AND OTHER EVIDENCE CHALLENGING MODERN THEORY Various research described at the following four links, are some of many examples of how new evidence is challenging long held positions of evolutionary biologists.  Not only bacteria but viruses, which like bacteria and archaea, can transfer their genes across superkingdoms of life, are also known to mess with their own DNA. The octopus, squid, cuttlefish (and perhaps other animals as well) are able to edit their own genes, making all kinds of changes that are neither random or caused by natural selection. None of this of course was known to Charles Darwin, but educators who continue to ignore such evidence contradictory to Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection continue to do both their students and the global community a significant disservice. According to newly evolving science discussed at third link that follows:  The discovery that squid edit their own genes "provides another jolt to the 'central dogma' of molecular biology, which states that genetic information is passed faithfully from DNA to messenger RNA to the synthesis of proteins.  In 2015, Rosenthal and colleagues discovered that squid "edit" their messenger RNA instructions to an extraordinary degree -- orders of magnitude more than humans do -- allowing them to fine-tune the type of proteins that will be produced in the nervous system" (see third link that follows). Bacteria recycle broken DNA (Indicates Mutations Are Not Random) Viruses Copy Parts of Their Own DNA Code and Self-Replicate Gene Editing Powers Discovered in Squid Archaea and the Scientist Who Scrambled Darwin's Tree of Life Recent research has revealed that bacteria can recycle DNA, adding old scraps of DNA from external dead organisms to their own genome.  According to a scientist quoted in this article, That DNA from dead organisms drives the evolution of living cells is in contradiction with common belief of what drives the evolution of life itself."  Such emerging genetic evidence also has major implications for the entire theory of evolution for several reasons besides what is noted in the article. This adds to the growing pile of evidence indicating that what is called "natural selection" is at best, only one of many reasons why living organisms adapt and change.  Besides what is discussed in the articles linked above, this new evidence adds a whole new wrinkle into theories of disease and disease origins and, why disease exists and persists within a theoretically overall advantage driven system. This discovery also tosses a rather large monkey wrench into long-held assumptions of random mutations.  If microbes living within macro forms of life make changes to their own genome, this could and very likely would cause macro forms of life to in turn, adapt and change. Such changes while appearing to be 'random' from Darwin's 19th Century limited view, would in fact not be random at all.  And thus, what science has long assumed are "new" species resulting from "totally by chance" random mutations, instead becomes a grossly misleading interpretation of the true reality. If trillions of tiny organisms inside of us can incorporate changes into their own DNA, God only knows what seemingly 'random' mutations might occur on up the chain of larger visible macro forms of plant and animal life.  Changes that in fact can be attributed to the actions of microbes inhabiting larger forms of life and thus, seemingly random changes (to Darwin) that are in fact, not random. Leading DNA and disease expert Francis Collins has stated that "modern DNA evidence alone demonstrates design and not random processes."  And like Thomas Jefferson states in the Declaration of Independence, echoing Romans 2 in the New Testament, Mr. Collins goes on to say that similar base societal laws and similar and some nearly identical so-called "golden rules" found throughout the human civilization record in (well over 100) both connected and non-connected cultures, clearly demonstrate a designed shared human conscience. Mr. Collins, who describes himself as a "Darwinist", concludes that similar base societal laws are not what one would expect to result from random processes.  Many people today claim to be agnostic, vainly imagining they can worm out of the scientific requirement of providing supporting evidence to back up any claim regarding the physical observable universal reality, as if they are deceiving anyone other than themselves. To say there is no God, probably no God or might be no God, is to claim the universe is either not created, probably not created or might not be created.  All three claims are required by the long established rules of science and evidence, to be supported by legitimate verifiable evidence demonstrating a better explanation than Eternal Creator for the existence of the observable universal reality. A "better" explanation, in order to remain within the bounds of science, reason and evidence, must be able to better satisfy origins and better explain the known evidence.  A much better and more honest question is, why would anyone propose that the universe is not created or might not be created?  What fears do they have of being ridiculed by their atheistic peers, what best-seller list are they trying to climb and, what evidence do they have supporting such blind faith superstition? Wouldn't such folks pretending to adhere to the rules of science and evidence, roundly and soundly criticize someone like Copernicus, if he had just stood up in a roomful of his peers and proposed that the earth either does, probably does or just might go around the sun and had then sat down, without bothering to provide any explanation, reason, rhyme or supporting evidence?  Who are such people posing as 'scientists' trying to fool and, why should we believe them or have any confidence in what they have to say?  Why would the average truck driver, factory worker or waitress want to sacrifice hard-earned tax dollars for their children to be taught by such deceitful puppet masters of baseless superstition? We humans can design complex machines that in turn can perform many functions on their own. Who is to say the great universal "machine" is not in fact, a result of deliberate conception, design and creation?  We humans can design lottery and other types of machines which theoretically generate random numbers.  Who is to say our Creator cannot incorporate random regeneration within a larger designed overwhelmingly complex universal reality? And, we humans often create with both practical and aesthetic design incorporated into the same building, pottery bowl and dinner plate.  Who is to say that the colorful feathers of a peacock are not an example of both artistic and practical reproductive purpose woven into the same grand design?  Consider the extreme arrogance and narrow-mindedness of many modern scientists, who would pretend our Creator can't do at least as well as we can do ! ! ! These implications are fundamentally important to the entire theory and concept of evolution by natural selection, which has long assumed far too much without conclusive supporting evidence.  There is overwhelming evidence that all of life is created to adapt and change, while there is zero evidence that life ever has or ever will "evolve" from scratch from magically existing "random, blind, unguided, natural processes". In fact, if life predates our own sun and solar system, as many modern scientists suspect, it remains irrational to pretend that science can ever know with any certainty either how, when, where or why life first came into being.  And even if it were true that the entire universal reality somehow randomly self-designed and magically sprang into existence, as if the moon is somehow larger and warmer than the sun, it remains humanly impossible to even remotely begin to scientifically verify such a baseless and foolhardy position. To observe the functions of life and changes within living creatures and then conclude the universal existence is "random" from the top down, requires an astronomically amount of blind faith that many scientists criticize others for having.  Can a virus inside of a bacterium living inside of a human intestine scientifically and accurately determine there is no human being on which it depends on for survival? How then can a scientist like Lawrence Krauss say with any certainty at all that there is no God? And, how can astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson say with any certainty at all that there might be no God?  What evidence do they have for magically appearing universes containing magically existing laws and processes, filled with magically appearing students of magically existing intelligence and conscious awareness, struggling to complete a magically existing science exam, sitting on magically existing desks in a magically existing university classroom? True randomness from the top down not only remains unsupported by any evidence, it contradicts the entire notion of our universe having a beginning and, openly contradicts ALL of the known evidence.  If the universe began from a singular point of origin (or began in some other fashion as some scientists have proposed), everything that follows is by definition, not random, regardless of how much or how little the universe from there, may or may not be operating of its own accord. No one can say with any certainty what our Creator is not actively engaging beyond the veil of our three-dimensional plus time perspective.  From lowly viruses, archaea, bacteria, ants, spiders and other insects, it is often the little creatures and small parts of matter acting like they supposedly should not, that manage to confound and humble the wise. Viruses Can Transfer Genes Across Superkingdoms of Life Microbes Controlling Actions of Host's Genes Bacteria Acquire Resistance from Competitors Bacteria "Fish" for New DNA Modern science has discovered that microscopic algae function in a "quantum" manner and has also discovered that plants appear to have a type of "molecular language" enabling them to communicate with each other.  How life came to be and behaves is becoming more and more difficult to express in any kind of evolutionary or other rational human terms.  Science knows very little about the quantum reality, which is at the root of how both life and disease came into existence and how they function, as well as at the root of how the entire universe is both structured and operates. As discussed in more detail elsewhere, today there is strong evidence the universe is designed according to both Pi and the Golden Ratio, two irrational numbers theoretically extending forever and ever, exactly what one might expect from an Eternal Designer.  And as also discussed elsewhere, many scientists today believe the entire universe is intricately "fine-tuned" for the emergence of life, which again, is exactly what one would expect to find in a deliberately designed universal reality. NOVA Video: The Great Math Mystery Mind Blowing Presence of The Golden Ratio Nature by Numbers (Fibonacci Sequence & The Golden Ratio) Current understanding of the quantum reality is similar to trying to piece together a very large picture puzzle when many and perhaps most of the pieces are missing.  The rest lie scattered around in no particular order, rhyme or reason and, there is no photograph of what the completed puzzle would look like on the box it came in. How the universe actually functions from a true universal and beyond perspective is simply far beyond human capability of understanding here in the 21st Century, although likely highly rational from the view of a much greater Mind than our own.  As a molecular biologist stated a few years ago in a PBS Video, it is irrational to pretend science will ever have an accurate theory for how life either came to be or functions, given the complexity of the micro, atomic and quantum reality. Quantum Biology Molecular Language of Plants Plants Make Decisions Plant Communication; Plants Warn Other Plants of Danger Photosynthesis May Be Much Older Than Previously Assumed Plant junk DNA Proves to be Highly Valuable A growing list of scientists today are challenging Darwinian evolution for many reasons, including the complexity of organisms that seem to appear out of nowhere during the Cambrian Explosion.  Even militant atheist Richard Dawkins is quoted as saying, "it is though they were just planted without any evolutionary history."  But a much more difficult thing to explain is the overwhelming complexity of DNA, which modern evolution assumes somehow "self-designed" from scratch. This in spite of the mathematical odds have been calculated as being astronomically overwhelming against such a random chance designer-less reality ever possibly occurring, given even an infinte amount of random "totally by chance" changes to stir up the evolutionary pot. And then there is the far more overwhelmingly complex living cell, which is discussed in detail in the "Introduction" of this work. According to scientist and philosopher Stephen Meyer, one of the founders of the modern intelligent design movement, DNA is so overwhelmingly complex that the mathematical odds of just one single protein randomly "self-designing" is a number greater than all of the atoms in the known universe.  And a single protein of course, does not equal life.  Leading DNA and disease expert Francis Collins, who does not agree with Mr. Meyer regarding intelligent design theory and who refers to himself as a Darwinist, nevertheless has been quoted as saying, "DNA processes alone overwhelmingly demonstrate design and not random processes." There is no intention here to endorse either modern evolutionary theory, intelligent design theory, creationism or any other origins of and/or functionality of life theory espoused here in the 21st Century.  Rather, as stated in the introduction, the purpose of this work is to challenge both the educated and casual reader to think outside of the modern educational box we are intellectually hog-tied to and chained inside of, before we are trained well enough to think for ourselves.  Consider the arrogance of a modern scientist or educator prancing around pretending there is no God, probably no God or possibly no God, as if they somehow would have any remote chance in hell of knowing. Given the grand design universal reality wonder and overwhelming complexity of living cells and the DNA and proteins within and the molecular world and mysterious quantum reality we are aware of today, it may be irrational to pretend that human science will ever have a truly comprehensive satisfactory theory for either the origins of or biological functionality of life. Consider for example, how high the "sky" is known to be here in the 21st Century compared to our extremely tiny three-dimensional plus time view we are stuck with here on earth. And then again, consider how incredibly large we are in comparison to a micro-organism living inside our intestines and, how incredibly large it is in comparison to a single atom and yet again, how incredibly large an atom is compared to tiny bits and pieces of matter in the quantum reality.  It is more than fair to say that science has a mighty long roe to hoe before the end is anywhere near in sight. Cambrian Explosion: The Failure of Darwin's Theory Darwinian Evolution Inadequate to Explain Cambrian Predator New Evidence from China; Darwin's Tree of Life Turned Upside Down The Evidence of the Fossil Record Random Chance Probability of a Single Protein Forming Chapter 3 - RECENT RESEARCH CHALLENGING CONVENTIONAL BELIEFS Discoveries in astronomy since the dawn of the 21st Century, including the apparent existence of innumerable "zillions" of exo-planets and the existence of molecules for life around newly formed stars and elsewhere in space, significantly challenge any kind of notion that life either first "evolved" or otherwise began on earth.  As stated previously, for all we know today, life may have existed before our current universe and, may continue to exist forever and ever, leaving earth-bound scientists with no consensus and arguably, no hope of ever having a conclusive legitimate theory for the origins of life. Rather than carelessly lumping them together as militant atheists have a very bad habit of doing, as if they all believe the same thing, many historical and living people who believe in God demonstrate a great diversity of opinion.  Perhaps the one thing people as diverse as Socrates, Aristotle, Paul, DaVinci, Copernicus, Shakespeare, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Jefferson, Paine, Harriet Tubman, Eleanor Roosevelt, Helen Keller, Einstein, Albert Schweitzer, Francis Collins, Martin Luther King, Jr., Cesar Chavez, Rosa Parks and Bob Dylan share in common, is they believe the evidence demonstrates that the universal reality we can see and otherwise detect is a result of deliberate conception, design and creation. New Molecule Found in Space Connotes Life Origins Organics for Life May Have Arrived on Space Rocks Organics Probably Formed Easily in Early Solar System Building Blocks of Life Found Around Young Star Did Comets Contain Key Ingredients For Life On Earth? Key Ingredients Necessary for Life May Have Come from Beyond the Earth Study Indicates Molecules Necessary for Life May Form in Space Evidence Comets Could have Seeded Life on Earth Ancient Microorganism Fossils Indicate Life Common in Universe Long-Held Assumption About Emergence of New Species Questioned Evidence Natural Selection Theory is Inadequate Example of How Evolutionary Assumptions Can be Way Off Several recent discoveries indicate there are vast differences between humans, apes and chimps, apparently largely controlled by supposed "junk" DNA, which many geneticists are now saying (surprise, surprise) apparently isn't junk after all.  False assumptions based on standard Darwinian evolutionary theory that about 90% of our DNA is so much "junk" has likely set disease research back at least fifty years. Non-Coding 'Junk' DNA Determines Male Gender New Genes Spring, Spread from Non-Coding DNA Importance of Non-Coding DNA for Regeneration Junk DNA Functionality; Differences Between Humans and Chimps Hundreds of Small Regions of Human Genome Key to Uniqueness of Humans Human Brain Development Guided by So-Called junk DNA Junk DNA Plays Important Role Junk DNA Has Vital Role in Evolution of Human Genome Plant junk DNA Proves to be Highly Valuable Short DNA Strands Key to Cognition and Disease Development Divergence of Humans from Apes, Apes from Chimps Since the release of some of the information linked above, some hardcore Darwinian biologists claim to have demonstrated by further testing, that some of the above linked research is flawed. And thus, they continue to insist that most human and other DNA is mainly "junk".  This isn't surprising, as science over historical time has often back-tracked on new ideas, only to eventually embrace them yet again. Given that evolutionists insisted for a long time that the human appendix is an example of evolutionary "junk", it is fair to assume that most likely in the future, scientists will eventually admit that ALL of our DNA does in fact, have a legitimate function and purpose, just as now today, the appendix has been conclusively demonstrated to have a legitimate purpose. Darwin Wrong About the Appendix Scientists Fail to Study Majority of our Genes While it is true a human being can survive quite well without an appendix, we can also survive quite well without a finger, hand, arm or leg.  This of course, doesn't prove that all of our fingers, hands, arms and legs don't have a valuable and legitimate purpose for being attached to our bodies. Because scientists today don't know of a purpose for some of our DNA doesn't at all demonstrate or even remotely indicate, that all of our DNA does not in fact, have a legitimate purpose.  It is wise to remember that the majority of scientists once believed the sun goes around the earth, once believed disease spontaneously arises from rat excrement and, until the late 1920's, believed in a static, eternal, non-expanding universe containing only a single Milky Way galaxy. And now once again, since the counter-claims of Darwinian biologists noted, new research strongly indicates that these geneticists are in fact correct after all.  Further testing, now indicates that ALL of our DNA does in fact, have more than one purpose.  Including, as other scientists have also independently confirmed, regulating inheritable diseases. Further research also indicates that without certain so-called "junk" DNA, apparently there would be only females found among mammalian populations.  If this all seems rather jumbled and confusing, it is because evolutionary and other science is filled with many conflicting reports and opinions often on the most fundamental of positions; rather than representing overwhelming agreed to evolutionary consensus, as science is very misleadingly misrepresented in 21st Century university textbooks and mainstream media. Whether or not 90% of our DNA is "junk" is significantly important because, as an article linked here details, determining it is not junk opens up significant new avenues for research dollars into finding cures for cancer, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease, Muscular Dystrophy, heart disease and other devastating problems.  And, it may also lead to important breakthroughs in agriculture and other plant and animal applications.  As already stated, the narrow-mindedness of evolutionary biologists has held back important medical research for decades, causing research dollars to be focused primarily on only 10% of our DNA while largely ignoring the rest. According to a May 2019 report published on Science Daily:  "Only 1 to 2 percent of the human genome is made up of genes that encode the blueprints for making proteins.  Those proteins carry out tasks throughout our bodies, such as regulating blood sugar levels, fighting infections and sending communications between cells.  The other 98 percent of our genome however, isn't genetic dead weight.  The noncoding regions help regulate when and where genes make proteins" Link to Article.  This article also details that new evidence indicates many inheritable diseases trace from so-called "junk" DNA. Non-coding Half of Human Genome Unlocked "Junk" DNA Apparently Not Junk After All Sins of the Fathers; Epigenetic Evidence for Negative Inherited Characteristics Learned Behavior Genetically Passed Down for Generations Human Caused Pollution Harms Every Organ of Human Body Evidence Poverty Leaves Significant Changes on Human Genome Genetic Evidence Divorce Runs in Family Lineages Study Indicates Human Morality Partially Genetic Human Caused Pollution Harms Every Organ of Human Body However right or wrong this new theory is about what caused the big bang (see following link), what is interesting is that the scientists interviewed have publicly admitted, because we humans are trapped within a three-dimensional (plus time) view, modern science may be way off the mark regarding what is actually in fact true about the universal reality.  That is, current theories of gravity, light, energy and time, among other things, may be anywhere from partially to entirely wrong from a larger perspective than we humans are so far unable to grasp. The truth is, science doesn't know how either the universe itself or life came to exist, nor does science know very much about how either the universe or life functions from a true and accurate universal and beyond (logos) view.  And, if our universe has 10-11 (or more) dimensions as the late Stephen Hawking states on his website, it is very likely that human science never will have an adequate explanation for the universal reality. New Theory of What Caused the Big Bang Another of Several Alternative Theories to the Big Bang Chameleon Theory: Alternative to Einstein's Theory of Gravity Everything You Thought You Knew About Gravity is Wrong Our Local Galactic Neighborhood May be Different than Elsewhere in the Universe It was announced in 2014 that the efficiency of photosynthesis, the foundation for how life on earth obtains energy to survive, can only be explained by quantum mechanics and such processes cannot be explained by classical physics.  This strongly implies that science knows far less about how both disease and life itself came into being and functions at it s most basic root levels than previously assumed. The theory of evolution and virtually all of human thought is based on classical physics, which has for some time now been known to be inaccurate at basic root levels of how everything works, including gravity, light, motion, energy and life itself.  There is significant disagreement among quantum theorists over basic concepts and claims of quantum theory and as such, there is no agreed to theory for how either life or the universe itself functions at root levels or from an accurate Cosmic (logos) and beyond perspective. Quantum Mechanics and the Efficiency of Photosynthesis It was also recently discovered that DNA is encoded using at least a double code system (possibly more than two) and, that these codes operate in tandem yet independent of each other, as if someone were building a house while communicating in both Chinese and English and, both languages were necessary for the totality of the house to be produced. In the 21st Century, the mystery of life has become far more rather then less complex and as such, creation will very likely always remain very far over our collective heads.  Human beings can logically no more understand how the universe works from a true and adequate view, than microbes living inside our intestines could be expected to grasp the existence and complexity of a human being and the computers, automobiles, skyscrapers and other things we create. Dual Code Language of DNA According to biologist and militant atheist Richard Dawkins, all of life evolved from a singular source in the ocean.  Mr. Dawkins doesn't bother to qualify this statement as being an opinion not shared by all scientists but rather, he just states this in a video on YouTube to an unsuspecting public, as if it is an indisputable fact of science.  Unfortunately, he is not the only scientist who does this. Some of Mr. Dawkins' peers over the past couple of decades have proposed that life, rather than beginning in the ocean, may have first arisen in or near fresh water, in caves, under the earth, in clay, in plain dirt and "where ever there is a little wetness".  One scientist even proposed life may have began inside of rocks and, several have proposed life may have arrived on space rocks.  Yet in spite of such diverse opinions, few have been brave enough to make the obvious leap and suggest that just perhaps, life may have arisen from all over the earth, rather than from an extremely coincidental "chance" singular origin in the ocean, as certain extremely narrow-minded Darwinists have long assumed. Life May Have Arisen in Ponds Rather Than Ocean Strong Evidence Life May Have Arisen From All Over the Earth Such grand diversity of opinion clearly demonstrates the bias of Richard Dawkins presenting his opinion as established scientific fact, when in fact many of his peers do not agree.  If life arrived on space rocks, it could well have arrived on many space rocks rather than just one and, if life can arise in some or all of the places noted in the preceding paragraph, then indeed it is more legitimate to conclude that life probably arose from all over the earth.  A recent report pushes back the earliest evidence for colonies of bacteria to at least 3.8 billion years ago (some newer research suggests over 4 billion), making it even more difficult to determine exactly how, when, where and why life first arose on earth. To complicate the possibilities further, several scientists have suggested that life may have arose many times on earth rather than just one.  Just because scientists like most of us, prefer things to be simple, neat and tidy rather than complex and irreducibly difficult, it doesn't necessarily follow that they are.  As a molecular biologist recently stated on PBS, both the origins of life and how life functions in true reality, are so overwhelmingly irreducibly complex, it's irrational to suggest science will ever have a legitimate theory of either evolution or any other theory of life. Life May Have Arisen in Clay Early Earth Once Completely Covered in Water 4.2 Billion-Year-Old Canadian Fossil Indicates Possible Life on Mars Life May Have Arisen Very Early on Mars Mars May Have Supported Life Scientists recently discovered that micro-organisms living several miles deep into the earth's rocky crust are often similar all over the globe, rather than significantly different as evolutionists might assume.  This similarity can be explained if life arose from many tiny identical or nearly identical forms, rather than from just one as the standard Darwinian "tree" model has long assumed.  There is also strong evidence supporting a "many emergent point" theory found in the realms of viruses, bacteria and archaea, all of which today are well-established to cross superkingdoms of life. Similarity of Microbes Living Miles Deep Under the Earth's Crust Viruses Can Transfer Genes Across Superkingdoms of Life Archaea and the Scientist Who Scrambled Darwin's Tree of Life Another example of opinion posing as scientific fact is demonstrated by astronomer Neil Tyson in a PBS science presentation.  In this video, Mr. Tyson looks into the camera and states point blank to his viewing audience, that our universe will continue to expand indefinitely forever and ever, until it becomes nothing but charred out remains, with no light anywhere.  What Mr. Tyson fails to tell the unsuspecting audience is that only about one third of astronomers agree with this particular theory. Another approximately one third still believe the universe will eventually roll back in on itself ("the big crunch"), creating another big bang and a new universe, which was the dominant theory not long ago back in the days of Carl Sagan.  And another approximate one third of astronomers either claim to be uncertain or have other theories besides these two.  This division of opinion by (approximate) thirds was discussed in a different PBS video that was released around the same time. Such grand divergence of opinion does not equal established "science", regardless of how accurate or inaccurate Mr. Tyson's claim may be.  What is presented as agreed to "science" is not fairly called that when two thirds or even ten percent of currently practicing scientists seriously disagree. According to certain mathematical calculations in quantum mechanics, the universe perhaps may have an infinitely long history of expansion followed by eventual receding contraction, which in turn would cause a new universe to come into being, followed by another contraction and so on, backward and forward towards infinity in both directions, a concept insinuating that time as human beings perceive time to be, has an infinite number of beginnings and endings, something far beyond the ability of a non-eternal being to begin to adequately comprehend. Regardless of which modern theory one chooses to hang their hat on, apparently the Bible predicts the universe will eventually recede back in on itself, followed by a new universe coming into existence.  According to the Bible, the current heavens will "pass away", "grow old like a garment", God will "fold up" the heavens like a cloak, the heavens will "roll back like a scroll", "all the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine" and, a new heavens and earth will come into being. Revelation 6: Sky Will Recede Like a Scroll Hebrews 1: God Will Fold Up the Heavens Like a Cloak Revelation (very much agrees with modern climate science predictions) Isaiah 34: Heavens Will Roll Back Like a Scroll According to modern astronomy, in a receding universe scenario, the stars would quite literally, as described in the Bible, fall back towards the earth from a view on earth looking upward. After which, a new heavens and earth would come into being, as predicted in the New Testament book of Revelation.  One might conclude that at least according to the Bible, Mr. Tyson's disagreeing peers appear to be more closer to the truth than he is.  Perhaps we'll all just have to wait and see. New Evidence Indicating Universe May Roll Back in on Itself Rather than the universe collapsing back in on itself in a "big crunch" due to gravity slowing and eventually reversing its expansion, a theory believed by many scientists at the time Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" was written, today there is a different theory proposed by some scientists of what will cause the universe to collapse.  According to this theory, the universe could completely collapse at any time, rather than just in a very far distant future:  Scientists Say Collapse of the Universe is Closer Than Ever.  According to the Bible, God will make a "short" work upon the earth, perhaps indicating that something unexpected and dramatic will happen out of the ordinary, in our local vicinity if not the entire universe.  The theory linked here certainly matches such a scenario. To be fair to Mr. Tyson, he does manage to virtually completely agree with the Bible regarding an entirely different space phenomena, although he may not personally be aware of this. According to Mr. Tyson, there is a certain type of black hole unknown to science until the 1990's that, rather than like the more familiar kind of black hole located at or near the center of galaxies, instead resides in dark voids in space where no visible stars are located. According to Mr. Tyson, this type of black hole contains an inner second event horizon that is like a "sea of fire", consisting of the fiery remnants of stars once torn apart and devoured by the black hole. To give Mr. Tyson a little help, we can turn to the Encyclopedia Britannica, which describes such a space object as a "bottomless pit". And, here's where this gets interesting:  The Bible in several places, references "outer darkness", "bottomless pit" and "lake of fire"; apparently indicating all three of these are the same place, from which according to the Bible, no human being can ever escape.  Some sources say that black holes are not a bottomless pit, while the Britannica distinctly describes them in this manner and, the Smithsonian online describes black holes as a "virtual bottomless pit"; Hubblesite.org also uses "bottomless pit" in describing black holes, as does NASA in an online PDF, as does the late Stephen Hawking and the Science Center of Iowa in an online PDF. Many other claims in the Bible that once seemed preposterous, such as a third of the stars not giving their light for a time, apparently due to a large volcanic eruption, another claim of significant amounts of fresh water pollution occurring when the earth is struck by a burning object from space and, claims of significant famine, disease and pestilence occurring because of either one or both of these cataclysmic and other related events, are today all considered to be sound "science". Smithsonian: Black Holes "virtual bottomless pit" Hubblesite.org: Black Holes "bottomless pit" NASA: Black Holes "like a bottomless pit" Iowa Science Center: "a bottomless pit--a Black Hole" "Bottomless Pit" Revelation 17:8 (and elsewhere) "Lake of Fire"; Revelation 20:15 (and elsewhere) "Outer Darkness"; Matthew 22:13 (and elsewhere) The late Stephen Hawking, a 20th-21st Century leading black hole theorist, describes black holes as "bottomless", "black voids" in space.  Although Mr. Hawking later suggested that black holes as currently defined don't exist, this has been in large part misunderstood by popular media.  Apparently it is not that Mr. Hawking believed that nothing exists where what is called a "black hole" resides in space but rather, what exists there is not in reality, truly a black hole; because, according to Mr. Hawking, light and information may be able to escape by actually traveling faster than Einstein's established speed of light. Whether or not science is accurate about the true nature of black holes, biblical descriptions of what today is commonly called a "black hole" remain exactly accurate as far as science knows and, it remains overwhelmingly far beyond chance coincidence astonishing that a collection of writings written over 2000 and more years ago, could precisely accurately describe the existence of a place located in "outer darkness", as being a "bottomless pit" containing a "lake of fire", from which no human being can escape. Stephen Hawking: Black Holes are Bottomless Black Voids in Space PBS Article Discussing Stephen Hawking's Claims About Black Holes In the television series "Cosmos", Neil DeGrasse Tyson takes a few swings at conservative religious folks who believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, while tip toeing rather carefully around the "God Question", a question militant atheist Richard Dawkins says is central to all of science.  Mr. Tyson chides religious folks for not going by evidence, but then he randomly out of thin air invents "entirely random", "purely by chance", "unguided", "natural" processes in reference to how life came to be, failing to provide any supporting evidence or explanation as to why he would make any of these claims. Mr. Tyson never mentions that many scientists believe in both God and evolution, as if such a position isn't compatible with science, even though Charles Darwin himself stated "one can be an ardent Theist and evolutionist".  It is no small wonder that our children and the public in general remain confused. In another installment of Cosmos, Mr. Tyson states that modern science doesn't know how life came to be and, that scientists shouldn't be afraid to admit what they do not know.  This not only agrees with the Encyclopedia Britannica but also with many other scientists, who have publicly stated that how life came to be remains one of the greatest mysteries of modern science.  One might fairly ask why Mr. Tyson claims that life came about by random, blind, unguided natural processes, if in fact neither he or the rest of his colleagues know how life came to be ? ? ? If Mr. Tyson is agnostic like he has repeatedly stated, why is he so bent on siding with atheism, rather than including the opinion of well-respected scientists like Francis Collins in his Cosmos series?  Why doesn't he just say science doesn't know and leave it at that, rather than pulling random blind unguided natural processes out of a black hole rabbit hat?  Again, as it begs repeating, it is no small wonder that our children and the public in general remain confused here in a 21st Century of global disinformation. Not very long ago, the majority of scientists believed that disease spontaneously arises from rat excrement.  Not content with learning anything from such a dubious misassumption, today many scientists would have us believe that the entire universe spontaneously appeared out of nowhere from nothing, as if motion, energy, light, intelligence, conscious awareness, mathematical design, along with zillions upon zillions trillions of integrated parts within parts, all magically working together to eventually produce life as we know it, just somehow randomly appeared, mysteriously self-created and magically integrated and self-selected on up and beyond the big bang chain of events, from some unknown pre-universal, inexplicable and entirely coincidental, unguided random chance beginning.  Why would anyone draw such an astronomically preposterous conclusion and, what verifiable evidence do they have? Neil DeGrasse Tyson seems like a nice enough man who sincerely wants to help save our planet and the people on it, but sincerity doesn't necessarily equal what is true.  Mr. Tyson says that "science is true" but if science is true, why is what science teaches today so much different than what public universities taught in the sixties?  None of us can fairly speak for people who lived in the past, but perhaps if alive today, Isaac Newton might seriously take issue with a scientist claiming that a re-action can magically occur without any Primary Cause. Newton might be rather dumbfounded as to why modern science would assume the overwhelmingly incredibly least likely rather than the most obvious; assuming without any verifiable evidence, that motion can arise from non-motion, energy from no energy, light from no light, intelligence from no intelligence and life from no life, rather than accepting what to him apparently seemed to be obvious, that none of these either can or did. Why would anyone defend such a (according to British mathematician Roger Penrose) 10 to at the least 10,123 power against far beyond all conception least likely position and, what supporting evidence do they have?  According to Newton's well-respected primary modern biographer Walter Isaacson, Newton so strongly believed in God that he would otherwise have most likely never become a scientist at all. One cannot honestly hide behind claims of random appearing particles or random motion arising from non-motion within quantum fields.  Whatever can be detected in quantum fields or anywhere else in the universe, is a "result" of either the big bang or however the universe came to be and thus, by definition whatever we can observe or detect within the universal reality is not random from the top down, nor can it be scientifically demonstrated to be random from the top down. Particles of matter in quantum fields apparently popping in and out of existence have been explained by some quantum theorists as particles traveling in and out of dimensions we humans cannot detect and thus, such pieces of matter only appear to be moving in and out of existence from our three-dimensional plus time viewpoint.  This agrees with an axiom of classical physics, which states that matter can neither be created or destroyed but only re-arranged. At any rate, atheistic scientists can't have it both ways, claiming that bits and pieces of matter can pop in and out of existence while at the same time, claiming matter can neither be created or destroyed.  It gets more and more difficult to be an atheist or agnostic, the deeper down one digs into the bottomless black hole sewer of such non-scientific, baseless mythology. There is abundant evidence that human beings can design great buildings with many inter-connected parts having both artistic and practical functions incorporated within the same design; grand spiral staircases, carefully crafted columns, ornate light fixtures, large elaborately designed bridges and skyscrapers and much more. Isn t it then rational to assume our Creator can design peacock feathers, an infinite variety of living forms and the rest of the universe with both practical and artistic functions woven into the same grandly designed universal whole building?  There is abundant evidence humans can create computers and robotic machines that in turn can do many functions on their own and, we humans can create lottery machines that theoretically generate random numbers.  Isn t it fair and reasonable to assume our Creator can do at least as well as we can do? Why isn t any of this fairly discussed either on Cosmos, in our mass media or in our university, high school and other classrooms?  Why aren t our children and the public in general fairly taught the scientific opinions of the great many historical and currently practicing scientists who believe the evidence demonstrates creation by a Supreme Intelligence?  Why are modern educators and the producers of Cosmos, Time Magazine, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times afraid of the historical and current truth regarding the scientific conclusions of many historical and currently practicing scientists? Some scientists believe the evidence demonstrates creation, some believe it doesn t and some claim they don t know or otherwise refuse to offer an opinion.  Isn t this the real truth and, isn t the real truth what we should be teaching our children, if we want them to respect us and, if we want to truly become a free and just society? The ancient Greek concept of Gaia , long considered to be mythology, is similar in many ways to what science has discovered in the 21st Century.  The Greek theory of Gaia proposes that living organisms on our planet interact and are dependent on the larger organism of earth, which itself is a living organism.  Science has discovered over several years of combined multiple satellite operations, that the earth operates very much like a very large, inter-connected living organism, even though it isn t necessarily alive in the sense we normally think of a living thing. For example, large clouds of microscopic plankton in the ocean, the foundation for larger living things, are dependent for their existence on forces all over the planet; from earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes and monsoons and, the resulting minerals they create like iron, sulfur and magnesium, to both cold and warm air circulation, which itself is dependent on various forces circulating around Antarctica; along with huge amounts of salt water brine pouring out of Antarctica deep under the ocean up past the equator to the northern Arctic regions and back again, all of which are dependent on the rotation of the earth and balanced intricate interactions between the earth and the moon. As well as, all of life on earth is dependent on our position in relation to the sun and the various layers of protection around the earth, including the magnetosphere, which is dependent on the iron rotating at the earth s core spinning faster than the earth itself.  Public science videos detail how without the existence of Jupiter, life wouldn't be possible here on earth.  And, this is only a small fraction of the entire picture of how the earth working as an interconnected whole, along with the sun, the moon, the rest of the planets and the larger Milky Way Galactic system, is able to support life as we know it.  To be fair to the meek and lowly of heart, it takes far more blind faith than any honest sinner is capable of mustering up to embrace atheism. Scientists today believe that possibly all of the planets and their moons in their specific sizes and arrangements effect the ability of life to exist on earth, as well as life possibly existing elsewhere within our solar system.  The earth is in a much more intricate dance balance than previously understood, both within it s own operations, within the larger solar system and, within the galactic whole.  And today, it is becoming more and more likely that life probably exists elsewhere within our own solar system, as well as abundantly throughout the larger universal reality. Apparently some educators fail to consider that while our solar system is over 4 billion years old, human civilization has only existed for about 10 thousand years.  Some scientists have proposed and it could well be true, that seemingly lifeless planets today may have been positioned elsewhere and quite literally teaming with life sometime in the distant past.  And they may at some time in the future, find themselves yet again teaming with life.  To assume that the majority or even a small minority of our solar system randomly exists without any rhyme, reason or purpose, represents a scientific juvenile delinquent way of thinking not supported by the modern evidence. Astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson, in a recent segment of Cosmos, demonstrates how utterly complex life might be seeded within the larger universal reality, in a grand cosmic interactive dance between supernova s spewing out chemical elements necessary for life; creating large molecular clouds giving birth to new stars and solar systems; planets moons, and asteroids passing through molecular clouds as their respective solar systems circle their galaxies, perhaps picking up necessary ingredients for life along the way; Asteroids seeding planets with necessary ingredients for life.  Particles in turn created by space rock impact, bounding off into space carrying ingredients from planets already sustaining life, back into space to in turn, seed other planets.  A grand cosmic interactive creation of life very far over the collective heads of humanity, far too complex to even begin to adequately describe with words on a page. New Molecule Found in Space Connotes Life Origins And the key phrase coming from Mr. Tyson is may be ; modern science has no idea whatsoever how life actually came to be or, how life functions from even a larger earth perspective, let alone a larger universal and beyond (logos) view.  Rather than decreasing, odds in favor of deliberate conception, design and creation keep overwhelmingly increasing, the more that science discovers.  So much so, that British scientist Roger Penrose has calculated that the odds of the universe not being a result of deliberate design are 10 to at least the 10,123 power against, a number so inconceivably large there is no known comparison on any kind of conceivable scale (the number of all photons and bits and pieces of atoms combined in the known universe for comparison, is estimated as far less than 10 to the 150th power). NOVA Video: Earth Operating as an Inter-connected Whole According to both Jesus and all of the known historical and scientific evidence, what causes greed, hatred, irrational fear, envy, prejudice, stress, tension, murder, rape, theft, false witness, inequality of wealth, slavery, war and other human oppression, arises from what is within all people (source; Encyclopedia Britannica; "Human Sexuality" and related).  Children can be observed on a school playground ostracizing and being deliberately mean to other children.  This carries over into adulthood, where adults typically join groups of "like minded" individuals, ostracizing and shunning others from our perceived superior grouping. One might fairly ask, if we humans have no inborn obedience problem, why are there police, jails and Nobel prizes for adults, ethics and morality classes taught at major universities and gold stars, trophies and other enticements offered to both children and adults, enticing us to act as we perceive we already should be acting in the first place?  And one might fairly ask, why do both children and adults need to be threatened with punishment and otherwise coerced into being what we perceive as "good", while we are what we perceive as "bad" quite easily on our own, often in spite of severe threat to our physical health and well being and, in spite of threats of punishment, incarceration and even execution? Why is there a song entitled "We Shall Overcome"?  What exactly is it that we are trying to overcome and, why?  If you don't believe in sin, try doing what you think is good all the time and, see how well you do; a simple test all of us fail on a daily and ongoing basis; a test clearly demonstrating to be true what scientists, educators and others continue to openly deny. Changing terminology and calling sin "negative behavior" or the "seething mass within" (as the Britannica calls it), in no way, shape or form changes the resulting greed, hatred, stress, tension, lack of economic, ethnic and social inequality, slavery, war, hunger, pain, suffering, sorrow, death and other human oppression sin causes. Do Chimpanzees and Baboons Only Think of Themselves? Staggering Differences Between Chimpanzees and Human Beings Sins of the Fathers; Epigenetic Evidence for Negative Inherited Characteristics Learned Behavior Genetically Passed Down for Generations Human Caused Pollution Harms Every Organ of Human Body Evidence Poverty Leaves Significant Changes on Human Genome Genetic Evidence Divorce Runs in Family Lineages Study Indicates Human Morality Partially Genetic Apparently according to the Bible, the universe is surrounded by water and an "expanse" divides the waters above us from the waters on earth.  This cannot be either proven or disproven by modern science, as we cannot "see" beyond the theoretical big bang and can only theorize what may or may not lie beyond the universe.  According to Genesis, after the beginning, "darkness was on the face of the deep" and then, God said "let there be light" and, God "divided the light from the darkness".  This agrees with the majority held scientific cosmological opinion here in the 21st Century; in the beginning there was a great explosion (the "big bang"), after which the universe cooled and became dark and opaque and then, the universe lit up and clumps of light and matter began separating from dark voids in space. Genesis does NOT say that God creates animals one at a time, as many conservative religious people for some unknown reason insist.  Rather, according to Genesis, macro forms of life emerged in abundance, first in the "waters" and later on land.  Again, this agrees with the majority held scientific opinion here in the 21st Century.  Genesis stresses several times that life is created to reproduce after its "own kind".  Scientists have known for many years that "the further apart two animals are in genetic terms, the less likely they are to produce viable offspring" (quoted from the following link). Can Humans Mate With Other Animals? According to a 2019 article posted on ScienceDaily.com:  "For most of the 20th century, scientists believed that this reproductive incompatibility evolved gradually between species as a by-product of adapting to different ecological circumstances; if two species were geographically isolated, they would adapt differences based on their environment.  New research. . .shows however. . .that sex chromosomes evolve to be genetically incompatible between species faster than the rest of the genetic chromosomes and reveal the factors at play in this incompatibility" (see following link). What Makes Two Species Different? According to the late Carl Sagan, there was a theory proposed by two scientists some time ago that the universe is surrounded by water, which would help explain the abundance of hydrogen and where it came from.  Recently, several scientists proposed an alternative theory to the big bang, suggesting that the universe formed when cracks appeared in a primordial liquid analogous to water.  And, if the universe is surrounded by water, this explains the existence of hydrogen coming out of the big bang prior to the existence of stars (deuterium, lithium and helium could in theory have been created by the extreme heat from energy acting within a large cosmic ocean of water (which may of itself be different than either salt or fresh types of water found here on earth). One of Several Alternative Theories to the Big Bang One Example of Many Challenges to Dark Energy Theory Chapter 4 - MILITANT ATHEISM AND MORE RESEARCH CHALLENGING BELIEFS Unbiased surveys conducted by Rice University taking a large statistical sampling of over 2000 American scientists of all kinds, combined with surveys conducted by the University of Chicago and elsewhere, report that about 50% of American scientists, 75% of American physicians and 80% of American educators believe in God.  Such percentages do not prove there is a God, but they do demonstrate that atheists often grossly exaggerate and outright lie regarding the number of educated people on their side of the equation.  They also reveal how unfairly such majority views are absent in modern textbooks and classrooms. Rice University Survey Chicago University Survey Unlike many modern educators and others pretend, belief in God as taught in the Bible, is an evidence-based view, the same as belief in invisible light and black holes are evidence-based views.  According to the Bible, faith "is the evidence of things not seen" and, we believe in the invisible God based on the overwhelming mirrored evidence of God's visible creation.  The same as today, scientists believe in invisible light and black holes, based on the observable evidence that invisible light and black holes create.  There is no rational difference between belief in God based on the mirrored physical evidence and belief in invisible light based on the mirrored physical evidence, except in the twisted imagination of self-contradictory atheists. Romans 1:20 Agnostic Neil DeGrasse Tyson often brings up a so-called "God of the gaps" theory, dismissing all claims of deliberate design and creation by very falsely stating that whatever science can't explain, those who believe in God just "fill in the gaps", postulating that God is responsible for the rest.  He then goes on to ridicule anyone who believes in God, saying that "the gap keeps getting smaller and smaller", which really isn't very true to begin with.  While science may appear to know a lot in the modern age, both the Britannica and many scientists themselves admit modern science knows almost nothing compared to what there is yet left to learn. The problem with Mr. Tyson's position is, most people who believe in God, including a great many scientists, physicians and educators, absolutely do NOT believe in a so-called "God of the gaps" theory.  Rather, most educated people believe God created the entire universe and is behind everything we can see and otherwise detect, including BOTH what science can explain and, what science cannot explain. For example, even though modern science has several explanations for how our sun, moon and planetary system may have formed (note the word "may"), this does NOT mean that God isn't behind their creation.  It should also be noted that most of what modern science can explain is at best, a rudimentary understanding of a far more complex reality.  No one who has studied very much of modern science could honestly claim otherwise. Modern evolutionary theory at best, represents only a very partial explanation for how life functions, containing a host of contradictory and sometimes diametrically opposed positions by various scientists within the larger "synthetic" theory of evolution.  In regards to the current state of modern science in general and evolutionary theory in particular, scientists are not at all on the same page.  Even though many if not most scientists believe the universe is probably teeming with life, there is no consensus among modern 21st Century researchers in regards to where, when, why, or how life emerged even here on earth. Modern science doesn't know if life arose from one, thousands or even zillions of original similar or same tiny forms, nor does science know if life even had a beginning here on earth or if instead, living forms of life arrived on space rocks.  Some scientists believe life may have arisen several times on earth after completely dying out and, many diverse scientists propose life may have emerged in ocean depths, in shallow fresh water ponds, in clay, plain dirt, under the earth, high on trees, in caves, on high mountains and elsewhere.  Modern scientists very plainly do not agree among themselves.  In truth, science knows nothing about the true origins of life, which may predate the existence of our own sun and solar system and for all we know, life may pre-date our own universe. Science doesn't understand hardly at all how life functions at root molecular and quantum levels.  And today, science knows very little about the highly complex functions and purposes of DNA compared to what there is left to learn.  Nor does science know very much about viruses, bacteria, water, light, gravity, mathematics, the human brain, mind, soul, and self-awareness and host of other basic universal realities far too numerous to list, in comparison to what science has yet to learn.  To be fair to the majority of people on earth who believe the universe is created, the only real "gap" in relation to God, science and evidence seems to be the gap between the ears of those refusing to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence of deliberate conception, design and creation. According to Richard Dawkins, the universe is exactly as one would expect it to be if there is no God, representing "nothing but blind, pitiless indifference".  If this were remotely true, there would be no human moral conscience and no concept of human rights; no laws against murder, rape, theft or false witness, no police, judges, juries or jails and, no such people as Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, Frederick Douglass, Mohandas Gandhi, Harriet Tubman, Helen Keller, Albert Schweitzer, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther king, Jr., Robert Kennedy, Dolores Huerta or Cesar Chavez found in the historical record.  Rather, we would all act far worse than the worst tyrants of human history and, humanity would have long ago ceased to exist. Similar base laws against murder, adultery, theft and false witness are found spread across the historical map, as are similar and sometimes nearly identical so-called "golden rules", clearly demonstrating like the Bible says and, like Thomas Jefferson and modern scientist Francis Collins both agree, that we possess a designed shared human conscience.  Parents attempting to care about their children don't likely provide them with rules, restrictions, instruction and guidelines because they are being pitiless and indifferent towards them but rather, because they are at least trying to care. Consider the life of Harriet Tubman, who somehow managed to escape slavery herself and then continually risked torture and slow execution, returning many times to help other slaves escape; is this an example of "nothing but blind, pitiless indifference"?  Consider the life of Albert Schweitzer, who forsaking a cushy life as a world class musician, author and scholar, chose to live in poverty aiding the sick and poor of Africa instead, meanwhile in the process becoming the modern world's first great environmentalist; is this "nothing but blind, pitiless indifference"? And consider the final speech of Martin Luther King, Jr. who knowing he had a bullseye on his back, nevertheless chose to travel to Memphis to help struggling sanitation workers organize and earn better wages and, most unfortunately for us all, lost his life in the process; is this "nothing but blind, pitiless indifference"? One might ask Mr. Dawkins how someone offering to donate one of their kidneys so a total stranger can survive, is somehow guilty of demonstrating "nothing but blind, pitiless indifference".  Parents of children suffering in the hospital from a serious accident, cancer or some other horrible disease, have been heard to say, "if only I could take my child's place I would gladly do so"; is this "nothing but blind, pitiless indifference"?  Consider what life on earth would be like without any concern or even a concept of love verses hatred, right verses wrong or peace verses war. There are countless examples within animal and insect populations of creatures seemingly working in an altruistic manner towards the good of the whole and, often towards one other individual within the same population.  Additionally, much of what science calls the "natural world" is filled with innumerable examples of creatures within and outside of their own populations cohabitating eco-systems in non-aggressive cooperation, rather than in dog-eat-dog or dog-eat-cat competition.  There are many documented examples of totally unrelated "species", often hopelessly differentiated in size and strength, adopting a member of a different "species" that is orphaned, lame, blind or has some other obvious disability. Even theoretically "brainless" microbes have been observed acting in individual ways and even sacrificing themselves for the good of the colony.   Mother birds burned to a crisp have been found covering live chicks underneath their charred bodies after a forest fire; birds that ostensibly could have just selfishly flown away and saved themselves. Richard Dawkins tries his best to justify all forms of human and animal altruism in light of his "selfish gene" theory.  When humans are kind to a total stranger, he asks, "could it be that our selfish genes are misfiring?".  Why doesn't he consider another far more likely probability, that we are re-acting to our God-given conscience?  How depressing it must be to believe that we are merely a collection of selfish genes, with no heart, soul, conscience or Savior of truth to light our way. Perhaps we should all help the homeless and poor anyway, whether for selfish gene reasons or otherwise.  Maybe Mr. Dawkins can instruct our extremely misguided and poorly educated American population as to why there is a clear and present danger global necessity for us to have universal healthcare here in the colonies as quickly and fast as humanly possible.  After all disease can be highly contagious and like a forest fire, disease often spreads rapidly, knowing no economic, political or other boundaries. What will happen when the world experiences another 1918-like flu pandemic or Covid-19 and, we here in America are still arguing about who should pay for us to see a doctor?  Such a plague might even spread on up the ivory towers of Harvard, Yale and Oxford and on into the homes of the corporate bribe-taking goons in Congress and the pathological liar and climate change denier in the Trumpian White House (actually, Covid-19 did).  Maybe conservative Christians and atheists alike should pay a little more attention to what Jesus actually said and did and, act and vote accordingly, who can say for sure? In a video Mr. Dawkins discuses altruism in the form of kinship within same or closely related species and symbiotic relationships between non-related often very different species.  These might be explainable as organisms acting towards their own selfish advantage as their selfish genes dictate.  But Mr. Dawkins entirely ignores examples like those in the several videos following the next paragraph, where a great many diverse animals can be seen acting far beyond any boundaries of Mr. Dawkins' theory of selfish-genes acting in seemingly altruistic ways for selfish reasons. In one video on YouTube, Mr. Dawkins says: "Darwin argued that there was no designer".  It may be true that Darwin believed that nature works pretty much on auto-pilot, adapting and changing as processes of evolution dictate.  However, Darwin credited our Creator with being behind the universal reality and processes of life several times and shortly before he died, Darwin wrote: "My mind is mainly agnostic but not entirely".  There is no evidence Darwin was ever an atheist.  Why do atheists so often find in necessary to fudge the facts to shore up their baseless non-scientific positions? In another video, Richard Dawkins idolizes and cherry-picks quotes from Einstein as if Einstein's views are on his side of the equation.  But Einstein himself wrote, "I have never been an atheist" and he also denied being a Pantheist as he has often been wrongly accused of.  According to Einstein's primary living biographer Walter Isaacson, Einstein became extremely upset when anyone tried to use his name or theories to promote atheism.  Perhaps Mr. Dawkins should listen to his conscience a little more when it cautions against us humans misleading our fellow human beings, who can say for sure? Video: Animals Saving Other Animals Video: More Animals Saving Other Animals Video: Animals Adopting Other Animals Video: Animals Adopting Totally Different Animals Video: Animals Protecting Their Young Cooperation Between Species Biological Altruism Just perhaps, our father in heaven gave us humans a few rules to try and follow and a conscience reminding us when we fail to do so, because he gives a damn whether or not we murder, rape, steal, lie about or cheat our neighbor and otherwise, cares very deeply how we treat each other.  Given our proclivity to do evil and our conscience instructing us otherwise, why would anyone holding a chair at Oxford University or throwing a chair out into the middle of a basketball arena at Indiana State University, vainly imagine otherwise? Some atheists, like comedian Bill Maher for example, repeatedly say they don't believe in a "little man in the sky", as if this somehow represents an intelligent position.  Apparently such atheists haven't read the Bible very carefully, if at all.  Perhaps Mr. Maher should either study a little more or otherwise, stick to comedy, as he appears to be unaware that Jesus was far more contemptuous and "in-your-face" towards conservative religious fundamentalists than Bill Maher ever hoped to be. According to the Old Testament, God "sits in the heavens" (plural) and, "heaven and the heaven of heavens" cannot contain God.  According to the New Testament, God "does not live in a temple made with hands" and in God "we live and move and have our being". Obviously, what the Bible claims is not only a very, very far cry from what Mr. Maher pretends, it is also very, very different than any other known description of our Creator within the known history of humanity. The Bible says that God is not far from each one of us.  And, it references "heaven and the heaven of heavens" at least twice.  Some of those who today believe in a "multi-verse" may find it rather disconcerting that ancient texts written thousands of years modern science seem for some inexplicable reason, to be well ahead of the modern science curve.  As noted in more detail elsewhere, this also seems to be true regarding the New Testament book of "Revelation", which very accurately in precise order predicts what modern climate scientists, who seemingly unwittingly have become de facto prophets for the 21st Century, are themselves likewise predicting. Militant atheist Sam Harris in a video on YouTube, anoints himself as being on the "side" of science and reason, while lumping everyone who believes in God as being on the same "side" as Pat Robertson and conservative religion, as if Jesus, Aristotle, Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Darwin, Einstein and Francis Collins all agree with Robertson and unlike Harris paints himself, are on the "side" of religious hypocrisy and gross superstition.  This is an extremely dishonest common trick used by atheists to confuse evidence-based belief in God with religions in general and, religious fundamentalism in particular. If atheism is an honest evidence-based position, why do so many atheists find it necessary to deliberately muddy the waters?  Harris and other militant atheists like Daniel Dennett for example, waste countless hours talking about religion, which anyone with even a rudimentary education can grasp has no relevancy to either the existence of or true nature of God.  Mr. Dennett in a video filmed at an atheist convention in Europe, goes on for over an hour about what he believes is wrong with Catholicism, as if this somehow has any relevance to either atheism or the existence of God. What human beings claim about the shape and nature of the earth has no relevancy to the actual shape, nature or existence of the earth.  Whether modern science divides birds up into over 10,000 species (which it does) or a child calls them all simply a "bird", this does not change either the reason why the birds came into existence or why there are so many different kinds of birds.  This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that thousands of different kinds of birds existed long prior to any conception of either "species" or science.  And likewise, what human beings claim about the existence of and nature of God does not change what is true about either the existence of or true nature of God. Modern atheists attempting to marginalize belief in God by equating God with religious orthodoxy and dogma, openly demonstrate a lack of rudimentary understanding, vainly imagining they are fooling the rest of us as to why they can't instead, provide a better explanation than Eternal Creator for their own existence.  As former leading atheist Antony Flew asks in a book written shortly prior to his death, "why is there something instead of nothing?" To what one might fairly add, this "something" for some inexplicable Darwinian reason, somehow turned out to be quite a something, indeed! A book written by Richard Dawkins implies by its title, that Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, Paul, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, DaVinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Shakespeare, Newton, Descartes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Locke, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Paine, Darwin, Tolstoy, Schweitzer, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Eleanor Roosevelt, Helen Keller, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Cesar Chavez, Francis Collins, Paul Simon and millions of other noteworthy human beings of demonstrated intelligence and accomplishment, are all delusional.  Meanwhile, Mr. Dawkins anoints himself as being on the "side" of logic, science, reason and the enlightened few and far between.  One would suppose each one of us can make our own decision as to who in fact, is more likely a victim of delusion. It is likely not true that Darwinian theory is wrong about reproductive advantage being why life adapts and changes.  Rather, modern evidence (as documented previously) indicates reproductive survival is only one of several reasons why all of life adapts and changes.  The word "natural" represents human assumption and bias rather than science. Labeling a process "natural" and referring to environmental reality as "the natural world" doesn't prove anything, other than the fact that scientists like other human beings, are prone to bias and assumptions having no foundation in evidence.  Pretending the term "natural" somehow demonstrates or even slightly indicates the universe is not created, is similar to insisting there is no sin and meanwhile, standing on the corner holding up a peace sign. Why would anyone wave a peace sign if they don't believe in sin, as if war is a good and positive thing, rather than a bad and negative thing for humanity?  Can someone like Richard Dawkins, whose scientific expertise is in human and animal behavior, honestly claim that all of the atrocious actions human beings have committed against each other throughout the history of human civilization, including torturing some scientists on the rack while burning others at the stake, are more or less the same as the actions of Isaiah, Jesus, Gandhi, Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosa Parks and Cesar Chavez, as if there is no moral distinction between right and wrong? If there is no designed human conscience, no God defining right verses wrong and no such thing as evil, who are any of us to celebrate the March on Washington while railing against the Ku Klux Klan?  Who are any of us to take away the freedom of an axe murderer or a Wall Street pyramid-scheme profiteer or otherwise, prevent them from doing as they please?  How willing would Mr. Dawkins or Mr. Harris be to allow a known serial killer or prolific child molester to move in next door to their own children? Because there is only one universe as far as we can detect, there is nothing known to human beings that rationally compares to it.  But for purposes of discussion, if we view the universe as something akin to a giant computer, we can perhaps begin to understand, based on our own human ability to create computers, that the universe represents a grand cosmic designed 'machine', with zillions upon zillions trillions of interconnected parts-within-parts, operating very far beyond human ability to ever fully grasp and comprehend.  It is impossible to know how much or how little our Creator inputs within the grand cosmic scheme of things, while on the other hand, there is no evidence at all that either a computer or the universal reality can magically exist unto itself. All of the evidence and all human experience points in the other direction, that parts within parts working in combination together require intelligence, conception, design and creation and, cannot magically exist unto themselves.  The bottom-line gross superstition of atheism requires blind faith belief, something atheists roundly and soundly condemn other people for having.  It is more than fair to state that atheism represents the least likely blind-faith religion in the known history of humanity.  There is no such thing as "faith-based" verses "evidence-based", unless of course, one is talking about atheism or some other narrow-minded superstition. Apparently even Richard Dawkins understands the superiority of the teachings of Jesus, as a photo of Mr. Dawkins wearing a t-shirt with the words, "atheists for Jesus" printed on the front, was at one time displayed on his website.  According to historian Will Durant in his epic volume, "Caesar and Christ", the teachings of Jesus in the four "gospels", represent a singular highly advanced mind, far greater than any other mind known in human history.  And as the writings of Durant clearly imply, to not study the Bible and the history and cultures surrounding the Bible, is to have no understanding of ancient history, Western history, Eastern history, American history, human rights, civil rights and essentially, no education or understanding at all. How is it a reproductive or any other "advantage" to our children, for American education to ignore the greatest mind in human history?  Why does Jesus insist there is a God and claim that his father in heaven told him what to teach us, if there is no God?  Why are our educators afraid to teach our children the truth regarding the overwhelming historical influence and importance of Jesus? And dare we ask, why did we crucify our greatest moral teacher and the greatest mind humanity has ever known?  How is this either a reproductive or any other advantage to a wayward "species", now teetering on the precipice of self-induced climate disaster, a third world war and self-annihilation, as if a 'science' generally ignoring when not openly denying the overwhelming evidence for our Creator, can somehow save us from our sins? The universe is known today to be a far stranger and more complicated reality than previously understood prior to the 21st Century.  In 2007, it was discovered the universe contains a very large void.  One theory proposed is that all of the super-clusters in the entire universe encircle a very large black hole, similar to how much smaller black holes by comparison, reside at or near the center of galaxies. If this theory is correct, then there is no need for the existence of dark energy to explain why the universe appears to be expanding faster than modern physics predicts it should.  This very large void known as the Eridanus Supervoid , is much larger than the Virgo Super-Cluster containing our own Milky Way Galaxy, which is but a small dot by comparison.  This void is much larger than a typical super-cluster of galaxies. The Eridanus Supervoid is a good example of how little science actually knows about the universe.  The various explanations given at the link below, many of which are very different from each other, indicate that science doesn t really know very well at all about how the universe works from true "logos" (universal and beyond) perspective. What seems correct from our view here on earth has often been proven incorrect later on down the historical road as more evidence is discovered and no doubt, much of what seems correct today, will later be demonstrated to be mainly if not entirely wrong by future generations of scientists.  For some currently unknown reason, all of the galaxies, clusters and super-clusters in our vicinity of the universe appear to all be moving together in the same linear direction, as if they are being tugged by some unknown super-force, perhaps as has been suggested, from the gravity of another galaxy outside of our own. It would be refreshing and beneficial for us all if modern scientists and educators were a little less arrogant and a little more humble about it all.  The truth is, human beings don't really know very much about what is really true from true universal and beyond (logos) perspective; that is, from God's view.  Can a virus within a microbe trapped within a human being's small intestines, say there is no human being on who it depends for its survival and far less so, can a human being remain remotely honest while claiming there is no Creator or probably no Creator, on who we depend on for the very breath of life itself? Link to various explanations for the very large Eridanus Supervoid What Scientists Think They Know About the Universe May be Very Wrong Video Comparison of Large and Small Universal Sizes According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Sigmund Freud believed that human babies are born "blank".  However, modern psychologists working with infants have discovered that, like Romans 2 says and Jefferson echoes in the Declaration of Independence, babies are born already "hard-wired" with a moral sense at birth.  To be fair, some researchers don't agree with these findings.  What may be more likely true, is that humans are born with an innate moral conscience that develops over time along with the rest of our brain. Are Babies Altruistic? The Moral Life of Babies Do Babies Know Right from Wrong? Disputes Among Various Scientists Regarding Infant Morality It is well established that the human brain continues to develop long after birth into and beyond our teenage years and even into our twenties, rather than representing a "completed" package out of the womb.  A full and complete understanding of the human mind, human consciousness, intelligence and awareness still today remains very far away and, obviously it is difficult to test and fully understand what is going on in the minds of very young infants. For example, while the myth that we humans only use about 10% of our brain long endured, it is now well-established that we use all of our brain.  While it was long assumed our brains are highly compartmentalized, it is now known that our brains are both compartmentalized while various processes function outside of specific areas at the same time, meaning human thought processes are far more complex than previously assumed.  As another example, it was recently discovered that unlike previously assumed, neurons in the human brain can carry more than one signal at the same time, thus greatly complicating the overwhelming complexity of how our brains actually function. Brain Neurons Carry More Than One Signal Human Behavior: Is it All in the Brain? Human Dendrites Very Different Than Other Species Processing Power of Brain Much Greater Than Originally Thought Two Scientists Discuss Brain Vs. More Than Brain How the Brain Makes Even Simple Decisions Remains a Mystery Modern Neuroscience Claims of No Free Will Non-Conclusive Human Brain Sorting Through the Noise According to studies, babies as young as three months old in various tests display choices based on perceptions of goodness as opposed to meanness (infants younger than this are extremely difficult to test, though it is likely they are aware of more than we think).  And again like the Bible said long ago, babies appear to have inborn tendencies towards selfishness and bias, ostracizing humans who they perceive as being outside their own group. Such tendencies are clearly displayed on grade school playgrounds, where children are often cruel and mean to other children, accepting some while rejecting others for being the "black" kid, the "Jewish" kid, the "fat" kid, the "uncool" kid, the "ugly" kid, the "weak" kid, the "stupid" kid and similar superficial reasoning.  However "moral" our perceptions may already be at birth, it is beyond dispute that young children clearly make selfish, moral verses immoral and related choices.  And it is likewise crystal clear that our biases and choices don't necessarily improve with age. As already noted, such inborn bias carries over into adulthood, where adults separate themselves into various often highly divisive groupings.  The Mensa Society of self-anointed smarter than an average 5th grader membership, includes atheists and some who work for the global war machine among their ranks.  While gladly accepting a handout from the rest of us much beleaguered taxpayers in the form of non-profit registration status, this society openly practices human segregation, excluding the vast majority of taxpaying citizens from their exclusive club of theoretically intelligent people. The Mensa qualifying test, which can be viewed online, fails to contain a single question about how to improve human behavior or otherwise, leave a less violent, greed-filled, population enslaved and mass polluted planet for our children to inherit, as if caring about our neighbor and our own offspring has no relevance to human intelligence.  Consider how empty and confusing our 'education' system must be to our children, many with parents trying their best to raise them up right.  Why is it illegal within modern American society to discriminate against people of various skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, age, stature, economic status and/or religion, but perfectly okay to divide us up from smartest to dumbest, as if this is somehow a fair, reasonable or even rational thing to do? Scientists and other intellectuals (including perhaps several Mensa Society members) have debated since Socrates and the ancient Greeks how to fairly, correctly and adequately define human intelligence.  For example, from a Darwinian evolutionary viewpoint, who is more intelligent, Richard Dawkins/Sam Harris combined or, an illiterate Bolivian Catholic farmer siring 18 offspring?  Who represents greater intelligence, Helen Keller or someone who can see, hear and speak playing for the World Chess Championship? Who is more intelligent, a modern computer programmer or an Australian aborigine surviving quite well where no food or water can apparently be found?  Who is more intelligent, a comedian who can make us laugh and forget our troubles at least for a while, or a college professor boring us to tears with a rather long-winded and erudite presentation over much ado about nothing of any interest or value to the vast majority of us? There is a very long list of reasons why someone anointing themselves as being smarter than the majority is in fact, demonstrating to the rest of us that they are perhaps less intelligent than most.  Consider for example, the very interesting, informative and thought-provoking delivery of Samuel Clemens compared to the typical sermon at the First Baptist Church of utter boredom in Anytown, USA. And then again, consider the human rights-oriented content of Samuel Clemens by comparison; even Bill Maher beats the First Baptist Church.  Given his overwhelming historical and moral influence, one might fairly ask who is more intelligent, Jesus or the entire membership of the modern Mensa Society combined?  And, who in their right mind would ever confuse Jesus with either the first or any other baptist church? History is littered with the carcasses of human beings who vainly imagine they are better than other human beings, and vainly imagine it wise to divide ourselves into groupings as races, classes, liberals, conservatives and a myriad of other superficial divisions; as if we don't all fall "short" of what our own conscience dictates, as if we are not all both individually and collectively like the Bible says, part of the global human oppression problem.  Here is a simple test that anyone in either the Mensa Society or a public elementary school can easily take for themselves:  Try doing what you think is good all the time and, see how well you do.  Then try pretending there is no sin and, see how far you get with our father in heaven. The Dark Core of Human Personality In various videos available online, both religious and secular sources claim there is evidence for a literal Garden of Eden, now underwater, discovered by recently improved NASA satellite imaging technology.  In fact, there is more than one place where the described Garden of Eden could have been located, based on recent research. One Possible Location for Garden of Eden Second Possible Location for Garden of Eden Third Possible Location for Garden of Eden There is also evidence that all human beings living on earth today descend from a very recent common ancestor (discussed in more detail elsewhere).  While not all scientists agree, enough of them agree to consider that the Bible may be far more accurate than once assumed.  All scientists rarely agree on much of anything and, many times the scientific majority have been forced to reconsider what was once viewed as "rock-solid" science. Our Earliest Common Ancestor May Have Lived Only 3,000 Years Ago Recent Common Ancestry for Europeans About 1000 Years Common Ancestor of Modern Humans Surprisingly Recent Recent Common Ancestry for Modern Humans Estimates All human beings are born into a common reality and are a part of, what in the modern 21st Century is called "universe".  As such, the default question of science and reason then becomes, how and why is there a physical reality called universe?  Atheists and agnostics, if they wish to be take seriously at all, do NOT receive a pass on this fundamental two-pronged question of science and reason, any more than the rest of us do.  The irrational non-evidence based, unscientific positions of modern atheism and agnosticism, which fail to address this most fundamental of all human questions, are discussed in more detail to follow in Chapter 13: PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE AND REASON. Chapter 5 - MYSTERY OF MATHEMATICS The science of "geometric fractals" has been used to demonstrate how a "random" section of the Amazon Rain Forest, where various trees, shrubs and other plants appear to be randomly strewn about, is instead a simple to complex systematic design that can be described in human mathematical terms.  The same is true regarding a typical mountain scenic view environment, including the mountains, waterfalls, rivers, all of the trees, plants, animals, insects and even microbes, anywhere within the larger environment. Not all researchers are on board the geometric fractals train, but whether or not this theory is truly accurate, there is grand Cosmic design everywhere we look, both inward and outward as far as microscopes and telescopes can see.  There has been overwhelming evidence for design as long as human beings have walked on earth. And, there is evidence today that the structure of the universe, from the quantum reality on up through the largest macro scales, is mathematically designed, even if we can't fully grasp the magnificent wonder of it all.  Even if the science of fractals is completely wrong, the fact that it exists at all clearly reflects design rather than random processes.  How could designer-less random chaos result in the human brain, modern mathematics or even comparatively simplistic human design of anything? Some scientists have publicly stated they are shying away from using the term random , because they think it makes them look bad.  Perhaps there is a very good reason why it makes them look bad.  Some scientists today, who would no doubt openly scorn the formerly held scientific belief that disease spontaneously arises, would have us believe the entire universe somehow spontaneously arose out of non-designed random chaos.  It is no small wonder such 'scientists' are concerned about how they might appear to the common people who Jesus seems to think are as valuable and, likely more or less as intelligent as they are. If we can describe the universe in rational terms, if human mathematics can exist at all and, if human mathematics can predict the existence of particles before they are even discovered, which math has already succeeded in doing, how can anyone pretend there is no intelligence behind the universal reality?  Why would any scientist or other human being today, who readily dismisses the once commonly held beliefs that the sun travels around the earth and that disease spontaneously arises, embrace a far more foolish notion, that the entire universe magically appeared?  Haven't modern scientists and educators learned anything at all from such incredibly wrong assumptions of our recent past? NOVA Video: Science of Geometric Fractals One of the more thought-provoking NOVA series science videos is entitled "The Great Math Mystery".  Much of what this video discusses was unknown prior to the 21st Century. The Great Math Mystery According to some scientists, not only can mathematics help explain the universe, it appears that the universe is in fact, mathematics; essentially meaning, if you were to break down a computer game to it s most basic elemental nature, the result would be mathematics and, if you were to break down the universe to it s most basic elemental nature, the result would also be mathematics.  It has been known since Pythagoras and the ancient Greeks that there is a direct relationship between mathematics and music.  Since we know today that music is a sound wave pattern similar to light waves, the question then becomes, is there a relationship between math and everything we can see, hear, smell, taste and touch? According to this NOVA video, however strange and bizarre it may seem, it appears that what science calls universe and nature is designed according to pi, even though pi as far as science knows, is an irrational number that continues on forever and ever, without ever having any repeating pattern of numbers; seemingly something only an Eternal Creator could hope to possibly master. Various repetitive patterns appear frequently in creation, from the very large to the very small, while the numbers of petals on various flowers have an incremental mathematical relationship. As this video points out, patterns found in a sea shell, a head of cabbage and a galaxy of stars are incredibly similar.  Various symmetrical patterns are found throughout creation, translating into a preference by humans for symmetrically designed architecture, by far the most common form of building and most other human design. Everywhere we look, it appears that whatever scene we are looking at is designed according to pi.  For example, the relationship between the actual length of a winding river and a straight line length of the same river appears to be based on pi.  If the scene is either cut down to a smaller part of a river or enlarged to a larger part of the same river, the relationship to pi apparently remains the same.  This is also apparently true when viewing a series of ocean waves or mountain peaks. It may be true our brains are designed in such a way that mathematics is in one sense a human invention, while in another sense, math may have existed long prior to the emergence of our own solar system and perhaps, prior to the universe itself.  If animals and insects can do math, which today most certainly appears to be the case, it is fair to conclude math existed long prior to humans. Mathematics in Biology Some scientists now say that we humans have never actually invented or discovered math but rather, we merely continue to uncover what is already there and, was there long before our own sun and planets came into being.  One would think the same claim could be easily made regarding what science calls "evolution", that is, whether we divide living things up into categories like "species", "family", "order" and similar or, simply call all fish a "fish" and all monkeys a "monkey", God's creation just goes right on re-arranging, adapting and changing the way our Creator designed the entire universe and life contained therein to function. It would be refreshing if scientists and educators could hit the evolutionary pause button for a moment and consider the obvious, that what we human beings believe or fail to believe doesn't either fully explain or change the reality of how life actually functions, how life came into being or, the reason why.  To conclude that one "species", an artificial category of human invention, evolved from another "species" category of human invention, is rather frighteningly naive in its grade-school absurdity.  The larger truth being, life continues to re-arrange, adapt and change, regardless of how human beings choose to divide it up; how we choose to classify life has no influence on how life either came to be or functions. As discussed in more detail elsewhere, there is also strong evidence today that the universe is designed according to the "golden ratio".  This is another irrational number theoretically extending forever and ever to infinity, a convenient term often used for a concept that human beings really can never quite begin to fully grasp. Nature by Numbers (Fibonacci Sequence & The Golden Ratio) Mind Blowing Presence of The Golden Ratio Modern studies demonstrate that many animals and insects including dolphins, bears, elephants monkeys, birds, ants, spiders, frogs, fish and even bees can do basic math, indicating that mathematics is intricately woven into the grand universal design itself, rather than being of human invention.  For example, Tunisian desert ants can apparently do geometry as well as basic arithmetic and, some fish display accurate awareness of how many others are in the same school of fish. Modern research has learned that bees do basic math and understand the concept of zero.  Even more surprisingly, primates, birds and bees can learn symbols matching specific quantities, something long assumed only the far more complex human brain could accomplish.  Even flower petals and plant leaves appear to be rather ingeniously mathematically arranged. If animals and insects could count prior to the emergence of human beings, then quite obviously mathematics is not a human invention.  And, scientists from the ancient Greeks forward have long been intrigued by the mysterious relationship between music and mathematics.  Because of the mathematical complexity of the universal reality, human science won't likely ever have a truly accurate and complete "theory of everything", nor does any claim of "natural, blind, unguided, processes" have a rat's chance in hell of remotely being scientifically verifiable. Animals and Insects That Can Count Some Animals Can Count Better Than Most Humans Dogs do Math in Similar Brain Region as Humans Mathematics of Bees Math of the Universe Behind the Music We Hear Mathematics of Plant Leaves Not everyone agrees that math is behind the universe, but as is typical historically of many scientists, such dissenters seemingly hold the view that if something is over our heads and far too complex to grasp or realistically describe mathematically, like weather patterns currently are for example, therefore it can t be really true that math is behind the universe.  One would think such scientists would eventually learn that something isn't necessarily false simply because we aren't aware of it yet or are unable to fully comprehend it. Obviously if science keeps revising the most basic of claims, concepts and ideas, the larger truth is that we humans simply don't know very much about what is really true.  Isaac Newton for example, universally viewed as one of the greatest of all scientists, had no idea there is anything smaller than an atom, nor did he have any knowledge of the complexity of DNA or how large even our own galaxy is, let alone the vastness of the known universe taken for granted today.  This of course, doesn't mean that the vast universe didn't exist in the time of Newton, nor does it mean that protons, neutrons, quarks and leptons didn't exist long prior to human science and humanity itself. Careful historians are aware that lack of evidence doesn't prove non-existence, nor does lack of understanding prove anything other than simply that we don't understand.  As a good example today, some scientists continue to insist that only 10% of our DNA has a legitimate function, even though the modern evidence clearly indicates otherwise.  Many other scientists have now concluded that most if not all of our DNA has a legitimate purpose.  This makes rational sense, given that every macro part of our body, including the much maligned appendix, is known today to have a legitimate function. Darwin Wrong About the Appendix While it is true we can survive quite well without an appendix, it is also true we can survive without a finger or even an entire arm and hand, but it doesn t rationally follow that our fingers, arms and hands have no legitimate function.  Likewise, just because we don't fully understand the purpose of all of our DNA, it doesn't rationally follow that most of our DNA has no legitimate function.  Given the history of human science and reason often changing collective human minds on even the most fundamental of former beliefs, claims and positions, why would anyone draw such an unlearned conclusion? BBC Mysterious World of Maths 1 BBC Mysterious World of Maths 2 BBC Mysterious World of Maths 3 According to astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a single molecule of water is so incredibly small that the total number of molecules in a single cup of water is greater than the number of same-size cups of water in all of the earths oceans, lakes rivers and other surface water combined. Meanwhile modern mathematicians, who some might suspect have a little too much time on their hands, estimate that the number of particles in the human body is 1.46 x 10 to the 29th power.  It has been calculated that the possibility of a single protein randomly self-assembling is 1x10 to the 164th power, a great many trillion trillions to one.  And, it has been calculated that the possibility of a simple cell self-assembling is 1x10 to the 340 power, a very far greater many more trillion trillion trillions to one. The number 1x10 to the 340 power is so large, if we were to purchase a jackpot lottery ticket every day of our lives, we would have an essentially infinitely greater chance of winning every ticket.  British mathematician Roger Penrose calculates that the odds of the universe randomly appearing without any intelligence behind it are at least 1x10 to the 10,123 power against. And, in spite of such astronomically overwhelming mathematical odds, so-called science textbooks in public schools continue to teach our children that the universe and everything contained therein somehow magically appeared.  Of course textbooks don't use the word "magic", but it would obviously be far more honest if they did.  It is difficult to even begin to grasp just how utterly non-scientific a position of atheism truly is. As noted elsewhere, according to DNA expert Francis Collins, modern DNA evidence alone "overwhelmingly demonstrates deliberate design and not random processes."  According to Microsoft founder Bill Gates, "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created."  And as many evolutionary scientists are beginning to grudgingly admit, it is mathematically irrational to pretend that the astronomically overwhelming complexity of life could randomly "self-design" without any Intelligence behind the information required for DNA and the processes of life to actually work.  Neo-Darwinism is appearing more and more to be just a cart before a blind blundering "self-selecting" pile of horse manure on its way out the 21st Century door. To illustrate just a little of the overwhelming complexity of RNA and DNA coding, at the root of the COVID-19 global pandemic is an RNA virus consisting of positive-sense single-stranded RNA. Attempting to decode this virus has been compared to trying to translate a Rosetta Stone-like language consisting of several quadrillion individual letters and symbols.  Consider the insanity of proposing that an organism such as a human being, which is essentially infinitely more complex than this RNA virus, just randomly magically appeared out of nowhere, without any input from a Grand Designer.  Obviously, it requires far more blind faith to be an atheist than the stars in our universe have time left to burn. As has been repeatedly demonstrated by innumerable calculations and experiments, neither a mathematical or any other type of language can randomly self-design.  Attempting to scientifically demonstrate that the language of DNA alone could randomly exist without any intelligence behind the language, without even considering the far beyond irreducibly overwhelming complexity of the rest of the universal grand design, becomes a hopelessly futile exercise in mathematical redundancy leading towards insanity. One might fairly conclude that DNA itself at its most basic root level appears to be mathematically designed, along with the rest of the grand design universal reality we humans inhabit.  The rather significantly growing gap between what we humans think we know and, what we have yet to learn, seems to be exponentially expanding along with rest of the grand design universal reality.  Postulating the existence of mathematics alone, without the necessity of Intelligence behind the universe, is far beyond overwhelmingly mathematically absurd. There is no language that can even begin to adequately describe such random appearing ignorance.  Like the Bible says, our Creator isn't likely to excuse those who pretend that the universe is a magically existing result of random, blind, totally by chance processes.  One could legitimately conclude that a scientist pretending the moon is somehow larger and warmer than the sun would have a far better rat's chance of being correct. Why DNA Without Intelligence is Irrational Cambrian Explosion: The Failure of Darwin's Theory Darwinian Evolution Inadequate to Explain Cambrian Predator Random Chance Probability of a Single Protein Forming New Evidence Shaking Darwin's Tree Chapter 6 - HOGWARTS, ABIOGENESIS AND MAGIC Rather than changing the name of the theory itself, modern scientists and educators have rather cleverly taken up the misleading practice of continuing to call a supposed overwhelmingly agreed upon theory "Evolution", while constantly tweaking and changing how evolution is defined as new evidence emerges, often directly contradicting what is still taught as fact in university textbooks.  So much so, that several scientists have recently stated biology 101 is in need of a total revision. The state of modern evolutionary theory is as if someone started out in the 19th Century describing what is commonly called an elephant as a microbe and over many generations, gradually tweaked and re-defined the description until now, it is closer to how an elephant actually appears, but still very, very, very far away from being a complete and accurate portrayal of an ant, let alone an elephant.  As one scientist implied a few years ago on PBS, it may be that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is more and more becoming the elephant in the room, out of sync with the rest of the furniture. If life existed prior to the earth itself, as many scientists now assume, then evolutionary theory has no value in determining the origins of life and, exactly how, when, where or why life first appeared will likely remain both unknown and unknowable to human science.  A few brave scientists long ago contended that what is called "abiogenesis" (more accurately "blind belief in magic") doesn't belong in a rational discussion and, based on the emerging evidence of theoretically zillions of planets harboring life, abiogenesis research more and more appears to be a huge waste of valuable time, funding and energy. Time and energy spent engaged in such research could have been focused on eradicating horrible diseases and global mass pollution, not to mention being a complete waste of many millions if not billions of taxpayer and private donor dollars.  One would suppose such theorists will eventually get over the obvious, that exactly how, where and when life actually began is so far over our collective heads, as to be like the rest of our Creator's ways, "past finding out". It is fair to say the word "evolution" itself is misleading in relation to what modern evidence actually indicates.  Educators often try to sweep this rapid evolving reality hastily under the classroom rug, some now saying that evolution simply means "change".  However, in the minds of many if not most people, the word evolution does not equate with the word change, nor does it equate with "adapt and change", as if these are equally interchangeable ideas. While there is overwhelming evidence that life adapts and changes within an ever-changing universal environment, there is no evidence whatsoever that life ever has or ever will "evolve", as the word is commonly understood by most people.  One might fairly ask, why not call the theory "life in transition" rather than evolution, which more clearly and accurately defines what the modern evidence actually indicates (discussed elsewhere in more detail). According to the Bible, God's "understanding is infinite" and, God "counts the number of the stars" and "calls them all by name".  Although there are estimates for the number of stars in the universe, such estimates are highly questionable, as the size of our universe remains unknown and, there are far more stars in our galaxy alone than was assumed only a generation ago. Some scientists believe there are multiple universes and more than one scientist has stated there may be as many universes as there are stars in our own. It is fair to say that stars are "beyond number", far beyond the ability of human beings to detect, conceive of or comprehend.  Nevertheless both snowflakes and drops of water appear to each one be of unique design.  And yet, it has been established by science today that electrons and other particles swirling around the nucleus of atoms are woven in intricate patterns, giving the various elements distinct properties, rather than just haphazardly whirling around at random as one might assume "random blind unguided processes" would produce. If a human being could somehow shrink down to the sub-atomic level and perch on an electron inside of an atom, inside of a strand of DNA, inside of a virus, inside of a bacterium, inside of another human being's small intestines, such a tiny human perched on the electron would be far larger compared to the size of the average adult human, than the mathematically calculated projected true size of just our universe alone.  Our "window" into the universal and beyond reality is indeed so very tiny compared to what may be, that it cannot be fairly represented by a period on this page, in comparison to an ivory tower at Arizona State University. And yet, there are scientists today practicing their Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry at Oxford, Arizona State and other dubious universities of mass deception, prancing around the earth pretending to be "almost certain" there is no God, as if they somehow would know and we should all just bow down and take their word for it.  As our gravely wounded and mass polluted planet that our science and technology is leaving for our poor offspring to deal with as best they can, turns ever more rapidly towards global catastrophe, shouldn't we all be begging our Creator for advice on how to avert a looming WW3 bloodbath to end all bloodbaths, a world-wide climate crises, numerous worsening catastrophic disasters and disease and insect plague-ridden mass starvation (and that ain't even the half of it)? Such 'scientists' are living examples of why a common truck driver, construction worker or waitress shouldn't waste his or her hard earned money having their children 'educated' by such weavers of self-contradiction and practitioners of gross superstition.  It is fair to say that rational human beings, whether a scientist, a truck driver, a construction worker or a waitress, typically don't believe in either the "spaghetti monster", astrology or magically appearing universes, while anyone comparing God to the spaghetti monster openly demonstrates themselves to be devoid of science and reason and understanding of basic logic 1-A, not to mention common horse sense. Perhaps someone should have explained a long time ago to a certain militant atheist, that God by common language definition is Creator of the universe, while nobody in their right mind is claiming the spaghetti monster created much of anything.  How the ancient Greeks would laugh and utterly scorn such an infinitely preposterous lopsided apples and oranges juxtaposition, before banning anyone making such a grade school juvenile delinquent error in basic logic from the Academy for life! Is science being fair to artificially divide life up into species and then claim that one artificial division evolved from another?  Isn't it more honest to say that all of life is in a constant state of transition, along with the rest of the universe and, scientists then come along and arbitrarily divide life into artificial categories of human invention? Is it fair to say that a bird "evolved" a certain type of beak, as if a bird induced change by its own volition?  Isn't it more honest to conclude that all of life is created to adapt and change within an ever-changing universal reality, rather than change being somehow magically induced by random appearing, unguided, totally blind, purely by chance self-designing processes; as if energy, motion, light, intelligence, zillions upon zillions trillions of integrated parts working in tandem together, life itself and the rest of the "grand design" observable universal reality magically self-determined itself into existence? Isn't it more fair to conclude, based on the evolving and expanding 21st Century evidence, that it requires far more blind faith to embrace atheism than it does to believe in Harry Potter, Santa Clause, the flying spaghetti monster, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, astrology, prime time television, the honesty of priests, preachers, self-help and other gurus, politicians, lawyers, used car salesmen and all of the religions, mythologies, science fiction and other fiction novels, children's stories and fairy tales and any and all other known tales in the history of human civilization combined? One might fairly ask, if there is no God, why is there any such concept found on earth?  What reproductive or other advantage is there for a species to deliberately lie to itself and its own offspring?  Given the transient fragility of life as we know it in competition with itself, why would any species lie about anything? What would happen if scientists were to someday stumble upon a planet where there was no competition, greed, fear, violence or hunger.  A planet where there was an abundance of food and natural shelter, where no living fauna preyed upon other fauna or experienced want for anything?  Would hard-core Darwinists still insist on believing in evolution by natural selection? Why are scientists and other human beings so engaged in searching for what is true?  Who lied to us and, why? DNA Far More Complex Than Previously Assumed Chapter 7 - GOD AND CHARLES DARWIN Charles Darwin appears to have been a rather careful scientist trapped within the scientific knowledge of his own times, as is every scientist and other human being of every age in every generation tracing back into the mists of historical time, including every scientist here in the 21st Century.  It would be interesting to know what Darwin would say if he was alive today and could weigh his earlier conclusions against the post-Hubble Telescope, dual-language DNA, mysterious quantum and seemingly irreducibly complex molecular worlds and innumerable virus and microbial kingdoms of life that we currently have knowledge of here in the 21st Century. Perhaps Mr. Darwin would have long ago called for the exclusion of the term "evolution" from modern science textbooks, who can say for sure?  While there is no mention of our Creator in his original edition of "On the Origin of Species", in every subsequent edition Mr. Darwin credits God with being behind the universal reality and processes of life.  Darwin writes:  "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one. . ." In an 1861 third edition, Darwin writes ". . .science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life. . .", which according to the Encyclopedia Britannica and several noted modern scientists, is also true of science today.  Unlike many people assume and far too many scientists and educators pretend, modern science doesn't know either how, where, when or why life first came into existence, nor do scientists know what form life originally took even on earth.  Nor do they know whether life arose from one, several or even "zillions" of original tiny forms or, if life has emerged once or multiple times over the estimated 4.5+ billion year age of our planet. It is important to note that unlike the modern "tree" theory of evolution espoused by Richard Dawkins and many other atheistic scientists and educators, Darwin allows for the possibility of multiple original forms of life.  To insist that the grand overwhelming complexity and astounding incredible variety of life we know of today all arose from a singular extremely rare, random, purely by chance, incredibly coincidental magical occurrence somewhere deep within the ocean, has resulted in an extremely narrow-minded unimaginative theory, arising out of an obvious bias towards atheism at the expense of other possibilities (and one might fairly conclude "more likely" probabilities). Strong Evidence Life May Have Arisen From All Over the Earth And although we cannot fairly speak for Darwin, it might be fair to assume that if Darwin was alive today and had the modern knowledge we take for granted, he may well have written that life may have arisen from many or innumerable original forms, rather than just a "few" as he concludes based on the comparatively limited knowledge of his time.  Also unlike far too many scientists and educators today, Darwin clearly states that his theory of evolution does NOT explain the origins of life. These two very important distinctions are invariably overlooked in virtually all modern textbooks, videos and public discussions of Darwin, evolution and life.  And so right away, we can begin to understand just how badly modern students are misled by many of their instructors, who should know better and weigh more carefully what they teach against the modern evidence.  Rather than bowing to biased ivory-tower tradition, which is no more scientific than promoting religious bias and non-evidence based tradition. Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" is not about the origin of life itself as many assume but rather, it represents an attempt to explain how such a plethora of grand diversity and complexity of life may have eventually become what we can observe life as now being.  Thus, rather than his now famous book being entitled "On the Origins of Life", Darwin instead carefully uses the word "species" instead. Based on 21st Century evidence unavailable to Darwin, it is grossly inaccurate to pretend that the theory of evolution by natural selection satisfactorily or even remotely explains the origins of life.  Obviously if life existed prior to our own sun and solar system, as many modern scientists now suspect, human beings have no idea either how, when or where life first came into being. And in fact, the conclusion of "Eternal Creator", having existed far longer than any concept of human science, still remains by a very, very, very long shot, not only the best but the ONLY scientific explanation known that rationally satisfies origins.  "Before Abraham was, I AM" rationally explains everything that we can see or otherwise detect here in the 21st Century, while no creator, probably no creator or possibly no creator doesn't rationally explain anything at all.  If there is no Eternal Creator, there is no science, reason, logic or rational explanation for anything that we can observe or otherwise detect. Unlike many modern scientists and educators, Darwin openly welcomed any and all challenges to his theories and ideas and unlike many today pretend, Darwin wrote that "one can be an ardent Theist and evolutionist".  The manner in which the term "evolution" today is often carelessly used by far less qualified people, strongly implies there is no Creator or intelligence behind the universal reality (as if a human being could possibly know).  In doing so, such superstitious charlatans merely open themselves up to the ridicule such a baseless assumption richly deserves. It remains grossly unfair and scientifically and morally, just plain wrong for public schools in modern-day America to allow only the religion of atheism to be taught in a so-called 'science' class, at the expense of the 50% of American scientists and 80% of American educators who claim to believe in God.  If we had true freedom of speech and educators truly adhered to the First Amendment, both the views of scientists who believe in God and the views of scientists who do not would be fairly represented in student textbooks. As already noted, Charles Darwin credits our Creator with being behind the universal reality and processes of life in every edition of his now famous book other than the first.  Unlike some dishonest modern historians and scientists invent out of very thin air, the reason our Creator isn't referenced in Darwin's first edition probably has nothing to do with Darwin trying to appease his wife or religious leaders in later editions, as they pretend. Based on Darwin's own actions and willingness to openly debate religious leaders and other skeptics of his theory, there is no sound historical reason to conclude this and, every reason to believe otherwise.  Rather, the reason Darwin may have failed to include this in his first edition is because at that time in history, the vast majority of scientists and other educated people believed in God and thus, the existence of God is assumed and didn't apply to Darwin's purpose for writing the book. It is more likely Darwin included this statement in subsequent editions to clarify his own position, after his first edition had created a significant amount of public controversy, a controversy which perhaps Darwin himself didn't originally anticipate.  At any rate, it is hardly being fair to Charles Darwin to insinuate he was of such weak moral character and integrity, that he would bow to public pressure on such an important matter as what some scientists today refer to as the "God Question". If Darwin did, why would or should anyone revere or ever trust him or his judgment today? Consider the utter hypocrisy of someone claiming Darwin was too afraid of his wife and/or religious leaders to remain honest regarding something as foundationally important as whether or not there is a Creator on one hand, while on the other hand, the same person anointing Darwin as one of the greatest scientists of all time! Near the end of his life, Darwin himself described his mind as mainly agnostic, but not entirely . Since the term "agnostic" at that time in history sometimes referred to distrust in religions and human understanding of God, rather than doubt concerning the existence of God, it may be fair to conclude that while Darwin seriously doubted the religions of his society (as did Socrates, Jesus, Paul and Einstein among many other prominent historical people), even till his dying day Darwin at the very least, suspected there might be a Creator.  As some historians and other intellectuals today incredibly dishonestly do, no one can honestly conclude that someone who claims to be "mainly agnostic but not entirely" is an atheist. It is more fair to conclude that neither Darwin nor any other legitimate scientist or honest human being would say there is no God or probably no God, as there is simply no known evidence supporting such an irrational, non-evidence based, non-verifiable position.  And, as anyone who is even a little bit familiar with Socrates, Descartes and the history of philosophy, science and reason is aware of, what Darwin believed or failed to believe has no relevance to the existence of God, nor does what any of the rest of us believe or fail to believe have any relevance to God's existence, any more than what humans believe about the shape of the earth would somehow dictate the actual true shape of the earth. There is no evidence energy, motion or light can exist without Primary Cause, while there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  There is no evidence finite beings of intelligence and conscious awareness can randomly arise and magically exist unto themselves, while there is overwhelming evidence that intelligence and conscious awareness, if not eternal, requires previous intelligence and conscious awareness in order to exist.  There is no evidence zillions of trillions of zillions of parts within parts can magically self-assemble, while there is overwhelming evidence that computers, automobiles and anything and everything else containing parts within parts, requires intelligence, conscious awareness, conception, design and construction in order to exist. There is no evidence that mathematics can magically exist unto itself, as if a math test sitting on a student's desk in a classroom at MIT or Oxford could just randomly magically "self-design" and appear on a few pages stapled together, without an intelligent being conceiving of, devising and creating the test; as if math could somehow just randomly accurately predict the existence of a particle of matter before the particle is actually discovered.  And as detailed elsewhere, it requires far more blind faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in all of the religions, fairy tales and other superstitions in human civilization history combined. If the modern "big bang" theory is accurate, there is no evidence for "random" from the top down anywhere within the grand design universal reality; whatever we can observe and otherwise detect, including in the quantum reality where scientists often carelessly apply the term "random", is a result of the big bang and by common language definition, is not random from the top down.  It is helpful to state here as previously noted, some quantum theorists have suggested what appears from our view to be particles of matter "randomly" popping in and out of existence, may in reality be merely a result of matter traveling between dimensions we can detect and other dimensions we cannot detect. Suffice it to say, here in an age of vanishing compassion, democracy and freedom, it overwhelmingly appears that human science knows very little about either human behavior, the quantum world or much of anything else, compared to what there is yet to learn.  Near the beginning of the First Century, Jesus said, "before Abraham was, I AM" and here in the 21st Century, there remains no other known rational explanation other than Eternal Creator(s), for the existence of the observable reality we call "universe".  The entire universe is evidence for God; there is far more evidence for God than for invisible light, black holes, dark matter, dark energy and all of the rest of modern evidence combined. Today, we find ourselves living in a 21st Century of greed-is-good philosophy, extreme arrogance, dishonesty and avarice, growing unrest and violence.  A growing global economic gap between the wealthy and the poor has unsurprisingly, led to increasing global corporate economic dominance and indenturetude, a growing lack of love and empathy and looming planetary catastrophe, the likes of which human civilization has never before experienced; an age clearly and scientifically accurately predicted by Jesus. Nothing contained within this work purports to "apologize" for our Creator but rather, many of our scientists, authors, media hacks and educators should indeed, be apologizing to we the common people who Jesus dearly loves for grossly misleading us and offering our children no hope, rhyme, reason or purpose for crawling out of bed in the morning.  Our father in heaven has no need of anyone to apologize for or other wise defend him.  Creation and the words and deeds of Jesus speak for God. In spite of growing overwhelming evidence for deliberate conception and design displayed in every direction and everywhere we turn within the "grandeur" of our observable reality, many scientists and educators continue to pretend there is no God.  As if they somehow would know and because they have a string of rather dubious credentials attached to their names, we should all just bow low and take their blind faith word for it.  As if Jesus wasn't correct regarding the blind leading the blind falling into a common ditch of deception and destruction. As if our modern science and education doesn't continue to produce scientists who work for the global war machine and bankers and politicians of extreme avarice and even less wisdom and vision, who while living in opulent excess themselves, continue to deliberately scam the common masses out of life, liberty, health, homes, jobs, work safety, vacation, paid sick and maternity leave, retirement and other benefits, life savings and any hope of a pursuit of happiness; as if they aren't just common sinners born in the dark like the rest of us; as if they are fooling anyone other than themselves. And, as if a so-called "age of reason" hadn't resulted in the rise of global imperialism and slavery, violent and bloody American, French, Russian, Chinese and many other revolutions and far more devastating and destructive wars; as if our science and education hasn't resulted in horrific weapons of mass destruction rather than peace and mutual cooperation, a looming World War Three and a pollution filled environmental nightmare for our children and children's children to inherit and try to survive in as best they can.  As if any of this somehow proves that life is only about survival of the fittest and, human rights and morality have no origin, basis, rhyme, reason or purpose; as if such purveyors of pulp fiction openly denying their own shortcomings would somehow know. Here in a 21st Century of science and wonder, Charles Darwin, the de facto god of far too many modern intellectuals who really should know better, a careful scientist who many times credited our Creator with being behind the processes of life, may be on the verge of being dethroned. And perhaps no one other than our Creator would be as pleased as Darwin himself. That is, if he were here today to speak for himself, rather than the many frauds today claiming to understand what Darwin intended, rather than going by what he actually said in his own written words.  One might fairly ask, how could such a profound scientist be incapable of speaking for himself regarding the most fundamental question in all of human history, inquiry and reason, which is how and why is there a universe likely teaming with all manner of both familiar and unimaginable exotic forms of life? No one living today really knows, but it may be that our Creator isn't mentioned in Darwin's first edition because the vast majority of scientists of his day were humble enough to bow to the obvious overwhelming evidence, rather than wasting valuable time, energy and money prancing around pretending the universe somehow magically appeared, as if anyone living on earth somehow would or could possibly know.  Charles Darwin was likely far better than that and so no doubt, is our father in heaven. Archaea and the Scientist Who Scrambled Darwin's Tree of Life Evolution Inadequate to Explain Cambrian Predator New Evidence Shaking Darwin's Tree Chapter 8 - IS MODERN THEORY AS "ROCK-SOLID" AS SOME CLAIM? A secular non-creationist biologist in a 2009 PBS video discussing and detailing some of the most recent scientific evidence, stated that evolutionary theory as generally believed today will likely be mostly if not entirely discarded within fifty years.  And a secular molecular biologist in the same video stated that life is so overwhelmingly complex at the atomic and sub-atomic (quantum) levels, it is irrational to pretend that science can ever have a legitimate theory of life functionality and origins. These were two currently practicing professional secular biologists merely trying to go by the evidence, stating their professional opinions in a public evolutionary science video.  This video was not produced by creationists, did not feature a single creationist's opinion, nor did it mention either God, creation or intelligent design.  More significantly, discoveries since then have caused many scientists and educators to call for a complete re-write of biology 101, underscoring what these scientists stated in this 2009 video to be correct. According to biologist James Shapiro:  "Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents."  "Given the exemplary status of biological evolution, we can anticipate that a paradigm shift in our understanding of that subject will have repercussions far outside the life sciences. . .  And, to quote evolutionary biologist Eric Bapteste of Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris:  "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality". What's Wrong About Darwin's Theory? According to a 2009 article on the current state of evolutionary theory published in "The Guardian" (see following link):  "Genetic tests on bacteria, plants and animals increasingly reveal that different species crossbreed more than originally thought, meaning that instead of genes simply being passed down individual branches of the tree of life, they are also transferred between species on different evolutionary paths.  The result is a messier and more tangled web of life".  And, according to British biologist Denis Noble of Oxford University, who has called for a complete revision of evolutionary theory, "the paradigms for genetic causality in biological systems are seriously confused". Charles Darwin Wrong About Tree of Life Life Continues to Ignore What Evolution Experts Say Wikipedia Denis Noble Biography According to a 2010 article by author and British journalist Oliver Burkeman published in The Guardian: "Epigenetics is the most vivid reason why the popular understanding of evolution might need revising, but its not the only one.  We've learned that huge proportions of the human genome consist of viruses, or virus-like materials, raising the notion that they got there through infection meaning that natural selection acts not just on random mutations, but on new stuff that's introduced from elsewhere. Relatedly, there is growing evidence, at the level of microbes, of genes being transferred not just vertically, from ancestors to parents to offspring, but also horizontally, between organisms. The researchers Carl Woese and Nigel Goldenfield conclude that, on average, a bacterium may have obtained 10% of its genes from other organisms in its environment." Why Everything We've Been Told About Evolution is Wrong Archaea and the Scientist Who Scrambled Darwin's Tree of Life Evolution Inadequate to Explain Cambrian Predator New Evidence Shaking Darwin's Tree As detailed elsewhere within this work, natural selection claims of changes due to "random mutations", based on modern genetic evidence unknown to Darwin, may be partially if not entirely wrong, thanks in no small part to evidence demonstrating that microbes living within macro-organisms can change their own DNA, in turn inducing changes in visible macro forms of life once assumed to be "random".  As recent genetic and other discoveries indicate, what may appear to be random to scientists initially may in fact, not be random from a larger and better understanding and perspective. Bacteria recycle broken DNA (Indicates Mutations Are Not Random) Viruses Copy Parts of Their Own DNA Code and Self-Replicate According to newly evolving science discussed at the link that follows:  The discovery that squid edit their own genes "provides another jolt to the 'central dogma' of molecular biology, which states that genetic information is passed faithfully from DNA to messenger RNA to the synthesis of proteins.  In 2015, Rosenthal and colleagues discovered that squid 'edit' their messenger RNA instructions to an extraordinary degree -- orders of magnitude more than humans do -- allowing them to fine-tune the type of proteins that will be produced in the nervous system." Such evidence as discussed in this and the preceding paragraph directly contradicts Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, as to how and why life adapts and changes. Gene Editing Powers Discovered in Squid It is more than fair to inquire of any scientist or anyone else using terminology such as "random", "unguided", "natural" "totally by chance" and similar non-verifiable inventions unworthy of the least plausible science fiction:  Who among us has traveled beyond our universe and looking down, scientifically verified and determined beyond any rational or even slightly reasonable doubt, that what we on earth can perceive and otherwise detect, is indeed a result of random, unguided, "totally by chance", natural processes?  Why would anyone invent such non-verifiable quacker-jackery, why would anyone confuse such nonsense with science and more alarmingly, why would anyone living in the 21st Century believe them? Challenges to Darwinian Evolution at Fundamental Microscopic Level Viruses Can Transfer Genes Across Superkingdoms of Life Microbes Controlling Actions of Host's Genes Chapter 9 - IS EVERYTHING REALLY ABOUT REPRODUCTIVE ADVANTAGE? It seems to have never dawned on many modern scientists, that just perhaps similar we human beings, God can create works of art displaying both practical, reproductive and aesthetic design purposes woven in combination.  Human beings typically include non-functional aesthetic design in virtually everything we create, from paper clips and automobiles to tall buildings, large areas of and even entire cities. The U.S. Supreme Court building displays ornate columns that both hold up the roof and are also aesthetically designed to be pleasing to the eye of the beholder, even though there is no practical reason for their existence, other than for holding up the roof.  Obviously, houses and larger structures would be much less expensive, easier and quicker to build if they were just constructed for practical functional purposes only, with no thought of physical attractiveness or artistic design.  And yet, human beings have built magnificent glass-walled modern skyscrapers with expensive ornately-designed interiors, the Parthenon, the Taj Mahal, designed large city park and public gathering areas containing elegant fountains and historic statues and, painted giant figures and faces on the sides of city buildings and the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Just perhaps, our Creator is at least as capable of creative multiplicity in function and design as we humans are.  Just perhaps, birds sometimes fly and glide, fish dart and swim and squirrels sometimes run and jump around just for the fun of it or, just because they feel like it, as we humans are prone to do, rather than for some rigidly attributable survival and/or reproductive purpose.  And just perhaps, the beautiful feathers of a peacock are created for BOTH reproductive survival and aesthetic purposes woven in combination within the same grand design, who can say for sure? Consider the incredible complexity of what science arbitrarily calls the natural world (as if changing terminology somehow disproves "creation"), where trillions of microbes, plants, insects, mammals and other living things react individually and differently within the same general environmental scene , depending on what kind of eyes, ears or other perception tools they may possess.  Just perhaps, Someone great enough to design and create the grand design universal reality would also be capable of creating for both practical functionality and aesthetic purposes at the same time, given that such lowly creatures as ourselves do so on a consistent and ongoing basis. Even some spiders create a differently designed, yet practically functional web every single day of their lives.  Why wouldn't our Creator be at least as capable of combined artistic and functional design as a human being or a spider is capable of?  We humans are often quick to draw conclusions that we in fact, neither know for certain or have any way of knowing.  Like the proverbial not being able to see the forest for the trees or, the overwhelming evidence of creation because of invented terminology like "natural world", atheistic scientists clearly remain victims of their own narrow-minded egotistical foolishness. Chapter 10 - EVOLUTIONARY "MONKEY-WRENCH" OF INDIVIDUAL CHOICE In the article on animal behavior, Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't go much into detail about microbial behavior, which is an emerging science in its infancy.  It has been recently discovered that even theoretically "brainless" microbes exhibit types of individual choices, which greatly adds to the evolutionary pie of irreducible complexity, as there are virtually infinitely more microbes on our planet than visible organisms. It has also been discovered that, completely unknown to Charles Darwin, microbes living inside macro organisms routinely "harvest" DNA from dead material outside of themselves and use it to alter their own internal DNA.  It may well be true that the actions of microbes inhabiting larger visible forms of life might account for far more observed changes in the macro world Darwin was familiar with than natural selection ever hoped to achieve. Individual choice no doubt greatly affects adaptive change within the animal kingdom, a fact virtually ignored by many educators and apparently even some scientists.  Like humans, various animals have been observed to be highly "choice-oriented", rather than mainly robotic creatures operating from gene-inherited "instinct", as was religiously taught in textbooks only a generation or two ago.  The term "instinct", once prevalent in public films and popular media, seems to be used less and less these days. Many actions of some if not all animals and insects appear to represent both individual choice and learned behavior, though percentages of learned behavior compared to inherited instinctual traits of course, remain unknown (as is likewise true regarding humans).  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 many other creatures.  Even bees are far more complex than previously understood, not only in their communication skills, but also bees based on scientific testing, seem to be emotional creatures with feelings of happiness and sadness. There is strong evidence that birds teach their young to quite literally, sing like a bird of their particular kind.  Certain spiders weave a new differently designed web every day, some ants bury their dead and, elephants have been observed holding a type of funeral procession, standing over and apparently mourning over a recently deceased member for days.  While there is a plausible alternative explanation for why ants bury their dead, science so far has not been so fortunate when it comes to mourning elephants. If a termite by making an individual choice, alters its diet in some small seemingly insignificant way, such a presumably insignificant choice can eventually alter an entire African ecosystem on up (and down) the chain; just one very tiny example of how overwhelmingly complex the overall biological processes and adapt and change functionality of life are in true reality.  Consider a perhaps 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 and what became known as the "fast food" industry may have been significantly affected by one simple individual choice variation. Not that the fast food industry and resultant mega meat, vegetable and fruit farms polluted by DDT and Monsanto weed poison wouldn't have likely eventually thrived without the influence of Mr. Kroc.  but rather, the modern reality of corporate mega-farming may have arisen more gradually if not for the rapid rise of the McDonald's hamburger chain.  And, subsequent competing companies would have probably likewise appeared more slowly, thus altering the type of food human beings consumed for a decade or more and consequently, significantly altering human disease reality for a period of time.  Even if so-called "junk" food represents an overall plus rather than a minus for human health (which is about as likely as the concept of "junk" DNA being accurate), human disease reality and microbial kingdoms within us would still have been significantly altered. In the 1950's, sugary drinks were sold in 8 ounce bottles, gradually replaced by a 12 ounce size. Later the convenience store chain Seven Eleven introduced the 32 ounce "Big Gulp" and now here in the 21st Century, convenience stores routinely offer 44 ounce sizes.  Most fast food outlets today also sell 32 and 44 ounce sizes, many allowing unlimited refills. Not surprisingly, obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other health problems have increased significantly on a global level.  Consider how much healthier literally billions of people would be today if we lived in more enlightened societies where the unbridled greed of modern capitalism was tempered by more compassionate hearts and minds and, corporations weren't allowed to replace the original 8 ounce 1950's size soda in order to attract ever more and more and more addicted consumers. Obviously, both individual human and animal choices have huge effects on how living organisms are forced to compensate through adaptation and change.  Consider just the human gut and how much the rise of modern fast food must have influenced and altered the average human gut microbiome.  No legitimate scientist disputes that large corporate mega-farming affects human disease, even if some corporate lobby hacks contend it might "improve" the human health equation.  It is universally agreed today that what we eat is of overwhelmingly significant importance to our own overall health, as well as the health and well-being of future generations. Consider how significantly grain fed and hormone injected cattle must have altered human health and disease in comparison to when we largely consumed grass fed cattle (fattening cattle with corn became commonplace in the 1950's and 1960's).  Small choices that parents make, such as what neighborhood block to purchase a home on, which religion or club to join or where to send their children to school, can have global altering consequences in terms of raising a heart surgeon or dictator, the inventor of a viable alternative fuel or a president who could care less; a plumber, teacher, scientist, career criminal, violin player or a violent anarchist.  Consider how much modern global mass pollution alone must have altered human, animal and plant DNA. The reality and influences of how life actually functions, changes and adapts in true reality is so overwhelmingly complex, it may well be irrational to pretend human science can ever have a legitimate theory of evolution or any other theory which adequately accounts for the universal living-world complexity.  While it may be unfair to criticize scientists for what they do not know or for attempting to dissect even the most complex of puzzles God's creation throws at us, unsuspecting students and the general public should be taught fairly in regards to current limits of scientific, historical and other human inquiry. Primary problems begin at the very poorly understood quantum level, where nothing works according to either Einstein's or any other "macro world" theories.  As one physicist recently stated in a PBS video, the only thing certain about quantum theory is that no two scientists entirely agree.  Moving up, we encounter the seemingly irreducible complexity of molecular biology and then the realms of viruses, archaea and bacteria, where it is believed the vast majority of species remain undiscovered. As noted previously, science knows almost nothing about viruses compared to what there is left to learn.  And as one can plainly see, the origins and root causes of disease and functionality of life here in the 21st Century remain shrouded in mystery, deeply muddied in irreducible complexity before we even reach a single comparatively gigantic bacterium. Consider that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was published in the 19th Century, long prior to knowledge of exo-planets, modern DNA science and the emerging field of quantum biology.  And then, consider that typically when students study biology today, they are taught a lot about Darwin's theory and, virtually nothing about how individual choices made by ourselves and the rest of the living things on our planet overwhelmingly irreducibly effect any and all living things. Then again, consider how human beings appear to have contributed significantly to all manner of weather-related disasters, species migration and annihilation and a myriad of health and other problems caused by human induced pollution.  And then there are government policies often crafted for partisan purposes and the often wicked leaders pretending to represent us, who think nothing of destroying any hope for the survival of their own offspring, for a few oil and gas lobby dollars more.  One might fairly ask, how is any of this a "reproductive" or any other advantage to this self-contradicting creature called "human being"? Additionally, the reason forms of life adapt and change appears to have a lot to do with what trillions of tiny organisms living inside larger macro organisms do on a daily and ongoing basis, which Darwin knew nothing about and consequently, his theory doesn't address.  The irreducible complexity of how and why living organisms adapt and change is incredibly magnified, just in considering the overwhelmingly complex role individual choice can play on a local to global biological environmental reality.  As such, the great mystery of life at the quantum level of the very small, as well as at every other level, remains a very deep mystery that may well be far beyond the ability of humanity to even begin to adequately explain. Evidence Natural Selection Theory is Inadequate Challenges to Darwinian Evolution at Fundamental Microscopic Level Microbes Controlling Actions of Host's Genes Bacteria Recycle Broken DNA (Indicates Mutations Are Not Random) Bacteria Acquire Resistance from Competitors Viruses Copy Parts of Their Own DNA Code and Self-Replicate Gene Editing Powers Discovered in Squid Archaea and the Scientist Who Scrambled Darwin's Tree of Life Viruses Can Transfer Genes Across Superkingdoms of Life Chapter 11 - UNIVERSAL TRANSITION As one can learn for themselves from browsing early literature and sources, what is today commonly called "nature" was for thousands of years referred to as both "creation" and "nature"; often interchangeably, the author assuming a created natural reality.  Today, scientists and educational materials misleadingly refer to the physical world we perceive solely as the "natural world", as if changing terminology somehow changes the reality of how life either came to be or functions. Because of such deception by omission in modern classrooms, many students today fail to grasp that at the time of Darwin, the vast majority of scientists, educators and other intellectuals, as well as virtually all other people, believed in creation.  Darwin himself assigns "the Creator" as being behind the processes of life in every subsequent edition of "On the Origin of Species" after the first.  And as discussed elsewhere, the reason Darwin didn't reference a Creator in the first edition may simply have been because nearly all of his anticipated readers believed in God and thus, Darwin found no need to entertain any debate in regards to the obvious. In subsequent editions of his now famous work, Darwin writes:  "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one. . ."  And, in an 1861 third edition, Darwin writes ". . .science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life. . .", which according to the Encyclopedia Britannica and several noted modern scientists, remains true of science today. Many educators and others pretend that God isn't a question for science.  As if we could somehow just accept there is such a thing as a computer without having any rhyme, reason or clue as to how computers happen to exist and, still have a legitimate science of computers; as if we could have a legitimate history of the United States without considering anything prior to the American Revolutionary War; as if our children have any hope of being 'educated' without including the study of a Bible that nearly every key European and American scientist, philosopher, author and educator from the 1st through the 19th centuries studied at length. Scientists often misleadingly use the word "evolve", stating that a certain species of bird "evolved" a different type of beak or, a certain species of frog "evolved" new skin coloration, as if a living form of life somehow induced change by its own volition.  Rather than considering the larger picture, that just perhaps life is deliberately designed to adapt and change within a dynamic ever-changing, adapting, re-arranging and expanding created grand design universal reality.  How could living organisms be expected to survive, if they were instead designed to be rigid and non-pliable, as we mere mortals tend to create? Modern atheism invariably attempts to bring any claim of God down to our level, as if our tiny little human minds reign supreme in the universe.  Such a colossal mistake is far too narrow minded, rigid and unimaginative to envision how unfathomably great the intelligence of a being would be who the heavens and what lies beyond cannot contain. Those today who claim not to believe in "a little man in the sky" are clearly being extremely narrow-minded and "little-brained" themselves.  We know today that comparatively extremely tiny micro-organisms live within us.  And thus, who are we to say with any scientific certainty, that there is no Primary Cause Eternal Supreme Being, within who like the New Testament says, "we live and move and have our being?" Unlike Darwin had any knowledge of, it is theorized today that what causes the universe and all of the life contained therein to be in a constant state of adapt and change transition, more than likely is rooted at the quantum level.  This is a counter-intuitive confusing (to us) world scientists are just beginning to attempt to unravel. One of the most significant shortcomings of Darwin's theory is that it originally focused on a much too narrow window, without knowledge of or consideration for the overwhelmingly larger and more complex micro and macro reality known today here in the 21st Century.  Isn't it being rather unimaginative and shortsighted to cling to a theory that was proposed prior to any knowledge of the complexity and language of DNA, molecular biology and, the slowly emerging field of quantum biology? According to scientific research discussed at the following link:  "Until recently, scientists could not apply quantum mechanics to biological systems because of the large numbers of atoms involved.  But the latest generation of supercomputers, along with the development of efficient mathematical tools to solve quantum mechanical equations, is making these calculations possible. . ."  As more than one biologist has bravely pointed out, modern science doesn't really understand very well how life truly functions at root molecular and sub-atomic levels. Quantum Biology: Computer Models Reveal Key Biological Mechanism Unlocking Design Principles of Quantum Biology Today, if someone dares to challenge the blind faith evolutionary biology found in university textbooks and pulp fiction posing as science, they open themselves up to ridicule and scorn by many who have never actually studied the scientific evidence very carefully for themselves. Embracing the fact that life is constantly adapting and changing is not synonymous with "believing" in a blind faith foundationless superstition proposing that the universe and life contained therein spontaneously appeared out of nowhere, magically self-designing itself into existence (which Darwin himself never suggested). The truth is, here in a 21st Century of expanding evidence and rapidly evolving diversity of opinions, a majority of American educators and professional researchers claim to believe in God. And many researchers themselves, including some atheistic scientists, are beginning to openly challenge standard Darwinian theory (as already discussed in detail in previous chapters with many supporting links). Obviously if life wasn't flexible enough to adapt and change within ever-changing universal environments, life would have no chance of surviving and, we humans wouldn't be here to question the accuracy of Darwinian theory.  If life has existed prior to our own sun and solar system, as many scientists today suspect, then although planets, stars and entire galaxies may come and go, this extremely tenacious, adaptable and pliable thing called "life" marches on, in spite of all manner of harsh environments and disastrous events here on earth and, far greater cataclysmic challenges far beyond our own human experience. One of the most blindly accepted and rarely thought through very carefully claims of modern science is, that species evolve from other species.  This concept is religiously indoctrinated into the impressionable minds of modern students from elementary school forward. Many textbooks, popular media articles and video programs take this a ridiculous non-evidence based giant leap further, blanketly assuming, with no supporting evidence offered, that all of life as we can observe it to be today, came about through a series of random, blind, unguided, "self-selecting", totally by chance processes.  But is this what is really true and if it is, how would anyone living on earth verify the accuracy of such superstitious non-scientific fiction? Teaching students the truth, that modern science at the present doesn't know how life either came to be on earth or assumedly elsewhere in the universe, would be far more honest and far less arrogant.  Teaching both students and the general public that all of life as far as we know is in "transition" and, life "adapts and changes" to ever-changing universal environments, would be far more accurate and less misleading.  To be fair, Charles Darwin didn't have nearly the same evidence that is available to anyone today with a web-accessible device. It is important to understand that the concept of "species" is an artificial human invention and, such an artificial human division of life neither changes nor affects how the processes of life actually function.  This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that as far as we know, life adapted and changed for billions of years prior to any concept of either evolution or the term "species" existed.  Whether a child calls all snakes simply a snake or, a scientist divides snakes up into many distinct "species", this is no way, shape or form either satisfactorily explains or changes how snakes came to be as they currently are or, how life actually functions in true reality. And, calling the physical reality we perceive to exist the "natural" world rather than "creation" likewise, doesn't change either how life came to be or how life functions.  Rather, changing terminology for no rational or scientifically verifiable reason, creates significant bias and confusion.  Consider how foolish it would be for anyone here on earth to attempt to demonstrate by peer reviewed verified evidence, that we live in a "natural" world rather than a created universal environment.  Who decided they know more than Socrates, Plato, Jesus, Copernicus, Isaac Newton and the modern scientist Francis Collins and, what evidence do they have? Even if we do somehow magically exist within a non-designed and created universe that somehow spontaneously magically arose out of nowhere from nothing, a claim which has been mathematically calculated to be very far less likely than the moon is larger and warmer than the sun, consider the real honesty of such a boneheaded assumption. To be fair to the rules of science and evidence, one would need to crawl outside and beyond our universe and peering down within, be able to verify by evidence from prior to the big bang top down, this to be scientifically true and correct.  Consider how hard the blind-faith religion of modern atheism truly must be to embrace! And yet, such juvenile delinquent science fiction is the quicksand foundation that many university textbooks and New York Times best selling careers are based on here in the 21st Century.  Perhaps we should all pay a little closer attention to someone who insisted his father in heaven told him what to teach us:  The foolish man "built his house on the sand.  And the rain descended, the floods came and the winds blew and beat on that house and it fell.  And, great was its fall" Matthew 26-27. Scientists here in the 21st Century still debate how to actually define and correctly categorize various species.  Several different methods of biological classification currently exist for the same observable reality of living organisms and, widely used biological classification methods today are considerably different than even a single generation ago. One need only do a quick web search to find several different illustrated methods of life classification, some dividing life into more "kingdoms" and categories than others.  Clearly, how human science chooses to categorize life has no influence over how life actually behaves in true universal reality and thus, to claim that one species "evolves" from another species represents human arrogance far more than being a legitimate evaluation of what actually transpires. Rather than one species "evolving" from another species, what is actually true is that we live in a dynamic, ever-changing universal reality, where not only living forms of life change and re-arrange, but planetary environments, suns, solar systems, galaxies and larger universal structures are themselves a result of adapting, re-arranging and changing forces and realities. And, zooming down to atomic and lower levels, everything that we can observe and otherwise detect likewise appears to be in a constant state of adapt and change transition.  And thus, living organisms that we can observe, caught up somewhere in-between the quantum world and the highest level being the universe itself, are then observed by us living here on earth to be constantly adapting and changing.  As discussed elsewhere, the reasons for such changes are many and diverse and, many such changes are induced by attributable causes other than by natural selection as envisioned by Charles Darwin (some examples at following links). Bacteria Recycle Broken DNA Viruses Copy Parts of Their Own DNA Code and Self-Replicate Gene Editing Powers Discovered in Squid Unlike Darwin had any clue regarding, viruses and microbes changing and re-arranging their own DNA would very likely cause much of the changes in macro-organisms that Darwin mistakenly attributed to natural selection.  As microbial kingdoms within ourselves and within other macro-organisms change and re-arrange, we macro organisms re-act, adapt and change in order to survive. And to give Darwin some credit (who assigned our Creator with being behind the processes of life), life is also created to adapt and change to ever-changing environments, wherever life happens to find itself.  As the Psalmist sang, we are indeed "fearfully and wonderfully made"; as is apparently the rest of the grand design universal reality, from the mysterious quantum world on up to the backbone structure of the universe itself. We know today that EVERYTHING that we can observe and otherwise detect, is caught up within and is a part of a dynamic and expanding, non-static constantly re-arranging, changing and adapting reality.  This appears to an observer of living organisms here on earth, to not only be how God creates life but rather, how God created the entire universe to be; a dynamic, ever re-arranging, adapting and changing grand design expanding cosmic reality. Largely because of the somewhat dated and misleading term "evolution", student textbooks, the general media, PBS and other science videos and various other general public sources, often contain significant non-verifiable errors and bias.  Human beings are often said to be descended from the "ape family", which Darwin himself denied. Even Richard Dawkins admits apes and humans are two modern forms of life that didn't exist in the not too distant past.  It is just as accurate to say that apes "evolved" from the human family as it is to say that humans "evolved" from the ape family, although neither statement is in fact, scientifically accurate. What most biologists assume is that somewhere over at least six million years ago, both apes and humans shared a common ancestor, an ancestor that was neither an ape or a human as we perceive apes and humans to be today.  This may or may not be true, as a true "missing link" has so far not been found. If it is true, then both apes and humans "transitioned" from the same life form which was neither a modern ape or a modern human being.  The term "evolution" creates a bias of "advancement" where none necessarily exists, which in turn creates the bias of human beings descending from apes, rather than the other way around. If life existed prior to our own sun and solar system, then there is no such thing as evolutionary advancement.  Life theoretically emerges on zillions of unknown planets, most likely in many exotic forms unknown to us here on earth.  Eventually, such worlds cease to exist and, so do suns providing much of what was necessary for life to have arisen. If life does exist elsewhere beyond our own solar system, then there is no evidence that life is "advancing".  Rather, life emerges, re-arranges, adapts and changes for a time and then, eventually ceases to exist, only to re-emerge on new worlds warmed by new suns.  As such, life neither evolves or advances but rather, life remains in a constant state of adapt and change transition, along with along with the constantly adapting and changing universal reality. Certain kinds of spiders weave a complex differently patterned web every day; most ants are arguably far less lazy than all human beings and, an ant's neck can withstand over 2,000 times its own body weight.  Is it fair to conclude a very recent "species" that, even after 10,000 years of moral instruction to the contrary, continues to create weapons of mass destruction, frequently go to war for no rational survival or any other sane reason at all and, continues to mass pollute the environment of its own offspring, is more "advanced" than an ape, a spider, an ant or even cockroaches, which have managed to survive and reproduce for over two hundred million years? Rather than focusing on what modern science "believes", modern educators should rather, be focused on a search for what is really true.  We should be teaching our offspring that if we want to be free, what matters is what is really true, rather than defending what human beings currently believe.  Regardless of what we human beings believe or disbelieve and, regardless of which theories, ideas, formulas and terminology we invent to describe and explain what we can perceive, what is actually true remains the same. This is not entirely true, because what we believe influences how we think and act, but it is essentially true in the larger picture.  Whether we believe the earth is spherical, square or shaped like a pyramid or, whether we insist the earth doesn't even exist, none of this changes either the shape of the earth or the fact of its existence.  Other than influencing our actions and in turn other people and the larger environment around us, what we believe or refuse to believe doesn't change what is actually true. What appears to be true, based on the modern evidence, is that all of life is constantly adapting and changing in reaction ever-changing universal environments, which is how our father in heaven created our universe to function.  This is more accurately described as "universal transition and less accurately "life in transition", rather than insisting on using the misleading and outdated term "evolution". This is because today, science is aware that not only life, but the entire universe is in a state of constant adapt and change universal transition, something Darwin and his peers knew nothing about. Neither Darwin or the rest of humanity knew this prior to Edwin Hubble verifying that the universe isn't static but rather, is expanding.  And as was gradually learned over time, everything in the universe appears to be dynamic rather than static, almost as if the universe itself is alive. Obviously, clinging to a theory focusing on changes within living organisms that doesn't account for the larger universe in flux reality we know of today, has little chance of being remotely accurate.  All of the evidence known to Darwin and all of the evidence known to science since, could just as easily (and actually far more likely) be interpreted as a cosmic reality being deliberately conceived of, designed and created, rather than "natural" (whatever that means). Human beings have invented a system that artificially divides life up into categories like species , genus , "family", "order" and so on.  And as already noted, such artificial divisions obviously have no bearing on how life either came to be or actually functions in true universal reality.  Even if scientists eventually were to invent a completely agreed to form of life classification that was actually completely and entirely correct, all this would demonstrate is that human science somehow completely and accurately managed to describe how God's creation functions within our earthbound experience. As already noted, if life wasn't created to adapt and change, it obviously wouldn't survive within a constantly changing universal environment.  As far as we know here in the 21st Century, the universe and everything contained therein is created to adapt and change on a grand cosmic scale very far over our collective heads.  To claim otherwise is to stray outside of the boundaries of science and reason, inventing the worst kind of science fiction imaginable, which can neither be observed, verified or trusted. All of the evidence known to humanity clearly demonstrates that the existence of energy, motion, intelligence, parts-within-parts and a long list of other observable phenomena requires Primary Cause.  Who among us here on earth can scientifically demonstrate otherwise? There is no evidence that a pliable reality like the universe could magically arise and blindly self-design all by itself and, there is no rational reason for considering such, any more than for considering a house could magically design itself into existence, without any architect, builder or construction workers to conceive of, design and construct the house.  Yet, this is precisely what atheists and agnostics would have us believe, that something as incredibly overwhelmingly irreducibly complex as the grand design cosmic universal reality either did or could have magically arisen and self-designed from scratch; the fairytale to end all fairytales. Rational and reasonable adults prior to Darwin typically didn't believe in magically arising energy, motion, light, universal or any other laws and/or processes and/or anything else designing itself.  Given the atheistic baseless nonsense posing as 'science' today, one might fairly question as to whether or not the human brain is devolving backwards into the mists of darker ages past, rather than advancing forward, as some would have us believe. Unfortunately, it is pretty much a sure bet that if we eventually come up with a way to harness the sun's energy to create a cheap and practical alternative to burning fossil fuels, such "fusion" power will undoubtedly be used to make weapons so horrific that we here on a climate warming earth will pine for the days of comparatively firecracker-like nuclear bombs.  If one might think to disagree, consider that the U.S. war machine is heavily involved today with both the funding of and hands on research into fusion power (and much of the rest of scientific research as well). What science classifies as "species" may come and go, but life itself marches on.  As far as we know today here in the 21st Century and arguably, as far as human science can ever know, life may have existed prior to our own sun and solar system, may have existed prior to our current universe and, life may continue to exist forever and ever in "a new heaven and a new earth", long after our universe fades away. Beyond what human scientists can observe and otherwise detect, modern science simply doesn't know.  What science doesn't know does not now, nor will it ever equate to random blind unguided totally by chance processes.  Consider how childish and foolish such blind faith belief in magically appearing self-designing universes truly is. 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 ocean and earth, rather than evolving from a singular source in the ocean, as Darwinian evolution has long assumed. Recent evidence reported in 2019 indicates that DNA may have arisen on earth earlier than previously thought.  What this report implies but does not say directly (see following link), is that DNA may have arisen from all over the earth.  It is important to understand that how life "may" have arisen is not the same as how life actually did arise.  And, even if 10,000 scientists can someday manage to figure out how to cause life to seemingly spontaneously arise, this would demonstrate nothing in regards to the true origins of life. Rather, in order to demonstrate life magically spontaneously arose and "self-selected" into quadzillions trillions of integrated parts working together all by its self-selecting randomly-appearing self, one would have to begin from scratch, without any atoms, DNA and/or RNA code, molecules, water, laboratory, planet or universe to borrow the necessary ingredients from. Perhaps such scientists should use public funding dollars more wisely, to try like Francis Collins, to find a cure for various cancer and other devastating human diseases and, to clean up the mass polluted mess we are leaving for our poor offspring to deal with as best they can. A Prebiotic Route to DNA There remains a plethora of theories proposed by many diverse scientists in regards to the origins of life, as well as some believe that life may have not ever actually arisen on earth but rather, may have been transported in already living form on space rocks.  The true origins of life even on earth remain shrouded in mystery and speculation, while how, where, when or why life originated within the larger universe will likely always remain very far over our collective heads. According to various theories, what causes life to form came out of the big bang, is refined in stars and finds it s way around the accretion disks of newly formed stars, formed from the "stardust" left over from super-nova and other cosmic events.  These accretion disks eventually form planets, moons, asteroids, comets and various other solar-system debris and, as conditions allow, life then arises on unknown "zillions" of planets (and perhaps moons, asteroids and various space debris as well).  According to some scientists, it appears that what caused life to eventually arise on earth included both molecules found on the original earth itself and, other molecules transported to the earth on asteroids and comets. Some scientists claim to have discovered evidence that life arrived on space rocks in an already living form.  Others say life may have arisen in fresh water, in clay, in plain dirt, in trees, in caves, below the earth's surface or as one scientist put it, "wherever there is a little wetness". At least one scientist has proposed life may have arisen inside of rocks and, there are many other theories besides what is discussed here.  Recent evidence indicates that life may have arrived in "space dust". Life May be Transported in Space Dust, its Origin Remaining Entirely Unknown New Molecule Found in Space Connotes Life Origins Organics for Life May Have Arrived on Space Rocks Organics Probably Formed Easily in Early Solar System Building Blocks of Life Found Around Young Star Did Comets Contain Key Ingredients For Life On Earth? Key Ingredients Necessary for Life May Have Come from Beyond the Earth Evidence Comets Could have Seeded Life on Earth Beyond the earth, a satisfactory explanation for exactly how life came to exist within the larger universal reality remains far beyond the grasp of human science and very likely long always will. It appears virtually certain that life didn't originally "evolve" or otherwise first come into being on earth.  And thus, any claim that life magically appeared without any creative intelligence behind the grand design universal reality remains what it long always has been, a non-evidence based incalculable mathematical odds against preposterously absurd invention, having no foundation in evidence, rhyme or reason. As discussed in more detail elsewhere, many physicists today conclude that the universe appears to be intricately and precisely "fine-tuned" for the emergence of life.  This of course is exactly what one would expect to find if the universe is a result of deliberate design and creation and, not at all what one would expect from random totally unguided totally by chance designer-less natural processes. Other evidence discussed elsewhere indicates that it would take trillions upon trillions of years for a single protein to randomly form by natural selection and, there remains even less evidence that a single intelligible language sentence or instructional code of any kind could randomly exist unto itself.  the existence of modern DNA evidence alone overwhelmingly cancels out any and all hope of evolution by natural selection ever being able to rationally explain how life first came into existence. The number 1x10 to the 340 power is so large, if we were to purchase a jackpot lottery ticket every day of our lives, we would have an essentially infinitely greater chance of winning every ticket.  British mathematician Roger Penrose calculates that the odds of the universe randomly appearing without any intelligence behind it are at least 1x10 to the 10,123 power against. According to the Bible, life came forth in abundance from the ocean and from the land, exactly what one would expect within an intelligently designed universe "fine-tuned" for the emergence of life.  And, as demonstrated by newly evolving theory, life may well have sprung up from all over the earth from "zillions" of tiny same or similar forms, which of course would also explain the similarity of DNA among the incredibly diverse living organisms we are aware of today. While living organisms have been discovered fairly recently to be not as similar as many scientists once assumed, perhaps the reason for the similarity of DNA found among all organisms is simply because, this is how our Creator chose to create life so that life itself can survive.  Consider that a great many diverse in shape, size and appearance human designed structures are typically created using same and similar basic parts (brick, wood, stone, concrete, iron, glass, etc.).  Perhaps when designing life itself, using some same and similar DNA remains the best idea, who can say for sure? Life May Have Arisen in Ponds Rather Than Ocean Life May Have Arisen in Clay Perhaps certain modern intellectuals need to grow up and get over the obvious fact that God is far greater, wiser and more intelligent than we can even begin to fathom, far more so than we ourselves are in comparison to a bacterium or virus, an atom or even a quark.  Recently discovered evidence indicates life is very likely far, far more complex and cross-integrated at root sub-atomic, atomic, virus, archaea, bacteria and higher levels, than 20th Century science dared imagine in its wildest dreams. Scientists here in a 21st Century of rapidly increasing evidence often contradicting previous long-held assumptions, appear to be slowly waking up to the fact, as some have publicly stated on PBS, that life is far too irreducibly complex for human beings to ever fully comprehend, unravel and explain.  There are virtually innumerable more bacteria than visible macro-organisms and innumerable more viruses than bacteria. And it is currently believed there are far more viruses than all forms of life on earth combined. Modern biological theory breaks down at bacteria, archaea, virus and lower levels (atomic, sub-atomic), which is where the explanation for how life arises and functions most matters for a theory of "evolution" or any other theory to have any hope of being comprehensively accurate. Viruses Can Transfer Genes Across Superkingdoms of Life Lowly Archaea Humble Darwinian Tree-Theory of Life Viruses Reveal Complex Origins Consider the following list, most of which Darwin knew nothing about: a) Organisms adapt and change to new and changing environments; Darwin at best was only partially correct about how and why such organisms adapt and change. b) Macro Organisms adapt and change in re-action to micro organisms living within them changing and re-arranging their own DNA. c) Organisms adapt and change caused by individual choices of both themselves and other organisms; even microbes exhibit a type of individual freedom of choice d) Organisms adapt and change due to learned behavior generationally passed down in a great many if not all living organisms. e) Organisms are apparently hardwired within their own DNA towards certain inbred behavior, causing changes within the lowly microbe on up thru the chain of large macro organisms. f) It is theorized today that what can be observed in the macro reality familiar to ourselves is deeply rooted in the strange and quirky depths of the quantum world and, so far here in the 21st Century, quite literally far beyond human knowledge and capability to fully explain. g) Irrational human behavior diametrically opposed to either reproductive or any other kind of or hope for survival (detailed with supporting links elsewhere). Chapter 12 - HOW BADLY ARE OUR OFFSPRING MISINFORMED? Disinformation is prominent in the story of Adam and Eve and undoubtedly has been around since the dawn of human civilization.  Unlike the Greek language which contains four different words for love (storge, philia, eros, and agape), English only has one.  Consider how confusing it must be to small children when they hear adults talk about making love, loving ice cream, being in love, God's love, a loving parent and, loving their brother, sister and friends. Today when a politician lies, mainstream media often carefully tap dances around the word "lie", saying instead that they were "untruthful", "misspoke" or were "misleading".  By the end of his four-year term, the Washington Post reported that Donald Trump had made over 30,000 false and misleading statements since taking office, as if misleading us is somehow not as bad as actually lying. Perhaps we would rather someone lie to us than deliberately try to mislead us.  Direct lies can often be discredited through investigation and research, while deliberate deception can be far more difficult to wade through, especially for those who lack necessary educational and other tools to discern truth from fiction. Consider for example, that billions of people are deceived daily by a barrage of often highly exaggerated claims of advertising and highly questionable media sources.  Consider how wasteful of one's time and money it is to camp in line for days and spend half a week's salary to attend a three-hour music concert or, wait hours in line to eat often unhealthy food at certain "trendy" restaurants.  Whether we tell 30,000 lies or only a few lies, such falsehood can cause significant and sometimes irreversible damage. Consider how much money and time is spent annually on alcohol, other drugs, clothes, cosmetics, the pursuit of romance and the newest high-tech gadget and car, even though last year's model works just fine.  Consider how many hours of our lives we now live in a pretend world of television, film, video games, texting and internet surfing. Consider the mess we are leaving here on earth for our own children and grandchildren to survive in and deal with as best they can.  How is it then that we anoint ourselves as being the most "advanced" species on the planetary block?  As Samuel Clemens is said to have remarked, the poor maligned ape might take offense at any claims of human similarity. Even when using facts that are in themselves true, many priests, preachers, educators, media pundits and others often deceive the general public by arranging and presenting true facts out of context of the whole.  Scientists with an atheistic or other religious ax to grind can be especially adept at deceiving the average person, who has already been badly misinformed enough by his or her educational experience. For example, many scientists today randomly pull terms like "random", "blind", "unguided", "totally unguided" "nature", "natural" "natural world" and "natural processes" out of a black hole rabbit's hat; such science fiction then finds its way into student textbooks, magazines, newspapers and other media.  The truth is, even many scientists admit they have no idea how life came to be and obviously, if life existed prior to our own sun and solar system, human science most likely never will. There is no such thing as a "natural" world or process, as opposed to a created world or process, as far as anyone living on earth either knows or possibly could know.  There is no evidence for "self-designing" magically appearing universes, intelligence, life, mathematics or anything else. Anyone who teaches differently is a liar and, should be branded as a liar accordingly.  Just like when a politician attempts to deceive us for his or her own political gain, the media should brand him or her as a liar, rather than watering down the obvious with misleading terminology. When we invent what is not historically, scientifically or otherwise verifiable, we lie.  When we exaggerate, we lie.  When we are untruthful, we lie.  And, when we misspeak or are misleading, we lie.  Even if in our own minds we say something we believe to be true but later discover what we once believed to be correct isn't in fact true, we in fact have lied, spreading misinformation to others out of our own ignorance. A wise man once wrote, "let God be true but every human being a liar", because we all in truth, have lied.  Either through ignorance, arrogance or deliberate deceit, nevertheless we all lie.  And thus, every child born into human society inherits a culture of lies, stretching back into the mists of historical time.  Consequently, we spend much of our lives trying to separate what is false from what is true, time which otherwise could be used far more productively. It is wiser to admit what we do not know or are uncertain of, rather than waiting for what we carelessly say to come back around and hit us on the proverbial backside.  We should be careful what we teach each other, careful about what is presented as scientific or true and careful about what we believe. And we should be even more careful what we teach our children and otherwise expose them to, especially in their early formative years when they are most trusting and vulnerable to deception.  Not only does the survival of civilization and humanity itself depend on it but, so also does the survival of every living thing on earth. Chapter 13 - PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE AND REASON This chapter is more lengthy than the rest, while the subject matter is difficult to adequately address within even a library of books.  As such, the contents represent only a sketch outline of a much larger discussion. It is wise living here in the 21st Century, for one to study a little history and read the Bible for themselves before drawing the completely erroneous conclusion that God and religion are the same thing or worse, that Jesus as presented in the New Testament is remotely the same as either religion in general or, Christianity in particular.  Although this chapter may seem to be unfairly critical of certain living scientists, if they are going to pretend there is no God or might be no God, then we the common people have every right to openly challenge them to either put up supporting evidence as to how otherwise the universal reality happens to exist or otherwise, cease lying to us and our impressionable offspring. God, philosophy, science and reason were for a very long time on earth, viewed as all being part of the same educational pursuit of what is true.  This is demonstrated both in the Bible and the ancient Greek concept of "logos".  Many historical people of renown from Socrates and the Greeks and Jesus and Paul in the Bible to Jefferson, Pain, Einstein and others, make a distinction between God and religion.  Both Socrates and Jesus were executed for openly challenging the religious leaders of their society.  The real historical Jesus as presented in the New Testament, was far more openly critical of conservative religion than comedian Bill Maher ever hoped to be. If one defines "religion" as teaching the common masses for free, focusing on helping the common people, sick, poor and outcasts of human society and, insisting we need God to help us understand what is true and care about each other, then Jesus is the most religious person in history.  On the other hand, if one defines religion as anything else, then Jesus is perhaps by far, the most liberal and least religious person in history.  Jesus far more fairly belongs in a category of "human behavior" rather than "religion", although in truth, his influence and importance span every aspect of human philosophy, education, science and reason. For the most part, there is no division between God, science and education found in human history until well after Thomas Jefferson and the American founders were dead.  Many modern intellectuals have the very bad habit of lumping God in with human religions and Jesus with Christianity, as if human invented religions have any relevancy to either the existence of or true nature of God.  Pretending that God and religion are the same is like pretending that astrology and astronomy are the same and, assuming Jesus is the founder of either Christianity or anything remotely like it, represents the worst kind of sloppy research and boneheaded historical conclusion imaginable. Today, the word "religion" is a very 'loaded' term, often used to reference everything from any discussion concerning God or creation, to the Bible and certain other so-called "holy books", to personal belief in God even among those who don't belong to any religion, to mainstream "world religions", to countless books endorsing religion in general and/or a certain brand of religion in particular, to the countless denominations and factions of the various mainstream religions, to many so-called "independent" churches, to Unitarian churches and others often lead by a minister who is agnostic or atheistic, to "new age" and other so-called "spiritualist" movements. Meanwhile, atheists have formed their own collection of churches.  And not surprisingly, they all want their tax deductions at the expense of us already severely over-burdened taxpayers. It is common practice among modern intellectuals, American education in general and in particular, the organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State, to lump all of this under a common heading "religion".  From this obviously historically skewed and extremely narrow-minded perspective, the A.U.S.C.S., the U.S. Supreme Court and many others have then determined it as being against the First Amendment to allow any discussion of God or creation in a public science classroom.  And even though Jesus remains by far the most influential person in human history and as perhaps America's greatest historian Will Durant stated, Jesus is also by far the most intelligent person to ever live, somehow our so-called modern 'education' system deems it wise to essentially ignore him. Separating discussion of God from American education is common practice in modern-day America, in spite of the fact that that such a position is diametrically opposed to the Declaration of Independence and to the words and actions of Madison, Jefferson and every single American founder, in spite of the fact that belief in God as Creator of the universe and organized religions are obviously two totally and completely different things and, in spite of the fact that over 50% of American scientists and 80% of American educators claim to believe in God.  It should be noted that neither the Supreme Court or Americans United for Separation of Church and State seem to have any complaint against religious tax exemptions, even though First Amendment drafter James Madison was adamantly opposed to the American government granting either tax exemptions or any other special favors to religious organizations. Because of this twisting, shredding and skewering of historical reality, today a great many historical people are very wrongly interpreted and otherwise grossly misunderstood in an age of neatly divided educational categories, leaving students devoid of any context or proper understanding of the whole.  Atheism is largely absent among noted historical scientists, while Deism, unlike many modern educators ignore when discussing it, was a European movement among religious and other intellectuals representing a deliberate effort to separate discussion of God from religious dogma and instead, place free and open discussion of God under philosophy, science and reason.  Which as already noted, were viewed as all being part of the same whole pursuit of what is true. Unlike Deism is normally defined today, all of the United States founders, based on the Declaration of Independence and all of their known subsequent writings, believed in a God who intervenes within the affairs of humanity and who interacts with his creation; many if not most European deists likewise shared this pro-active view of God.  And unlike American students are often wrongly instructed, only two prominent American founders, Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin, claimed to be Deists.  While Ethan Allen also claimed to be a Deist, he is rarely if ever considered to be a key American founder. Thomas Jefferson's family belonged to the Church of England, while Jefferson himself made no claim of adherence to any particular religion.  Educators and popular media often blanketly state that the American founders were "Deists", which is essentially untrue.  While it is true Jefferson had some Deist leanings, it is also true that both Paul and John in the New Testament display some Deist leanings.  It may be fair to say that Paul was more of a Deist than a Christian, but it would no more be accurate to call him a Deist than to make a blanket claim that the American founders were Deists.  As far as history knows, all of the rest of the American founders other than those already mentioned, adhered to some form of Christianity, while some of these also displayed Deist leanings. Again, unlike many today are wrongly taught, Thomas Paine, who mentions God at least five times within his various writings, was not an atheist.  As far as this author is aware, there is no evidence that a single American founder was either an atheist or agnostic.  Because God in modern-day America (and elsewhere) is typically carelessly lumped together with human religions, many Americans, including educators who should know better, seem to have a difficult time understanding how Thomas Paine could openly detest religions and yet believe in God (a position not at all difficult for Paul in the New Testament or a Deist, which Paine claimed to be). Not surprisingly, often poorly educated people today claim there is no God based on what various religions promote and practice, a position which any competent Greek philosopher or Deist would easily tear to shreds. No self-respecting Deist or other American founder would ever propose that free and open discussion of God be eliminated from either a science or any other public classroom (or anywhere else).  As one of many crystal-clear examples, Thomas Jefferson while a sitting president, worked on his personal revision of the New Testament.  And while still a sitting president, he attempted to have what today is known as "the Jefferson Bible" be recognized as the official United States government sanctioned version, insuring that a copy of it would be read in every American classroom.  Imagine the uproar today from conservatives if a sitting president attempted to re-write the New Testament to his own liking and then again, imagine the uproar from liberals if he then attempted to have it recognized as the official government sanctioned version! Despite the shenanigans of Jefferson and his highly questionable version of the New Testament, there is considerable evidence the founders of the United States didn't want either a particular brand of Christianity or any other religion to become the officially sanctioned American government religion.  On the other hand, there is zero evidence that a single founder would ever endorse any foolish notion of banning the Bible from American classrooms, as if one could have any remote chance in hell of understanding American, Western or world history and thought without extensive knowledge of especially the New Testament; Europeans as diverse as Rousseau, Voltaire, Locke, Marx, Darwin and probably even atheist Diderot were all well-versed in New Testament studies, a requirement of most if not all European universities of their time. What is called "science" here in the 21st Century is not the same as what is true, as history very clearly demonstrates.  Often what was once considered to be mainstream "science" is soon no longer believed to be true, while what is really true remains the same.  Rather, what is called science is at best when practiced and applied correctly, what is true only as far as human beings know, based on the current evidence available. To present science in some other fashion as modern educators often do, as a set of irrefutable "universal laws", theories and facts, is to deceive both ourselves and our own offspring, grossly misrepresenting the truth regarding the known historical track record of human science.  As several modern scientists freely admit, there is zero possibility for a human being living on earth here in the 21st Century to know if there is any such thing as a "universal" law.  Because classical physics does not match either the strange nature of water or the quantum reality and, because science today lacks basic understanding of both dark matter and dark energy, it is rather foolish at best to pretend that somehow, human beings have the laws of the universe figured out. The ancient Greek philosophical concept of "logos" is apparently used in reference to the same basic idea and poorly translated as "word", in the New Testament "John".  In Greek philosophy, "logos" refers to ultimate truth, wisdom and understanding from a universal and beyond viewpoint; i.e., God's view, God's mind, God's understanding.  Because we humans obviously don't know everything, the term "logos" represents what for now, like Paul writes in I Corinthians, we at best only understand "in part". Paul describes both God's love and God's peace as surpassing all understanding.  Paul also writes that God "does not live in temples made with hands", which eliminates every major religion known to history, including Judaism, Christianity and Islam.  According to the Old Testament, the universe and what lies beyond cannot contain God and again Paul writes, in God "we live and move and have our being."  This hardly represents belief in a religion or a "little man in the sky" as many who scorn God pretend. Apparently, because of its use by the New Testament author, logos may have been a commonly understood concept in the Greco-Roman 1st Century world.  Perhaps one way to understand and use logos in a practical applied way, is to define logos as that which is really true, as opposed to what humans think, assume or otherwise believe to be true.  This places a pursuit of what is really true as being the correct purpose and goal of philosophy, education, science and reason. Not every scholar agrees concerning how logos should be properly defined and, there is some disagreement as to whether or not the New Testament "John" is referencing the Greek concept of "logos", although it appears to be the majority opinion that it is.  Many historians and literary scholars consider what is today known as "The Gospel According to John" to be one of the top five greatest books ever written.  Other literary works found in the Bible held in high esteem include Job, Ecclesiastes, many of the Psalms, Isaiah and several New Testament writings, in particular Romans, I Corinthians, Hebrews and Revelation. Virtually all of the Bible in literary skill alone, ranks far above most other writings of human history.  The works of many of the greatest historical authors, ideas of many of the great European and other historical "thinkers" and many of the greatest works of American literature lean partially and often heavily on the Bible, including The Declaration of Independence, John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath", virtually all of Samuel Clemens' writings and a large number of popular American songs.  Sadly, one can begin to see how acutely insufficient what is called modern American 'education' truly is.  In the beginning was logos. . . Logos is arguably far superior to our modern method of 'education', where reality is carelessly divided up into neat often non-connected categories of "science", "history", "religion", "art", "language", "philosophy", "physics", "mathematics", etc., leaving students with no common goal or clear connection to the whole and worse, no clear reason or purpose for becoming educated. The superior biblical and ancient Greek methods of education is to place understanding and pursuit of what is true as the purpose and goal for learning and not surprisingly, the pursuit of what is true is prominent in the teachings of Jesus. The value and importance of searching out wisdom (rather than just learning a set of isolated facts), is of utmost importance to many of the Old Testament authors, as well as to Greek philosophers like Socrates and Plato.  While the Greeks singled out certain people of perceived superior intelligence to instruct, Jesus taught all of the common people and poor who would listen for free. Though almost never properly credited, Jesus is fairly the founder of free public education for the masses.  And unlike many students today who are often bored to tears while trying to hang on long enough to graduate and, most definitely unlike church and synagogue congregations of today, thousands of largely uneducated people went for days without food and sometimes water listening to Jesus teach, without any shelter, amphitheater seats, microphones, music or other entertainment. Compare today in the United States, where students must score high enough on a test to be admitted to universities and both they and often their parents remain indebted for many years by student loans.  And what is otherwise called "free" public education, is in reality paid for by citizens (and non-citizens) in the form of taxation.  Rather than teaching students to seek and pursue what is really true, our children are instead taught to earn good grades so they can qualify for a scholarship and entrance to a prestigious university so ultimately, they can earn more money.  When examined closely, the entire goal and purpose of modern American education is presented to students from elementary school forward, as being of critical importance to maximizing their lifetime income. Consider the superior alternative that Jesus provides, who says if we listen to him, we will "know the truth" and "the truth" will make us free.  Jesus in one short phrase gives us the proper goal of education, to seek for what is true and the proper reason, so that we can be free (rather than so we can earn more money).  And as for the accuracy of this proper goal and reason, consider that people today in the 21st Century live in a world of mass confusion and propaganda on world-wide-web steroids, making our societies very, very far from being "free, indeed" as Jesus promised those who listen to him. Perhaps someone born into a society propelled by human greed and worshiping wealth itself might expect no better.  Why are those in the United States who rise to the top of the human celebrity and wealth pyramid sought after for popular media interviews and advice?  Who knows, ask your well-compensated professor.  Why are celebrities of fame and fortune and often little education and no experience in the real world of common citizen survival, sought after for autographs, popular media interviews and advice?  Who knows, ask your pontiff or preacher living in opulent splendor. One might think the advice of individuals like Isaiah, Jesus, Gandhi, Frederick Douglass, Eleanor Roosevelt, Helen Keller, Albert Schweitzer, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., Dolores Huerta and Cesar Chavez just might be a little more valuable.  And so, now you want to know why you have no idea what any of these people actually believed or who even half of them are?  Who knows, ask your educational board decision makers, the ACLU and the Supreme Court. In the modern age, we have corrupted the goal of science and education into a pursuit of wealth, rather than emphasizing a pursuit of truth, wisdom and understanding.  Unlike students are taught in modern day America, Jesus in one short soundbite phrase, as already noted, says "you will know the truth and the truth will make you free", providing us both the purpose of education, to know what is true and, the reason for being educated, so we can be free.  When was the last time any of us heard this on PBS or in a modern American classroom? Perhaps its no small wonder why some of our most highly educated citizens choose to work for the global war machine or write profitable books and earn large speaking fees, while pretending there is no God.  Rather than instead, using their knowledge wisely, often gained at taxpayer expense, to help cure diseases, help feed and house growing global populations and help clean up the mass polluted mess we are leaving for our children and grandchildren to survive in as best they can.  One might fairly ask, why are questions relating to this absent from the Mensa Society's so-called 'intelligence' test? Unlike astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson has stated on PBS more than once, that "science is what is true", science does not equal what is true.  No historical scientist of renown would likely agree with him concerning this and, neither do the historical facts.  Mr. Tyson is known for publicly chastising religious people for failing to go by the evidence, as well they should be.  He openly admits in the television series "Cosmos" that science doesn't know how life came to be, which agrees with the Encyclopedia Britannica and many other scientists. However most unfortunately, in the same Cosmos television series, Mr. Tyson just randomly pulls "totally blind, "totally unguided", "natural processes" out of thin air.  He fails to provide a single shred of supporting evidence as to how he would know or why he would state such processes are random and "totally unguided", if he in fact doesn't know how life came into existence.  Evidence of course, which neither Mr. Tyson nor any other human being peering out of our extremely tiny window here on earth could possibly provide.  Consider that the foundation of modern evolutionary theory as presented in many college textbooks, randomly inventing that the universal reality we can observe came about by a serious of blind purely by chance unguided processes, isn't based on a single shred of supporting evidence! If the universe began with a big bang, then everything that follows is by definition, not random. To arbitrarily state that what we can observe as human beings is a result of random, blind, unguided processes, is like a virus inside of a microbe inside of a carburetor inside of an automobile engine, as the car is being driven, claiming that various sparks and dust particles flying around inside the engine were randomly generated by "unguided" "natural" processes. And, the engine, the automobile, the driver, the road, the earth, the solar system, the galaxy and the universe they all reside in, somehow all randomly magically appeared, as if the virus inside of the microbe would know.  And to be fair, our view of the universe and whatever may lie beyond, is in reality, very, very, very incredibly, astronomically, overwhelmingly beyond all words and human imagination, very far smaller than this. Any self-respecting Greek philosopher might contend there is no such thing as random within a universal system already in motion and, even if there is, such a claim cannot be verified by any known scientific or other human method.  It may be true that our Creator deliberately designed a universe which in turn, can generate randomness and otherwise perform many functions on its own.  Even we humans can create lottery and other machines which in turn can theoretically generate randomness and perform many functions on their own.  But true universal from the top down randomness remains completely and totally non-verifiable by any human being living within an inconceivably large ten or more dimensional universal system in motion. Throughout much of human history, what today is called "nature" was instead referred to as "creation".  In older works of both fiction and non-fiction, creation is often used for what today is called the "natural world".  Like many modern intellectuals, Mr. Tyson seems to assume changing the term "creation" to "natural world" doesn't require any supporting evidence and far worse, that this somehow makes God unrelated to science, as if our Creator wouldn't know how his own universe came into being or functions; as if changing a human language term somehow dictates true universal reality.  While Mr. Tyson often insists he is agnostic, he invariably sides with atheism, even though a great many prominent modern (and the majority of earlier) scientists and other intellectuals believe in God. To believe in creation should never be confused with "creationism" or "intelligent design" theories, as speakers at modern atheist gatherings often do, apparently vainly imagining themselves to be far more clever than they actually are.  For example, modern scientist Francis Collins strongly believes the universe is a result of deliberate design and creation, yet he also believes in evolution and strongly denies being either a creationist or proponent of what is known as "intelligent design" theory.  Charles Darwin himself wrote that "one can be an ardent Theist and evolutionist". A few of a very long list of prominent historical scientists who claimed to believe in God includes Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Newton, Faraday, Pasteur, Maxwell and Einstein, while it is extremely doubtful if they were alive today, they would embrace creationism.  Modern militant atheists who deliberately confuse belief in God with religion and creationism are either extremely poorly educated or extremely and entirely dishonest, or Lord only knows, both.  One can only imagine what Louis Pasteur, who strongly opposed the belief among many scientists in his day of "spontaneous generation", would say to those strutting around university campuses today pretending the entire universal reality spontaneously arose out of nowhere from nothing. Whether we believe the earth is square, spherical or triangular in shape and, whether we call it "the world" "Planet Earth", "Mother Earth", "pale blue dot" or something else, what we believe about the earth and what language terminology we choose to use has no bearing on the nature of or true shape of the earth nor, on how the earth happens to exist.  And likewise, whether we call what we can observe "creation" or the "natural world" or, if we call how life functions "evolution" rather than how God created life to function, this in no way, shape or form changes how the universe either came to be or functions.  Many historical people of note including both Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin appear to have understood this, while far too many modern scientists and educators and consequently students and the general public, most unfortunately apparently do not. Today, atheism and agnosticism at the bottom-line, is demanding that the rest of us embrace magic and baseless superstition, the opposite of science and reason.  Both atheism and agnosticism require blind faith belief that energy, motion, light, quad-zillions, zillions trillions of parts within parts, life, intelligence, conscious awareness, the complex dual language of DNA and mathematics can all randomly exist unto themselves, without any Eternal Primary Cause or "brains" behind the observable reality. Both atheism and agnosticism are foundationless non-evidence based positions unsupported by any verifiable scientific or other evidence.  Rather, ALL of the known evidence points in the opposite direction towards deliberate design and the necessity of Eternal Primary Cause.  The existence of mathematics alone, used by many creatures who inhabited the earth prior to human beings and, used several times by scientists to predict the existence of particles before they were discovered, overwhelmingly demonstrates deliberate design. Newton's famous contention that for every action there is an equal and opposite re-action strongly implies that every action requires a Primary Cause somewhere up the chain of events. Richard Dawkins admits that in many ways, life appears to be designed.  Just perhaps, this is because life is in fact designed.  Physicist Paul Davies states that the universe appears to be extremely fine-tuned for the emergence of life.  Just perhaps, this is because the universe is in fact, deliberately and carefully fine-tuned for the emergence of life.  If alive today, Newton might fairly ask:  Why would anyone fancying themselves as being 'scientific' cling to the least likely explanation based on the known evidence, rather than the astronomically overwhelmingly most likely explanation, based on the same known evidence? Modern atheists and agnostics tend to not relish standing naked and peeled back accordingly and, they have emailed from various and sundry parts of the globe strongly protesting that they don't believe in magic and that those of us inhabiting the sane world of evidence, logic and reason have somehow misunderstood their position.  While unsurprisingly, not a single atheist or agnostic responding has provided a shred of legitimate supporting evidence for their positions. Instead of providing evidence to support no God, probably no God or even possibly no God, they instead invariably resort to accusing the messenger, claiming the messenger has never studied science or has otherwise, failed to understand what they supposedly know.  It may be fair to say that demonstrating the absurdity of modern atheism is considerably easier than shooting blind fish in a rotten barrel. Various atheists have emailed the same exact or similar talking points which they apparently believe to be unique clever positions, as if they all have a copy of the same atheist bible.  One of the most common talking points sent by atheists is the following: "Atheism is the default position; atheism makes no claims, it just disbelieves in God or gods". The problem with such a statement is that it is a lie unto itself, as there are at least six claims contained within this single statement; 1) atheism is the default position; 2) atheism makes no claims; 3) the universe is not or probably not created and 4-5) there is no God or probably no God and, there are no gods or probably no gods.  A sixth claim contained within this statement of self-evident self-delusion is that the Encyclopedia Britannica, Merriam-Webster dictionary and various other generally reliable sources are somehow, all in great error concerning how atheism should be properly defined. The first claim is an obvious lie, as the true default position of science and reason is, there is a physical reality containing various observable phenomena called "universe" or to be more concise, simply "there is a universe".  The two-pronged default question then becomes, how and why is there a universe?  Atheism isn't a default position of anything, nor can it rationally explain anything at all and as such, atheism remains just a faulty position, having no value to science, reason and/or the human race.  And regarding #3, there isn't a shred of verifiable evidence supporting that the universe is either not created or might not be created. Regarding claim #4, God in the modern age is defined by billions of people and by both Google word search and the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, primarily as Creator of the universe.  To claim to "disbelieve" in God is to claim to doubt the universe is created, which has no more scientific value than to doubt Stonehenge or the Sears Tower are created, to doubt the sun is larger than the moon or, to doubt anything else.  Doubt without supporting evidence as to why one would doubt, has no value whatsoever to anyone. Anyone can make a claim regarding anything or claim to doubt anything.  For example, anyone can claim to disbelieve the sun will appear in the sky anywhere on earth next year in July.  And, they can also then claim the burden of proof remains on those insisting the sun will appear somewhere on earth in the sky next year in July, pretending as atheists do, that to "disbelieve" lets them off the hook of providing verifiable evidence.  Such a position doesn't prove anything, nor does it have any value to either science or the human race. An atheist might contend that we have evidence for the sun appearing in the sky in July each and every year as far back as history knows.  And that is true, but it is also true we have evidence that the existence of energy and motion and everything else noted previously requires a Primary Cause, as far back as the history of science goes and, as far backwards, forwards, sideways, inward, outward and every which way as can be verifiably demonstrated here in the 21st Century.  Atheism and agnosticism are obviously no better than any other superstitious non-evidence based positions. If someone were to tell a child in public school that the computer they are using is not created, such a child would most likely want to know how otherwise it happens to exist.  And likewise, if atheists and agnostics are going to lie to God's children and pretend God doesn't exist, probably doesn't exist or might not exist, we want to know how otherwise, energy, light, motion, intelligence, conscious awareness and quad-zillions, zillions trillions of parts within parts putting every computer on earth to shame, somehow happen to magically exist unto themselves, with no "brains", thought, rhyme or reason behind the grand design universal reality. At the bottom-line, atheists would have us believe that not only every computer, but also everything else that can be observed or otherwise detected by human beings, somehow magically appeared and self-designed; even though "self-design" from the top down has never been observed.  If no one created the human brain, then everything human beings have ever created at the bottom line, somehow magically appeared.  Mature human beings eventually cease to believe in magic, Santa Claus, the easter bunny, the flying spaghetti monster and superstitious atheists roaming Oxford ivory towers, devoid of evidence, science and reason. The generally accepted definition among scholars for atheism is for some strange reason, far different than the definition provided by atheists themselves, which isn't surprising, given that atheists in general habitually misrepresent the known evidence.  From the Encyclopedia Britannica, this definition represents a globally recognized scholarly consensus:  "Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. . . Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable."  According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary, atheism is not only defined as disbelief in God, atheism is also defined as "the doctrine that there is no deity."  Obviously, atheism is just a blind faith religious lie having no foundation in evidence. Agnosticism is no better, as it is a claim the universe might not be created, which also requires supporting evidence to remain within the bounds of science and reason.  Human language is not a science and at best, it is an imperfect communication tool, changing over time like shifting desert sands.  If someone claimed to "disbelieve" in love, it would be understood by most rational people to mean that they don't believe in or doubt the existence of love.  Attempting to hide behind human language, like building one's house on shifting sands, tends to leave one's positions, thoughts, hopes and dreams, like Jesus taught, scattered by the wind and the rain. Perhaps someone should point out to such poorly schooled folks that trying to hide behind human language in order to worm out of the scientific requirement of providing evidence to back up any and every claim in regards to the physical reality called "universe", doesn't serve to make them look any less dishonest.  We humans all remain subject to the universally agreed to fact that there exists a physical reality containing various observable phenomena called "universe".  Words like atheism, agnosticism, "disbelieve", "totally by chance" and "random processes" don't excuse us from the obvious default question as to how and why there is a physical universal reality. The universe and everything contained therein is evidence for God, just like what are commonly called "x-rays" taken by a dentist or physician and music heard from a car radio, are both evidence for invisible light.  Atheists and agnostics, just like the rest of us, are required by the accepted rules of science and evidence to provide evidence for any claim they make regarding the physical universal reality, however magical, baseless, irrational or otherwise comically absurd it may be.  As far as there being no plurality of gods, there is no particular quarrel with such a claim in this work, although one might fairly ask, how would they know?  And, how would atheists know any of the other claims contained within their paradoxical "atheism makes no claims" position? It is said by many in a 21st Century of looming climate disaster, "God is not a question for science" and it is common modern practice to divide science and religion, including belief in God, into two neat non-connected categories, as if God doesn't know anything about how the universe God created came to be or functions, as if God can't save us from the horrible mess our science and technology is leaving for our offspring's future.  Belief in God is labeled "faith based", while science is supposedly based on evidence, even though throughout the vast majority of human history, no such distinction existed. According to the Bible for example, "faith is the evidence of things not seen" and also according to another part of the same Bible, we believe in God based on the overwhelming evidence revealed in creation.  Both of these are clearly evidence-based positions.  Both are no different than how modern science is commonly applied today in relation to dark energy, dark matter, black holes, invisible light and tracings of particles on photographic plates.  Not to mention, the entire theory of evolution is based on a progression of changes that have never actually been directly observed occurring. There is no difference between believing in God based on the visible mirrored evidence, than believing in black holes and invisible light based on the visible mirrored evidence, except in the minds of illogical human beings.  Belief in God based on evidence is found in the historical record long prior to Socrates and the Greeks, who would undoubtedly utterly scorn any foolish notion of separating God from science.  Even militant atheist Richard Dawkins has publicly stated, the "God question" is central to science and, even Mr. Dawkins agrees that discussion of God should be included in public school science classrooms. It is both dangerous to their livelihood and illegal in most states for a teacher in the United States to discuss deliberate design in a public school 'science' classroom, even though according to unbiased surveys conducted by Rice University and the University of Chicago, 50% of American scientists, 75% of American physicians and 80% of American teachers believe in God and thus by default, believe in some form of universal design.  While it is true that percentages of people neither prove nor disprove God's existence, even in a democracy where minority voices matter, what the majority of Americans believe also matters and should be fairly represented, accordingly. Rather than teach our children the truth, that some scientists believe in deliberate conception, design and creation and some do not, those who pretend to speak for Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the other American founders prefer that we deliberately lie to our children by omission instead.  And thus, ignoring the scientific opinions of a significant majority of living Americans and the vast majority of historically prominent Americans, including our greatest moral leaders like Helen Keller, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks and, all of the founders of the United States. Rice University Survey Chicago University Survey It is perhaps more than fair to say if these same pretenders to the throne of freedom were to whisper a little too loudly near the grave of Thomas Jefferson that Mr. Jefferson couldn't discuss evidence for creation in a public science classroom, that he would rise from the dead and immediately begin making plans for a second revolution.  There is no such thing as separation of free open discussion of God and state anywhere within their vast surviving collection of letters and other writings. Based on everything known to history that the American founders said and did, it is very fair, correct and accurate to conclude they firmly believed in the right of a public science school teacher and anyone else within America's borders, to freely say what they believe the evidence demonstrates; anywhere within our borders, on both public and private property and especially, in a public school classroom, without fear of any economic or other recrimination.  This is the foundation of what freedom of speech is, to be able to speak freely without fear regarding what one fundamentally believes, regardless of who may or may not agree or how accurate or wrong one may in fact be. Descartes states as his first rule of the mind and primary foundation for 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 and other human beings have long assumed what is self-evident to be true until proven otherwise.  Self-evidence, rather than being non-scientific, represented the highest bar in science at the time of Descartes, also in the time of Jefferson and arguably, it remains the highest bar of human belief and conclusion today. It was "science" at one time to conclude that the earth is flat, until there was evidence indicating otherwise.  It was practicing correct "science for Ptolemy to conclude that the sun revolves around the earth, which remained the majority held scientific theory for much longer than Darwin's theory of evolution has existed, until there was conclusive evidence demonstrating otherwise.  And, as Einstein himself initially believed, it was practicing correct science to maintain there is only one galaxy in a static universe, until conclusively proven otherwise by Edwin Hubble and others in the 20th Century. It is NEVER correct science to just say the earth is spherical instead of flat, without providing any evidence or, that there is no Creator, probably no Creator or might be 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 somewhere already been stated. For example, some scientists disputed the earth-centered theory prior to Copernicus and, some disputed the static theory of an eternal universe with only one galaxy prior to Edwin Hubble.  It is one thing to suspect a long held majority scientific position is wrong, such as many scientists today suspect some if not all of Einstein's theories may be inaccurate.  But it is quite another thing to provide conclusive evidence supporting a BETTER explanation regarding time, energy, motion, gravity and light. If Einstein had not provided a better explanation than Newton, he most likely would never have been included in a history book.  Just having a different explanation or opinion is not science unless and until it is conclusively demonstrated by evidence, to be a better explanation than what the majority of scientists previously believed. Dramatically Changing Evolution of the Theory of Gravity Chameleon Theory: Alternative to Einstein's Theory of Gravity Everything You Thought You Knew About Gravity is Wrong And thus, based on the established historical record of human reason, science and evidence, until someone provides a better explanation for the observable universal reality, that better and more accurately explains and satisfies origins than Jesus has already taught us, "before Abraham was, I AM", Eternal Primary Cause remains correct and accurate "science". In order to overturn this long held historical position, atheists and agnostics are required by the established rules of science and evidence, to provide a BETTER explanation.  A different explanation is not "science" unless and until it can better satisfy origins, which so far no human being has been able to do, nor will any human being likely succeed in doing in a zillion, trillion, zillion, trillion, trillion zillion trillion and more years. There is no such thing as a successful gambler who would remotely consider taking odds in favor of atheism.  As former atheist Antony Flew relates in his book "There Is a God", an actual scientific experiment conducted in the United Kingdom provided six caged monkeys with computer keyboards and after a month of random banging away, not a single word resulted on fifty pages of randomly typed digits, not even an "a" or I properly spaced.  From there, the odds of a Shakespearean sonnet randomly coming into existence were calculated as 10 to the 690th power. To provide a comparison to how great of a number this is, the sub-atomic parts which make up all of the stars, planets and everything else in the entire known universe, are estimated to be 10 to the 80th power and number of photons as 10 to the 89th 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, galaxies and everything else in a universe Lord only knows how large. Based on drawings and later early recorded writings, 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 any concept of "science".  This conclusion was based solely on self-evidence that the sun appears to be larger and warmer than the moon.  What is "self-evident" is not always true, but it remains true unless and until proven otherwise.  And yet, the self-evidence for deliberate conception, design and creation of the universe is far greater than any modern evidence regarding 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 propose or conclude the opposite, that the moon is larger and warmer than the sun?  Yet, this is what atheism continues to demand of us today in the face of astronomically overwhelming evidence for deliberate design and creation, in the face of at least 10,123 power against non-design, as calculated by British mathematician Roger Penrose. 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 magically appearing moon to offset the overwhelming evidence demonstrating deliberate conception, design and creation !!! According to some modern physicists, astronomers and other scientists, the universe appears to be designed according to pi 1.3416. . . and according to the golden ratio, 1.6180. . ., both irrational numbers theoretically extending forever and ever.  If true, then at minimum, two things become rather obvious:  1) There is no such thing, at least from a human understanding viewpoint, as either the largest or smallest number and, the number of stars (of who knows how large or how many universes) like the Bible claims, may well be "without number".  And 2) Like the Bible also says, only God knows "the end from the beginning".  As such, human science won't likely ever have a truly accurate and complete theory of everything, nor does any claim of "random, blind, totally unguided, natural processes" have a rat's chance in hell of ever being scientifically verifiable. Today, 10 to -43 is about the limit to human understanding of the world of the very small.  If the universe is designed according to two or more irrational numbers, it makes rational sense to conclude as noted in the previous paragraph, that like the Bible long ago stated, human science will never truly know "the end from the beginning".  Both the realm of the very small atomic and sub-atomic "quantum" reality and the very large macro reality theoretically could extend infinitely smaller and infinitely larger.  That is, as far as human science either currently knows or likely, ever will know. Obviously because we are stuck with a universal three-dimensional plus time relatively infinitesimally tiny fishbowl window into the grand design cosmic universal reality, there are limits to human understanding and thus, it remains grossly arrogant and completely and entirely non-scientific and irrational, for any human being to claim there is no God, probably no God or might be no God.  As if they somehow would know, as if a virus inside of a bacterium happily thriving deep under the surface of the earth, would somehow know there is no such thing as a human being. NOVA Video: The Great Math Mystery Nature by Numbers (Fibonacci Sequence & The Golden Ratio) Mind Blowing Presence of The Golden Ratio NOVA Video: Science of Geometric Fractals Even the greatest modern scientific minds freely admit that all human knowledge, science and understanding breaks down inside of a black hole.  What science calls a "singularity" is merely a placeholder for what in reality is not understood and arguably, beyond understandable to human beings.  And what this also means, if our universe is designed according to at least two irrational numbers, is that the "Planck length", is merely a human construct of convenience, rather than being truly the smallest measurement possible (as some scientists claim, while other scientists seriously challenge this). How loudly, roundly and soundly would a scientist be ridiculed if, upon stumbling on some previously unknown architectural masterpiece akin to Stonehenge or the pyramids of Egypt, just randomly invented, that because science can't fully explain their existence, such wondrously and carefully designed creations must have somehow magically appeared and "self-designed"?  And then again, how does our father in heaven feel when those vainly imagining themselves to be practicing 'science', impress upon our children the embracement of baseless science fiction supported by clueless gross superstition, rather than evidence-based, reason and not to mention, common horse sense; outright lying to God's children from ostensibly ultimately randomly appearing textbooks, pretending that our entire universe somehow magically self-designed, as if they somehow would know? And speaking of horse sense, who in their right mind would bet on such an atheistic black hole dark horse?  What evidence do they have and, why should either we or any self-respecting horse believe them? It is not up to believers in the self-evidently obvious to prove that the obvious is true.  As already noted, what is self-evident is not always correct, but it is often correct and it remains correct until proven otherwise; such as the self-evident conclusion that the sun is warmer than the moon, the self-evident conclusion that rain will always eventually stop, that colder weather will always eventually follow warmer weather, that a given amount of seeds planted in spaced rows at certain depths, will in normal weather years, yield an approximate amount of food, that stones and timber beams constructed in certain ways will support a roof and keep a human being from falling through a second-story floor.  These are all long held human civilization conclusions based on self-evidence, trial and error, existing long prior to any concept of science. It was up to Copernicus and others to provide a BETTER explanation than Ptolemy.  It was up to Einstein to provide a BETTER explanation than Newton.  And to those who openly deny what the vast majority of historical scientists and 40% of global scientists, 50% of American scientists, 75% of American physicians and 80% of American educators claim to believe, the "onus" remains on atheists and agnostics to demonstrate by evidence, a BETTER explanation for why we and the universe happen to exist.  It is up to those who contradict previously long held positions of the majority of historical scientists, to provide a BETTER explanation, rather than the other way around, as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett in very great historical, philosophical, scientific, logical, rational, intellectual and any and all imaginable other very great error, pretend. Some atheists today, because they can find no other evidence to hang their Harry Potter wizard hats on, claim that random bits of matter observed seemingly popping in and out of existence in the quantum reality is evidence for a position of atheism.  However, there are several gaping holes in such a claim: 1) Quantum scientists themselves freely admit they know almost nothing about the quantum world compared to what is yet to be learned; 2) Rarely if ever do three quantum theorists in a room agree; 3)Since everything that can be observed in the quantum reality is a result of a theorized Big Bang, then nothing that scientists can ever observe is truly random from the top down but rather, it is a result of the Big Bang and what came before it. 3) It is a long held majority opinion of mainstream science that matter is eternal and can neither be created or destroyed but only re-arranged; 4) Some quantum theorists (but not all, as quantum theorists as noted, often disagree) propose that bits of matter that seemingly pop in and out of existence in reality are traveling through dimensions that human scientists cannot detect and thus, they only appear to go in and out of existence from our three dimensional plus time view.  This is consistent with the axiom that matter can neither be created or destroyed. At any rate, science can't have it both ways, claiming matter can neither be created or destroyed and yet again, claim that bits and pieces of matter can randomly pop in and out of existence.  And far more importantly than any of this, anything and everything that can be observed or otherwise detected today by human beings, including everything we can observe in what is called the "quantum" world, is a RESULT of a theoretical "big bang" and thus by definition, is not random.  Obviously, if we were the size of a microbe inside of an automobile engine, it may well appear from our view that every so often, a random loud cranking noise comes out of nowhere from nothing and random sparks and dust go flying every which way, popping in and out of existence by random blind unguided totally by chance processes. Modern atheists caught up in such a scenario would have us believe that they somehow, are on the side of science and reason in "disbelieving" no one designed the engine and no one is driving the car down the road, as if they or anyone else somehow, would know.  Atheism represents a blind faith embrace of gross superstition and the worst kind of science fiction imaginable, having no foundation in evidence, rhyme or reason, providing no hope or solution and even less value to a wayward human race on the verge of global self-extinction. If it is true that matter does in fact pop in and out of existence, this only demonstrates how much greater our Creator is than narrow minded scientists give him credit for being.  In other words, just perhaps God is great enough to create and destroy matter or, design a system where matter goes in and out of existence.  Just because modern scientists claim that matter can neither be created or destroyed, this is not necessarily in fact, true (and once again, as if they somehow, would know). The late Pete Seeger once remarked that God has perhaps given us a brain presumably with the expectation that we will hopefully use it.  There is no evidence for a conclusion of atheism and thus, to say there is no God, probably no God or might be no God, is to 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 definitively answered by "before Abraham was, I AM".  This statement satisfies origins and thus, it remains the correct primary postulate of true wisdom, science, philosophy and reason, unless and until proven otherwise with conclusive supporting evidence.  And to be fair, one might wish anyone trying good luck on that one, because they sure as hell or going to need it. Chapter 14 - ADAM AND EVE AND MODERN SCIENCE The majority of what is contained in this chapter pertains to recent evidence which is typically not found in standard education texts, texts which can represent a "science" 20 or more years behind the current evidence curve.  There is today significant ongoing debate within the scientific community as to exactly when modern human beings first emerged on earth.  More importantly, modern scientists can't decide among themselves exactly what defines a true modern human being. According to the Bible, Noah and his descendants trace back to Adam and Eve.  Based on the literal Hebrew, it remains unclear whether the story of Noah refers to a general regional flood or a global flood.  Like English, Greek and many if not all other languages, Hebrew contains many words with multiple meanings. For example, the same word translated in the King James Version as referring to the entire world in the story of Noah, in the same book of Genesis, the same KJV version in the story of Abraham translates the same Hebrew word as referring to the general region of Ur.  Suffice it to say, there is strong scientific evidence for great Mesopotamian regional flood around the same time as the biblical Noah. Recent Scientific Evidence for the Great Flood of Biblical Fame "Adam" in Hebrew literally means mankind or humanity and "Eve" literally means mother of us all.  The New Testament traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam.  Modern evidence indicates that all human beings living on earth today trace from a single female no earlier than Noah in the Bible and possibly as recent as 4,000 years ago. This is partially due to familial inbreeding (brother/sister/cousin/other close relative) and, partially due to something called "cross-breeding (within species)", where weaker strains within species are rather quickly eliminated.  For example, even though some still living "species" have existed for over 100 million years, members of such a "species" living today share a much more recent common ancestor, because of weaker strains on the genealogical tree having died out. The Bible says Adam and his children were farmers.  Modern evidence supports that farming emerged rather suddenly (in evolutionary terms) in and around the same historical time frame window as the biblical Adam and Eve.  The emergence of farming represents a 2-4,000 or so year window on a global basis, depending in part on how one defines farming.  This extremely "sudden" emergence in evolutionary terms of the ability to conceptualize farming (domestication of plants and later animals), is considered a significant "evolutionary advancement" by many historians, anthropologists and other scientists. Very quickly after farming appears, neolithic villages give way to towns, large city-states and nations with highly sophisticated pyramid structure and other complex technologies, demonstrating a giant leap in intellectual ability between such people and other earlier cultures commonly defined as "Homo sapiens sapiens".  There is no rational reason to assume our Creator defines a true modern human being in the likeness of "adam", the same as the majority of modern scientists rather arbitrarily define human beings, often dramatically disagreeing with each other as detailed in the next paragraph. A minority of historians, anthropologists, archaeologists and other scientists have suggested over the years, that perhaps true modern human beings are best defined as arising from the emergence of farming forward.  According to a Columbia University report (last edited 2002), the majority view places Homo sapiens as emerging 200,000-300,000 years ago, while placing "Homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans) as arriving 40,000-130,000 years ago. This same report continues, "but solid evidence in this field is scarce and theories are always changing as new data is found".  It should be remembered that the majority view of science has often been wrong, while much of what is called "science" today contradicts much of what was "science" at the time of Charles Darwin and even as recently as Edwin Hubble. Columbia University: Homo sapiens sapiens Obviously, given such a rather large diversity of opinion among scientists themselves, what actually defines a true modern human being is quite arbitrary and, open to significant debate and revision.  If God defines a true modern human being as emerging somewhere around or shortly after the time farming appeared, then Adam and Eve and Noah could quite literally have been real people.  Likewise, the New Testament claim (see "Luke") that Jesus descends from Adam remains accurate as far as modern science knows. This does not mean that all people living on earth today necessarily descend directly from either Adam and Eve or Noah.  What it does mean is that everyone living today might share a common ancestor considerably more recent than either of them and, that common ancestor in turn or another above could descend directly from Noah, making everyone on earth alive today an indirect descendant of a real Adam and Eve.  While it remains impossible to scientifically verify this to be true, it also apparently remains impossible to verify it is not true. The following linked research was independently confirmed by a leading anthropologist in Tennessee with many years of field experience in Africa and elsewhere, who confirmed this is well known within his field of anthropology.  He added that having been raised in a Protestant environment, he personally finds it quite interesting.  Because this conversation was off the record, his name is not mentioned here. However, there are plenty of scientists whose names are on record in regards to recent human being common ancestor descent, including some at the following four links.  Not all scientists agree with claims at these links, but enough do to keep the question unresolved and open to serious debate. The short video at the first link provides a mathematical explanation of why our most recent common ancestor may have lived long after Adam and Eve, rather than many thousands of years before, as was assumed by most scientists and other intellectuals prior to the 21st Century.  It also contains other interesting information such as, a single human cell is so complex it contains more atoms than all of the estimated stars in the known universe. Rather than in the comparatively simplistic time of Darwin, today we find ourselves within a universal reality of ever-changing overwhelming complexity.  It seems almost as if science knows far less today than it did back in the black and white, transistor radio, Flintstones cartoon, pre-moon landing American innocence of Buddy Holly and Elvis. Our Earliest Common Ancestor May Have Lived Only 3,000 Years Ago Most Recent Ancestor of Modern Humans Surprisingly Recent Recent Common Ancestry for Modern Humans Estimates According to Wikipedia:  "Sometimes mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived at the same time as Y-chromosomal Adam (from whom all living people are descended patrilineally), and perhaps even met and mated with him.  Even if this were true, which is currently regarded as highly unlikely, this would only be a coincidence. . . A recent study (March 2013) concluded however that "Eve" lived much later than "Adam". . . (earlier studies considered, conversely, that "Eve" lived earlier than "Adam").  More recent studies indicate that mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam may indeed have lived around the same time. . . Monte Carlo simulations suggest the MRCA was born surprisingly recently, perhaps even within the last 5,000 years, even for people born on different continents." Wikipedia: Mitochondrial Eve And this from Wikipedia:  "In genetic genealogy, the identical ancestors point (IAP) or all common ancestors (ACA) point is the most recent point in a given population's past where each individual then alive turned out to either be the ancestor of every individual alive now or has no currently living descendants.  This point lies further in the past than the population's most recent common ancestor (MRCA). . . The identical ancestors point for Homo sapiens has been the subject of debate." In 2004, Rohde, Olson and Chang showed through simulations that the Identical Ancestors Point for all humans is surprisingly recent, on the order of 5,000-15,000 years ago.  Ralph and Coop (2013), considering the European population and working from genetics, came to similar conclusions for the recent common ancestry of Europeans."  Later evidence detailed on Science Daily, indicates that ALL Europeans are descended from a recent common ancestry no later than 1,000 years ago. Wikipedia: Identical Ancestors Point Recent Common Ancestry for Europeans About 1000 Years Wikipedia: Explanation of Most Recent Common Ancestor in Species Modern science knowledge of our true "modern human being" past remains rather murky and fragmented, with various studies and researchers often coming up with significantly different conclusions.  While not very long ago, many historians, archaeologists and other intellectuals dismissed the Bible as a rather non-reliable historical source containing mainly embellished or otherwise mythological stories, today according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Bible is now considered to be mainly reliable history (Sumerian, Egyptian and other related sources not so reliable).  This significant shift by modern intellectuals is due to recent archaeological findings unknown prior to the late 20th and early 21st centuries. NASA in the late 1990's, using improved satellite mapping technology, discovered there is a region in the greater Mesopotamian area now located under ocean water, where four rivers at one time converged north/south/east/west, precisely 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 for Adam and Eve, would have been on dry ground and would have been the "lushest" most Eden-like environment in the entire greater Mesopotamian area. And thus, the modern 21st Century evidence apparently now agrees with the Bible as to a) when farming arose; b) when modern human beings may share a recent common ancestor (perhaps considerably more recent than Noah); and c) where a relatively recent non-direct ancestor may have dwelled in a literal garden of Eden.  As a modern geneticist recently commented in regards to modern genetic evidence at odds with Darwinian theory, regardless of previous long-held assumptions, science must go where the evidence trail leads (Copernicus and Einstein, for example). One Possible Location for Garden of Eden Second Possible Location for Garden of Eden Third Possible Location for Garden of Eden Thus, even though human beings as defined by the majority of scientists trace back much longer, depending on which scientist one chooses to believe, how our Creator defines a true modern human being in the likeness of Adam, may trace back only 5-10 or so thousand years. God does not bow to human science but rather, as has been clearly demonstrated over historical time and is still in process today (scientifically accurate predictions in the book of "Revelation" and looming planetary disaster, for example), science eventually bows to God. In truth, human beings living in the 21st Century know very little about our relatively recent past and, some of what is contained in this chapter may eventually be either underscored or disproven by future discoveries.  One should be careful about labeling something "true" upon turning over a rock or two of new evidence.  This applies to both people who believe in God and, people who for some strange non-evidence based reason, do not. Many assume that much of what science knows today is from recent discovery, but consider this passage from Job 26:7-10 in the Old Testament; Job is thought to be the oldest book in the Bible: God "stretches out the north over empty space; he hangs the earth on nothing (which NASA has photographic proof of today). . .he drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters, at the boundary of light and darkness.  The Bible in several places indicates the universe is surrounded by water and thus apparently according to Job, the universe is circular, the shape of which is still debated among scientists today. Unlike Christianity and other religions promote in great error and, unlike how many scientists and educators far too often promote in great error, what we believe and teach our children should be based on evidence.  Otherwise, when they grow older and discover we have deceived them, they might forsake us and vote to deny us social security and Medicare, leaving us to fend for ourselves in our old age as apparently, many American conservative leaders are currently in the process of attempting to do. Overturning the long held belief by the vast majority of historical scientists and other rational human beings, that the universe is a result of deliberate conception, design and construction, would require an overwhelming pile of verifiable evidence reaching far higher than the ancient tower of Babel and the ivory towers of modern-day universities. While here in a global information age of growing mass deception, the mountains of known evidence keep piling up in the opposite direction, more and more pointing towards deliberate design and conception.  If nothing else, keeping our father in heaven's atheistic children rather busy trying to explain their own existence while denying the overwhelmingly obvious. Chapter 15 - INTELLECTUAL BIAS AND WRONGLY ASSIGNED CAUSES OF WAR In physics, bias created by Einstein's theories (though no fault of Einstein) is clearly abundant today.  For example, the fairly recent rise in scientific importance of "dark energy", which essentially represents juvenile delinquent cart-before-the-horse science, postulating a non-proven entity invented solely in order to prop up existing theories. Some astronomers and physicists suspect there may be no such thing as dark energy and that rather, existing theories of gravity and light may not be correct.  If the speed of light is not constant, as many modern scientists suspect, then virtually all current science theory may be way off the mark (constancy of speed of light is addressed elsewhere). String Theory Not in Sync With Dark Energy Dark Energy May Not Exist Dark Energy and Dark Matter May Not Exist Dramatically Changing Evolution of the Theory of Gravity Chameleon Theory: Alternative to Einstein's Theory of Gravity Everything You Thought You Knew About Gravity is Wrong In biology, bias is displayed not only in the writings of Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss and other militant atheists, but also throughout the Britannica and practically every educational source; where nearly every subject related to science, history or human thought and activity in any way, is now seen through an artificial lens of "evolution".  Some scientists object when they hear the term evolution carelessly applied to practically any and every discipline, like the "evolution" of history, language, art, religion, psychology, morality and similar.  Such perceptions are a by-product of the theory of evolution and were virtually absent from human civilization and thought prior to Charles Darwin.  Prior to the 19th Century, there is essentially no such concept as the "evolution of morality" or the rest listed. Animal behavior is extremely important to human evolutionary science.  The Britannica under the heading "animal behavior", devotes considerable space comparing human behavior with non-human animals and insects.  It admits that the science of animal behavior is essentially in its infancy and there is far much more to learn than is currently known.  There are several conflicting ideas and thus, there's little unified scientific consensus regarding how animals perceive, think and act. Obviously it's difficult for human beings to think like a bird, fish, spider, cockroach or some other animal or insect.  Rather than any real "advancement" up a DNA chain of from lower to higher, it might be more fair to say that all forms of life are more or less equally "well adapted" within their own environmental and reproductive needs. How animals typically act in general seems to significantly differ from the human carnage of greed and avarice and our love of and excessive hording of wealth.  For example, during the Klondike Gold Rush, people of often already considerable wealth, fame and fortune, with plenty of opportunity for reproductive and economic success where they were already located, forsook virtually all hope of sexual reproductive and often literal survival; sometimes dragging wives and children along with them with many perishing in the stampede.  Would be soldiers of fortune are known to have forged across very cold and treacherous rivers and climbed steep heavily snow-packed mountains, through blizzard conditions in the dead of winter, in their unbridled lust for gold, even though people coming back in the other direction warned them there was no more gold to be found. Wikipedia: Klondike Gold Rush And then there is the history of Cortes, who when already possessing extreme wealth, power, fame and ample access to virtually every sexual reproductive opportunity imaginable, in his older age forsook it all for rumors of more gold to be found.  Unlike other mammals and insects, humans have long displayed an excessively extreme love of wealth beyond any and all rational reason and, extreme wealth verses extreme poverty within the ranks.  What bird, squirrel or ant for example, stores up far more than they individually will ever need at the expense of the rest of their species?  What chimpanzee or other animal forsakes safety, food, shelter and all hope of reproduction for either gold or anything else? It has been discovered fairly recently that even microbes exhibit a type of individual choice and, it is known that a small change in diet of a single insect can greatly affect an entire African ecosystem.  There appears to be far more learned behavior among animals than what was formerly mostly dismissed as "instinct" and, it may be true that all forms of life possess some ability to make individual choices, rather than being just robotic-like creatures of genetic programming (and as discussed elsewhere, the jury is still out regarding even plant life). Once any new idea becomes "mainstream", it tends to artificially "color" and influence emerging ideas forward.  Thus, human science, history and other intellectual pursuit contains a significant amount of bias built on previous bias, built on even earlier bias, built on still earlier bias and so on, stretching on back into the mists of historical time. For example, similar to how Einstein's theories are based on the assumption that the speed of light is constant, modern evolutionary theory is based on a long held assumption that reproductive advantage is the singular primary drive of all species, including human beings and, the fundamental "engine" that drives changes in all living things.  As some brave historians and even a few scientists have pointed out, this does not at all seem to agree with how human beings actually behave in the real 21st Century world or, within the known historical record. If this fundamental assumption is wrong or only partially correct, as some historians, geneticists and others contend, then such an error is likely to distort everything else that evolutionary theory influences.  Recent evidence discovered since the decoding of the human genome indicates that reproductive survival advantage is only one of several reasons why forms of life adapt and change (as noted previously).  And in the historical record, we find an insatiable drive of human greed causing people to act in all manner of irrational ways seemingly contradictory to either reproductive or any other kind of survival. According to the Bible, human beings have at least two primary drives or one "dual" primary drive, which can perhaps fairly be called singular, because our reproductive and irrational sub-conscious motivations (i.e., "irrational" equals against human rights and reproductive survival) are so interlaced and entwined at root levels, they are essentially inseparable from any fair observational level.  Jeremiah 17:9-10, in agreement with modern behavioral science evidence, claims what we perceive within our own conscious minds and the actions we can observe in other people, are "results" of highly deceptive and "desperately wicked" motivations from deep within us, which the Britannica refers to as the "seething mass within". Many modern intellectuals, entirely contradicting the known scientific and historical evidence, blame religion for war and other human violence, as if an external entity could somehow be the root cause of human oppression, rather than blaming human beings ourselves for our own choices and actions.  If religion was the real root cause of war, atheists like Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Mussolini and Ayn Rand would be prophets of love, peace and goodwill, rather than historical villains. And, coming out from a so-called age of "enlightenment", there would have been no such thing as the American, French, Russian, Chinese and many other violent and bloody revolutions. And, no such thing as WW1, the "war to end all wars", soon followed by WW2, the Vietnam War, the recent wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Ukraine and several impending wars elsewhere, not to mention a looming WW3. Studies today indicate that what many consider to be socially counter-productive or evil human traits like egoism, Machiavellianism, moral disengagement, narcissism, entitlement, psychopathy, sadism, selfishness, spitefulness and other non-caring and non-empathetic traits, stem from a common dark core within us. The Dark Core of Human Personality Conservative Christians and other orthodox religious people tend to practice baseless traditions and have lists of things they aren't supposed to eat, drink or otherwise do.  Jesus was in particular upset with this type of religious orthodoxy and he constantly openly roundly and soundly condemned the conservative religious leaders of his time.  Jesus became so incensed with this type of nonsense that once he began railing against conservative religious leaders as an invited guest, seated at a table eating in one of their own homes. Jesus says to anyone with an ear to listen:  "Hear me, everyone, and understand.  There is nothing that enters a person from outside which can defile a person; but the things which come out of a person, those are the things that defile a person." Agreeing with the known historical and scientific human behavioral evidence, a key teaching of Jesus is that murders, thefts and other anti-human rights actions originate from within individual human beings; see Mark 7:14-20 and Matthew 15:16-20.  According to the New Testament James, agreeing with Jesus and human behavioral science evidence, war and other human violence comes from irrational desires warring within our own beings; James 4:1-2. As noted, 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 highly deceptive as to our true motivations at sub-conscious root levels, which as already noted, the Encyclopedia Britannica refers to as the "seething mass within" (compare "desperately wicked"). Jesus, the authors of the Bible and the historical and modern behavioral science evidence agree, that irrational greed, hatred, fear, envy, prejudice, stress, tension, murder, rape, theft, false witness, inequality of wealth, slavery, war and other human oppression, are caused by what the Britannica refers to as "the seething mass within" individual human beings and, what the Bible calls "sin".  Changing the word sin to "negative behavior", "social maladjustment" or "seething mass within" of course, does not change the resulting slavery, hunger, violence, pain, suffering, sorrow, death and global mass pollution and destruction resulting from what is within us all. After thousands of years of moral and other education to the contrary, many scientists today continue to work for the global war machine and, educated bankers, politicians, lawyers and Wall Street brokers continue to bilk the common people who Jesus loves out of jobs, home, health and life savings.  People of extreme wealth when interviewed, invariably are still actively attempting to attain even more wealth, as if the human appetite for wealth is both insatiable and highly irrational.  For more information, see Romans chapters 1-2 in the New Testament and "Human Sexuality", "Freud", "Jung", "Psychology", "Animal Behavior" and related articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica. There is no evidence war is caused by either "religion" or "belief in God" (which are not synonymous) as many rather poorly educated modern people claim.  War can just as logically and fairly be attributed as being 'caused' by science and education, pointing to the weapons created by our technology and idealism often promoted by educators and ideals like "socialism", "communism" and "democracy". Since the invention of cheap printing, modern systems like capitalism, communism, socialism, anarchism, fascism and nationalism, over which very much blood has been spilled, has gradually replaced religious excuses for war, although religious fervor is often used as a tool to stir up modern masses to commit violence still today here in the 21st Century. From a purported "Age of Reason" forward, because of mass dissemination of human knowledge previously reserved primarily for priests, scholars and the wealthy, excuses for war have been gradually shifting away from religion towards intellectual idealism and, this gradual historical shift is still in process here in the 21st Century. War and other violence in recent history has often been fomented using both religion and intellectual idealism in combination.  While religion played a relatively minor role in the major wars of the 20th Century, as well as in the American, French, Russian, Chinese and many other revolutions emanating from a so-called "Age of Enlightenment". As discussed in other notes, belief in God and institutional religion are often carelessly lumped together into a highly deceptive historical misrepresentation by modern intellectuals who should know better.  Religion, science and education are all three often used as "tools" to foment war and otherwise, to justify enslaving the masses, but there is no evidence any of these three are the root "cause" of war and other human oppression.  Both modern science and the Bible agree that such oppression is actually caused by a deeper problem found within all of us. War and other violence is a "collective" human problem arising from what is within us all and emanating outward into both individual and collective group action.  Historically, war at the surface bottom root level, including in particular the oft poorly understood Crusades, is ALWAYS about either protecting property and other forms of wealth or, taking property and other forms of wealth and, war is usually about both.  War differentiates from self-defense in that war is about the protection and taking of property, whereas self defense is about protecting the physical being of one's own self, family and/or immediate group. As already noted, according to both Jeremiah 17:9 and modern human behavioral science evidence, the way we perceive ourselves to be in our own conscious awareness is deceitful as to our true underlying intentions.  And according to both I Timothy 6:10 and ALL of the known historical and human behavioral scientific evidence, the love of wealth is at the root of all of the evil that we do (including rape, an act of violence, possession and enslavement). Proverbs 23:7 says as we think and intend within our own beings, so are we.  Modern researchers agree that rape is a form of violence and control, rather than being a sexual act independent of other evil and, it is historically common (continuing on through WW1, WW2 and into the 21st Century) that human slavery, rape and pillage are the assumed "spoils of war" to be exploited by the victors.  It is also well established, that slaves, wives, sons and daughters, along with certain animals in particular, are historically viewed as "property" and a measure of wealth.  The irrational accumulation of wealth lies at the root of all manner of anti-human rights oppression, cultural tradition and bad regulation and policy. Human greed erupting on the surface as war and other violence, is caused by deeper problems within us tracing from both conscious and sub-conscious levels.  Is it just me, or does anyone else find it rather odd that Jesus and the Old and New Testaments seem to agree a lot more with both the historical and modern science evidence, than do many modern intellectuals and others of celebrity fame, such as comedian Bill Maher (who should perhaps stick to comedy). Like Jesus, Mr. Maher is adept at making fun of conservative religious fundamentalists and in this, he is perhaps unwittingly doing God a big favor.  As I've personally inquired of the so-called Skeptics Society, why limit one's targets to the obvious easy television sham religionists and those purporting to bend spoons with their minds, rather than being more like Samuel Clemens and, making sport of puffed up intellectual demagoguery posing as 'science' as well?  A true skeptic remains as skeptical of science and education as they are of religion, politics or anything else. So-called "religious" wars like the Crusades (which were essentially a land grab) very clearly have their roots in human greed; various popes, kings, nobles and wealthy merchants conspiring together to take back valuable land and key trading positions which had been seized previously by Muslim invaders.  Various Crusade leaders and common foot soldiers were promised much "booty" to the victors. Not surprisingly, the strategic trading port of Constantinople was viewed as the grand prize, which had not been previously controlled by Crusade instigators.  There hardly a single battle in human history that can't be traced to human greed at its root, as the Bible long ago stated and, as modern behavioral science is rather grudgingly beginning to agree. Reasons for why radical Muslims flew airplanes into buildings in the 21st Century United States, have their roots in the fact that the United States armed Israel to the teeth at the extreme peril of Israel's Islamic neighbors, with U.S. corporations earning mega-billions in the process.  U.S. corporations were earning vast sums from both WW1 and WW2 long before the United States entered either conflict and, one of the consistent habit of Adolf Hitler was to seize gold, art and jewels wherever German armies invaded.  According to the Britannica, in the days of Charlemagne, it was standard accepted practice to go to war simply for the sake of taking other people's stuff, without even bothering to justify such murderous activity for any other reason. War has long been about both protecting and taking property and other forms of wealth, in regards to any and all "sides" involved.  There are great profits to be made in direct literal and other forms of human slavery, like wealthy capitalists in modern day America profiting handsomely off of so-called "illegal" aliens and homeless day laborers in a morally twisted 21st Century American society.  Note how the sincere religious beliefs of millions of common people have been convoluted to justify everything from the American Revolution to recent U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, note how the intellectual idealism of democracy, capitalism, socialism, communism and anarchism, like religion, are used as inspirational "tools" by warmongers to stir up the often sincere masses of common citizens.  Inspirational "weapons of war" are used to foment "manifest destiny" battles for a few gold, oil, natural gas, land and other dollars more, all wrapped up neatly in a national colors blood-drenched bow of sham 'patriotism' and purported 'self-defense'. In the modern United States, the long held concept of "military invasion" has been replaced by so-called "pre-emptive strikes".  Throughout much of human history, an accepted form of military attack was to "lay siege" to a city, cutting off its food and water supplies until the city capitulated, thus sparing significant wounding and death among the ranks of an invading army. Today, "embargo" and "economic sanctions" can serve a similar purpose. The known history of Columbus, Cortes, the United States western expansion and the Klondike Gold Rush, along with countless other historical examples, overwhelmingly demonstrate that the Bible is correct about fundamental human motivations, while modern evolutionary theory at best, is only half right.  Perhaps a few abiogenesis theorists should spend a little more time in comparative analysis of the Bible against the human civilization historical record and, a little less time lying to our children regarding how we and the rest of the universe happen to exist. According to Richard Dawkins, the universe is exactly as one would expect it to be if there is no God, representing "nothing but blind, pitiless indifference".  If this were remotely true, there would be no human moral conscience and no concept of human rights; no laws against murder, rape, theft or false witness, no police, judges, juries or jails and, no such people as Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, Frederick Douglass, Mohandas Gandhi, Harriet Tubman, Helen Keller, Albert Schweitzer, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther king, Jr., Robert Kennedy, Dolores Huerta or Cesar Chavez found in the historical record.  Rather, we would all act far worse than the worst tyrants of human history.  And humanity would have long ago ceased to exist. Similar base laws against murder, adultery, theft and false witness are found spread across the historical map, as are similar and nearly identical so-called "golden rules", clearly demonstrating like the Bible says and, like Thomas Jefferson and modern scientist Francis Collins both agree, that we possess a designed shared human conscience.  Parents attempting to care about their children don't likely provide them with rules, restrictions, instruction and guidelines because they are being pitiless and indifferent towards them but rather, because they are at least trying to care. Consider the life of Harriet Tubman, who somehow managed to escape slavery herself and then continually risked torture and slow execution, returning many times to help other slaves escape; is this "nothing but blind, pitiless indifference"?  Consider the life of Albert Schweitzer, who forsaking a cushy life as a world class musician, author and scholar, chose to live in poverty aiding the sick and poor of Africa instead, meanwhile in the process becoming the modern world's first great environmentalist; is this "nothing but blind, pitiless indifference"?  Consider the final speech of Martin Luther King, Jr. who knowing he had a bullseye on his back, nevertheless chose to travel to Memphis to help struggling sanitation workers organize and earn better wages and, most unfortunately for us all, lost his life in the process; is this "nothing but blind, pitiless indifference"? One might ask Mr. Dawkins how someone offering to donate one of their kidneys so a total stranger can survive, is somehow guilty of demonstrating "nothing but blind, pitiless indifference".  Parents of children suffering in the hospital from a serious accident, cancer or some other horrible disease, have been heard to say, "if only I could take my child's place I would gladly do so"; is this "nothing but blind, pitiless indifference". And then there is the greatest story ever told, about a father who was so great, he merely spoke and the entire universal reality unfolded into existence and yet, he sacrificed his only son so pitiful souls such as ourselves would have a chance of experiencing true love, peace and freedom.  Tell us Mr. Dawkins, is this a story of "nothing but blind, pitiless indifference"? Consider what life on earth would be like without any concern or even a concept of love verses hatred, right verses wrong or peace verses war.  Just perhaps, our father in heaven gave us a few rules to try and follow and a conscience reminding us when we fail to do so, because he gives a damn whether or not we murder, rape, steal, lie or cheat against our neighbor and otherwise, cares very deeply how we treat each other.  Given our proclivity to do evil and our conscience instructing us otherwise, why would anyone holding a chair at Oxford University or throwing a chair out into the middle of a basketball arena at Indiana State University, vainly imagine otherwise? According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Sigmund Freud believed that human babies are born "blank".  However, modern psychologists working with infants have discovered that, like the Bible says and Jefferson echoes in the Declaration of Independence, babies are born already "hard-wired" with a moral sense at birth.  To be fair, not all scientists agree with these findings. What may be more likely true, is that we humans are born with an innate moral conscience that develops over time along with the rest of our brain.  It is quite impossible to separate what human beings are taught from what we innately possess, while today it is scientifically verified that what we eat and how we act can significantly affect our offspring for generations, just like the Bible long ago claimed is true. Sins of the Fathers; Epigenetic Evidence for Negative Inherited Characteristics It is well established that the human brain continues to develop long after birth into and beyond our teenage years, rather than representing a completed package out of the womb.  A full understanding of the human mind, human consciousness, intelligence and awareness still significantly eludes science today.  And obviously, it is difficult to test and fully understand what is going on in the minds of very young infants. For example, while the myth that we humans only use about 10% of our brain has long endured, in reality it is now well-established that we use all of our brains.  While it was long assumed our brains are highly compartmentalized, it is now known that our brains are both compartmentalized while various processes function outside of specific areas in tandem, meaning human thought processes are far more complex than previously assumed.  As another example, it was recently discovered that unlike previously assumed, neurons in the human brain can carry more than one signal at the same time.  This greatly extends the overwhelming complexity of how our brains function. Brain Neurons Carry More Than One Signal As noted previously, according to various studies, babies as young as three months old in various tests display choices based on perceptions of goodness as opposed to meanness (infants younger than this are extremely difficult to test).  And again like the Bible says, babies appear to have inborn tendencies towards selfishness and bias, ostracizing humans who they perceive as being outside their own group. Such tendencies are clearly displayed on grade school playgrounds, where children are often cruel and mean to other children, accepting some while rejecting others for being the "black" kid, the "Jewish" kid, the "fat" kid, the "uncool" kid, the "ugly" kid, the "weak" kid, the "stupid" kid and similar superficial reasoning.  However "moral" our perceptions may already be at birth, it is beyond dispute that children clearly make selfish, moral verses immoral and related choices at an early age.  Such inborn bias carries on throughout middle and high school and higher education years and on into adulthood, where adults separate themselves into various often highly divisive groupings. Human beings often ostracize other human beings without thinking twice, vainly imagining they are doing God and country a favor.  Consider how citizens of the modern United States often shout "USA, USA", as if vainly imagining they are somehow better, brighter and more accomplished than the rest of the people on earth. Many of us yet today deem it wise to divide ourselves into groupings as races, classes, liberals, conservatives and a myriad of other superficial divisions; as if we don't all trace from a shared same common ancestor; as if we don't all fall "short" of what our own conscience dictates; as if we are not all individually and collectively like the Bible says, part of the global human oppression problem. Do Babies Know Right from Wrong? The Moral Life of Babies Disputes Among Various Scientists Regarding Infant Morality Chapter 16 - MYSTERY OF THE VIRUS According to the article at the following link, "Viruses lack a single common ancestor and indeed, not a single gene is conserved across the entire virome, making viruses a sort of genetic collage. . .viruses, which infect all three cellular domains of life, have acquired their genetic components through complex evolutionary processes not traceable to a single ancestral event. . .viruses are obsessive borrowers, appropriating genetic material from many sources. . .[viruses] hold the potential to shed new light on the origins of earth's earliest life. . ." Viruses Reveal Complex Origins While this does not conclusively prove that the Darwinian "tree model" insistence of all life evolving from a single common ancestor is incorrect, modern knowledge of viruses very much challenges this view, indicating life probably emerged from all over the earth, rather than from a an extremely rare coincidental "totally by chance" random singular origination point, as atheistic evolutionary models have long assumed.  And if life arrived on space rocks in some already living form or, if life exists elsewhere in the universe outside of our own solar system, it remains far outside the parameters of human science to explain the true origins of life. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica article "Virus", science knows almost nothing about viruses compared to what there is yet to learn, even though they are the majority living entity on earth (a virus is not properly classified as an "organism").  Viruses are not necessarily harmful to host organisms and may be overall more beneficial than harmful.  Based on various information contained in a recent video on the science of viruses, even though the video itself did not conclude this, it may be true that all of life on earth began as something like a virus or pre-virus and adapted and changed over time from that level. A virus is essentially a little ball or cylinder of DNA, while some containing a single strand of RNA only.  Life may have began as something like a virus or pre-virus at a biological root level and, life in such a form may have arrived on earth already living, deposited by space rocks and numbering in the "zillions".  As such, life may well have arisen from all over the earth and, be complexly cross-integrated at root levels, rather than arising from a singular source in the ocean as standard evolutionary models have long assumed. According to the 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 have appeared 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. 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 even on earth may always remain an unsolvable mystery.  And if it exists elsewhere in the universe, how, when, where and why life first came into being will likely long remain far beyond human science understanding. If life can arise from a type of virus-like pre-organism or pre-virus, then it may well have arrived already living on space rocks as some scientists believe.  Thus, the standard evolutionary "tree" model of singular origination at best, remains only one of several plausible scenarios. And the larger truth is that modern scientists plainly do not know, nor does human science today have any way of knowing with any verifiable certainty either how, where, when or why life came into existence. First, consider that true biological root levels trace far deeper than traditional molecular science into the poorly understood realm of quantum biology.  Then consider the overwhelming molecular complexity and much smaller atomic and sub-atomic parts which make up what constitutes a virus and even what constitutes RNA within a virus.  And then, consider how or why sub-atomic parts either could or would somehow magically "self-design" into a strand of RNA and/or DNA, something astronomically overwhelmingly completely and entirely, mathematically absurdly irrational. Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance 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 independently of the existence of DNA.  And finally, consider that none of this really matters towards understanding the true origins of life, if life exists beyond earth even within only our own solar system.  It also is known, based on modern research, that viruses, archaea and bacteria are spread across "super-kingdoms of life", making the standard Darwinian model far less-likely to be accurate. And after that, 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 independently of the existence of DNA.  And finally, consider that none of this really matters towards understanding the true origins of life, if life exists beyond earth even within only our own solar system.  It also is known today, based on modern research, that archaea and bacteria are also spread across "super-kingdoms of life", making the standard Darwinian model even less-likely to be accurate. The Information Enigma Signature In the Cell As one can begin to grasp, life arising on earth from "zillions of original similar or identical organisms, possibly arriving in already living form deposited by "space-rocks", may be irreducibly inter-entwined and complexly overlaid and inter-mixed beyond all hope of legitimate research separation, rather than what would by comparison be, the simplistic Darwinian tree-model of evolution.  Consider this simplistic model probably in large part, continues to exist solely because certain 'scientists' refuse to accept the astronomically overwhelming evidence that their atheistic driven assumptions are fundamentally wrong. Viruses Copy Parts of Their Own DNA Code and Self Replicate Archaea and the Scientist Who Scrambled Darwin's Tree of Life Some hard-core Darwinian biologists today continue to insist, in spite of significant modern 21st Century evidence indicating life is probably abundant in the universe, that life somehow, in some inexplicable random "totally by chance" incredibly rare coincidental mystical fashion, magically "self-designed" from scratch on earth from a singular origination point in the ocean, practicing the worst kind of non-evidence based junk 'science' imaginable. No small wonder these are some of the same scientists who were so greatly in error regarding so-called "junk" DNA.  Many and probably most scientists today refer to this formerly assumed left over evolutionary "junk" as "Non-Coding DNA", much of which is known to have a legitimate function and purpose, while it is suspected that golly gee whiz, just perhaps ALL of our DNA has a reason for being in our bodies, just as all of our physical organs and other parts have a known reason for being included in our bodies. Perhaps such 'scientists' should be reminded that most humans eventually grow up and cease believing in mysticism and magic or otherwise, cease hiding behind the most irrational "spaghetti monster" apples and oranges comparison known to humanity.  Maybe a book editor should have pointed out that while God is primarily defined today as Creator of the universe, very few if any of us believe the spaghetti monster created much of anything.  And thus, to compare the two as Richard Dawkins does, represents a total and complete direct violation of basic logic 1-A. If the emergence of life were truly explainable by modern science, there would only be one single universal general consensus theory of abiogenesis, rather than the huge pile of spontaneous generation trash heap contradiction currently pretending to be a legitimate part of science.  Abiogenesis, which is nothing more than an ivory tower -cloaked term for spontaneous generation, currently consists of a great many different often contradicting theories in the plural. Whenever several contradicting theories exist, it is a safe bet that in reality, SCIENCE DOESN'T KNOW.  While it remains a very safe bet that much of what is considered rock solid science today, will soon be gone with the cruel winds and shifting sands of newly revealed evidence of a generation or two down the road. Bacteria Recycle Broken DNA (Indicates Mutations Are Not Random) Gene Editing Powers Discovered in Squid (Such Changes Not Random) As already noted, it is known today (and was completely unknown to Darwin) that both viruses, archaea and bacteria are spread throughout the living world as standard evolutionary models insist they cannot be, cross-integrated across vast superkingdoms of life.  Virtually all of science historically moves from simple to more complexity as more evidence is discovered, rather than from complex to simple. Just as a former comparatively simplistic view of a very large flat earth with a much smaller sun, even smaller moon and tiny stars fixed in a relatively tiny heavens, has gradually given way to the overwhelming complexity of the micro and macro grand design universal reality known to exist in the 21st Century.  And we can at best, only vaguely imagine how quaint and simplistic what is proudly called "cutting edge science" today, may appear to someone with a high school diploma living in the 22nd Century. Mysterious Giant Ocean Viruses Viruses Can Transfer Genes Across Superkingdoms of Life Is it really true that all of life might be much more complexly crisscrossed and irreducibly inter-entwined and cross-integrated than either religious fundamentalists or evolutionary biologists dare to consider?  Is it true that life came forth in abundance, first in the ocean and later on land, 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 enough thick encyclopedic volumes to fill a trillion libraries?  Who among us here on earth knows? In an interview with G.S.Viereck, Albert Einstein says: "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist.  We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages.  The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how.  The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is.  That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God." And Einstein writes in a letter to Guy Raner Jr.,"I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."  Perhaps it would be in the best interest of modern science, education and reason, if scientists today were a little more honest and humble like Einstein and, a little less like certain militant atheists, who can say for sure? The reality of how life actually functions, changes and adapts in the real world is so overwhelmingly irreducibly complex, it may be irrational to pretend science can ever have a complete legitimate theory of either life origins or biological functionality.  Problems begin at the root sub-atomic (quantum) level, where virtually nothing behaves according to any "macro world" theory.  As such, the great mystery of life remains a very great enigma, reaching far beyond the ability of human science to perhaps ever fully resolve. Video on Comparative Micro and Macro Universal Sizes Chapter 17 - CULTURAL AND LANGUAGE TRANSLATION From an unbiased historical perspective and, unlike Christianity in all of its twisted and insidious incarnations has grossly misrepresented Jesus for centuries, it is fair to say that he is neither the founder of Christianity or any other religion.  Rather, it is far more accurate to conclude Jesus is the founder of human and civil rights and free quality public education for the masses. And Jesus is by far the most misunderstood and misrepresented individual in human history. He far more fairly belongs in the categories "human behavior" and "morality and ethics" than "religion", although there is no single category accurately representing him, as his teachings and actions span virtually every category ever invented. The words and deeds of Jesus are foundational focused on the axiom that we should treat other people the way we want them to treat us (Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31).  For this reason we will not kill, we will not steal, we will not falsely accuse and, if there is anything else that matters in securing love, freedom, peace, equality and justice on earth, it is summed up in this, that we should love our neighbor as our self. As an example of how poorly translated most bibles are today, the now famous John 3:16-17 is more accurately translated as:  "For God so loved the people that he gave his only conceived son, that whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.  For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the people, but that the people through him, might be saved." Changing the poorly translated vague and impersonal "world" to "the people" (Greek; sea of humanity) significantly underscores the true intention. Note how much more "people-centered" this more accurate translation is, which is consistent with Jesus being portrayed as champion and friend of the common people throughout the New Testament narrative.  The word translated as "church" in modern bibles, does not at all refer to either a religion or a religious organization or edifice. The book of Acts for example, clearly states that God "does not live in temples made with hands" and, in God "we live and move and have our being".  Note how the Bible does not refer to a "little man in the sky" in reference to God, as many modern atheists are found of misrepresenting.  Rather, according to the Bible, the heavens (plural) and what lies beyond cannot contain God and, in God we "live and move and have our being." Because modern science is aware that trillions of microbes are living within every human being and, it is believed there are far more viruses than any other form of life on earth, it is not at all hard to accept that God is everywhere and we live within God.  Can a virus inhabiting a microbe living within the intestines of a human being, accurately say there is no human being, probably no human being or might be no human being upon which it depends for its very survival? And likewise, can human beings say with any honesty at all that there is no God, probably no God or might be no God?  How would they know, what evidence do they have and, why should common average people either believe them or pay taxes to have our children 'educated' by purveyors of such gross superstition?  What evidence do they have that energy, heat, motion, light, gazillions zillions trillions of parts within parts, life, intelligence, the highly complex dual language and functionality of DNA or even something as rudimentary as human mathematics, can magically exist without an Eternal Primary Cause and Supreme Intelligence behind the grand design universal reality? Some historians believe the term "church" derives from a Roman word assimilated into Greek culture, roughly translating as "a group of common people assembled together for socio-political cause".  Apparently, Jesus himself chose this particular common people-centric term to define followers of Jesus, which is again consistent with the champion of the common people New Testament portrayal of him. Since the death of Cesar Chavez and Martin Luther King, Jr. note how badly today we need a true champion of the common people to offset the greed and avarice of the wealthy, powerful, popular and elite among us.  Such need is also overwhelmingly true regarding common people throughout the record of human civilization. It should be of supreme interest to anyone involved with modern activism and everyone with even a tiny bit of education and historical perspective, that the real historical Jesus is not the founder of a conservative religion (which he utterly hated) nor a religion for the rich and powerful and silvery of tongue, as he is severely grossly misrepresented as being in the modern age, nor the founder of any religion, unless one believes human and civil rights are a religion. There is no such thing as a "prosperity gospel" found anywhere in the Bible and, anyone claiming to represent Jesus who pockets more than the average common person for their own use, is a liar and a fraud.  Those who become wealthy by tugging at the pious heartstrings of well-meaning common people, are the worst kind of grifters, charlatans and frauds within the history of humanity. Consider that Jesus and Peter, James, John, Paul and his other early followers, were among the poorest of people and yet, they still gave to the poor.  Paul, often blamed for modern conservative Christianity, worked as a tent maker to support himself, while many if not most historians consider Paul to be among the most liberal authors in history. Religious quacks claiming to represent Jesus who wear odd hats, vestment gowns, other religious garments, crystal crosses and other trinkets, belong in a mental institution.  Perhaps the only thing worse than this are those who handsomely profit off of what they call "the gospel", which by-and-in-large, are the same people. According to Jesus himself, he came "to heal the broken-hearted", "to proclaim liberty to the captives" and "to set at liberty those who are oppressed", the opposite of how his name is routinely and consistently misrepresented, misused and otherwise abused here in the 21st Century.  We should be wise enough to read the New Testament for ourselves, rather than depending on "blind leaders of the blind." Philology, the science of human language and a discipline carefully applied by careful historians, is unfortunately often carelessly ignored by many educators, religious leaders and prominent media voices.  It is well known among scholars that both Hebrew and Greek, like English, contain many words with multiple meanings.  Thus, when Hebrew and Greek are translated into English, often one meaning of a word is chosen based on best guess at the time or otherwise, arbitrarily chosen over the others.  Philological research among other things, attempts to discern what historical people meant in context of their own time and cultural reality, rather than just the actual words spoken. Problems in attempting to do this can be multiplied because translators, like scientists, historians and all other human beings, are prone to bias and limited by the scientific and historical evidence and knowledge of their time.  Several translations in the King James Version reflect the scientific knowledge prominent in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, rather than necessarily being accurate translations reflecting the original intention of the biblical authors. The Old Testament covers a rather lengthy historical amount of time and probably some portions were first transmitted orally, which doesn't necessarily make them any less accurate than written history.  The habitual use of lengthy lists of generational "begats" is a clear indication of oral historical roots.  Careful historians are aware that oral history can be as or even more accurate than much of written history; this in large part because when oral transmission is the only option available, some early societies and in particular the Hebrews, apparently went to great lengths to keep their historical narratives accurate. One of the most glaring examples of translators trapped within the scientific understanding of their own times, is the KJV translation of "firmament" found in the creation story in Genesis, which in the late 16th and early 17th Century context, apparently was referring to the heavens stretched above the earth.  However, the Hebrew word "ra-q -a " literally means "an extended surface, an expanse", a concept of the universe though very familiar to us today, but which obviously made no sense to the KJV translators. Because KJV translators had no way of reconciling "ra-q -a " within their own 16th-17th Century science experience, the Bible has been ridiculed for centuries, rather than applauded for being the first and only known source in human history prior to the modern age, that got it right. Today it is universally believed by scientists and educators that the universe indeed is expanding.  Use of the word "firmament" rather than "expanse" is a clear example demonstrating why ALL translations of all historical texts remain subject to the knowledge and bias of the time and place of translation. Another glaring example is found in the story of Noah, which is often ridiculed unfairly by many who don't bother to study the evidence for themselves.  The Hebrew kol eretz (or erets ) is translated in KJV as referring to the whole earth in the story of Noah.  But in the story of Abraham, found later in the same book of Genesis, the KJV translation refers to a local region and not the entire earth. The KJV version often translates the same Hebrew as referring to country, region or land, such as the land of Israel, elsewhere within the biblical narrative.  Many documentaries, scientific and other writings can be found addressing the historical and scientific evidence for a great regional flood.  See also Biologos Foundation; Language of Noah and the Flood. In 2014 both the Washington Post and NewScience.com published articles reporting the discovery of a huge volume of water beneath the earth's surface.  NewScience:  "A reservoir of water three times the volume of all the oceans has been discovered deep beneath the Earth s surface.  If accurate (not all scientists agree), this could help explain where Earth s seas came from. The water is hidden inside a blue rock called ringwoodite that lies 700 kilometers underground in the mantle, the layer of hot rock between Earth s surface and its core.  The huge size of the reservoir throws new light on the origin of Earth s water.  Some geologists think water arrived in comets as they struck the planet, but the new discovery supports an alternative idea that the oceans gradually oozed out of the interior of the early Earth." According to the story of Noah, during the great biblical flood, the "windows of heaven" were opened along with "the fountains of the deep".  Genesis says, ". . .all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered."  Whether the Hebrew language is referring to a global flood or a regional flood, either way the phrase "fountains of the deep" brings a whole new credible dimension to the story of Noah, based on discoveries reported at the following two links. Massive Underground Ocean Discovered More Water Than in All Oceans Combined Deep Beneath Earth's Surface Modern English can often be confusing even to those who speak it fluently because of multiple meanings for the same word and, apparently the vast majority if not all human languages contain words with multiple meanings.  When the Bible is accused of being inaccurate today, rather than representing legitimate historical or scientific analysis, it is often a matter of translation choice among words with multiple meanings and a matter of interpretation of the translators, who in the case of the KJV, are trapped within the comparatively limited knowledge of the late 16th Century. As an extreme outside example of how words can have multiple meanings, by changing the pitch contour, the Mandarin word ma can mean either "mother", "horse", "hemp", or "to scold". Consider the English word "cool", the word "crane" as to crane one's neck, a construction crane and a bird called a crane and also, the word "nail" meaning to hammer a nail, as opposed to breaking one's thumb or finger nail with a hammer and also as slang, to "nail" a college exam. Similar sounding words can also cause cultural misinterpretation, like "hear and here" and "to, two and too" (if heard only, someone might answer "six").  As one can see, correctly translating the true intentions of ancient and even modern authors can sometimes be far more difficult than one might assume. The majority of historians continue to assume that several stories found in the Bible are "borrowed" from Babylonian "myths", but there is good reason to believe this isn't true.  What is more likely true is that Abraham and his family, who came from the ancient City of Ur not far from Babylon, were familiar with the same events and thus, passed them down around early Hebrew campfires, where they eventually found their way into the Old Testament.  And, if preserved orally accurately by Abraham's descendants, the stories may be considerably more detailed and accurate portrayals of the same events noted in Babylonian records.  And based on modern evidence (as discussed in more detail with links elsewhere), there is no reason to conclude any of them are myths. Many of what were once assumed to be mythological stories in the Bible, such as Joshua, Joseph, David and Solomon, now have supporting archaeological and other evidence.  History has repeatedly proven many, many times, that claims found in the Bible once thought mythological and often seemingly preposterous exaggerations and otherwise scientifically absurd, are now in the 21st Century considered to be historical and scientific facts, probabilities and/or possibilities.  Unlike Egyptian, Sumerian, Median, Babylonian and other surrounding cultural records, which tend to exaggerate military victories and minimize or otherwise completely ignore defeats, the Bible today, according to a great many scholars, is regarded as generally reliable history. The vast majority of history is not preserved and thus, lack of historical evidence doesn't prove non-existence, nor does lack of current evidence equal mythology.  This is not just true regarding the Bible, but also regarding other ancient cultures.  Archaeologists have found Egyptian granite artifacts that cannot be duplicated today using the most modern advanced electronically powered high-speed diamond-tipped hardened steel drilling equipment and yet somehow, they were made more than 2,000 years before the New Testament was written. Nuclear physicist and former professor at Princeton University Gerald Schroeder, who received his doctorate from MIT and has impeccable scientific credentials, has a rather intriguing explanation for the six "days" of creation found in the first part of Genesis.  The essential premise of Professor Schroeder is that time itself is expanding along with the rest of the universe and so, what from our view looking backwards towards the "big bang" is calculated by us as being 18.6 or so billion years, from a view of our Creator behind the creation of the universe looking forward, mathematically actually equates to six literal days plus one more day of "rest", perhaps indicating the universe after 15 or so billion years (looking backwards from our view here today on earth) is more or less on auto-pilot. Rather than attempting to explain in detail why Mr. Schroeder believes this is scientifically mathematically accurate and correct, which would take several paragraphs to adequately do, a detailed explanation can be found here at this video link:  Six Days of Creation and Modern Scientific Dating.  An interesting sidebar of this theory if correct, is that someone on earth 2 billion years from now, if the human race were to last that long, when calculating the age of the universe from their view, would calculate it as being considerably older than just 18.6 plus 2 billion.  This is because if Gerald Schroeder is correct, time as we humans perceive time to be, is expanding faster and faster along with the rest of the universe. Another interpretation of the Genesis story also requires a bit of explanation, but is yet again an example of the Bible being unfairly ridiculed and dismissed.  The Hebrew "yowm", which is translated as "day" in KJV and most modern Bibles, can also refer to an indefinite period of time or an entire age or epoch.  The Hebrew words for what is translated in KJV as "evening" and "morning" have multiple meanings and, the literal Hebrew rendering is somewhat ambiguous in the syntax it is arranged. According to astrophysicist and scholar Hugh Ross, "a long period of time is clearly acceptable within the definitions of yowm, ereb, and boqer", which in KJV are translated as "day", "evening" and "morning", respectively.  Link here for a Detailed analysis of multiple meanings of "yowm", translated variously in modern bibles as referring to a day, an indefinite period of time, a year, age, season and time.  This plainly illustrates how human language and the true intentions of the original author can be misconstrued and mistranslated from language to language, culture to culture, era to era and source to source: Hugh Ross Website The Hebrew word "yowm" is translated as "year" in I Kings 1:1, 2 Chronicles 21:19 and Amos 4:4.  In 67 other places, it's translated as "time".  In Isaiah 30:8 yowm is translated as: "That it may be for time (Heb. yowm) to come, forever and ever."  Yowm also indicates an indefinite period of time, such as, in time (Heb."yowm"), it will come to pass. Morning and evening are used figuratively in Psalm 90, where it compares evening and morning to the lifespan of mankind and, it also says to God a thousand years is like a day.  For those who believe that the days of Genesis are 24 hour days, it is only fair that they be able to explain how the evening and morning is calculated prior to the creation of the sun on the fourth "day".  Gerald Schroeder as already noted, can explain this, but religious fundamentalists might have a difficult time, indeed. As noted, Psalm 90 says:  "For a thousand years in your sight are like yesterday when it is past and like a watch in the night".  In spite of what religious fundamentalists would have us believe, this clearly implies time's passage has no particular meaning to our eternal Creator, who is neither bound by time, human science, our three-dimensional plus time view or our way of too often unimaginative tunnel vision thinking. If the word day in Genesis One is translated as time another meaning of the same word yowm , then Genesis would read second time, third time, etc.  This would explain how the sun could be created in the fourth time .  And, it would also make Genesis One scientifically accurate as far as science knows.  I don't know which translation matches the original version and my guess is, neither do you. This is supported in the Exodus account of Moses, where God is revealed as "I AM", which is underscored later by Jesus, who says "before Abraham was, I AM".  Unlike every other ancient "god", Eternal Creator more and more matches the unfolding modern evidence.  In spite of untold forests of trees and reams of paper wasted trying to come up with a better scientific explanation, "before Abraham was, I AM" remains the ONLY known explanation in all of human history that satisfies origins, satisfactorily explaining both our own existence and the existence of the observable universal reality. It is more than fair to conclude that, until they have a better explanation than Eternal Creator for their own existence, atheists remain well outside the boundaries of evidence, science and reason.  As noted elsewhere, it requires far more blind faith to embrace atheism than it does to believe in Harry Potter, Santa Clause, the flying spaghetti monster, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, astrology, prime time television, the honesty of priests, preachers, self-help and other gurus, politicians, lawyers, used car salesmen and all of the religions, mythologies, science fiction and other fiction novels, children's stories and fairy tales and any and all other known tall and small tales in the history of human civilization combined. Legitimate historians are aware that the true intention of language when spoken often doesn't translate very well over historical time within the same language.  Generation upon generation of language change and corruption makes it difficult to accurately translate ancient Hebrew even into modern Hebrew, let alone into Greek and much later, into modern English. Other than the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are three primary sources for the modern Old Testament, one from an ancient Greek translation, one from a Jewish translation made long after Genesis was probably first orally handed down and, one based on a Samaritan translation known as "paleo-Hebrew".  Thus, one can begin to see how debating the meaning of ancient words that are known to have multiple meanings, rarely results in a satisfactory conclusion. Although unclear, the phrase evening and morning in Genesis may refer to the beginning and ending of an indefinite period of time, rather than to a literal 24-hour day.  Unlike we typically view things in the modern age, it is scientifically correct to say "evening and morning" rather than the other way around, as first there was darkness and then there was light. What is unclear should always be stated as being unclear, rather than as being an indisputable fact, one way or the other.  This remains a lesson often lost on modern scientists and educators eager to prove that science is true , rather than as is far more often the case, just an educated guess as far as can be determined, based on the current known evidence. There are many other examples in the Bible where the KJV translation has caused entire fundamentalist religions to arise out of bad translation, rather than being fairly based on what the Koine Greek actually says.  For example, the KJV translation of the book of John, "in the beginning was the "word", is a very poor translation of the actual Greek word "logos", a philosophical concept apparently well-known in the world of the author of John, but largely unknown today. This poor translation has resulted in many Christian fundamentalists equating the Bible with God, claiming that Jesus is the spoken "Word" and the Bible is the written "Word".  Suffice it to say, "logos" is neither correctly or adequately translated as "word", nor does either John or any other author of the Bible remotely imply that the Bible is on an equal plane with our Creator. According to the Bible itself, the universe was created by the word of God's mouth and obviously, the Bible didn't create the universe.  Apparently according to the Bible, the word of God is a powerful living entity, powerful enough to cause universes to come into being (meaning of "logos" discussed in more detail elsewhere).  The Bible does say however, that all scripture is "God-breathed" and is profitable to us all. Often criticism of the Bible in the modern age is due to inaccurate and misleading translation and misunderstanding of the changing biblical cultural reality over the great span of historical time the Bible represents.  For example, the term "slave" in modern-day America conjures up memories of the horrible treatment of Africans by European and American slave holders.  But in fact many "slaves" and "servants" in Hebrew, Roman and Greek culture were treated far better than immigrants and homeless day laborers in modern-day America and many American industrial so-called 'free' workers of the recent past. This is by no means true of all Greek and Roman slaves and as in many other cultures, the term "slave" is a highly relative term depending on many diverse historical realities and situations. Some Roman slaves were highly regarded and given status as head of household even above wives, sons and daughters; many could eventually obtain their freedom along with their offspring.  On the other hand, other Roman slaves were literally worked to death and otherwise, severely abused as bad as African-American slaves  American slaves in general, were treated horrifically bad, words like "cruel" and "inhumanely" not even remotely scratching the surface. In ancient Hebrew Old Testament society, fellow Hebrew slaves were granted their freedom every seven years, along with a stipend of cattle, food and clothing, even if they had served only one or a few.  And, all Hebrew slaves, including those captured in battle, were required by law to be treated fairly and have their basic needs provided. This was very much unlike modern American homeless day laborers and migrants and a great many early American pre-unionized industrial workers, many of who died from 16 hour and longer work days and lack of proper sanitation, shelter and nutrition.  Thousands of homeless day laborers continue to die on the streets in 21st Century America annually.  Approximately 100 homeless people perish on the streets each year in Nashville, Tennessee alone. And most unfortunately, the modern Trump administration seems to think nothing of caging immigrant men and women, while kidnapping and caging their children elsewhere, folks whose only 'crime' is fleeing horrific conditions where through no choice of their own, they happen to have been born.  Before one begins to criticize the Bible, they perhaps should consider how cruel, callous and indifferent many fat and obscenely wealthy some Americans are today compared to the rest. Many of America's most affluent citizens vote to take health care, rent assistance and school lunches away from her poorest.  This in a nation where they teach in ivory-towered universities that there is no such thing as sin as meanwhile, the wealthy and famous game the system in order to give their less accomplished children an advantage over the majority. Although long used to justify human slavery, including frequently within the European and later American Experience, the New Testament in no way, shape or form endorses human slavery.  In fact it does quite the opposite, as Jesus is said to have come to "proclaim liberty to the captives" and "to set at liberty those who are oppressed".  Paul's wise cautionary advise to slaves who have become followers of Jesus is not an endorsement of human slavery but rather, in the reality of the world Paul and early Jesus followers lived in, a runaway slave and anyone else openly opposing slavery could quickly find themselves hanging from a Roman cross. People living in a relatively free and comfortable modern-day reality often very wrongly criticize the Bible, having no thought or concept of the life and times of Jesus and his early followers. Jesus is often criticized for not openly opposing slavery.  But doing so not only would have endangered Jesus himself, it would have also severely endangered the lives of the hundreds and often thousands of people who constantly hung around him.  Much of the life of Jesus according to the narrative itself wasn't recorded and thus, the majority of the life and words of Jesus remain unknown. One of the worst translation misrepresentations found several times in the Bible is what is translated by KJV and other modern translations as "unicorn".  Various scholars believe the true intention of the Hebrew is simply referring to an animal with a single horn, such as a rhinoceros or narwhal as examples or, possibly to a now extinct single-horned animal unknown to modern science (modern scientists believe there have been many now extinct animals of the past for which there is no current fossil record). Ten Animals That Look Like Unicorns Explanation of Unicorns in the Bible The discipline of "philology" as used by historians, often represents an attempt to understand the intentions behind words spoken in a particular historical time-frame and context, rather than wrongly assuming that word definitions found in a modern dictionary necessarily apply to ancient texts.  For example, it being difficult for a rich man to go through the eye of a needle as referenced by Jesus, was apparently a well known scenario to the common people he was talking to.  Many if not most scholars agree this is apparently a reference to when travelers arrived at the gates of a large city like Jerusalem, they had to unload baggage off of their camels so the camel could squeeze through a small opening in the wall, commonly known as "the eye of the needle", purposefully constructed for security reasons (see Mark 10:25). Another example is the famous "lilies of the field", where Jesus is apparently referring to wild lilies in the grass that grow wild in Israel, rather than the cultured lilies found in modern flower shops.  A third obvious example is the term "church" as already discussed. Besides these, poorly translated words like "gospel" (simply meaning good news), "doctrine" (simply meaning teaching), "Christ" (Greek for "Messiah"), "schoolmaster" (simply teacher), rabbi (teacher) and many others make the biblical text sound harsh, orthodox and "religious", rather than being the common people-centric narrative it truly is.  According to the New Testament, Jesus was a very popular guy, welcome among practically everyone except for the conservative religious. Literally thousands of people spent days on end eagerly listening to him speak.  Try asking a modern-day Christian why the same sinners and common people of today utterly detest Christianity.  This overwhelming cultural discrepancy clearly demonstrates how poorly the real historical Jesus is represented today here in the modern 21st Century. Speaking of sounding "harsh", consider the now famous "ten commandments", how harsh they sound when translated as "Thou shalt not. . ."  Consider how much more reasonable they would sound to the modern ear if they were instead translated correctly into modern English as, "you should not murder", "you should not steal", "you should not lie about your neighbor" and similar. What modern atheist or agnostic doesn't (at least hopefully) teach these same things in a similar way to their own children? And, while modern so-called "progressives" balk at the very notion of allowing the ten commandments anywhere near a public school, consider how horrible life would be for school children if there were no rules against killing, beating up, stealing from or lying about fellow classmates in a typical American elementary school.  Cultural misrepresentation and historical reality can be rather troubling even to the most liberal among us. As an outside example unrelated to biblical times, modern educators who unfortunately like most of us, aren't always careful historians, often broad-brush the American founders as being "deists", when in fact virtually all of them ascribed to some form of Christianity, while several but by no means all of them had deist leanings.  More importantly, as far as history knows, every American founder believed in a God who interacts with creation and the affairs of humanity, which is not how deism is commonly defined today.  The Declaration of Independence very clearly references a pro-active God who intervenes within the affairs of human beings. A pro-active God is clearly displayed in the writings of Jefferson, Franklin, Adams and many others, while there is no hint of separation of God and state to be found.  Separation of "church" and state obviously refers to separation of institutional religion and state, based on the choice of the word "church" rather than "religion", "God" or "Creator".  Thomas Jefferson's family for example, belonged to the Church of England, a recognized Protestant brand of institutional religion in the 18th Century.  While "religion" to the American founders may have referred to belief in God, as well as referring to a particular religion, there is no such ambiguity with the term "church". It is fair to say that not allowing discussion of God and design in relation to the evidence in a 21st Century public science classroom, is the opposite of what the First Amendment and every American founder intended.  Unfortunately, this remains one of the best examples of how absolutely wrong historians can be in carelessly disregarding the cultural context and both the actual words and more importantly, the known actions of the American founders. Today, 50% of American scientists, 75% of American physicians and 80% of American educators claim to believe in God.  Thus, it remains a gross violation of the most basic human and civil rights and, an open shame and disgrace before God and the rest of the modern global community, to not freely allow discussion of God in a public school classroom. Based on their own subsequent actions, the First Amendment and freedom of speech clearly meant to the American founders, that both educators and students who believe the evidence demonstrates design and, educators and students who do not, as well as everyone else anywhere and at any time within the borders of the United States, are free to say what they fundamentally believe, without fear of any economic or other penalty. Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, the tower of Babel, the story of Noah, a town once thought mythical in the story of Abraham, Sodom and Gomorrah, the stories of Joseph, Moses and Joshua, the Queen of Sheba, King David, King Solomon and even some "minor" biblical kings, all currently are supported by some archaeological and other evidence.  Not surprisingly, the evidence is stronger for some than for others. While much of this evidence is linked within the various notes in this work, some is not, as there is no intention here to cover every thing possible on any given subject.  Anyone can do their own research and confirm the truth of this paragraph or any other claim within this work.  Due to the length and complexity of the subject of this particular note, several paragraphs of information initially included have been edited out. Archaeological Evidence for Joseph Chapter 18 - HOW DEPENDABLE IS MODERN SCIENCE? 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.  Light's speed may also be altered gravitationally when passing stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies (as compared to darker void areas of space) and, light may be slowing down or as more likely the case, speeding up as the universe itself continues to expand. It may be true that the speed of light is constant in a complete vacuum, but otherwise light's speed might be altered by whatever it passes near or through.  Thus, current estimated star distances may be off, as well as the current estimate of 13.81 billion years for the age of the universe.  The speed of light may not even be constant in a complete vacuum.  Either way as the history of science clearly demonstrates, virtually all of modern science theory may be slightly off or way off the mark of what is actually correct, from a true universal and beyond (logos) perspective. A scientist at Princeton University has proposed that so-called "universal laws" may not be universal; such laws, if they do exist, may be dependent on one's position in the universe and, may differ throughout the cosmos.  Theoretically, this is because the twisting and bending of space/time itself differs depending on one's position in the universe. Chameleon Theory: Alternative to Einstein's Theory of Gravity Everything You Thought You Knew About Gravity is Wrong The distribution of matter throughout space isn't uniform and also, a planet nearer the center of a galaxy resides in a considerably more densely crowded region than a planet located closer to the edge.  As such, the twisting of the fabric of space/time itself could theoretically vary significantly enough to alter one's perception of universal laws.  Assuming of course, that there is any such thing as a "universal" law, which modern science has no way of verifying with any reasonable certainty. Distribution of Matter May be Different in Our Local Galactic Neighborhood Historically, scientists are want to invent concepts and reference points of convenience based on the current knowledge of their times, rather than learning from the past experience of earlier peers who have often been fundamentally wrong.  So-called "dark energy" is a good example, as well as mainstream insistence prior to Edwin Hubble of there being only one Milky Way galaxy in a static eternal universe. Various scientists suggest other reasons why the speed of light might not be constant, including the fact that measurements for light's speed taken several generations ago seem to be somewhat different than currently calculated as being today.  It should also be noted that the speed of light as calculated remains an approximation, rather than an exact measurement (approximately 299,792,458 meters per second or 186,282.397 miles per second). As discussed elsewhere, some scientists today believe the universe is designed according to pi and the golden ratio, both irrational numbers.  If true, then the speed of light may long remain an approximation, along with the rest of what human beings call "science". Some scientists have proposed the speed of light may have been much faster in the early universe and, that light slowed down over time as density increased.  Yet another suggestion is that light might actually be speeding up as the rate of universal expansion increases.  And of course, most students are familiar with modern claims that photons behave like both a particle and a wave.  Essentially here in the 21st Century, one might conclude that science in many ways remains in the dark concerning the truth about light. Speed of Light Faster in Early Universe Physicists Say Speed of Light May Not Be Constant Evidence Speed of Light Not So Constant Wikipedia: Light Particle-Wave Duality As some scientists have publicly stated, if the speed of light is not constant, there may be no such thing as dark energy and, all current theories of gravity, light, universal evolution and practically everything else may be a little off to way off the mark.  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 accurate from a larger view. Dramatically Changing Evolution of the Theory of Gravity For example, just because science can create an atomic bomb, this doesn't prove Einstein is correct about the speed of light being constant.  And, just because science can use evolutionary theory in practically applied ways on earth, this does not prove it is entirely, in the main or, even remotely accurate from a true universal and beyond perspective.  People who claim to "believe" in science remain rather naive regarding both the history of science and the comparatively extremely tiny view human beings currently possess in comparison to what we don't know and have yet to learn. Virtually everything modern science "believes" today remains suspect for at least two very well established reasons:  1) Virtually nothing in the quantum reality works as expected according to current "macro" theories of physics.  And 2) The history of science clearly demonstrates that much of what scientists believe to be true within any given historical time frame, will no longer be considered true not long thereafter.  In comparison to the Pythagorean Theorem, one of the oldest theories still considered to be "science" today, evolution remains just a "baby" theory, barely out of the scientific womb. It is important to understand that the "theory of evolution" is not at all like the Pythagorean Theorem or E = MC2 and, it is logically not even a theory by normal definition.  Rather, the theory of evolution is itself in a constant state of evolution, adapt and change.  Modern education spoon-feeds the unsuspecting student into accepting the grand mythology that evolution is a universally agreed to and accepted theory.  While in reality, to scientists it merely represents the current "median norm consensus" of many different and widely diverse often conflicting and contradictory ideas, here today and gone with the winds of evolving science evidence of tomorrow. While the Pythagorean Theorem and E = MC2 remain the same today as taught in high school textbooks in the 1960's, the "theory of evolution" has so much radically changed, as to not fairly even be called the same theory.  Several university level educators today say that evolution simply means "change", while such an idea apparently wasn't even on the education radar map prior to 1990. No modern biologist today believes in the simplistic evolutionary chain portrayed in textbooks a generation or two ago, where an ape was pictured in a drawing, with gradual step "creatures" "advancing" into a modern human being.  Rather today, both apes and human beings are considered to be two current recent species, neither of which lived in the not very distant past. Today, natural selection theory is openly being challenged by peer scientists and with the discovery of exo-planets, it appears that life may well predate the earth itself, negating any and all attempts to demonstrate how life somehow magically "evolved" from unguided scratch here on earth.  If life is abundant in the Cosmos as many if not most scientists suspect today, it is irrational to pretend science will ever know how, when or where life first came into existence. In reality, there is no such thing as an agreed to "theory of evolution" but rather, how the theory itself is defined is constantly changing and adapting, the theory having an obvious evolving, adapting and changing history of its own.  One might fairly ask, if evolution simply means "change", why not teach students and the general public that life "adapts" and "changes" over time, rather than insist on using the word "evolve"?  Why not call the observable reality of living things "life in transition", rather than continuing to use the misleading term "evolution"? As noted previously, is science being fair to artificially divide life up into species and then claim that one artificial division evolved from another?  Isn't it being far more honest and accurate to say that the entire universe and all life contained therein is in a constant state of transition and, human scientists then come along and arbitrarily divide life into artificial categories of human invention, categories which have dramatically changed over time? Is it fair to say that a bird "evolved" a certain type of beak, as if a bird induced change on its own?  Isn't it more honest to conclude that all of life is designed to adapt and change within an ever-changing universal reality, rather than change being somehow magically induced by random appearing, unguided, totally by chance "self-designing" processes; as if energy, heat, motion, light, life, intelligence and the rest of the grand design observable reality somehow magically appeared and "self-designed" by its own volition?  Who would propose such a thing and, what is their purpose for doing so? Cambrian Explosion: The Failure of Darwin's Theory Darwinian Evolution Inadequate to Explain Cambrian Predator New Evidence from China; Darwin's Tree of Life Turned Upside Down The Evidence of the Fossil Record Random Chance Probability of a Single Protein Forming Chapter 19 - EVOLUTION WEIGHED IN THE BALANCES OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR According to evolutionary theory, there are costs as well as benefits to learning, so learning abilities will be beneficial, and favored by natural selection, only when the benefits outweigh the costs (from 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, this fundamental conclusion of modern biology remains highly suspect.  Children and adults have to repeatedly be taught to behave, based on what parental and societal peer conscience dictates to be morally correct. In order to convince us to be what we humans ourselves perceive as "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, spankings and stars on primary report cards, to monetary and other prizes, trophies and plaques 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 societal ostracization, lengthy incarceration, torture and execution. Why are classes on morality and ethics taught at major universities and, why do some modern 21st Century students decide to work for organizations like Doctors Without Borders, while others choose to work for the global war machine?  Why are adults rewarded with an international "peace prize", which includes not only international recognition but also a substantial monetary reward, for behaving like we believe we all should already behave?  This modern evolutionary view is highly suspect based on the fact that many of the most educated modern human beings continue to engage in the same highly destructive anti-human rights behavior as humans in ancient Babylon, Egypt, Greece and Rome. Many highly educated modern scientists and other human beings continue to create ever more destructive weapons of war and otherwise, mass pollute all hope of our species' reproductive survival into planetary oblivion, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, dire warnings and devastating predictions of looming planetary disaster.  Meanwhile, educated bankers, lawyers, politicians, preachers and self-help gurus most callously and deliberately continue to defraud fellow human beings out of what meager wealth they may possess. They continue to sell our children's future down the great historical river of tears for a few dollars more, regardless of how many millions or billions of dollars they already possess.  And 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.  When it comes to human behavior and what is best for humanity's overall reproductive and literal survival, there appears to be no evolutionary advantage ever realized. If human babies are born morally pure , as many adults rather wistfully wish to believe 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 moral consensus derived from individual and collective conscience, custom and in the modern age, declared human rights law. If we aren't born with an inherent moral obedience problem, why is there any necessity for a theory of human rights and, why do some atheists and agnostics stand on street corners holding up peace signs?  Why do many people believe it is "good" to hold up a peace sign and "bad" to go to war?  Who decides what is right or wrong for a fellow human being to engage in?  If we don't have an innate greed problem, why is there such a great disparity of wealth here in the 21st Century?  Why after thousands of years of moral instruction, are we today standing on the verge of World War Three and global pollution planetary destruction? How does this represent either a reproductive or any other advantage for our children's future? Why do we still have walls, bars on windows, locks on doors, soldiers, police, courts, judges, juries and jails here in a modern age emanating from a so-called "Age of Enlightenment"?  If this is just our natural selection manifest destiny, then why is Jesus still revered even by some of modern history's most highly educated people? How does natural selection weighed in the balances of 21st Century human behavior, equal respect for the teachings of Jesus on one hand, while equating Darwinism with what is really true on the other.  As if one good hand of constructive altruism somehow washes the bad hand of sexual survival of the fittest whatever the cost to our neighbor? As the New Testament teaches, God did not give us laws and a conscience because our Creator is naive and expected us to obey him but rather, to prove to us that we have an innate moral obedience problem, which the Bible calls sin and thus, we cannot save ourselves and need God's help.  Changing sin to more modern terminology like anti-human rights behavior or anti-social behavior , obviously in no way, shape or form changes our underlying fundamental moral problem, nor does it relieve any of the resulting violence, slavery, inequality of wealth and immense suffering and sorrow sin causes. As noted previously, studies today indicate that what many consider to be socially counter-productive or evil human traits like egoism, Machiavellianism, moral disengagement, narcissism, entitlement, psychopathy, sadism, selfishness, spitefulness and other non-caring and non-empathetic traits, stem from a common dark core within us.  Even modern science believes we have an innate moral problem, which the Encyclopedia Britannica calls the "seething mass within" and the Bible calls "sin". Modern evidence indicates that the evil that people do traces to the same shared cause in the depths of our being, which is what the Bible likewise says (Jeremiah 17:9, Matt 15:6-11, Romans; chapters 1 & 2). The Dark Core of Human Personality 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 like we ourselves wish to be treated.  The legacy of so-called ages of "reason" and "enlightenment" of European and American imperialism, the American, French, Russian, Chinese, Cuban and many other revolutions, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Iraq and many other horrendous modern wars of unparalleled historical violence and destruction, coupled with modern global mass pollution and a looming WW3 and planetary disaster, very clearly demonstrates that if anything, evolution is taking us backwards and science and education cannot save us from our sins. World leading DNA and human disease expert Francis Collins has publicly stated, that modern DNA evidence alone demonstrates design and not random processes.  As he has also remarked, 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 similar "golden rules" appear in at least 37 both connected and non-connected historical cultures sprawled across the civilization record. Thus, clearly indicating as Paul writes in Romans 2 and Jefferson echoes, that we human beings possess an "endowed" shared human conscience.  And, as Jefferson, Collins and others have pointed out, this clearly demonstrates deliberate design and not random processes.  All people who believe in God by default believe in some form of deliberate design and many such modern people like Francis Collins, also subscribe to the theory of evolution,  Belief in God based on evidence, which unlike Christianity and other religions, is how faith is taught in the Bible, should never be confused with creationism and intelligent design theories, as many poorly schooled intellectuals have evolved the bad habit of doing. Based on dire predictions of modern scientists about our planet's future, much in lockstep agreement with many predictions made by Jesus and others in the Bible, there will soon come a time on earth when humans in large numbers wish they had never been born.  As the Bible predicts will happen, we are already losing a significant amount of green plant life and changing weather patterns, food and water supplies are already warning signs of major famine, pestilence, disease, anarchy and war on unprecedented scales looming on the global horizon. Modern global warming computer models alone grossly contradict any notion of any benefit from human science and technology outweighing the horrendous downside of modern nuclear, bio and other weaponry and global mass pollution. The ongoing human carnage of war and rumor of war differs significantly from the actions of the rest of the animal kingdom, in that animals tend to war out of necessity or fight to gain a reproductive edge, rather than being motivated by sheer greed and engaging in irrational behavior for no good reproductive survival or any other rational reason at all.  As a few brave historians have dared suggest, the known history of Cortes and the Klondike Gold Rush alone cast a giant question mark shadow over any claim of human behavior being attributed solely to reproductive survival (discussed in more detail in the chapter to follow). This chapter is intended to challenge one to think outside of the "evolutionary box" our brains are rather unfairly 'educated' into here in the modern age.  Evolutionary theory weighed in the balances of what human beings actually do in both the historical record and the actual real 21st Century world is discussed in greater detail elsewhere.  One might fairly ask, if reproductive survival is our sole root motivational purpose, why do Jesus and Martin Luther King, Jr. remain two of our most revered heroes, both of whom died in their thirties long prior to realizing their full reproductive potential? As also noted elsewhere, there is a simple test that both the highly educated, barely educated and everyone in-between can take for themselves, to determine whether or not they personally are possessed with an inborn obedience problem.  Try doing what you think is good all of the time and, see how well you do.  And don't forget to be honest, just like your father and/or mother (hopefully) taught you to be. Sins of the Fathers; Epigenetic Evidence for Negative Inherited Characteristics Learned Behavior Genetically Passed Down for Generations Human Caused Pollution Harms Every Organ of Human Body Evidence Poverty Leaves Significant Changes on Human Genome Genetic Evidence Divorce Runs in Family Lineages Study Indicates Human Morality Partially Genetic Do Babies Know Right from Wrong? The Moral Life of Babies Disputes Among Various Scientists Regarding Infant Morality Staggering Differences Between Chimpanzees and Human Beings Chapter 20 - GOLD AND REPRODUCTIVE SURVIVAL As discussed previously, some modern geneticists and other scientists and intellectuals have somewhat reluctantly started to openly challenge natural selection theory, publicly stating that modern genetic and other evidence indicates that natural selection by "random mutations" is apparently only one of many reasons (some unknown to Darwin) why life adapts and changes. Modern evidence gained by expanding knowledge of microbial behavior, clearly indicates that at best, Darwin was only partially correct regarding reasons why living organisms adapt and change.  Because this has already been addressed in detail previously, rather than repeat such information this chapter instead addresses issues scientists and others sometimes overlook. For those questioning whether new research demonstrates natural selection theory is only at best partially correct, consider information at the several following links: Directly Contradicts Darwin: DNA Mutations Are Not Random Evidence of Microbes Within Us Changing Their Own DNA Evidence Natural Selection Theory is Inadequate Challenges to Darwinian Evolution at Fundamental Microscopic Level Microbes Controlling Actions of Host's Genes Bacteria Recycle Broken DNA (Indicates Mutations Are Not Random) Bacteria Acquire Resistance from Competitors Viruses Copy Parts of Their Own DNA Code and Self-Replicate Gene Editing Powers Discovered in Squid Archaea and the Scientist Who Scrambled Darwin's Tree of Life Viruses Can Transfer Genes Across Superkingdoms of Life In particular what is ignored by many scientists and educators is the way we human beings often act when even the remotest possibility for gold and other forms of wealth are dangled in front of us.  Many people today who can ill afford it and who otherwise need their meager incomes for their own children's survival and well being, often spend vast amounts of time, money and effort playing lotteries with mega-millions to one odds.  Meanwhile, legal gambling, once reserved mainly for cities located in Nevada, has become a booming industry across the American landscape and, internet gambling is a significant growing global human addiction. Any claim evolution by natural selection is correct must fairly address what all of this has to do with reproductive advantage and survival.  It is not enough to say wealth is necessary for survival or that enhanced wealth enhances reproductive opportunity, as many people of extreme wealth and limitless opportunity continue to engage in such practices, often dominating much time and energy that could otherwise be used in an arguably far more reproductively advantageous manner.  As noted previously, men of significant wealth, power and ample opportunity to reproduce were known to leave it all far behind, risking life and limb during the Klondike Gold Rush (and other gold and silver bonanzas as well). One of the greatest flaws created by bias arising from the term evolution itself, are assumptions of "advancement" and "descent" from "lower" to "higher" forms of life, assumptions not necessarily having any validity.  Even Charles Darwin later in life opposed the idea of descent as commonly understood, in spite of the title of one of his works. On a practical everyday level, why would an educated human being continue to eat at fast food restaurants in the modern 21st Century, undoubtedly aggravating when not directly causing much human disease?  Even though there is scientific medical knowledge today clearly demonstrating that eating certain foods can cause us and our offspring significant harm, we often drag our children right along with us. Why would we buy our offspring cake and ice cream for their birthday and other "special treats" that physicians warn can cause obesity, diabetes, heart and other disease and ongoing addiction to harmful foods, knowing full well that the more our children eat junk, the more likely they are to eat far more junk the older they become?  How is this a reproductive "advantage" and if not, why do modern highly educated as well as other not so well educated people continue to engage in such practices? Most practicing scientists today question the idea of "descent" in evolution as commonly perceived, but they almost invariably believe in reproductive survival advantage advancement and, that human beings are advancing intellectually and morally, while based on the historical record, there is no evidence for and overwhelming evidence against such a conclusion.  How does the record of war and human oppression recorded from the rise of British imperialism forward, represent a moral advancement over ancient Babylon, the Roman Empire or Middle Ages Europe? Many if not most historians believe WW1 and WW2 alone if anything, represents moral regression rather than advancement.  One is left perplexed by a so-called "Age of Enlightenment" resulting in the global slave trade, the American, French, Russian, Chinese, Cuban and many other modern revolutions, two global wars and many other horrific wars and now here in the modern 21st Century, humanity is staring at a supreme species extinction penalty for global mass pollution. Not to mention, rising global corporate dominance, accompanying mass human enslavement and civilization teetering on the brink of nuclear annihilation.  How does this represent intellectual and moral "advancement" and, why do so many educated scientists, bankers, lawyers, pontiffs, preachers and politicians continue to engage in far worse deception and human oppression than the common thieves of past human history ever dreamed of? Perhaps the most significant problem with Darwin's theory, as has been pointed out by a few brave historians, is that actions predicating "reproductive advantage" are grossly contradicted by human beings in the known historical record.  To claim that the sole fundamental drive of human beings is reproductive advantage, is essentially irrational in the light of the known history of Cortes, the American West and the Klondike Gold Rush; just a few of millions of examples of the severe reproductive downside caused by overt human greed, splashed in human blood and carnage all over the historical record. Human beings throughout the historical record in droves forsake any and all hope of reproduction at the mere hint of a wisp of a few gold dust or other dollars more.  Often risking life and limb in the harshest of conditions, engaging in much violence, war and brutality and again, risking life and limb, enduring all manner of hunger, disease, pain and suffering, people have been known to even drag spouses and children along with them and often dying in the process, in a more often than not fruitless vain pursuit of a few gold dollars more. People of vast wealth, power and ease and availability of virtually unlimited reproductive opportunity, have been known to leave it all far in the dust and engage in most egregious brutality and severe risk of personal, family and extended group safety, traveling long distances in harsh, unforgiving sub-zero freezing mountainous terrain and unimaginable brutal weather, to where there is little to no hope of finding any suitable mate, at the slightest hint of gold. This has been repeatedly engaged in throughout the historical record often in the face of preposterous claims of wealth to be found just over the horizon, that any sound mind would have long ago rejected as gross exaggeration if not complete fabrication.  How does the known history of the Klondike Gold Rush demonstrate reproductive survival or any other kind of advantage to a race called "human being"? Wikipedia: Klondike Gold Rush As noted previously, according to both Jeremiah 17:9 and modern human behavioral science evidence, the way we perceive ourselves to be in our own conscious awareness is deceitful as to our true underlying intentions.  According to both I Timothy 6:10 and ALL of the known historical and human behavioral scientific evidence, the love of wealth is at the root of all of the evil that we do.  And, according to Proverbs 23:7, as we think and intend within our own beings, so are we. Modern researchers agree that rape is a form of violence and control, rather than being a sexual act independent of other evil and, it is historically common that human slavery, rape and pillage are assumed "spoils of war" to be exploited by the victors.  It is also well established, that slaves, wives, concubines, sons and daughters are historically viewed as "property" and a measure of wealth. A common blunder that even Richard Dawkins admits is incorrect, yet an error often found in articles in the Washington Post, New York and Los Angeles Times science sections and often taught by poorly trained educators and popular pundits, is the notion that humans are "descended" from the "ape" family and as such, we belong to the "ape" family.  Several articles published in the NY Times and LA Times made this claim in 2010 alone. And not surprisingly, this is a common belief now prevalent in modern society.  This is one example of how the term "evolution" itself is misleading and why it should long ago have been replaced with "life in transition", a more accurate and less confusing general descriptive idea of how life actually functions here on earth and at least theoretically, on a universal level. Some scientists and educators might contend that evolution is in fact "life in transition", but if this is the case, why not change the terminology so that poorly trained popular media 'science' editors don't continue to mislead the general public?  What reproductive or other advantage is there in continuing to use misleading terms, when improved terminology could help minimize false assumptions?  Mr. Dawkins, being a trained scientist, admitted in a 2010 PBS video that humans did not descend from apes but rather, apes and humans represent two modern species that didn't exist in the recent past. There is no evidence evolution represents an overall "advancement" from "lower" to "higher" organisms.  Rather, the known evidence demonstrates that all living forms of life are more or less equally well-adapted for their particular needs.  The known evidence demonstrates that ALL of life is designed to be in a constant state of transition, so that life itself can survive within constantly changing environments.  Any life form observed today didn't exist in its current form not very long ago. While there is evidence here on earth that life has transitioned from less to more complex beings, in the bigger picture, life is bound to die, along with or sun and solar system and, life will likely again begin somewhere else to advance and change from less to more complexity. Again, this is how life is apparently designed, at least from our extremely tiny perspective on a single planet among zillions of others.  Life is indeed an extremely well-designed and most tenacious thing, able to march on, in spite of stars exploding, solar systems dying and other mass casualties within space/time. "Life form", "forms of life" and similar are used frequently in this work to help offset the fact that "species" and other classifications of science are human inventions, which neither dictate the reality of how life came to be or how life functions.  One way to view the actual reality of life, is to view everything living as being a "part" of life and thus, all living forms of life are part of the whole of life itself.  Some forms of life change a lot more dramatically than others, while some forms remain about the same for millions years. This is because change is predicated on necessity of survival, food source availability, sudden introduction of new predators, environmental influences, freedom of choice and many other factors (including sudden massive loss of living organisms caused by major flooding or a forest fire, for example).  Life forms that don't need to change very much change relatively slowly, whereas the same 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.  There is no evidence this is due to some mysterious mystical "self-selecting", "self-designing" random chance evolutionary process but rather, it is simply because this is how life is designed so that life can survive within ever-changing universal environments.  What science calls "species" may arise and die out, but life itself marches on. It is not true that reproductive survival isn't why all of life changes and adapts.  Rather, the modern evidence indicates reproductive survival is one of several reasons why all of life adapts and changes.  The word "natural" in natural selection itself represents human assumption and bias, rather than science.  Labeling a process "natural" and referring to environmental reality as "the natural world" doesn't prove anything, other than that scientists like other human beings, are prone to bias and assumptions having no foundation in evidence.  Who decided we live in a "natural" world, rather than a "created" world and what evidence of magically existing beings living in magically appearing universes do they have? Because there is only one universe, there is nothing that rationally compares to it.  But for purposes of discussion, if we view the universe as a giant computer, we can understand, based on our own human ability to create computers, that the universe in some ways represents a grand cosmic designed "machine", operating far beyond human ability to fully comprehend.  It is impossible to know how much or how little our Creator inputs within the grand cosmic scheme of things, while on the other hand, there is no evidence at all that either a computer or the universe can magically exist unto themselves.  All evidence known to humanity points in the other direction towards Primary Cause, that parts within parts working in combination together neither do not nor can magically exist unto themselves. A significant reason why life forms change is due to their own individual choices, which is only part of "natural selection" in the vague larger sense, as well as another highly significant reason is due to dramatic environmental changes, whether caused by humans or caused by natural disasters, such as floods, fires, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc.  And, sudden introduction or elimination of predators and food sources can cause rapid significant changes that otherwise would not have occurred. This includes natural selection in the vague larger sense, but it has little to do with slow selective step-by-step changes normally associated with the idea of natural selection as presented in textbooks and to the public at large.  Human pollution alone represents a giant thorn in the side of evolutionary science, as we have yet to learn the complete negative ramifications of our own insatiable human greed, which today is clearly sending us down a historical oblivion road of no return. Natural selection is a human invented term attempting to explain how and why life adapts and changes over time.  "Species", "Genus", "Family", "Order" and other categories of biological science are artificial classifications and have no bearing on how life either came to be or functions in the real world, any more than the formula E = MC2 has any bearing on the actual functionality of gravity, energy and light.  These 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, far more accurately called "creation". The term universe to most scientists means whatever human beings can detect in both macro and micro directions, although scientists themselves often refer to the "known" universe, as opposed to what is beyond our ability to detect.  The actual size of our universe is believed to be incredibly larger than the comparatively tiny amount we can currently detect.  Some scientists have tried to calculate what they believe may be the actual size, while some continue to propose that although it appears to us to be expanding, it may in fact be infinite in size. The only real system that we can unbiasedly observe is "the universal system" or what is commonly called, "universe", the cosmos or the universal reality .  Calling it the "natural" world and using a term "natural" selection creates unwarranted bias between atheists and theists and causes all manner of debates to arise between evolution and creation, which are just a big waste of everybody's time and energy, having nothing in common with either our Creator or science or reality or creation.  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 invented terminology.  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 placing all of its marbles in one "natural selection" basket, as Mr. Dawkins and other atheists tend to do.  The more a scientist just arbitrarily chalks everything up to evolution by natural selection, treating it as some sort of "Boogieman" god to explain everything, the more inaccurate such a notion becomes in terms of the larger universal reality weighed in the balances of the known evidence. 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 or triangular in shape, but regardless of what humans beings may believe, what is true remains the same.  And whether or not we "believe" in evolution or even have a concept called "evolution", what is true regarding how life came to be and 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 wouldn't think and act, but outside of how what we believe effects us and causes us to act, the above is essentially accurate and it should be emphasized in every first year college if not high school science classroom.  Ingraining this basic fact of universal reality in the minds of students would help minimize counter-productive and unwarranted bias.  As Socrates is reported to have said, he considered himself to be wiser than others because unlike other human beings, he understood how little he knew and by extrapolation, how little "we" collectively as human beings know. When education is presented as a search for what is true as being the goal, rather than defending what scientists believe against religion, then categories such as "religion", "science", "philosophy" and "history" become irrelevant to the pursuit of 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 political conservative believes. None of what any of us believe either overrides or changes what is true, other than the fact that human misconceptions have caused a great deal of human oppression, misery and woe and, continue to dramatically do so.  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. And then there is the very large can of worms carelessly lumped together under one common heading "religion", as if belief in God based on evidence, institutional religion, morality, ethics and various television scam artists and pedophile-leaning priests, all represent one and the same thing.  Bill Maher, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, the late Christopher Hitchens and others are fairly correct in their claims that institutional religion is far more harmful than good. Unfortunately, such biased media voices insist on lumping belief in God based on evidence, as demonstrated by virtually all of human history's leading scientists, philosophers, sages and moral figures, as being in the same general bucket of slop as fundamentalist religious quacker-jackery of the most fundamentally egregious kind.  This is obviously counter-productive to trying to learn what is true. Many people in modern society are in very great error in assuming Jesus is the founder of Christianity or belongs in a category called "religion".  Rather than in history, behavioral science, human rights, political science, ethics, education theory, environmental science and various other categories that more fairly reflect his words and deeds. Any educated human being should have a huge quarrel with this, because it is completely historically irrational and plainly, very harmful and very wrong to teach our children that Jesus should be isolated under a "religion" category or that he even rationally belongs in a "religion" category.  It is inarguable that Jesus has had more influence in human history than any other single individual and, to not include his words and deeds within the main instruction of our children, is to ensure they are not remotely educated at all. As a few examples: a) Whatever you want people to do to you, do also to them.  This is the proper and correct foundation for human and civil rights and, there is no greater proper ethical or human motivational idea in all of human history. b) You will know the truth and the truth will make you free.  This provides both the proper goal of education, to know what is true and the proper reason for being educated, so we can be free. Education not based on the proper goal, to know what is true and/or, the proper reason for knowing what is true, so we can be free, is not worthy of the term 'education'. c) Solomon in all his glory was not clothed as well as a common grass or weed flower.  This is by far the greatest environmental statement known in human history, given at a time and place where such an issue wasn't even on the public radar. d) Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.  Consider how brave it was for Jesus to say this while a group of Roman soldiers were waiting to take him away to be crucified, the sword being the symbol of the might of the Roman Empire.  And consider that to this day, no one has come up with a better solution for ending war and other violence. e) Jesus says, this is my command, that you love one another .  For this reason, we will not kill, we will not steal, we will not bear false witness, we will not enslave our fellow human beings, we will not mass pollute the fragile home of our future offspring, we will have deep reverence and respect for all of God's creation and, if there be any action worthy for the pursuit of life, liberty, fulfillment, security, happiness and peace on earth for both human beings and every other living thing on it, it is summed up in this, that we love our neighbor as our self. Jesus is a profound influence on key European, American and other authors and artists from DaVinci, Michelangelo and Shakespeare on up through the present, on every scientist, philosopher and other thinker of the so-called "Enlightenment", on every American and French revolutionist and on the whole modern notion of human and civil rights.  And yet, Jesus is rarely mentioned in American classrooms, other than in speeches and texts quoting him, invariably without crediting the source. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the foundation of modern socialism is "to each according to need".  What the Britannica doesn't say in its article "Socialism", is the same thing that modern educators fail to mention in American classrooms.  Which is, that every member of the so-called "enlightenment" and every American founder attended schools where the Bible was required study.  And thus, it naturally follows that what is found in the New Testament book of "Acts", where they "distributed to each as anyone had need", would find its way into modern human rights, political and social theory. This is clearly why American citizens remain poorly educated, vote for the wrong people, often ignore those living in their midst without homes, jobs and health care and, why many conservatives and liberals assume conservative Christianity represents Jesus, when in fact it represents the opposite of virtually everything Jesus ever said or did.  Based on what according to the New Testament Jesus actually said and did, he is far closer to a mixture of Samuel Clemens, Rosa Parks and Gandhi and, far closer to the socialist Helen Keller and social and environmental activist Pete Seeger, than to any brand of modern Christianity. Apparently even militant atheist Richard Dawkins understands the superiority of the teachings of Jesus, as a photo of Mr. Dawkins wearing a t-shirt with the words, "atheists for Jesus" in large letters on the front, was at one time posted on his own website.  According to historian Will Durant in his epic volume, "Caesar and Christ", the teachings of Jesus as found in the four New Testament narratives, represent a singular highly advanced mind, far greater than any other known mind in human history. And as the writings of Durant clearly imply, to not study the Bible and the history and cultures surrounding the Bible, is to have no understanding of ancient history, Western history, European history, American history, human rights, civil rights and essentially, no understanding or education at all.  How is it a reproductive or any other "advantage" to our children for American education to ignore the greatest mind in human history?  Why did Jesus insist there is a God and claim that his father in heaven told him what to teach us, if there is no God?  Why did we crucify our greatest teacher? Chapter 21 - EPIGENETICS AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR From the Encyclopedia Britannica; "Psychology":  The term "epigenetic" is used to describe the dynamic interplay between genes and the environment during the course of development. The study of epigenetics highlights the complex nature of the relationship between the organism s genetic code, or genome, and the organism s directly observable physical and psychological manifestations and behaviours." In humans, this entails a highly complex 'dance' between our conscience, our behavior and our genetic code.  As noted elsewhere, babies as young as three months old demonstrate a type of moral conscience.  As well as, we find similar laws and similar "golden rules" spread throughout the historical record, including in both connected and disconnected cultures.  Like the Bible says and like Jefferson echoes in the Declaration, God has written his law on the hearts of humanity. From Romans 2:15-16: ". . .for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them."  As we can see young children on a playground, as well as adults in every society, accepting some people into their group while rejecting others, accusing some for their perceived faults while excusing others. And the truth of this is clearly seen in the historical record, where nations have similar rather than dis-similar base laws against murder, theft, false witness and adultery and, similar and sometimes almost identical so-called "golden rules".  As America's top genetic scientist Francis Collins has pointed out, this represents design and not random processes. According to the Britannica; "Psychology" (and unlike Freud believed): "Developmental research provided clear evidence that humans, rather than entering the world with a mental blank slate, are extensively prepared for all sorts of cognitive and skill development." ". . .Epigenetic regulation of gene activity plays a critical role in the process of development, influencing the organism s psychological and behavioral expressions.  Thus, while the genome provides the possibilities, the environment determines which genes become activated. ". . .Epigenetic factors may serve as a critical biological link between the experiences of an individual and subsequent individual differences in brain and behaviour, both within and across generations.  Epigenetic research points to the pathways through which environmental influence and psychological experiences may be transformed and transmitted at the biological level." Darwin knew nothing about epigenetics and, the information here known by behavioral scientists today is very far removed from any concept of random "totally blind" processes inducing change by natural selection. Rather, as has recently been discovered in a much studied plant (see following link), organisms are hard-wired within their genes to accept some changes while rejecting others. Our genes can affect our behavior and conversely, our behavior can affect our genes.  And like the Bible says in Exodus 34:7 and modern evidence confers, our bad behavior ". . .visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children s children to the third and the fourth generation." As we can plainly see today as our fragile planet warms, what we eat and otherwise consume and what we do can very much harm (or help) future generations.  It is no small wonder that those who pretend to have no sin like Jesus says, are "the blind leading the blind." What modern epigenetic evidence demonstrates is that our Creator, in order to help ensure our survival, has hard-wired into our genetic code the ability to accept some changes caused by environmental influences while rejecting others.  This is absolutely divorced from any foolish notion of random "totally blind" processes causing living things to adapt and change.  Rather, the genetic code of living organisms aids in their survival by accepting some environmentally-induced changes while rejecting others. As is clearly demonstrated in the following three links, our bad (and good) behavior very much matters not only to our own health, but to the health of our offspring to the third and fourth generation, exactly as the Bible long ago said.  What consenting adults choose to do very much matters and can cause both ourselves and our offspring to suffer from various emotional, mental and physical diseases for generations, as well as our actions can greatly harm (or help) others. Directly Contradicts Darwin: DNA Mutations Are Not Random Sins of the Fathers; Epigenetic Evidence for Negative Inherited Characteristics Learned Behavior Genetically Passed Down for Generations Chapter 22 - SOLOMON AND ATHEISM The obvious question for atheists and agnostics is, how can the grand design universal reality, universal or any other laws, processes and/or, an integrated functional system of any kind, exist unto themselves, without any intelligence behind them?  Can a factory of robots and computers, with the ability to self-design and perform many complex functions on their own, somehow magically exist unto themselves, apart from a designer and creator somewhere up the chain? Why would any scientist or other rational human being even consider such a possibility? And the larger unanswered question is, why would anybody want to embrace the religion of atheism?  What is the point and what does atheism do for us?  Does it provided us with any solution for our bad behavior?  Does atheism offer any hope to our 21st Century offspring poised to inherit a war-torn global mass pollution nightmare?  Exactly what good is atheism to anybody and, what common human being problem has it ever solved? Why would a concept of both Creator and atheism exist within a randomly existing blind overall advantage driven system?  If there is no God, what evolutionary advantage is gained from claiming that there is one?  And if there is a God, what evolutionary advantage is gained in denying God's existence?  Either way, what evolutionary or any other advantage is there for either humans or any other organism to deliberately lie to itself and its own offspring? Many atheists claim that "Atheism is the default position; atheism makes no claims, it just disbelieves in God or gods".  The problem with such a statement is that it is an obvious lie unto itself, as there are at least five claims contained within this single self-contradictory statement: 1) atheism is the default position; 2) atheism makes no claims; 3) the universe is not or probably not created; 4) there is no God or probably no God and 5) there are no gods or probably no gods.  It's not all that difficult to determine that such atheists are by default, deceiving themselves. Unlike many atheists claim, the true default position, agreed to for centuries by scientists and millions of other intelligent people is:  There is a physical reality containing life and various other phenomena called "universe".  The default question then becomes, how and why is there a physical reality called "universe"?  Atheists, if they want to be take seriously at all, don't receive a pass on this two-pronged foundational question of science, education and reason, anymore than the rest of us do. Jesus said, "before Abraham was, I AM".  God as "I AM" which apparently isn't found anywhere else in human history prior to Moses, remains the only ancient concept of God still matching the current modern evidence.  And, Eternal Creator remains the only known concept in all of human history that satisfies origins, rationally explaining both our own existence and the rest of the observable universal reality. What evidence is there for magically existing universal laws and complex universal systems containing quad-zillions zillions trillions of complex integrated parts within parts within more parts?  Atheism doesn't rationally explain anything at all and as such, it is just a faulty position without foundation in evidence, purpose, reason or rhyme. Why would a modern educated man or woman choose an inferior explanation, rather than the best explanation currently available?  Why would they instead embrace an irrational position that neither explains their own existence or what their eyes, nose, mouth, ears and fingers can detect?  Why would anyone choose either atheism or agnosticism, neither of which rationally explain anything at all?  Why does someone who disbelieves in God capitalize Natural Selection ?  Is Charles Darwin their god and evolution their religion? Can a microbe inhabiting a petri dish in a science laboratory fairly and accurately claim that there is no creator of the petri dish, there is no human scientist observing the actions of the microbe, there is no laboratory the dish is contained in, no one either conceived of, designed or constructed the laboratory or the larger universal reality wherein somewhere in a galaxy far, far away, located on one of quad-zillions of planets, the laboratory happens to exist.  How would the microbe have any way of knowing and, what evidence does it have? While astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson claims that "nothing is 100% verifiable", most rational people tend to embrace the most probable rather than the least probable.  For example the sun is most probably larger and warmer than the moon, even when it rains hard for several days in a row, most probably the rain will eventually stop and, no matter which way the ill wind blows, most probably modern politicians will continue to lie and lie and lie yet again. According to physicist Paul Davies, "there is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life. . . the conclusion is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires."  This is exactly what one would expect if the universe is created and designed with deliberate preparation, forethought and intention for the eventual emergence of life. When human beings decide to construct a tall commercial building, they typically first survey a potential parcel of land, carefully consider what costs, building codes and long-term stability such a skyscraper will require, draw up architectural plans, dig a deep hole, drill even deeper to secure footings and otherwise, carefully first prepare the "environment" that the skyscraper is going to eventually occupy. Later steel, wood, concrete and various other "building blocks" are carted in by truck and carefully positioned at the construction location.  Only later does the general public begin to see the actual high-rise tower emerging from the ground.  One might fairly ask why many scientists today refuse to consider the obvious overwhelming probability, that the reason the universe is fine-tuned for the "building blocks" and "environments" that life requires, is because our Creator first planned, prior to the universe coming into being, for the eventual emergence of life ? ? ? As noted elsewhere, the probability that the universe is not a result of deliberate conception, design and creation has been calculated by British scientist Roger Penrose as being at least 10 to the 10,123 power against.  Meanwhile, all of the photons and other particles in the known universe combined total a number far smaller than only 10 to the 150th power.  Meanwhile, there is growing evidence that the universe is mathematically designed to both pi and the golden ratio.  These two numbers theoretically extend forever and ever, something only an eternal Creator could logically master. And, it has been concluded by many currently practicing scientists, including some atheistic scientists, that the entire premise of natural selection simply doesn't mathematically even begin to add up.  For example, in spite of the overwhelming complexity of DNA alone, there isn't a shred of evidence that any kind of meaningful language sentence or mathematical or other type of code can randomly exist unto itself, given even an infinite amount of time to somehow magically self-assemble. In fact, many experiments conducted by mathematicians and other scientists demonstrate the exact opposite of what Darwinian evolution postulates.  That neither RNA or DNA code could manage to randomly form by unguided natural processes, given even an infinite amount of time to somehow "self-design" without the input of a Creator. Geneticists within the past decade or two have discovered that microbes living within human beings and other visible forms of life can change and re-arrange their own DNA.  Such changes more than likely cause visible creatures to adapt and change in order to survive, changes that are not random as natural selection theory postulates.  Scientists have also learned that viruses can change their own DNA which again, more than likely cause visible forms of life to adapt and change over time.  Such changes are not random because they have an attributable cause and, they are independent of natural selection as commonly understood and applied. Bacteria Recycle Broken DNA (Indicates Mutations Are Not Random) Bacteria Acquire Resistance from Competitors Viruses Copy Parts of Their Own DNA Code and Self-Replicate Gene Editing Powers Discovered in Squid It would seem that evolving human technology that allowed science to map the human genome might just naturally self-select Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection entirely out of the universal reality, who can say for sure?  And yet scientist Richard Dawkins insists that probabilities have no relevance to God's existence, no matter how improbable the existence of the universe otherwise may be.  One might fairly ask, why would a scientist embrace such an irrational position?  Isn't the sun most probably larger and warmer than the moon?  Does modern atheism really make any rational sense at all? It doesn't take much of a Solomon to ask, why is the blind faith religion of atheism religiously promoted in American public schools, at the expense of science, reason, common horse sense and the majority of Americans who believe in God?  What reproductive or any other advantage is there in denying a fair and equal voice to science, reason, common horse sense, all of the known evidence, the majority of historical scientists and educators and, the majority of current American educators and other citizens? Modern studies demonstrate that many animals and insects including dolphins, bears, elephants monkeys, birds, ants, spiders, frogs, fish and even bees can do basic math, indicating that mathematics is intricately woven into the grand universal design itself, rather than being of human invention.  Tunisian desert ants can apparently do geometry as well as basic arithmetic and, some fish display accurate awareness of how many others are in the same school of fish. Modern research has learned that bees do basic math and understand the concept of zero.  More surprisingly, primates, birds and bees can learn symbols matching specific quantities, which was long assumed to be something only the far more complex human brain could accomplish.  Even flower petals and plant leaves appear to be rather ingeniously mathematically arranged. If animals and insects could count prior to the emergence of human beings, then quite obviously mathematics is not a human invention; if the arrangement of flower petals are tied to math, this only underscores the reality that mathematics existed long prior to human beings.  And, scientists from the ancient Greeks forward have long been intrigued by the mysterious relationship between music and mathematics. Although perhaps difficult to imagine today, the majority of scientists not very long ago in historical terms, believed that disease spontaneously arises.  Not being content for that being a lesson in humility learned the hard way, many today who anoint themselves as among the enlightened few and far between, would have us believe the entire universe spontaneously arose.  Atheism, rather than representing evolutionary "advancement", is a giant leap backwards towards non-evidence based dark ages of the distant past. Atheists have more than a significant problem trying to explain how Jesus, born in a rural backward insignificant place and time into a largely illiterate society, could possess such profound wisdom and understanding and be so exactly morally correct and otherwise accurate every time, all of the time.  Even Freud wasn't aware of of what, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, modern behavioral science evidence today clearly demonstrates; just like Jesus taught us, what causes greed, avarice, slavery, inequality of wealth, murder, theft, war and other human oppression, arises from what is within all human beings. Richard Dawkins, who specializes in human and animal behavior, seems to grasp the supremely intelligent and highly significant teachings of Jesus, posting a photo of himself on his own website wearing a t-shirt reading atheists for Jesus .  As Solomon would more than likely conclude, it is very, very, very hard to argue with Jesus, no matter who you are or how many educational degrees you may possess. How could an expert in human behavior somehow miss the fact that we "all have sinned and fall short" of moral and other perfection?  Perhaps someone should inquire of Mr. Dawkins, if you don't believe you are a sinner, try doing what you think is good all the time and, see how well you do.  Perhaps Solomon might seriously challenge a behavioral scientist who claimed they could obey their own conscience all of the time. There is far more evidence for deliberate design and creation, than there is for black holes, invisible light and all of the claims of modern science combined.  It requires far too much blind faith belief for an honest human being to be an atheist.  It is far easier to embrace the obvious truth of universal grand design staring us right in the 21st Century face. Consider how difficult it would be for a scientist to demonstrate by evidence there is no God, probably no God or might be no God.  Yet, this is what many so-called 'scientists' repeatedly say.  To even begin such a foolhardy exercise in futility, one has to be able to demonstrate by scientific evidence, that energy can arise from no energy, motion from no motion, light from no light, intelligence from no intelligence, life from no life and, that mathematics somehow magically exists unto itself. To pretend otherwise is to violate the basic rules of science and evidence and, would likely cause both Solomon and the ancient Greeks to scorn and ridicule any such so-called 'scientist'.  As one can clearly see, it requires far more blind faith to embrace atheism than it does to believe in Harry Potter, Santa Clause, the flying spaghetti monster, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, astrology, prime time television, the honesty of priests, preachers, self-help and other gurus, politicians, lawyers, used car salesmen and all of the religions, mythologies, science fiction and other fiction novels, children's stories and fairy tales and any and all other known tales in the history of human civilization combined. Why are scientists and other human beings so engaged in searching for what is true?  Who lied to us and, why?  Do atheistic and agnostic educators and scientists who roam ivory towers and prance around claiming there is no God, probably no God or might be no God really know what is true?  Is there any scientific, rational or other reason why the average truck driver, motel maid, software engineer or any of the rest of us should believe them?  Or, are they just randomly pulling our DNA chain backwards? Chapter 23 - BIAS CREATED BY TERMS "EVOLUTION" AND "NATURAL SELECTION" Since Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species", even though many scientists themselves tend to cringe at the thought, there has evolved a plethora of sidebar applications to the concept of evolution in nearly every field regarding nearly every topic known to humanity. For example, today we hear about the "evolution" of civilization, the "evolution" of education, the "evolution" of society, the "evolution" of thought and reason, mathematics, art, psychology, human rights and the "evolution" of virtually everything else. This remains overwhelmingly true today in spite of the fact that throughout most of recorded history, no such concepts existed.  Obviously the term "evolution" has so colored modern thinking as to become irreducibly inseparable from the way reality is perceived here in the Twenty-First Century. Such broad-brush thinking and the claims of certain modern evolutionists should be openly challenged by honest rational human beings.  Some biologists demonstrate only a rudimentary understanding of history at best, sometimes drawing erroneous conclusions clearly contradicting the historical reality of how human beings actually act in the real world, as a few modern historians have bravely pointed out. The late Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and other militant atheists have a bad habit of equating belief in God with the religious beliefs of human beings and otherwise, contradicting the known scientific and historical facts.  This in spite of the fact that many modern practicing scientists believe in both God and evolution, while many historically prominent voices such as Socrates, Jesus, Paul, Einstein, Jefferson and Paine, believed in God but rejected the religions of their respective societies. Suffice it to say, what religious figures or other human beings claim about God has no relevance to either the nature of or existence of God.  Consider for example, if someone were to claim the earth is flat or triangular in shape or, to claim that the earth doesn't actually exist in spite of the overwhelming evidence, such claims of course, would neither alter the existence of or change the actual shape of the earth. Nevertheless Daniel Dennett, a leading voice for modern atheism, while speaking to an international convention of atheists as posted in a video on YouTube, quite literally wastes over an hour detailing what he considers to be wrong with the Catholic Church, as if this somehow has any relevance to the existence of or nature of God.  Meanwhile comedian Bill Maher often ridicules belief in a "little man in the sky", even though the Bible clearly says that God fills the heavens and what lies beyond and, in God "we live and move and have our being". Others ridicule the idea of God creating animals one at a time and placing them individually in a garden, as a human doll maker might create individual dolls.  While the Bible in agreement with modern science, says that living creatures came "forth in abundance", first in the ocean and later on land. Christopher Hitchens was held by certain atheists as being historically astute, even though he grossly contradicts basic historical facts anyone can easily research for themselves.  For example, Hitchens states in a YouTube video posted prior to 2010, that "all Jewish historians now admit that Moses probably didn't exist".  Hitchens could then use this total and complete historical fabrication to extrapolate from a foundation of clueless quicksand that "Jesus also probably didn't exist". According to the 2010 Encyclopedia Britannica article on Moses, written by a Jewish historian, the majority of historians, including Jewish historians such as himself, believe that either Moses or a leader like Moses probably did exist.  And in his book "Caesar and Christ", learned historian Will Durant, who may be human history's most educated man, concludes it is historically irrational to pretend that Jesus didn't exist, based on the "singular" highly advanced mind his teachings alone clearly represent. The Britannica also concludes that the Bible is considered by most historians today to be "generally reliable history".  Even if one disagrees with such conclusions, it is clearly a TOTAL LIE to state that "all Jewish historians now admit Moses probably didn't exist" when in fact most historians do believe a leader like Moses probably did exist and, a far greater lie to pretend Jesus didn't exist. According to Durant, Jesus is far more intelligent than any other known person in history and, there is no known individual or group of people capable of inventing his teachings.  As such, it is completely and entirely irrational to pretend Jesus is an invention of First Century common fishermen, farmers and laborers. Will Durant goes on to point out, that Paul mentions Jesus was known "in the flesh" by some of those he is writing to in I Corinthians, which is considered authentic by virtually all historians. This letter casually mentions elements of the Jesus story, as if Paul's readers are already familiar with the story.  Thus, there is convincing evidence that the story of Jesus existed in some form prior to 54 A.D. when I Corinthians was written and most likely, considerably earlier. Compare for example, how a great many historical and even modern biographies of people like Alexander, Julius Caesar, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King, Jr., the Kennedys and many others have been written considerably longer after the main subject died than when the story of Jesus first appeared.  In light of Paul's letter alone, the story of Jesus cannot rationally be an invention of monks or anyone else in a later century, as some atheists for generations have long pretended; a claim having no foundation in evidence and representing incredibly poor scholarship over the most likely historical conclusion. The term "evolution" creates all manner of bias in fields that are essentially unrelated to the biological sciences.  Modern atheists often try to apply Darwinist theory to historical, social and political reality, in a twisted and vain attempt to minimize criticism of what violent atheists like Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Engels, Pol Pot and others are known to have done, as well as to cover for dangerous promoters of human selfishness and greed like avowed atheist Ayn Rand. Whatever these historical people may have believed, to claim their agenda did not succeed because communism violates natural selection, as some atheists claim, is very clearly scientifically and historically false, based on the successful influence of Jesus alone.  Jesus was a true communist and denouncer of human aggression, selfishness, violence and greed if there ever was one. This should also be a wake-up call to any and every human being who consider themselves "progressive".  Modern progressivism by common consent, is an attempt to "communize" social and political reality by creating legislation and political systems that take wealth from the top and distribute it back from the bottom upward (which is a wise and biblical thing to do). As noted previously, the foundation of modern socialism, "to each according to need", traces directly from Acts in the New Testament, on up through the so-called "ages of reason and enlightenment" and, is alive and well today in many diverse forms, including modern progressivism, socialism and human rights theory. Both Marx and Engels considered themselves to be socialists.  Apparently Marx, a student of the Bible in his youth, eventually viewed himself as a communist as being somewhat distinct from a socialist, while the avowed atheist Engels may never have done so (in spite of the title "Communist Manifesto"). Socialism and communism share a common historical root tracing from Acts 2:44-45 in the Bible.  Such teachings also find their way in various forms in the ideas of Descartes, Rousseau, Locke, Paine, Jefferson, the environmentalism of Schweitzer, the activism of Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks and Cesar Chavez and a host of others. For example, the concept of "we the people", which has an uncertain origin, is highly communistic in historical root, tracing from Jesus and his "common people" theory of socio-political activism.  The importance of focusing on the poor and common masses was later effectively demonstrated in various ways by Gandhi, Schweitzer, Keller, King, Parks, Huerta, Chavez, the formation of workers' unions, women's movements and, in many other modern examples.  Regardless of the American founder's motives, the concept of "we the people" is historically significant. Jesus and his original followers promoted a share all things in common lifestyle, communism in its purest historical form, upon which later perhaps Marx, being a student of the Bible, based some of his ideas.  However poorly either Marx or modern Christianity may represent Jesus and his First Century followers, the fact that the world now contains over 2 billion professing Christians and a whole lot of communists and socialists, clearly demonstrates the overwhelming historical influence of Jesus. Even if nobody alive today professed to follow Jesus, the fact that ideas attributed to him survive and continue to be published and influence many people, very clearly demonstrates humanity is about a whole lot more than merely "survival of the fittest", or as Richard Dawkins theorizes, a "selfish" gene.  One does not have to believe in Jesus or accept the Bible as accurate to grasp the obvious and overt bias created by the modern term "evolution". If Mr. Dawkins were remotely correct, then perhaps Jesus must have been genetically deficient, severely lacking in any semblance of a so-called "selfish" gene.  Most rational people would likely contend such genetic deficiency is a good thing, based on the wisdom, unselfish life and overwhelmingly positive historical influence of Jesus.  And one might fairly add, how do the words and deeds of Jesus represent "nothing but blind pitiless indifference", as Mr. Dawkins claims is true (talk about overwhelmingly unwarranted bias). The term "evolution" itself is probably responsible for more bias and misinformation than any other word in the modern English language.  Other than perhaps the word "religion", which also manages to create an overwhelming volume of extreme bias and false conclusions.  In large part because of the utterly foolish modern notion of lumping belief in God based on evidence in with organized institutional religion. Modern educators and intellectuals often confuse belief in God with religious orthodoxy, tradition and dogma and all manner of pontiff/tv evangelist quacker-jackery, lumping them all together under a single common heading "religion", which makes no historical or rational sense at all. The American founders didn't do this, carefully choosing the ideal of separation of "church" and state, leaving God completely out of the equation. Modern education acts as if combining belief in God based on the grand design universal evidence and all manner of religious quackery, equal one and the same thing.  And this can all somehow be exorcised from scientific, historical and human behavioral reality and, still expect our children to retain any semblance of historical understanding. Such lumping together of diverse beliefs and opinions represents an extremely biased, inaccurate and twisted view of reality, which Socrates, Newton, Descartes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Jefferson, Paine, Einstein, Durant and a host of others including Darwin himself, would likely loudly and soundly condemn.  And just as likely, scornfully openly challenge. Unfortunately, what is contained above in this chapter only represents a token faction of the extreme bias prevalent today caused by human invented terminology like "evolution", "natural" selection, "nature" and, "natural" world.  Many modern people apparently remain unaware that throughout much of human history, what today is called "nature" was referred to as "creation", as if changing terminology somehow dictates reality. And likewise, what today is called "social maladjustment", "negative behavior", "aberration from the norm", "anti-human rights behavior" and "human nature", was for a very long time simply referred to as "evil" and "sin".  Many people today who hold up anti-war and pro-peace and pro-human rights signs claim to not believe in sin, as if changing terminology somehow changes reality or, somehow changes the human oppression, pain and suffering caused by the sin and unbridled greed within us all. Chapter 24 - RANDOM APPEARING NON-EVIDENCE BASED POSITIONS Religious fundamentalists once believed and, apparently some still believe, that God created animals individually one at a time and then placed them in a garden.  Many modern intellectuals conclude that because the earth and universe are billions of years old and apparently God doesn't create animals one at a time like some great doll maker in the sky, therefore this proves there is no God.  This in spite of the fact that according to the Bible itself, life on earth came "forth in abundance" first in the ocean and, later on land, agreeing with the majority modern scientific view. While not necessarily saying so in the exact same way, this is invariably the conclusion that many draw, claiming there is no God simply because the modern evidence doesn't agree with fundamentalist religion.  All this in reality proves, is that a) God like the Bible long ago claimed, doesn't think or create like we do and b) atheists and conservative religious fundamentalists are two extremely narrow-minded peas, sprouting from a same corrupt pod of arrogance, hypocrisy and self-delusion. There is no evidence that either the big bang magically went boom or that life, so-called "universal" or any other processes or the larger universal reality magically appeared or otherwise, can randomly exist unto themselves.  The existence of motion alone requires a Primary Cause, as far as ALL known evidence demonstrates.  If the majority opinion of astronomers is correct and there was a big bang, then any and all observable motion and observable anything and everything else, including everything observed within the "quantum" reality, is a RESULT of the big bang and thus by definition, is not random. Any claim that particles can randomly pop into existence contradicts a primary postulate of modern science, that matter can neither be created or destroyed but only re-arranged.  Some quantum theorists have proposed that what appear to be particles of matter randomly popping in and out of existence are in fact, particles moving in and out of dimensions we cannot detect. And thus, it only appears to us from our view trapped in 3-dimensional space (+time) that particles are randomly coming into existence. Obviously scientists can't have it both ways and until such time as they can make up their collective minds, like much of what else is discussed in this book, it is true and honest and accurate to state, there is no evidence of randomness from the universal top down, nor will their likely ever be.  There is no evidence that either matter or anything else can randomly do anything without a Primary Cause somewhere up the the chain of action and re-action. Educated people claiming to go by evidence should know better and, any scientist or educator using the term "random" or anything remotely like random in regards to origins, should be publicly reprimanded for lying to our children.  There simply is no such thing as random from the top down, as far as modern science knows.  Those who pretend otherwise need to grow up and get over the obvious fact that God is very, very, very far over our collective heads. As discussed previously, it may be true that the universe is created to in turn, generate randomness, similar to how we humans can create lottery machines.  But this is very far different than a claim of true universal randomness from the top down, which is neither a scientifically verifiable, rational, logical or reasonable position. Interestingly enough as already stated, Genesis agrees with modern science, that what science calls "fauna" arose in "abundance", first in the ocean and, later on land.  The Bible does NOT say that God creates elephants, as opposed to whales, minnows, monkeys and spiders, individually one at a time.  What the Bible does say, is that God created everything within the universal reality including life and that God allowed "adam", which in Hebrew means "humanity", to name life whatever Adam chose to name it. This remains true today, as modern scientists continue to classify and re-classify living forms of life as they so choose.  Obviously, such human classifications, which have changed dramatically over time and changed considerably just within the past few decades, DO NOT dictate how life either came to be or functions in true reality. Whether we call all ants simply an "ant" or, if we divide ants up into over 12,000 "species" as modern science currently does and, whether we invent two, three, five, six (as the majority view currently holds) or more "kingdoms" of classified life, this in no way, shape or form proves anything other than the fact that we humans frequently change our minds in regards to what we perceive as being true. As such, to claim that one "species", an artificial category invention of modern science, "evolves" from a different "species", is simply not true, no matter how many scientists and educators with no matter how many degrees attached to their names, claims that it is.  This is demonstrably proven beyond all shadow of any doubt by the fact that no matter how human beings have chosen to divide life up over thousands of years and, no matter what nomenclature we have invented for various living forms of life, in reality all of life continues to adapt and change the same as it always has, long prior to any concept of either "species" or science itself. Whether "adam" classifies a common meat ant as Kingdom, animalia; Phylum, arthropoda; Class, insecta; Order, hymenoptera; Family, formicidae; Subfamily, dolichoderinae; Genus, iridomyrmex and Species, purpureus or whether "adam" instead, simply calls it an "ant", none of this has any effect whatsoever on how life either came to be or functions.  Simply put, human terminology and understanding does not dictate reality and thus, species do not "evolve" from other species.  Rather, as far as human beings know, ALL of life is in a constant state of adapt and change transition. This is not just a useless exercise in semantics but rather, it remains important to understand because such thinking is often used by arrogant, poorly-reasoning individuals to pretend there is no Creator, as if anyone living here on earth would somehow know.  The fact that the entire universe is constantly adapting, changing and re-arranging, including all of the life contained therein, proves nothing in regards to the true origins of life.  And the fact that life adapted and changed long prior to any concept of either "species" or "science", is of significant importance in determining what is actually true. The entire universe and all of the life contained therein is in a constant state of transition as far as human science can determine, because this is as far as people understand here in the 21st Century, how the grand design universal reality is intended to be.  To assume there is no God because God doesn't create like a human doll maker one creature at a time, truly represents bone-headed juvenile delinquent 'science' of the most egregious kind.  Obviously if life didn't adapt and change along with the constantly adapting and changing rest of the universal reality, then life itself wouldn't survive. And thus, neither "adam" or ants nor scientific classification for either meat ants or the rest of life, would have ever existed.  To divide life up into categories and then pretend that one artificial division "evolves" from another artificial division, has long been scientifically irrational from the universal top down. Apparently according to the Bible, our Creator conceives of various cosmic realities "in mind", speaks and, such realities unfold into existence.  Unlike modern science, this offers an excellent explanation for why the big bang occurred and became the grand design universal reality we can detect today, if indeed modern "big bang" theory is correct.  Based on the known history of science, one should never assume that modern theories of universal origin, energy, motion, gravity, light, evolution or any other modern theory will in fact, be considered "science" one hundred or even fifty years or even a single decade into the future. The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 appears to deliberately weave back and forth between "adam", as referring to humanity in general and, "Adam", as referring to a single human being, so much so that it can be difficult to separate them, which is accurate as far as science knows. Since the mapping of the human genome, it appears that all people alive today share a recent common female ancestor no older than Noah's wife, impregnated by a single male, which is what Genesis says is true and, which can not be disproven by modern evidence. Various scientists in diverse disciplines claim that true modern human beings arose anywhere between the emergence of farming, 8-9000 years ago, to as much as 200,000 and more years ago.  Obviously with such vastly different estimates, the truth is that science doesn't really know when modern human beings first appeared or more accurately, doesn't really know how to exactly define a true modern human being in the likeness of "adam". And the larger truth is, regardless of how science classifies either human or any other form of life, this in no way, shape or form dictates how God views life or otherwise, determines what is a true modern human being in the likeness of Adam.  Based on modern genetic evidence, the genealogy of Jesus in the New Testament tracing back to Adam, who Genesis describes as being a farmer, is accurate and correct as far as historians and scientists know. According to historians, there were at least three and possibly more genealogical methods in use in First Century Greco-Roman society.  Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus through Mary all the way to Adam, whereas Matthew traces Joseph only to King David.  In both genealogies there are some names that are identical, not because they are the same person, but because the same name was frequently given throughout Hebrew history to different individuals, just like in American society, the name Robert has been given to many different Americans. Our Earliest Common Ancestor May Have Lived Only 3,000 Years Ago Recent Common Ancestry for Europeans About 1000 Years Most Recent Ancestor of Modern Humans Surprisingly Recent Recent Common Ancestry for Modern Humans Estimates The creation story in Genesis 1 stresses that types of living forms reproduce "after their own kind", which remains scientifically accurate today.  It is well established by modern science that life forms have distinct reproductive boundaries which cannot be successfully crossed and, the story in Genesis repeats this several times, as if deliberately emphasized for a reason.  When human beings engage in bestiality for example and even when we choose to eat harmful foods, such "iniquity of the fathers" can adversely affect the human gene pool for generations, just like the Bible long ago claimed is true. Sins of the Fathers; Epigenetic Evidence for Negative Inherited Characteristics Modern science has discovered that starvation can effect inherited characteristics for at least three generations in a study involving worms.  Other research clearly indicates that other negative characteristics from disease, what humans eat and various human activity known to be harmful, such as sex with animals and promiscuity leading to sexually transmitted diseases, likewise translate into negative inherited characteristics. It is well established that sexually transmitted diseases can cause blindness and various deformities in the offspring of infected parents.  Such deformities can trace from the father, as well as the mother. Effects of Starvation Passed to Future Generations Human Caused Pollution Harms Every Organ of Human Body It is also known that various foods humans consume can result in diseases like cancer, heart disease, diabetes, food, drug and alcohol addiction and much more on down the generational tree.  And, it is well-established that adultery can be extremely psychologically, emotionally and even physically harmful to partners who are cheated on and in particular, to children caught up in broken relationships. Psychologists confirm that many adults and children suffer extreme damage from parental adultery and divorce, leading to a lifetime of depression, suicidal tendencies and in many cases, actual suicide.  To pretend that whatever two consenting adults choose to do or even what one adult chooses to eat or otherwise do is "harmless", is very plainly a lie. Learned Behavior Genetically Passed Down for Generations Genetic Evidence Divorce Runs in Family Lineages Many who mock various dietary laws in the Old Testament and other ancient sources are naively unaware that modern science knows virtually nothing about the true origins of many devastating diseases, in particular from the virus level on down.  According to the Encyclopedia Britannica in a rather lengthy article "Virus" and other articles elsewhere, modern science knows virtually nothing about viruses compared to what there is yet to learn and, far less about the origins of disease at molecular and quantum levels. Within a few decades alone, many foods once thought to be "good" for us are now considered harmful, while others once thought to be "bad" for us are now recommended.  Some foods such as milk have been flipped back and forth more than once.  Very clearly, we are in no position here in the 21st Century to mock dietary laws of the ancient past, as if we know any better, when quite obviously, we do not. As an interesting sidebar to a discussion on diet, some historians today believe what killed off millions of Native peoples in the Americas was not necessarily disease transmitted directly by European settlers themselves but rather, disease spread around by the herds of pigs they brought with them.  While not harmful to the pigs themselves, diseases pigs are known to carry could have been extremely toxic to Native peoples, who unlike Europeans, didn't have multi-generational immunities built up against them. Pork was a popular food of Roman soldiers and, pork has had a rather lengthy history of European consumption.  There may well be more subtle and less obvious reasons why pork and certain other types of foods are forbidden in Old Testament law, among them that refrigeration, knowledge of bacteria in relation to disease and modern farming and curing techniques we take for granted today didn't exist in ancient times. Many organisms carry diseases which do not directly harm them, but which can be ultimately deadly to other organisms, including ourselves.  Modern disease researchers suspect for example, that many types of cancer and other devastating diseases are caused by what we eat and drink and the polluted air we breathe.  Crops and animals we consume in turn, are grievously affected by the same mass pollution. Epigenetics, Diet, Disease and Negative Human Behavior According to this article linked below, negative effects of starvation can be inherited for at least three generations .  According to the Bible, the iniquity of the fathers is visited upon their children to the third and fourth generations .  The article linked here says to the at least the third generation, indicating fourth would also be accurate at least some of the time, thus it would be exactly accurate to say third and fourth generations, rather than just fourth and once again, the Bible exactly agrees with modern science evidence. Effects of Starvation Passed to Future Generations Study Indicates Human Morality Partially Genetic Evidence Poverty Leaves Significant Changes on Human Genome Sins of the Fathers; Epigenetic Evidence for Negative Inherited Characteristics According to the Bible, God defined himself to Moses as "I AM".  And Jesus later in the New Testament says, "before Abraham was, I AM".  Apparently, this concept does not exist prior to Moses anywhere in human history.  And, this is not only the only ancient concept of God still matching the current modern evidence, it is the only concept known in all of human history that rationally satisfies origins.  Atheism, agnosticism and all other theories, ideas, concepts and claims, like Paul implies in his Letter to the Romans, fall rather "short" of rationally explaining the observable reality we call "universe". If there is no Eternal Creator, there is no rational explanation for either the observable universal reality or our own existence; there is no such thing as science or reason and, there is no rational explanation for anything at all.  No matter what the overwhelming evidence demonstrates, modern atheists often immediately cry "strawman" when anyone dares mention God, while they never do so when someone mentions "dark energy" and a long list of other things that science believes in based on far less indirect evidence. God is not a "strawman" creation as many atheists erroneously pretend but rather, Primary Cause Eternal Creator remains the ONLY rational conclusion known in the history of human civilization.  If there be any straw to be found, it is perhaps the wood, hay and stubble stuck between the ears of those who openly deny the overwhelmingly self-evidently obvious. Chapter 25 - ON THE ORIGIN OF THE STANDARD DARWINIAN MODEL One would assume that something as grandiosely promoted and universally accepted as The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection 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), this is far from the reality. Apparently the majority of Darwinists don't like to be called "Darwinists" and unlike Charles Darwin himself, they have long assumed that all of life traces from a singular origination point in the ocean.  Because there is no surviving geological or fossil record for the early earth, there never has been any means of scientifically verifying if this is either true or completely wrong. Life in colonized microbial form has existed for at least 3.8 billion years, with recent evidence moving this number back to apparently over 4 billion years. 4.2 Billion-Year-Old Canadian Fossil Indicates Possible Life on Mars Life May Have Arisen Very Early on Mars Meanwhile today, evidence of multicellular life remains considerably less than 1 billion years ago. 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.  It is feasible that globally affecting cataclysmic events and other unknown conditions erased any and all trace of earlier larger forms of life. Some scientists have proposed, there may have been several "genesis" of life rather than just one and, earth's earliest years may hold currently unforeseen evidence of great future significance.  It is possible that sometime in the future, there will be some evidence found of much earlier forms of plant and/or macro animal life.  It has been discovered fairly recently that very early macro life forms appear to have been rather inexplicably much more complex than previously assumed. Photosynthesis May Be Much Older Than Previously Assumed Life May Have Arisen Many Times on Earth Many scientists today contend that because of similarities in DNA, this proves that all of life arose from a singular source.  However this rather narrow-minded myopic view has already been dissected in previous chapters as not necessarily being correct. The basic Darwinian assumption of life originating from a singular source isn't supported by Darwin himself, who allows for either a singular origin or multiple origins in his final revision of "On the Origin of Species".  And unlike Richard Dawkins and other atheists like to admit, in this same final edition, published about five years prior to his death, Darwin credits our "Creator" with being behind whatever processes of life there may be, however right or wrong human science and his own theories may be. The basic Darwinian assumption of life originating from a singular source evolved long before modern DNA knowledge and thus, similarity of DNA has no relevance to any reason for why this idea originated.  Even though it is not written down and historically documented for certain, it appears this idea arose from incredibly biased assumptions of certain atheistic scientists, blindly assuming the universal reality isn't a result of deliberate design and creation and thus, the extremely chance random occurrence of life must be an extremely rare and most likely, one in a zillion one time random freak accident totally by some remarkably unlikely inexplicably coincidental random 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 must be incredibly extremely rare.  Not every scientist of course believed this and this rather astronomically overwhelmingly narrow minded myopic view has gradually given way since the launch of the Hubble telescope, to a relatively more open-minded viewpoint that just perhaps, life may in fact be somewhat common and may even be abundantly spread throughout the cosmos. Which is unsurprisingly, what the Bible claimed a long time ago, as well as it just makes plain old fashioned common horse sense that such is probably the case, given our modern knowledge of the vastness of the universe.  After all, why would God create such a vast grand universal reality simply so life could arise on one planet?  As one scientist recently stated in a PBS video, life may be able to appear where ever there is a little wetness , indicating life could have arisen virtually anywhere on earth or, from all over the earth and likewise, life could arise on untold quad-zillions of planets spread throughout the grand universal design cosmic reality. Scientists today believe there might be at least 100 million or more earth-like planets in our Milky Way galaxy alone capable of supporting life similar to what we find on earth.  And they assume there are a lot more larger gas-like planets similar to those in our own solar system, since a large number have fairly recently been discovered.  However, many scientists continue to assume, narrow-minded creatures they insist on being, that only smaller rocky-like planets with water like earth could possibly allow for life to appear. Such lack of imagination continues to stubbornly persist among the scientific community, even though non-carbon based methane breathing creatures have been found on our own planet and, even though some scientists have proposed that methane, helium, hydrogen and possibly other exotic forms of life may well exist throughout the larger universe, even possibly hovering in gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn and needing no solid surface to survive.  Again, given the known vastness of the universe, possibilities for types and quantities of life appear to be beyond any number conceivable within the human imagination. The main point here being, modern science in reality knows very little about life or even how, when, where or why life first arose on our own planet.  And, most scientists continue to be extremely conservative and narrow-minded in approach.  It is one thing to say if we have no experience of something, then we don't know if it could be true.  It is quite another thing to continue to come from the extremely biased position of, if there is no evidence of something, therefore it is not true or probably not true.  Or worse yet, to continue to pretend to know and present to an unsuspecting general public, that designerless random appearing mythology posing as science, is somehow in fact true. This type of regressive and non-productive behavior is openly displayed today by many scientists, educators and other intellectuals, representing an extremely arrogant and dishonest position, since the vast majority of what exists in our universe remains largely unknown and, as yet to be discovered.  If we are uncertain, we should say so and, if we don't know very much about how life actually came to be, we should freely admit this to ourselves and our offspring. Given that the earth is believed to be 4.4 billion years old and traces of microbial life remain 200 million or more years less than this, there exists a rather large gap in the known sequential evidence for how, where, when and why life first arose on our planet.  Pretending in front of our children and the general public at large, that science knows what in fact, science may never know, serves no rational reproductive survival or any other purpose, regardless of what we otherwise believe or fail to believe. To blatantly lie and otherwise misrepresent the known evidence remains the rather questionable ongoing anti-human rights bad habit of a theoretically reproductive advantage driven species called human being .  Estimates for the earliest microbial life on earth range between a conservative 2.5 billion to Wikipedia's more liberal 3.8 billion years.  And more recent evidence suggests a number of around 4.2 billion, leaving a significant gap beyond current limits of human knowledge where macro forms of life may have emerged and died out more than once without leaving a trace. Scientists often fundamentally strongly disagree among themselves, in spite of the fact that PBS, the Washington Post and LA & NY Times and other mainstream publications, along with American educators in general, continue to pretend otherwise.  For example, well over 1,000 scientists today claim to have a better and different explanation than the mainstream "big bang" theory, while a Princeton scholar claims there is no such thing as a "universal" law. Other scientists have publicly stated that recent genetic evidence appears to directly contradict evolutionary theory and that the theory of evolution may well be on its way out the scientific door.  (Everything in this paragraph is discussed in more detail in previous chapters, with many supporting links.) It is wise to consider that virtually every majority agreed to theory of science, from the ancient Greeks to Copernicus to Newton to Darwin to Einstein and continuing into the 21st Century, once was a perceived to be a "crackpot" idea of only one or a few scientists daring to challenge the majority opinion of their time.  Given the vastness of the known universe, the truth is modern science has no idea how, when, where or why life first arose and in all probability, human science never will know. As noted previously with several supporting links, many scientists today are saying so-called "junk" DNA actually has very important functions making us far different than chimpanzees and other forms of life.  Some scientists are calling for a complete revision of biology 101 and all of the many disciplines basic biological knowledge affects. And last but not least, a medical scientist recently released a complex theory explaining why the human appendix actually does have an important function after all.  One might fairly assume that if every observable "macro" part of the human body has an attributable function, it is fairly certain that ALL of our DNA likewise, very much most likely has an as yet to be discovered scientifically attributable reason and purpose. New Evidence Indicates ALL of Our DNA Has a Purpose Darwin Wrong About the Appendix How incredibly arrogant to pretend there is no God, given the known size and scope of the macro and micro worlds and, given that virtually everything known to humanity has some type of function and in the case of disease and negative human actions, malfunction, as if there are not forces of both good and evil behind the universal 3-dimensional (+time) vail, just like the Bible has long claimed to be the case. One might ask why this book frequently refers to the Bible, as if God doesn't know the end from the beginning and, as if God couldn't reveal what God chooses, while keeping the rest hidden for future generations to uncover.  As if God is somehow required to bow to human science and reason, as if God is not beyond number, very, very, very far over all of our collective heads. Apparently, long before the Greeks, the Bible mentions the "circle of the earth", while long prior to modern science, the Bible claimed the universe is an "expanse" and several times it references multiple heavens; the Bible also says life came forth in abundance (rather than one creature at a time), first in the "waters" and later on land, agreeing with modern theory.  And Job, thought to be the oldest book in the Bible, informs us that God has hung the earth on nothing, something which NASA in the 20th Century confirmation by photographic evidence. And, long before modern computer climate science models predicting the same, Jesus predicted the earth will one day lose a significant amount of green plant life, including all grasses we and cattle depend on to eat.  And, these are only a few of well over one hundred claims in the Bible, many once seemingly preposterous and scientifically absurd, that today agree with modern science evidence.  One might fairly ask, how could the Bible possibly not be inspired by our father in heaven? As discussed previously, today there is a growing body of evidence that the standard Darwinian "tree" theory of evolution may be completely and entirely wrong.  So-called "natural" selection is at best only partially correct.  While there long has been prior to Darwin and long remains, overwhelming historical evidence that human beings have at least two primary fundamental base drives or, one irreducibly entwined "dual" base drive, rather than just a single reproductive drive as evolutionary theory insists; one demonstrating reproductive survival and the other clearly demonstrating deeply ingrained irrationality, confusion, fear, greed and avarice. Considering the following links, perhaps Darwin and his 21st Century disciples of dubious credentials have completely forgotten about the historical record of human behavior, who can say for sure?  How does the record of our behavior possibly line up with a theory postulating that behavior is solely foundationally based on reproductive survival advantage? What advantage is possibly gained by trained scientists who should know better, aiding and abetting the construction of nuclear and worse weaponry?  How does modern global pollution, the horrific anti-human rights agenda of 21st Century corporations and their nefarious political pawns, clearly marching us down international suicide row towards World War Three, global anarchy and world-wide climate disaster oblivion, represent either a reproductive or any other kind of advantage to any living thing? The Dark Core of Human Personality Sins of the Fathers; Epigenetic Evidence for Negative Inherited Characteristics Learned Behavior Genetically Passed Down for Generations Human Caused Pollution Harms Every Organ of Human Body Evidence Poverty Leaves Significant Changes on Human Genome Genetic Evidence Divorce Runs in Family Lineages Study Indicates Human Morality Partially Genetic And from Paul's letter to the Romans: ". . . there is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short" of the glory of our Creator and father in heaven. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, modern science doesn't know how, when, where or why life first arose on earth, nor does science know what form life was originally in.  In fact, scientists today aren't certain if life has ever "evolved" or otherwise arisen on earth or instead, if life arrived already in some living form on space rocks, having first arisen only God knows where, when and how. Many scientists today, including well-known astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson, freely admit that they have no idea how, when, where or why life first arose within the larger cosmic reality. What we don't know does not equal "random, blind, unguided, natural processes", nor will it ever equal random, blind, unguided, natural processes.  If Charles Darwin were to rise from the dead here in the 21st Century, might his first question be, why has human 'science' and 'reason' and what poses as modern 'education' randomly devolved into such mythological horse manure? Chemistry for Life May Have Been Created in Space, Not on Earth Key Ingredients for Life May Have Come from Beyond Earth Life May be Transported Throughout the Universe in Space Dust Did Phosphates Necessary for Life Come from Deep Space? Ancient Microorganism Fossils Indicate Life Common in Universe Evidence Natural Selection Theory is Inadequate Challenges to Darwinian Evolution at Fundamental Microscopic Level Microbes Controlling Actions of Host's Genes Archaea and the Scientist Who Scrambled Darwin's Tree of Life Viruses Can Transfer Genes Across Superkingdoms of Life Chapter 26 - RANDOMNESS, CAUSE AND EFFECT A cause for purposes of this discussion, is "why" something can be observed or otherwise detected by a human being living on earth.  An effect for purposes of this discussion, is anything that can be observed or otherwise detected by a human being living on earth. Music heard on a car radio is a detectable auditory effect caused by invisible radio waves.  A baseball flying out of a modern ball park is an observable effect caused by a batter hitting a ball with his bat that was thrown by a pitcher.  Such effects have causes tracing back before either cars or radios were invented and long before the batter or the pitcher were born.  The true cause for these observable effects traces back prior to the birth of our sun and solar system, all the way back to whatever caused the big bang to go boom and, what existed prior to the big bang (that is, if big bang theory is correct). Today we are often very wrongly taught that belief in God is faith based , while what science believes is based on evidence.  This is among the greatest and most obvious of all lies, often carelessly promoted here in the 21st Century by highly educated people who should know better.  There is no evidence whatsoever that an effect can magically exist without a Primary Cause, as if music can just magically emanate from a car radio or a baseball can just magically fly out of a ball park. Atheism and any claim of random, blind, unguided, natural, processes", as self-described agnostic Neil DeGrasse Tyson just randomly pulls out of a black hole rabbit's hat on the television series Cosmos , are non-scientific irrational blind-faith superstitions, having no foundation in evidence.  ALL of the evidence known to humanity here in the 21st Century demonstrates exactly the opposite conclusion (see Is Atheism Scientific? and Bonus Chapter, "Is the Television Series "Cosmos" Remotely Honest? for more information). There is no evidence that the observable universal effect could occur without a Primary Cause. Simply saying evolution did it , a blind-faith position that militant atheist Richard Dawkins consistently hides behind, doesn't rationally explain anything at all.  Or, just saying that the big bang did it doesn't satisfactorily explain either why the big bang went boom or why a universe filled with light, motion, quad-zillions zillions trillions of complex integrated parts within parts, finite beings of intelligence and conscious awareness, universal laws, evolutionary or any other processes, either would or could randomly appear and magically self-design into existence. There is no supporting evidence for such a blind-faith position of gross superstition, while ALL of the known evidence clearly demonstrates the opposite scientific conclusion, that the universal effect could not exist without intelligence and a Primary Cause.  The existence of mathematics alone overwhelmingly demonstrates design, as does modern DNA evidence, as does the evidence of our shared human conscience, which is clearly displayed in the historical record (as previously discussed in more detail).  The truth is, there is overwhelming evidence for God, while there is no evidence whatsoever supporting a position of no God, probably no God or possibly no God. Modern human beings can build airplanes and cars, but there is no evidence that either will go very far without fuel for the necessary energy to propel them.  Or, we can set up a long row of dominoes for children to watch and then, just sit back and wait for them to fall over.  But unfortunately, minus an external vibration or force of some kind or other, the children will likely be long dead and buried in their graves before the row of dominoes randomly falls over of its own volition. One could fill several volumes demonstrating that the existence of energy, heat and motion requires Primary Cause.  On the other hand, there is no evidence that energy, heat or motion can randomly exist unto themselves.  Atheists can if they wish, just sit in their cars and wait for them to magically go down the road and, they can just sit and stare at rows of dominoes waiting for them to magically fall over until they die.  After all, God has given us freedom of choice.  But such foolishness neither commands nor deserves our respect. Why would anyone claim that the universal effect occurred without any cause?  Why would anyone claim it might possibly exist without any cause?  What evidence do they have that an observable or otherwise detectable effect can occur without a Primary Cause?  Even if matter is eternal, an assumption of many scientists that can neither be proven nor dis-proven, why is matter in motion and why does it otherwise do stuff?  Why wouldn't matter instead just stay in the same state and position it was originally in? Why is there a universe, rather than nothing at all?  What evidence is there that the universal effect can occur without any Primary Cause?  If whatever human beings can observe is a result of a theoretical big bang, the universe is by definition, not random.  There is no evidence that big bangs can magically go boom and magically turn into flowers, birds and human beings with highly complex brains and conscious awareness.  Why would anyone pretend otherwise?  What are their motives and, what manner of irrational ax are they hell-bent on grinding into the impressionable minds of our children? Even Lawrence Krauss, one of the more hardcore atheists alive today, admits science can't explain how the big bang could randomly go boom.  According to Krauss, science can explain a millionth of a millionth of a second after the big bang , which has no more validity than saying if someone sets up a row of dominoes and then uses their finger to set the first domino in motion, science can explain a millionth of a millionth of a second after they do so, how the row of dominoes could have somehow magically self-designed and then self-arranged and magically fallen over by its own volition.  Such hocus-pocus tomfoolery isn't worthy of the least plausible science fiction imaginable. Professor Krauss is credited with being one of the first scientists to postulate the existence of dark matter and his research also extends into dark energy, which unlike invisible light, cannot be demonstrated to actually exist by any known scientific method.  Dark energy, which isn't necessarily either dark or energy but merely a term invented for what remains unknown, is largely based on the implication that if dark energy doesn't exist, then current theories of energy, light, gravity and/or motion are wrong. Several of Mr. Krauss' fellow scientists have suggested that just perhaps, current theories are wrong and, dark energy may not actually exist.  And, even if it does, current fundamental theories may still be way off the mark (as discussed in more detail elsewhere). Dark Energy and Dark Matter May Not Exist String Theory Not in Sync With Dark Energy Dark Energy May Not Exist Dramatically Changing Evolution of the Theory of Gravity Chameleon Theory: Alternative to Einstein's Theory of Gravity Everything You Thought You Knew About Gravity is Wrong Much of what Professor Krauss claims to believe is predicated on the magical existence of universal "laws", even though some of his peers openly question whether or not such laws actually exist.  One might fairly ask, how would anyone living on earth know if there is any such thing as a universal law? One might far more fairly ask, even if such universal "laws" do exist, what evidence is there that they could magically exist unto themselves, as if a math test in a classroom at Arizona State University where Professor Krauss prior to his retirement routinely misguided unsuspecting students, could magically self-design and randomly appear on desks, where magically existing random appearing students sit and ponder why they indebted themselves with expensive student loans for decades in order to be taught such non-verifiable non-scientific juvenile delinquent quacker-jackery? Regardless of whether or not dark energy exists, one might fairly ask, if Mr. Krauss believes in dark energy based on such shaky implied evidence, why does he openly deny the existence of our Eternal Creator, based on the astronomically overwhelmingly greater inferred evidence of energy, heat, light, motion, integrated parts within parts, finite beings of intelligence and conscious awareness, the existence and complex dual language of DNA, the existence of mathematics and apparently universal mathematical design, the overwhelming historical evidence for our shared designed human conscience, along with the rest of the grand cosmic universal design?  How does one justify belief in dark energy, dark matter, black holes and invisible light while openly denying the existence of our Creator, for which there is far more evidence than all of the rest listed combined? DNA Far More Complex Than Previously Assumed Dual Language of DNA It is impossible for beings trapped within three dimensions plus time in a theoretical 10-11 dimensional universal reality already in motion, to scientifically demonstrate that energy, light and/or motion can randomly appear.  ALL of the known evidence demonstrates the opposite conclusion, that the existence of energy, light and motion require Primary Cause. There is far more evidence for God than there is for invisible light or the earth going around the sun.  One is left wondering what Isaac Newton if alive today, who postulated that for every action there is an equal and opposite re-action, would say to Professor Krauss.  What evidence is there for a universal spawning re-action magically randomly occurring without any Primary Action somewhere up the chain? On the infinitely more rational Isaac Newton side of the equation (Newton strongly believed in God), if there is no Eternal Creator and Primary Cause, there remains no rational explanation for either our own existence, the existence of universal or any other laws or processes or the existence of the larger universal reality.  In the Old Testament story of Moses, God defines himself as "I AM" and in the New Testament, Jesus says "before Abraham was, I AM". This satisfies origins and rationally explains the observable universal reality.  Neither atheism or agnosticism rationally explain anything at all.  If there is no Eternal Creator, there is no science, there is no reason, there is no rhyme and, there is no purpose and no hope for a greedy, violent, mass polluting, self-contradicting living creature called "human being". There is no evidence that the universal effect can exist without a Primary Cause, nor is there any evidence the earth could be revolving around the sun if there is no Eternal Creator and Primary Cause for motion.  It is overwhelmingly easy to demonstrate that an observable or otherwise detectable effect requires a cause.  While on the other hand, it remains totally impossible to demonstrate that the observable and otherwise detectable universal reality could magically exist without any cause. Eternal Creator is not only the best explanation for our own existence, it is the only explanation. Thus, this remains "science" until Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss or some other liar has a better explanation that satisfies origins.  On the other hand, atheism and agnosticism remain gross superstition, having no foundation in evidence or value to the people of Planet Earth. Some scientists contend that particles of matter can be observed to be randomly going in and out of existence in quantum fields, while other scientists say this is just an illusion caused by particles traveling in and out of dimensions that are non-detectable to human beings.  And regardless, whatever scientists can observe or otherwise detect in quantum fields or anywhere else in the modern age, is a result of a theoretical big bang and thus by definition, is not random.  Anything that has an attributable cause is by human language definition, not random and, it cannot be scientifically verified or otherwise demonstrated to be random. It is rational and reasonable, as leading DNA and disease expert Francis Collins has pointed out, that our Creator could create a universal machine of sorts, that is designed to in turn, generate randomness and otherwise perform many functions on its own.  We humans can create lottery machines, computers and other robotic equipment which in turn, can generate randomness and otherwise perform many functions without constant human input. And, it is more than fair to assume our Creator can do at least as well as we can do.  However, there is no evidence that either a lottery machine or the great cosmic 'machine' can magically exist unto themselves.  ALL of the known historical, scientific and other evidence contradicts any and all such grossly superstitious nonsense. As noted, some quantum theorists have proposed that what appears to be particles going in and out of existence is an illusion created by particles traveling in and out of dimensions we cannot detect.  In other words, such particles neither randomly arise or disappear but rather, they are moving inside and outside of our observable horizon of three dimensional space plus time.  This is consistent with the majority scientific opinion today that matter can neither be created or destroyed.  If matter can neither be created or destroyed, then particles of matter cannot randomly go in and out of existence.  Atheists can't rationally have it both ways, regardless of how often they insist on trying. This also applies to so-called "random" mutations long assumed by the theory of evolution. Because we are relatively tiny finite beings trapped within three dimensions plus time in an unimaginably large and unfathomably complex universal fishbowl, true randomness from the top down cannot be scientifically demonstrated.  And, as far as we know, true randomness never will be. It was recently discovered that apparent "random" mutations are at least in part, caused by micro-organisms changing their own DNA within us.  Other recent discoveries demonstrate that the octopus, squid, cuttlefish (and perhaps other animals as well) routinely edit their own genes. Such changes of course, directly contradict Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection as to why and how life adapts and changes. According to newly evolving science found at the first link that follows:  The discovery that squid edit their own genes "provides another jolt to the 'central dogma' of molecular biology, which states that genetic information is passed faithfully from DNA to messenger RNA to the synthesis of proteins.  In 2015, Rosenthal and colleagues discovered that squid "edit" their messenger RNA instructions to an extraordinary degree -- orders of magnitude more than humans do -- allowing them to fine-tune the type of proteins that will be produced in the nervous system" (see first link that follows). As such, what evolutionists have long assumed since Darwin is today demonstrably inaccurate. It appears based on modern evidence, that macro forms of life adapt and change in re-action to microbes living within them changing their own DNA; knowledge totally unknown to Darwin. Changes induced by microbes on up the macro chain of life are by definition, not random.  And thus, "natural" selection due to "random" mutations is at best, only part of a much larger explanation and, may not be accurate at all.  It is also now known that DNA within organisms directs the acceptance and rejection of environmental change (discussed and linked previously). Gene Editing Powers Discovered in Squid Evidence of Microbes Within Us Changing Their Own DNA Evidence Natural Selection Theory is Inadequate Microbes Controlling Actions of Host's Genes Bacteria Recycle Broken DNA (Indicates Mutations Are Not Random) Bacteria Acquire Resistance from Competitors Viruses Copy Parts of Their Own DNA Code and Self-Replicate Archaea and the Scientist Who Scrambled Darwin's Tree of Life Viruses Can Transfer Genes Across Superkingdoms of Life Ancient Microorganism Fossils Indicate Life Common in Universe Chapter 27 - SNOWFLAKES AND STAR SYSTEMS It is commonly assumed by perhaps most people here in the Twenty-First Century, that God couldn't possibly have anything to do with snowflake design, hurricanes or earthquakes, as such are all a result of so-called natural processes of what is arbitrarily called the natural world . In reality, it is entirely unknown and as far as we know, unknowable, how much or how little our Creator plays with his creation. For all we know, God can design individual snowflakes, individual micro-organisms and super-clusters of galaxies all at the same time.  Or, induce a termite to alter its diet, which modern science knows can re-arrange an entire ecosystem. Great historical artists like Michelangelo are renowned for painting very large murals and yet, spending a great deal of time on tiny details, intricate shadings and each slightest variation of hue.  Likewise, people today design both microchips and entire cities. Thus, it is entirely rational to assume our father in heaven can design at both the very large and the very small scales of universal reality, just as it is entirely rational that the beauty of design and color has a multiplicity of both reproductive, other functional and aesthetic purposes, as do virtually all of our own human creations.  No one on earth knows what our Creator engages in behind the veil of our three-dimensional plus time reality. According to leading DNA and human disease expert Francis Collins, "modern DNA evidence alone overwhelmingly demonstrates design and not random processes".  It is known by science today that particles swirling around individual atoms are woven in intricate patterns, giving the various elements their distinct properties, rather than just haphazardly swirling around as random processes would suggest.  There are estimated to be over 100 trillion micro-organisms contained on and within the average adult human, which is 100 times the number of stars estimated to be in the great galaxy in Andromeda. In spite of how incredibly tiny such living things are, they are incredibly large compared to a strand of their DNA, which is incredibly large compared to an atom, which again is incredibly large compared to various particles traveling around its nucleus.  If we could somehow shrink down to a tiny replication of ourselves, perched on an atom inside of a tiny scrap of DNA inside one of the 100 trillion micro-organisms inside of us, we would still be much larger compared to our normal size, than our normal size is in comparison to just the known universe. And yet, we have scientists today prancing around pretending to be "almost certain their is no God".  And "God is not necessary for the universe to exist", as if they somehow would know and, we should all just bow down, kiss their magical Hogwarts wizard ring of blind faith deception and take their word for it. At the bottom line, to say there is no Creator, is to say that automobiles and everything inside of them, computers and everything inside of them, human brains that design automobiles and computers, everything on our planet that has a brain, everything else on our planet and, everything else in the universe, somehow magically appeared.  There is no evidence universal laws or evolution or any other process can magically exist unto themselves, while there is unfortunately, overwhelming evidence that intellectual juvenile delinquents posing as 'scientists' habitually violate the established rules of science and evidence. GOD: a perspective; a video of comparative sizes As noted previously, many atheists claim that atheism makes no claims and then go on to arbitrarily claim that atheism is the default position and then again, make an additional claim that atheism just disbelieves in God or gods.  Obviously, since God by common modern language definition is defined as Creator of the universe, atheists are in fact claiming that the universe is not a result of deliberate design and creation. Atheists then go on to falsely claim, based on these false claims contained within their claim of no claims, that they aren't required to provide any evidence to back up any of their claims of non-scientific non-verifiable superstition.  Based on such false claims, atheists then go on to claim that the onus belongs on those who claim to believe in God, since they, again falsely claim that atheism makes no claims . If this seems more than a little confusing, it is perhaps because atheists seem to be far more than just a little confused and, not very adept at human language deception, as if to claim to disbelieve in God is somehow, not in fact a claim.  The true "default position" of science and reason, agreed to universally by scientists and other educated people, is that there is a physical reality called "universe".  The true default question then becomes, how and why is there a physical universal reality? Atheists and agnostics, if they wish to be taken seriously at all by the rest of us, remain just as much subject to this same two-pronged default question as the rest of us do.  So, the question for every atheist and agnostic on the planet to satisfactorily answer in order for any of the rest of us to cease singling them out as easy blind fish in a barrel targets of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry ridicule, remains the following: What scientifically verifiable evidence is there that energy can arise from no energy, heat from no heat, motion from no motion, light from no light, that quad-zillions zillions trillions of parts-within-parts can magically self-arrange, that life can arise from no life, intelligence from no intelligence, that the complex dual language of DNA can magically exist unto itself, that so-called "universal" or any other laws, evolutionary or any other laws or processes can magically exist unto themselves?  Or, that even mathematics can magically exist unto itself, without any Eternal Creator Primary Cause Intelligence behind the grand design universal effect ? ? ? ! ! ! Chapter 28 - SCIENCE, EDUCATION AND THE BIBLE People for thousands of years, long prior to any concept of science, practiced a type of science, education and technology.  From learning to use fire for warmth, heating and shaping tools, to comparatively more advanced wheels, spears, bows and arrows, bronze and later iron tools and weapons and, learning to construct simple huts to more complex housing, many of the most basic things we do without thinking twice trace from a long historical trail of innovation, trial and error.  Consider for example, the complex and advanced 'technology' necessary for a two-story mud-brick dwelling compared to living in a cave. Long before any concept of science, it was deduced based on self-evidence, that the sun is larger and warmer than the moon; the rain will eventually stop; warmer weather will eventually be followed by cooler weather; seeds planted in a certain manner and number will yield an approximate amount of food in a typical weather year; animal meat when cooked properly is more healthy for humans than raw meat; a second story floor if constructed and arranged in a certain manner, won't fall through to the ground floor.  This and much other fundamental but very important knowledge is the foundation upon which modern science, education and technology is built. Whether information is found in a modern science textbook, on an ancient clay tablet or in a pulp fiction novel does not in itself dictate whether or not the information is either true or false or more or less reliable.  Rather, what is true or false as far as human beings can know, remains subject to evidence. Claims and conclusions without supporting evidence, regardless of where they are found, represent superstition, not science.  It may be superstitious to say there is a God just because the Bible says so but, it is grossly more superstitious to claim to "disbelieve" in God, without providing a better explanation for how else we and the larger universal reality happen to exist. According to the Bible, "God is love" and then it logically follows we need God's help in order to care properly for ourselves and other people.  And, given the violence, greed, avarice and other human oppression on prime-time display around the globe today, it is inarguable that we humans need to learn how to care about each other much better than we currently seem to be capable of. The focus of the so-called "God question" invariably becomes a debate over whether or not the universe represents design, rather than considering whether or not our Creator is willing to help us and if so, how can we actually get God to help us, two far more important and valuable questions for anyone to ask.  Consider for example, that our Creator just might be able to help us achieve more love, justice, equality, peace and freedom on earth and, help us clean up the mass pollution mess left in the wake of our greed and avarice. Although often not treated as science in the same breath as physics and biology, human and animal behavior and in particular, how human beings act in the historical record as well as in the current reality, are very much a significant important part of science.  According to modern behavioral science evidence, which very much agrees with what Jesus and later Paul teaches, greed, hatred, irrational fear, prejudice, envy, stress, tension, murder, rape, theft, false witness, inequality of wealth, slavery, war and other human oppression, arises from what is within all people (source; Encyclopedia Britannica; "Human Sexuality", "Psychology" and related). What ancient texts call "sin", what the Britannica calls the "seething mass within" and what today is called "anti-human rights", "human nature", "aberration of the norm", "social maladjustment" and other often deceptive terminology masking the obvious, hasn't changed since the dawn of civilization.  Language terminology doesn't dictate reality, nor does calling sin "social maladjustment", "human nature" or any of the other terminology noted change the modern global reality of war and violence, human oppression, sorrow, suffering and death. In the New Testament, Jesus doesn't even bother to address the question of God's existence, nor is there much of any theology found in the teachings of Jesus, other than simple concepts like the "kingdom of heaven", "father", "love", "truth", "freedom" and "friend".  Jesus makes considerable use of what for much of human history is called "creation" and today is arbitrarily called "the natural world", as if that is any more honest or 'scientifically' accurate. Obviously, calling an elephant an "elephant", "bird" "fish" or "bicycle" doesn't change the reality of what an elephant is.  Nor does claiming an elephant is a result of deliberate design and creation or that it magically appeared, self-designing out of nowhere from nothing due to random, unguided "natural" magically existing processes, change how the elephant in fact actually happens to exist. Jesus uses simple stories of common everyday human interactions to help illustrate both what is true and how we should engage with each other.  Rather than religion, the focus of Jesus is on human behavior; on how people should treat each other if we want to live in a more just, peaceful and less oppressive planetary reality. It was Jesus who insisted on teaching the poor and common people for free.  Jesus often packs a significant amount of profound insight into short "soundbite" sentences, teaching several profound ideas in a single short paragraph.  Unlike some poorly trained authors and 'educators' and rather, like the very learned historian Will Durant concluded, there is no one else in human history remotely like Jesus, rising head and shoulders far above us all. Jesus very deliberately associates with common average people, "the sinners" and tax collectors (shunned as being of questionable moral character) and, the sick, poor and outcasts of human society.  Deliberately singling out the short of stature Zacchaeus, caring for the deaf, blind and lame and the Samaritan woman at the well are examples of how Jesus taught by both word and deed that we all are of supreme value to our Creator.  The strongly pacifistic Jesus went out of his way to treat soldiers with dignity and respect and he lifted women up, accepting them into his inner circle, which was extremely radical and different for his time and place in history. The story of Jesus is not a story of twelve male disciples following an isolated religious cult leader but rather, the story of Jesus is of many thousands of men and women leaving their normal jobs and tasks behind, often dragging their children along with them, flocking to hear a poor unheralded common man speak, who without benefit of modern theaters, microphones or entertainment, could hold thousands of tired, thirsty and hungry people in rapt attention for days at a stretch.  According to the New Testament, many people traveled (probably mostly on foot) from cities far way, which would have taken days or weeks and perhaps even months, just to hear and see Jesus in action. Unlike the Greek philosophers and expensive universities of modern history, focused on teaching a select few, Jesus appears to be the first prominent person of note to teach the common people, sinners and poor for free.  Jesus is a true advocate for free public education if there ever was one.  Compare a modern United States society, extracting huge sums from taxpayers to support what is called 'free' public education, requiring students to pass difficult entrance exams and often borrow vast sums in order to attend modern universities, indebting them and/or their parents for many years. The seemingly simplistic teaching of "you will know the truth and the truth will make you free" is only one of a great many profound teachings of Jesus, providing us with both the correct goal and correct purpose of education in one short 'sound-bite' sentence; the proper goal, to know what is true and proper motivational purpose, so we can be free.  Another example is the now famous statement that Solomon in all his glory was not as well adorned as a common grass flower, spoken at a time when there was little to no environmental awareness. Jesus demonstrates profound environmental awareness and respect, seemingly preferring the mountains and seashore to even small villages and, often using creation to illustrate the unseen "kingdom of heaven".  The "reverence for life" philosophy of Albert Schweitzer, modern history's first great environmentalist (even before Jacques Cousteau), was developed from Schweitzer's study of the life and teachings of Jesus.  Schweitzer apparently was the first prominent voice to warn of the careless slaughter of animals and disrespect for God's creation and the eminent threat posed by global pollution. Perhaps not surprisingly, Schweitzer considered caring for the sick and poor of Africa and having reverence and respect for every other living thing on earth is all part of the same morally upright and correct way to live.  Today the environmentally focused Prescott College in Prescott, Arizona promotes a similar whole earth society approach, teaching that tyranny, poverty and lack of human rights and, lack of access to clean water and clean air, are all part of the same global mass pollution problem. Compare the approach of Jesus to modern education, which divides reality up into non-connected and often non-correlated categories, pretending that God is not a question for science.  Implying there is no God and otherwise, insinuating to impressionable students that God doesn't know how his own universe either came into being or functions.  Modern education implies to inexperienced youth beginning at a very early age, that our Creator's wisdom is unimportant to learning, as if our educaters are somehow smarter than our father in heaven who created us all. In the United States today, the motivation typically provided for learning is focused on money. Students are taught from elementary school forward to study hard so they can earn good grades, so they can eventually earn a scholarship to help them afford to attend college, so they can earn a better income than if they fail to do so.  School administrators, athletic coaches and other well-heeled professionals of dubious contribution to our children's education are often paid huge sums of money at taxpayer expense, as students are forced to borrow on theoretical future earnings. Meanwhile, it is forbidden by law for a public school instructor to teach students that we should love our neighbor as ourselves and to teach other concepts and ideas of who historian Will Durant called by far, the greatest mind in human history.  Quite obviously, given the growing tyranny, homelessness and poverty and widening gap between the wealthy and poor in a 21st Century global reality, what is called 'education' isn't working very well. The message of Jesus is that the common average people of human society, are individually of extreme value to God and to society; that each one of us has the potential to significantly help humanity and leave a lasting, positive footprint.  It is not that the wealthy, powerful, educated and elite aren't valuable as well but rather, we are all people of similar aspirations and feelings, we are all of great value and potential. And as history teaches us, our father in heaven can use the "least" among us to help humanity in profound positive ways.  Rather than not being political as some very wrongly assume, like Gandhi who was familiar with the New Testament, Jesus teaches us the most effective way to achieve political and social justice, is to transform and properly instruct and motivate each one of us individually, one heart at a time. Consider for example, the profound impact of an uneducated slave named Harriet Tubman, a poor common seamstress named Rosa Parks, the deaf, mute and blind extreme socialist Helen Keller, born to a former captain in the Confederate army and, the profound oratory and example of Martin Luther King, Jr. Who is going to challenge our Creator as to whether a common person or physically disadvantaged individual is as valuable as anyone else, whether a dark-skinned individual is as intelligent as a light-skinned one or whether a woman can be as brave and effective and historically important as any man?  What man in all of American history was more brave than Harriet Tubman? Rather than conservative or liberal, Jesus and the New Testament Paul focus on freedom verses non-freedom, truth verses falsehood and, love and humility verses greed, hatred, selfishness and self-importance at the expense of others.  Obviously, freedom is a much better idea than either liberal or conservative; someone who is free can be as liberal or conservative as they choose on any issue and in any given situation. Someone who is free can not only do what they want, they can also do what they don't want, like going to work when they otherwise might prefer doing something else or, like obeying a police officer rather than being punished for not doing so.  As the New Testament teaches, freedom means I can do all things, but obviously not everything is in my best interest; and we stubborn humans often learn the hard way what is not in our best interest. Obviously teaching our children to pro-actively reach out an help someone in need, rather than just empathizing with them, is a much better idea than the modern over-used concept of "empathy".  Love and freedom go hand in glove and, there is far more to freedom than meets the casual eye.  Grace, mercy, love, peace, freedom and everything else that matters in life, are understood and learned through experience in the reality of our daily lives, like Jesus teaches us, one day at a time. As Paul writes in I Corinthians:  ". . .if anyone thinks that they know anything, they know nothing yet as they ought to know."  How many modern scientists or educators are brave and humble enough to admit that? Jesus seems to condemn no one other than conservative religious leaders, who he repeatedly roundly and soundly condemns openly to their face, even while eating as an invited guest in a certain religious leader's own home.  Jesus seems to act as if the famous, powerful, well-heeled, well-educated and self righteous religious elite of society are no better than the rest of us. There are no links provided for the several references to Jesus in this chapter; if one is unfortunate enough to have been told they are "smart" or wise or educated and, yet have not been exposed to the greatest words and ideas known to humanity, they can check them out for themselves Here. Not only did no one every speak like Jesus, no one ever remotely acted like Jesus either, nor did anyone share the same "common people and sinners" vision and focus clearly demonstrated in his life and teachings.  Jesus insists we all need God's help in order to "overcome" evil with good and achieve justice, peace and equality on earth. It is fair to say that it would be easier to make the sun disappear from a cloudless summer sky than to win an argument with Jesus.  Jesus says to his followers, "I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham."  And if one thinks that may be a rather non-scientific exaggeration, consider that at least one modern scientist strongly believes life may have began inside of rocks. Some people have been heard to ask, "what kind of God would sacrifice his own son?" and, "how could a God who cares sacrifice his only son?".  Such questions fail to consider a well-known fact many who work in hospitals can readily confirm.  Human parents of a child who is suffering badly from disease or has been severely injured in an accident, have been heard to cry, "I would gladly take the place of my child if only I could", "only if it could be me instead of my child" and similar expressions of anguish and profound sorrow when witnessing their own child severely suffering. Thus, the story of the cross becomes the story of the greatest expression of love known in the history of human civilization.  It is the story of a God who cares so much about us, that he is willing to endure the immense agony of his only son being tortured and crucified, in order to save humanity. Based on how human parents are known to react when seeing their own son or daughter badly suffering, it is fair to say that our Father in heaven sacrificing his only son for us, represents a far greater sacrifice than if he had sacrificed himself instead.  It is fair to say those who fail to understand why, have no idea what love is or what it means when Jesus says, "for God so loved the people. . ." Chapter 29 - STRANGE BEHAVIOR OF WATER AND LIGHT Many scientists today freely admit that the entire universe appears to have been uniquely fine-tuned for the emergence and ongoing continuing survival and existence of life; a highly precise fine-tuning very far beyond all random chance mathematical possibility.  As previously noted, one might fairly also add that the existence of mathematics itself overwhelmingly demonstrates deliberate design, rather than random occurring processes.  How for example, could a randomly occurring human brain conceive of or develop mathematics that can accurately predict various particles and properties of matter before they are even discovered? What is often less discussed in various public videos and forums is something arguably even more improbable from a random-chance evolutionary perspective.  As far as science knows, water in some form is essential for the existence of all living things.  Yet even today here in the 21st Century, unlike one might fairly assume given our supposed grand "random unguided" evolutionary understanding, the strange behavior and properties of water remain shrouded in scientific mystery. According to some scientists with no creationist, intelligent design or other particular ax to grind, the unique behavior of water is "of fundamental importance in countless natural and technological processes" (climate, for example), as if "the water molecule was fine-tuned to have such unique properties."  Based on scientific experiments and similar to individual snowflakes, drops of water are also individually unique and, water seems to have a "memory" of its own. Water behaves in many strange and exotic ways that defy conventional physics and challenge humanity's basic understanding of life, reality and the universe itself. The Mystery of Water; What We Know is a Drop. Structure and Properties of Water Light also remains one of the least understood universal realities.  Today, light photons and every other particle of matter are said to behave both as a particle and a wave.  According to quantum theory, light consists of "packets" of energy called "photons".  But, neither classical physics wave or particle models can describe light accurately. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "The interpretation of this seemingly paradoxical behavior (shared by light and matter), which is in fact predicted by the laws of quantum mechanics, has been debated by the scientific community since its discovery more than 100 years ago."  The Britannica quotes physicist Richard Feynman as summarizing:  "We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics." The Encyclopedia Britannica goes on to state:  "In a wholly unexpected fashion, quantum mechanics resolved the long wave-particle debate over the nature of light by rejecting both models.  The behavior of light cannot be fully accounted for by a classical wave model or by a classical particle model.  These pictures are useful in their respective regimes, but ultimately they are approximate, complementary descriptions of an underlying reality that is described quantum mechanically." But, since the quantum world remains "mysterious" and "counter-intuitive" to say the least and is not at all well understood and, since there is significant and substantial disagreement among quantum theorists themselves, it is fair to say that science doesn't really know very much from root levels on up about how either life or the larger universal reality either came into existence or ultimately functions, from a true and complete "logos" understanding (God's universal and beyond view). Sadly, far too often scientists and educators seem to feel an unwarranted need to come across to students and the general public as if they know what in fact, they neither know or very well understand.  And if life existed prior to our own earth and solar system, it makes rational sense that science will never know how, when or where life first came to exist. Describing Just a Little of the Difficulty in Understanding the Quantum Reality Some scientists believe long-held postulates of the constancy of the speed of light and the speed of light itself being the maximum universal speed might not be correct.  Due to the ever increasing speed of universal expansion, a being similar to ourselves living on a similar world 2 billion years into the future might calculate the universe at more than 2.4 billion years older than we currently calculate the age of the universe today. Such a being might also believe in somewhat different "universal laws" than human scientists believe in here on earth today.  Most astrophysicists today buy into the theory of accelerated cosmic expansion (inflation), postulating speeds much faster than the speed of light.  However, some physicists have proposed a radically different idea known as "Variable Speed of Light Theory" (VSL) that if correct, would mean Einstein's general theory of relativity might not be. Varying Speed Of Light Cosmology Speed of Light Might Not Be Constant Speed of Light Might Not be Maximum Speed Some say there is no such thing as the speed of light other than as calculated by our own observations and, it is the "speed of causality" we reference rather than light itself.  Because there is significant disagreement among quantum scientists regarding almost everything in the quantum reality, it is fair to say that modern science not only doesn't understand light or water very well, science doesn't really understand gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, the weak force or much of anything else very well and perhaps, a true and accurate grand "theory of everything" will long remain far above the collective heads of humanity. Physicists Not Unified in Search for a Unified Theory of Everything If the universe is designed according to pi and the Golden Ratio, for which there is considerable evidence for as discussed in more detail previously, the fact that these are irrational numbers may in itself be enough to preclude human beings trapped in three dimensions plus time here on earth from ever knowing "the end from the beginning".  As also noted previously according to the Britannica, science knows almost nothing about viruses compared to what there is yet to learn and, scientists don't know how, where, why, when or what form life originally arose from even here on earth, let alone in the larger universal cosmic reality. It is interesting that both water and light are very important in biblical language, Jesus himself defined as the "light" of the people and "living water".  Some might claim this to be coincidental but few can deny that both water and light are the two most important and least understood universal necessities for life itself.  What is surprising is not how wrong and non-scientific the Bible is but rather, as the pages of human civilization history and scientific discovery turn, how much more accurate the Bible appears today than it did in the past. Who could have guessed in the days of Newton, Darwin, Edwin Hubble and even as recently as Carl Sagan, that the same predictions climate scientists are making today would be correctly detailed in proper order, in the same 2000 year old book of "Revelation". as the phrase "water of life" appears?  Undoubtedly our Creator knows about the special and unique nature and importance of water and light to all of life as we know it.  Many modern people mistake lack of evidence for non-existence or factual error, a common fallacy of human history often coming back to hit oneself in the proverbial backside, in the light of future revelation. Human beings have for thousands of years correctly deduced that the sun is larger and warmer than the moon, not through any kind of advanced scientific method but rather, simply because it is self-evident that the sun is larger and warmer than the moon.  And likewise, just perhaps billions of people today continue to believe in God, not because their society or religious leaders or parents claim there is a God but rather, simply because all of the evidence obviously points in the direction of Primary Source Eternal Creator, arguably far more so, than the long-held belief of the sun being larger and warmer than the moon. Based on personal experience, most construction workers and truck drivers don't particular care for those who deliberately lie or otherwise misrepresent known evidence to them.  And, having spent quite some time in both professions, quite frankly neither does this author. Understanding the Strange Properties of Water The Wonder of Water: interesting short video Unusual Properties of Water Molecules Chemistry and Unique Properties of Water Chapter 30 - MYSTERIOUS COMPLEXITY OF THE HUMAN MIND Astrophysicists say that all human understanding breaks down inside of a black hole at what is called a singularity , where neither human mathematical understanding, classical physics or quantum mechanics can adequately explain the origin of or true nature and of reality and the universe.  Although this is true, it remains somewhat misleading, implying to the poorly educated that up to that point, science pretty much has it all figured out. The truth is, human beings caught within a three-dimensional plus time tiny earth-based perspective, know very little about what is actually true compared to what we have yet to learn. This is true regarding virtually everything about life and the universal reality we inhabit, including the human mind , which some researchers differentiate from our brains; our brain from such a view being only part of a larger inner self and conscious awareness whole.  While some may scoff at this, neuroscientists and other researchers strongly disagree among themselves differences regarding mind, self, soul and the human brain. As noted elsewhere, even though there are believed to be more viruses than all other forms of life on earth combined, science today admits we know almost nothing about them compared to what we do not know.  In fact, it is currently believed we have accounted for only a small percentage of the total number of living forms of life that we continue to discover on the land, underground, upon and within other life forms, in the air and in and beneath the water. As already discussed, things as common and basic to our survival as water and light remain poorly understood at best.  While some scientists say that nothing is one hundred percent certain in science, it remains a very safe bet that there remains an astronomical amount of unknown knowledge yet to learn, just about our own mind and inner being. Some educators decry what may fairly be called our very bad habit of dividing reality up into neat often non-intersecting categories like history, science, religion, philosophy, mathematics, politics, literature and so on. Continuing to educate our offspring in such a divisional often non-connected manner, tends to create a tremendous amount of bias and confusion, clearly revealed in modern voting booths where well-meaning fathers and mothers vote against the best interests of their own offspring. In reality, it isn't possible to separate a scientist's or historian's philosophical, religious, political and moral opinions and culturally-induced bias from his or her historical and scientific analysis and conclusions, any more than we can separate water from what we need to survive.  It is fair to say for example, that Albert Einstein's scientific and other research along with his life experiences, eventually turned him into a pacifist and strong advocate for human rights and global peace. Unlike most ancient and most modern writings, several authors of the Bible attempt to address our human limitations and lack of understanding as best they can within the boundaries of human language.  Within its pages, we find a profound description of our Creator's love, a description often quoted by authors and other intellectuals and even admired and revered by many atheists and agnostics. We find in the Old Testament Isaiah and Amos and New Testament Jesus, the foundation for modern human rights, also often admired and revered by the same.  Many people in the modern age seem to have a difficult time grasping one of the more obvious lessons of life, which is like Jesus and the authors of the Bible teach us, as we think and intend inside, so are we. According to the Bible, we are fearfully and wonderfully made and, we know nothing compared to what we ought to know and have yet to learn, not only about God, but about good and evil, human behavior and life itself.  Unlike modern intellectuals often deceiving themselves in their own pride and arrogance, the biblical authors dare to write that our Creator's intelligence, love and peace (and presumably everything else about our Creator), are beyond all understanding. This is not as some might have us believe, an example of poor understanding because of the comparatively limited scientific and other knowledge of their time.  Rather, it is very plainly the truth today, attested to by many 21st Century scientists and other researchers themselves. A few decades ago and still wrongly assumed by many today, the consensus was that we humans use less than ten percent of our brain.  This myth has been traced back to people as diverse as Einstein (1879-1955) and psychologist William James (1842-1910).  Suffice it to say, simplistic neatly compartmentalized human brain charts of the recent past are arguably no more valid than ancient world maps and the now completely outdated cosmological charts of pre-Copernican Europe. And knowledge of the human brain continues to grow exponentially here in the 21st Century.  It is believed today that no two humans think exactly alike and, that much like snowflakes, each individual human brain is unique.  Like the Bible says, God creates each one of us with an "individual heart"; your true desires are not those of either your children or closest friend. We can see this displayed all over the historical record, where individual people aspire to many unique and different methods of survival, entertainment and pursuit of happiness, purpose and fulfillment.  Some have said that the human brain is the most complex thing in the entire universe.  While this may not be true, it serves to demonstrate the astronomically overwhelming complexity of the human mind. Not all of us strive to be authors, educators, musicians, political leaders, athletes, business entrepreneurs or brain surgeons, nor do we all prefer the same foods, colors, songs and a very long list of other individual traits not necessarily shared by everyone even within the same cultural reality or even the same immediate family. While some people in the modern age seem to require volumes of alcohol and massive amounts of artificial external stimuli to achieve what they perceive as having "a good time", others enjoy the "simple things" of life, like working with their hands, rocking on a porch, hiking in the mountains or slowly devouring a plate of carefully selected food. Psalm 33, "He fashions their hearts individually" Today science believes we use most if not all (at least 98%) of our brain and, while different regions of the brain seem to be specific to various kinds of activities, many different parts of the human brain outside of these areas are used in tandem with such specific regions. This demonstrates that how our brain actually functions is far more complex than previously assumed.  Today science believes that every part of the human body, including the much maligned appendix, has a legitimate function and purpose for being there.  Hardcore Darwinsts randomly invented out of very thin air that because they didn't know what the purpose for it was, therefore 90% of our DNA must be "left-over evolutionary baggage" (consider the arrogance of such a boneheaded assumption). Darwin Wrong About the Appendix Now many if not most scientists believe at least 50% of our DNA (some say at least 80%) does in fact have a purpose.  And it is a very safe bet that not far down the evidence gathering road, like any average grade school brain would have already assumed based on the fact that everything else in our body seems to have a purpose, it will likely soon enough be announced that indeed, all of our DNA does in fact have a purpose. But don't expect anyone in the scientific community to apologize for randomly leading generations of trusting students down a bottomless black rabbit hole of baseless superstition. Unfortunately, it is also a safe bet that many liars fancying themselves as 'scientists" will continue to embrace the least plausible explanation, while openly denying the overwhelming evidence for deliberate conception, design and creation. Understanding Purpose of Non-Coding DNA a Work in Progress New Evidence Indicates ALL of Our DNA Has a Purpose According to many diverse scientists and experiments, it appears today that conceptions of "mind", "self", "soul" and "conscious awareness" may not be limited to the brain itself, as long previously assumed.  It has been discovered that individual neurons carry multiple signals at the same time and, the human brain is not only incredibly different than a computer in how it operates, it remains virtually astronomically more complex. Human Brain Most Complex Structure in the Universe Brain Neurons Carry More Than One Signal Human Brain Uniquely Tuned for Musical Pitch According to a 2017 CBS News report, a large-scale global study of human consciousness at death indicates that conscious awareness sometimes if not always extends beyond clinical death.  Rather than providing any good or conclusive answers, the video linked here perhaps more than anything, demonstrates how little modern scientists really know about the human mind, which is apparently far more complex than previously assumed even less than a generation ago.  Instead of conclusively proving much of anything, this study instead muddies the waters even more for a growing confusing global body of evidence: Research Into Near-death Experiences Creates More Questions Than Answers Especially in regards to conscious awareness and the ability to self-examine within our own beings, it is believed by some scientists today that the human soul and seat of self-awareness is not isolated to the brain itself but rather, is part of a larger networked reality including our spine, nerves and various other body parts working somehow in incredible complexity tandem together, that eventually produces our perceptions of both our inner selves and the world around us.  Conceptions of "soul" and "self" appear to somehow "sit" nestled within a general region of our upper body including our brain, spine, heart, nerves, vessels and upper torso. Perhaps most people today think more centrally of their "mind" in terms of being located solely within our brain, only because this is what we have been taught from birth.  This may be largely untrue of generations prior to the 18th-19th Century.  What we are taught, however correct or wrong it may be, very much influences our subsequent perceptions, understanding, biases and conclusions.  Some studies indicate that our heart dictates feelings to the brain, rather than the other way around.  But you would be hard-pressed to get most people to agree, since this goes against everything we've learned since grade school. Human Mind Not Confined to Brain Various tests demonstrate that what we are taught very much creates bias and clouds and distorts the judgment of even the brightest human minds.  And modern scientific research indicates there is far more to conscious awareness, perception, feelings, intuition, moral and other beliefs and the human "mind" than meets the casual eye. As already stated within previous notes addressing human behavior, studies today indicate that what many consider to be socially counter-productive or evil human traits like egoism, Machiavellianism, moral disengagement, narcissism, entitlement, psychopathy, sadism, selfishness, spitefulness and other non-caring and non-empathetic traits, stem from a common dark core within us, which the Encyclopedia Britannica refers to as "the seething mass within". The Dark Core of Human Personality According to Veljko Dubljevic, an assistant professor of philosophy at North Carolina State who specializes in research on the ethics of neuroscience and technology, teaching rote intellectual acceptance and non-critical thinking in regards to neuroscience in science courses is both unscientific and socially dangerous."  To which one might fairly add, teaching similarly in regards to evolutionary theory or anything else very much likewise, remains non-scientific and dangerous to our entire planet and every living thing on it. According to a 2013 science article published in The Guardian:   More complex than any structure in the known cosmos, the brain is a masterwork of nature endowed with cognitive powers that far outstrip the capacity of any silicon machine built to emulate it.  Containing roughly 80bn brain cells, or neurons, each of which communicates with thousands of other neurons, the 3lb universe cradled between our ears has more connections than there are stars in the Milky Way.  How this enormous neural edifice gives rise to subjective feelings is one of the greatest mysteries of science and philosophy. Human Behavior: Is it All in the Brain? It has been assumed for a long time by those who study the relationship between the eyes and the brain, "that color and form are processed separately in the early visual cortex. . ."  But it has been recently discovered that the human brain "encodes visual information efficiently using circuits that are smartly designed.  Contrary to what has been taught in the classroom. . . the brain encodes color and form together in a systematic way."  Like the Psalmist long ago concluding that "I am fearfully and wonderfully made", modern science more and more only serves to underscore the self-evidently obvious. Brain Processes External World Using Overlapping Visual Circuits Rather than go into more specific detail here, this final note is deliberately shortened to reflect the fact that like the lowly virus, modern science knows virtually nothing about the human brain, soul, conscious awareness, subjective feelings and perceptions of self and true origins of disease, conflict, competition and evil, compared to what there is yet to learn.  Why anyone in their right mind would pretend that something as overwhelmingly complex as a human brain could somehow magically arise out of nowhere from nothing, magically self-designing without any creator or intelligence behind the grand design universal reality, simply boggles any self-respecting mind and remains perhaps, the greatest mystery of all. Why have so many scientists and educators evolved a very misleading habit of claiming that a certain bird "evolved" a certain type of beak, as if the bird somehow changed by its own volition, rather than stating the obvious, that both the bird and rest of life inhabits an every-changing grand design universal reality, exquisitely crafted and carefully "fine-tuned" very, very, very far beyond any remote possibility of random chance, for the emergence and ongoing necessary adaptability of life? Even a small child can grasp the obvious, that if life isn't created with the ability to adapt and change, it couldn't possibly survive within an ever-changing universal environment.  Who decided that "nature" is somehow different than "creation"? And why would anyone of even rudimentary education conclude that ambiguous human language inventions like "evolution" and "natural processes", are somehow solely responsible for the observable grand design universal reality?  Or even worse, that such unsupported baseless inventions, randomly pulled out of a Hogwarts School of Witchcraft wizard's hat, somehow represent a better scientific explanation than deliberate conception, design and creation? With historical hindsight that not long ago, the majority of scientists believed disease spontaneously arises from rat excrement, why would anyone fancying themselves a 'scientist' today say there is no God, probably no God or might be no God?  What evidence do such immature historically oblivious paradoxical minds somehow magically possess and, why should we believe them?  We must each ponder within our own heart, soul and mind whether or not we want our children to be 'educated' in such an "unscientific and socially dangerous" grossly superstitious juvenile delinquent manner. Human Dendrites Very Different Than Other Species Processing Power of Brain Much Greater Than Originally Thought Two Scientists Discuss Brain Vs. More Than Brain How the Brain Makes Even Simple Decisions Remains a Mystery Modern Neuroscience Claims of No Free Will Non-Conclusive Human Brain Sorting Through the Noise Do Babies Know Right from Wrong? The Moral Life of Babies Disputes Among Various Scientists Regarding Infant Morality Chapter 31 - UPSIDE, DOWNSIDE AND UPSIDE DOWN In various discussions on science found in popular media and elsewhere, one often hears about the "wonders" and significant upsides of modern science.  Things like advances in medicine, agriculture and other population sustaining techniques, all manner of electronic gizmos and gadgets and other advances in modern technology are often described with awe and reverence. Meanwhile, the significant 'downsides' of human research and growing problems of technology are typically ignored within the same discussion.  Only rarely do we hear educators of science for example, bother to mention that advances in human science have resulted in global mass pollution, ever-worse horrific weapons and modern technology isolating people within our own virtual reality, rather than encouraging face-to-face communication and relationship building with peer-to-peer interaction. Today, no one knows what long term effects that so-called "social media" will have on the global population.  But we do know that social and other media is filled with both deliberate and unintentional falsehoods and, many millions of people are addicted to whatever they can do with communication devices, often at the expense of reality, human relations, steady employment, quality family time and other things longed deemed important to the survival of human civilization.  One might wonder which will ultimately be worse for humanity, weapons of mass destruction or world-wide weapons of mass deception. Physicians sometimes grudgingly admit that medicines they suggest for their patients can have significant negative side effects and likewise, it would seem that whatever human beings touch in any way, including in regards to anything scientific in nature, often results in both intentional and unintended negative consequences.  Here in the 21st Century, scientific researchers spend billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars on space exploration, telescopes and particle beam accelerators and, spend countless research hours attempting to understand things of curiosity having little if anything to do with either the reproductive, economic or actual survival of we human beings. One might assume that if scientists really believe human caused pollution is leading to eventual catastrophic planetary-wide destruction or, even if pollution is just harmful to human health, even if it isn't otherwise harming our planet in the least, that scientists would devote virtually all of their funding and research hours into finding a fix for our environmental mess as quickly and diligently as humanly possible. Who decides that spending billions on a particle accelerator and billions more staffing and maintaining it, is more valuable to our wayward species than finding a cure for cancer and diabetes?  Isn't it likely that whatever we learn from such expensive exploration into the realm of the ever smaller, will eventually result in weapons powerful enough to, as in the original motion picture "Starwars", blow our entire planet to smithereens? While some scientists turned into modern-day prophets are crying woe unto political, religious and other quacks pretending we aren't slowly but surely destroying our one and only planetary habitat, why do the rest so often arguably have their priorities misdirected elsewhere?  It is true that many scientists are working hard to clean up global pollution and many devote their skills and knowledge to curing various diseases and helping our growing global population eat and otherwise survive. But, given modern awareness of an erratic unpredictable warming climate already causing devastating weather, fire, flood, drought and other disasters, no doubt looming violent re-active revolutions and WW3 (perhaps the real war to end all wars), why are so many scientists wasting so much money and time trying to convince us the universe somehow magically appeared? And otherwise, trying to figure out what happened a millionth of a millionth of a second after the big bang or, whether or not the Higgs Boson is the smallest building block particle of the universe (most probably not)?  What value is any of this in comparison to eradicating catastrophic diseases and global mass pollution? Even if scientists eventually do find a truly legitimate "theory of everything" (not at all likely), why would any of us much beleaguered taxpayers really give a damn?  Given the known violent track record of human beings, isn't it pretty much a sure bet that whatever knowledge is gained from fusion power and other research will eventually be used to create weapons so horrifically destructive that we will be pining for the mere nuclear bomb firecrackers from the good old days of future past? Perhaps like the rest of us, the priorities of the highly educated are also often irrational to any notion of reproductive or other survival, openly displayed for all the world to see as sinful, callous and indifferent to our own offspring, backasswards and upside down to what we really need for our survival, to say the least. Chapter 32 - WHERE ARE THE ALIENS? Perhaps most people in the modern age have questioned whether or not aliens have ever visited earth.  Some of course believe they are here now, but even many scientists from time to time have discussed the possibility of visitors from somewhere outside of our own solar system. There may be some evidence that extra terrestrial beings have already visited our planet, but at best this evidence depends a lot on who is doing the talking, rather than on verifiable science. Some people speculate that if the universe is teaming with life, we should have been visited by now.  But folks who wonder why we haven't been may not have considered a few somewhat obvious reasons why aliens haven't landed in our backyards, even if the universe contains a great number of forms of life superior to anything here on earth. 1) One possible reason for our apparent lack of visitation from extra terrestrial beings is that given the vastness of the universe and, our incredibly tiny earth by comparison, other so-called "advanced" civilizations even if they number in the millions just within our own galaxy, may simply be unaware of our existence.  Human civilization has only existed for a microscopical fraction of the time earth has and, technology like radio and television has just been around a tiny bit of that fraction. 2) A second possible reason is that beings superior to ourselves may simply be uninterested in visiting earth even if they are aware of us.  Perhaps beings of super-advanced intelligence are disinterested or even wary of visiting a planet where its self-anointed king of species has a rather long and extending track record of greed, inequality of wealth, slavery, unwarranted violence, extreme waste of natural resources and global mass pollution; displayed along a rather lengthy trail of tears covering the span of its violent, sorrowful and pain ridden existence. Perhaps there are beings nearby who consider us no more advanced than we do a cockroach or even a bacterium in comparison to ourselves. 3) Perhaps extra terrestrials haven't visited us because unlike ourselves, even beings highly superior to we humans may have no concept of technology, flying or space travel.  Reviewing the history of human civilization with any fairness, we can learn that almost all of our technology from the wheel to the bow and arrow on up to modern skyscrapers, cell phones and nuclear bombs, has its purpose in either survival, defense/offense or both.  More advanced beings who might not be plagued with irrational wealth hording like we tend to be, may live with abundance of food and shelter readily available and thus, such beings may have little to no need of what we call "technology". Consider what might happen to Darwin's reputation if we were to find a planet where all of life, rather than being in competition, is living in harmony and peace, sharing everything in common and using planetary resources only as needed.  Consider if on such a planet, there was no concept of or experience with greed, disease, hunger, pain and suffering. In fact, we might even have had a chance of achieving that here on earth among ourselves if we hadn't evolved the horrible moral malignancy of exorcising the New Testament from modern public school classrooms.  Such morally advanced living beings might be perfectly content where they are and scoff at the very notion of traveling anywhere else. 4) A fourth possibility why we haven't experienced much in the way of actually seeing a real alien in living color on the late-night talk shows, is perhaps simply that Einstein is correct and nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.  Perhaps beings of superior intelligence to ourselves have learned the hard way that traveling near the speed of light causes massive brain hemorrhage and eventual disintegration of their bodies, along with any machine they may have been zooming around in. No one really knows what might happen if a living being were to approach anywhere near the speed of light, a speed considerably faster than any of us can reasonably imagine.  Given that Proxima Centauri, the closest star to our sun is about 24,800,000,000,000 miles away, alien beings throughout the universe may have discovered that the distance between stars cannot be overcome due to life being limited by the speed of light.  These are just four of many plausible reasons why we might not be witnessing a real live alien on national television any time soon. Probably most of us who don't study such things consider the lowly bacterium and virus to be nothing special, even though scientists have fairly recently discovered that both they and their behavior are far more complex than previously assumed.  Perhaps if science were to find microbial life on Mars, many of us might yawn, think "so what?" and move on. But consider that we have no idea what was living on Mars 2-3 billion years ago and, many scientists believe Venus may have at one time been inhabitable.  We tend to view ourselves as rather advanced here in the 21st Century, but consider that human civilization has only existed for 10-12 thousand years, while planets and stars hang around for billions of years.  And God only knows what life forms may have lived in the past, just in our own solar system. As noted previously, most scientists today believe there are many, many more species of bacteria and viruses here on earth than so far discovered and, while there are about 100 trillion microbes living within and on the surface of the average adult human, today scientists believe there are more viruses on earth than all other forms of life (including bacteria and archaea) combined.  While viruses vary considerably in size and some are larger than some bacteria, viruses on average are about ten times smaller than bacteria. That said, new evidence discovered in late 2018 indicates that at least 1/3 of all bacteria living on earth are thriving quite well underneath our feet, many as far as 5 kilometers (3.11 miles) down.  Indeed, there might be living forms of life far deeper than this, which science may one day yet discover. One of the most surprising discoveries is that there is an estimated at least 23 billion tons of tiny micro organisms living under the earth, which to illustrate how great of a number this is, consider that all of the people living on earth's surface compressed together would equal about 100 million tons of carbon.  Suffice it to say, the more science discovers about life on earth, the more and more it seems that we mammals and other forms of macro life are incredibly overwhelmingly outnumbered. Scientists Discover Huge Bacterial Biomass Inside Earth Bacteria are found in all kinds of harsh and extreme environments, from the very hot to the very cold, from high in the atmosphere to far underground and everywhere in-between.  This knowledge along with this 2018 discovery noted above, significantly ups the ante that the universe is probably teaming with life, perhaps both life as we know it and most likely in many exotic forms unknown to ourselves.  Consider how arrogant some religious people and some scientists of the not to distance past were, who proposed, for two very different but more or less equally narrow minded reasons, that throughout the entire Cosmos, life may only exist here on Planet Earth. These orthodox religious people believed that God created the entire universe for our own enjoyment and amusement and otherwise, so that we humans would worship and remain in awe of our Creator.  While on the other side of the narrow-minded coin, these scientists assumed that life on earth is such an extreme random totally by overwhelmingly unlikely coincidental chance one-time event, that life is therefore most likely entirely absent from the rest of the entire universal reality! And, this is only one of many examples for how conservative orthodox religion and the extremely myopic religion of atheism are quite similar, indeed.  One might conclude they are two narrow-minded peas sprouting from the same pod of human arrogance, ignorance and deception.  Given the modern evidence emerging since the turn of the century of a perhaps innumerable amount of universal exo-planets and, the fact that many scientists today believe life can emerge virtually anywhere on earth, one can only hope that some of these religious folks and optimistically at least a few of these hard-core deniers of reality, have repented of such macular degeneration of the heart, soul and mind. Now, some might say yet again, "so-what?", we're only talking tiny microbes for perhaps inhabiting the majority of the universe.  But we shouldn't forget that for apparently over 3 billion years, only microbes lived on our own planet.  And, there is evidence that other planets and/or moons seemingly unlikely habitats for life today might not have always been so.  At least one scientist has speculated that methane-based or other exotic forms of life may be hovering in the clouds of gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn, needing no solid surface to survive. The promise of biomass is that what today may be a lowly bacterium somewhere on or inside of a rather frigid place like Mars, or somehow thriving in what is for now a rather extreme situation akin to Venus or perhaps underneath the salt of a moon like Europa, may someday transition to fish, butterflies, human beings or even living beings far more intelligent and complex than anything known here on earth.  With a universe as dynamic and grand and magnificent and large as our own, we can say in truth that as far as human science is concerned, Lord only knows what's out there. CONCLUSION Read the Bible, the words inside are true and reliable. New Testament book of John Appendix: MIND-BENDING CLAIMS OF MODERN SCIENCE 1) There are estimated to be as many tiny particles in one grain of sand, as there is sand in all of the Sahara Desert to an average depth of ten feet.  And yet, the vast majority of what makes up a grain of sand appears to be empty space. 2) A recent theory suggests that matter might not really be mostly empty space but rather, what appears to be empty space might in fact be filled with unimaginably tiny bits of energy much smaller than a neutrino.  However, matter from our view today appears to be mostly empty space, so much so, that all of the particles of matter that make up all of the people on earth would fit in an area about the size of a cube of sugar, if all of what appears to be empty space was removed. 3) The Great Galaxy in Andromeda, also known as M-31, contains an estimated 1 trillion stars, while our own Milky Way Galaxy has an estimated 400 billion.  Some scientists suspect both galaxies may contain many more stars than these current estimates.  There are an estimated 100 trillion microbes on or inside an average adult human being.  Most viruses are about ten times smaller than most bacteria and, it is believed there are more viruses inhabiting the earth than all other microbes and all other forms of life combined.  According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, science knows almost nothing about viruses compared to what there is yet to learn. 4) It is estimated there are over eight times as many molecules in a cup of water (8.36 x 10 to the 24th power) as there are estimated stars in the known universe (1 x 10 to the 24th power), although some scientists believe there may be many more stars than current estimates assume. Some scientists believe the known universe is only a tiny fraction of the size of the total universe and, that the universe has 6-11 or more dimensions, of which we can detect only 3 plus time. It has been proposed by some astronomers that there may be as many universes as stars in our own.  Some now refer to the "eternal multi-verse", a growing quantity of universes stretching to infinity, a theoretical reality far beyond the ability of the human brain to even remotely begin to comprehend. Some quantum physicists have proposed that the reason the sub-atomic world seems to act strangely to us, in comparison to the macro-world, is because particles of matter might be traveling in and out of dimensions that we cannot detect.  Thus, bits of matter may only appear from our 3-dimensional perspective (plus time) to randomly pop in and out of existence.  This view is consistent with the modern scientific axiom that matter can be neither created or destroyed but only re-arranged (in truth, no one living here on earth really knows or has any way of knowing). 5) According to modern research, the Sahara Desert, which is about the same size as the entire United States, was covered by a large ocean about 3 million years ago.  It is currently believed that every 20,000 years or so, the Sahara changes from being a large desert into a vast green vegetation region containing fresh water lakes, some larger than the Great Lakes in the United States.  This drastic change is caused by a wobble in the earth s orbit, which changes weather patterns over Africa and causes vast quantities of rain to fall on what is currently the largest desert on earth.  The last such change occurred about 5,500 years ago. It is believed that there is a vast amount of fresh water currently located underneath the Sahara that has been trapped there for about 3 million years, creating the occasional oasis when this water breaches the surface.  Scientists and engineers are already tapping this giant underground reservoir for oil exploration and are attempting to use it to create viable farmland.  It is estimated there is only enough water to last for about 100 years of oil exploration and farming and then, it will be gone until the next Sahara greening cycle occurs about 14,500 years from now. Sahara Desert 20,000 Year 'Green' Swings 6) According to recent studies, a single sand grain is home to from 10,000 to 100,000 micro-organisms representing thousands of species.  Marine scientists estimate there are a billion, billion, billion tiny organisms called Prochlorococcus inhabiting the world's oceans, a photosynthetic bacterium on which the rest of the food chain is built.  Hundreds of distinct genetic subpopulations have been found in less than a quarter teaspoon of seawater. It was also recently discovered that trees and small plants including grasses are apparently able to communicate with each other regarding approaching predators and various other issues important to their survival.  Knowledge of human beings and other forms of life and the larger universal reality, has grown significantly in just a single generation and yet, regarding virtually everything we can observe or otherwise detect, modern science knows virtually nothing compared to what there is yet to learn.  Unlike one might assume, two of the most important things for life as we know it to exist, water and light, remain among the least things currently understood by scientists. 7) According to physicist Paul Davies, the majority of physicists today believe that the universe is intricately "fine-tuned" for the emergence of life.  The earth's orbit around the sun and the positioning of the moon, Jupiter and other planets also represent a similar fine-tuning for the emergence of life on earth (and possibly elsewhere) within our own solar system.  Few people other than scientists who study such things are aware that the orbit of the earth represents a complex looping dance around the sun, which varies over time, along with the earth's orbital plane.  The earth's cosmic dance of varying positioning is explained in more detail in this short video: Earth's Motion Not as Simple as We Think. While the universe is believed to be less than 19 billion years old, it has been mathematically calculated that the existence of a single protein randomly forming from unguided processes of natural selection would take trillions upon trillions upon trillions of years to occur (10 to the 162nd power).  To compare, the number of particles of matter and the number of photons combined in the known universe, is far less than 10 to the 90th power. British mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated that the odds of the universe randomly emerging from natural unguided processes are at least 10 to the 10,123rd power against, a number so incredibly large that it has no meaning in comparison to anything familiar to a human being, including the universe itself.  Some scientists have concluded that the overwhelming complex language of DNA alone could not possibly exist as a result of natural, unguided processes, given even an infinite amount of time to occur. The modern theory of evolution remains highly inadequate for explaining either the origins of life, the Cambrian explosion or the overwhelming complexity of DNA and the far greater overwhelming complexity of a living cell, not to mention the astronomically greater overwhelming complexity of the universe itself.  While it took many years for Einstein's theories to gradually supplant Newtonian physics, many believe that the theory of evolution by natural selection may soon suffer a similar historical fate. Directly Contradicts Darwin: DNA Mutations Are Not Random The Information Enigma Random Chance Probability of a Single Protein Forming Why DNA Without Intelligence is Irrational Archaea and the Scientist Who Scrambled Darwin's Tree of Life New Evidence Shaking Darwin's Tree 8) What scientists today call "nature" and what many scientists and other intellectuals used to call "creation", often perceived as different things by the deceptively educated, are in fact merely two different words used for describing the exact same reality.  Calling creation "nature" or calling nature "creation" does not in fact have any bearing on how the universal reality either came into existence or functions.  The reality of how life came to be and changes and adapts appears to be highly dependent on and controlled at the quantum level, a level of reality modern science has only barely scratched the surface regarding. Although viruses are the smallest known living things known, they are very, very incredibly large in comparison to atoms, which in turn are very, very incredibly large in comparison to bits and pieces of atoms scientists study at the quantum level, where virtually nothing behaves as we would expect based on "classical physics" understanding and experience.  Defining reality as science defines it is a rather perilous and unpredictable proposition at the quantum level. If we could turn on all of the universal "lights" and see everything in every dimension all at once, what we perceive of as being mostly "empty" space might be considerably less empty than it appears to us.  Given the known historical track record of science, it is very likely that modern humans know virtually nothing about what is really true about our universe or about life, from a true universal and beyond (logos) perspective.  What is proudly viewed as "science" today only a century or two from now, may appear as rudimentary and backward as the 'science' of the pre-Neolithic Era appears to us here in the 21st Century. Those who say there is no Creator, probably no Creator or might be no Creator, should perhaps consider that many scientists once believed that both disease and living forms of life spontaneously arise, a theory not discredited until Louis Pasteur (died 1895).  Perhaps they should also pause to consider the astronomically incredible arrogance and ignorance of such non-verifiable, non-scientific baseless positions. As if human beings living on tiny spec of dust earth trapped within three dimensions plus time, having virtually no understanding of either life or the larger cosmic reality compared to what we have yet to learn, would or could possibly know that what we perceive as a universal reality either would or could have somehow magically appeared.  It requires far, far less blind faith to believe that disease spontaneously arises or that the moon somehow, is larger and warmer than the sun. 9) As far as science knows, calculations for pi extend forever and ever without any discernible repeating pattern.  Yet, fairly recent evidence suggests that the entire universe may not only be designed mathematically but also, it may be designed according to pi and also to a second irrational number known as the "Golden Ratio" (and perhaps one or more other irrational numbers as well).  Some scientists are now saying that it isn't accurate to claim that mathematics help explain the universe but rather, that the universe itself at its most basic level "is" math. According to such scientists, rather than math being a human invention, the history of mathematics represents merely a growing understanding that will likely continue to grow indefinitely into the future.  Rather than inventing or even discovering math, human beings are merely uncovering what has existed long before us and perhaps even existed prior to the universe itself. Given that a somewhat lengthy list of mammals, birds, fish and insects are known to rely on math.  And given that scientists have used mathematics to predict the existence of particles of matter prior to their actual discovery, there is strong evidence today that mathematics is not of human invention. "NOVA Video: The Great Math Mystery" Nature by Numbers (Fibonacci Sequence & The Golden Ratio) Mind Blowing Presence of The Golden Ratio NOVA Video: Science of Geometric Fractals Animals and Insects That Can Count Some Animals Can Count Better Than Most Humans Mathematics of Bees Math of the Universe Behind the Music We Hear Mathematics of Plant Leaves 10) Very recent discoveries demonstrate that life emerged on earth at least 3.7 billion years ago and a Canadian fossil has been dated at 4.2 billion years (supporting links provided elsewhere), much earlier than believed possible at the dawn of the 21st Century.  Such findings strongly indicate that life may have arisen from all over the earth, rather than from a singular extremely rare coincidental chance occurrence, as many biologists have attempted to fabricate out of evidence-less air for well over a century. Rather than understanding how life came into being, scientists continue to discover how little humanity actually knows concerning the true origins of life, some today postulating the existence of life most likely pre-dates the existence of our own solar system.  For all we know, the existence of life pre-dates our current universe and, life will continue on forever and ever, long after our universe fades away.  As such, it is being honest, fair and rational to conclude that human science may never know how, when or where life first came to be or if indeed, life ever had a beginning. As discussed within the chapters above, researchers have discovered that microbes living within us are able to incorporate outside DNA into their own DNA, directly contradicting modern evolutionary theory, which primary validity rests on long assumed so-called "random" changes within DNA, changes which may in fact not be random.  Rather, changes in visible macro-organisms as carefully detailed by Darwin and subsequent scientists for generations, may simply be reactions to changes caused by the actions of trillions of invisible to the human eye micro-organisms living within them, changes which by definition, are not "random". To be fair, Darwin knew nothing about modern genetics and had no way of knowing this, but modern scientists should know better than to unlike Darwin, who credited our Creator with being behind the reality of life, pretend that something as complex as the universal grand design came about by randomly invented-out-of-thin-air, blind unguided natural processes. As if something as astronomically overwhelmingly awe-inspiring as the universe and the life contained therein, containing zillions upon zillions trillions of parts-within-parts, somehow just magically appeared, as if they somehow, would know.  We may have obvious liars today posing as political representatives of the people, but their deceptive ways pale in comparison to some of the overt liars lurking within ivory towers and otherwise, preying on and grossly twisting and polluting the impressionable minds of our own offspring. 11) Scientists have recently discovered that infants as young as three months old have a sense of morality, right and wrong (younger infants being too difficult to test), strongly indicating that as Paul writes in Romans 2 and Thomas Jefferson echoes in the Declaration, we are born with an innate sense of right and wrong.  Scientists have also discovered, like the Bible says, that "sins of the fathers" are passed down to the 3rd and 4th generation. Thus, what we eat and how we otherwise behave has significant implications. not only for our own health and welfare, but for future generations and the survival of humanity itself.  Not to mention the ongoing global onslaught and destruction of our own environment, which we continue to mass pollute as if there is no tomorrow.  Evidence is discussed and linked in more detail in various chapters above. Sins of the Fathers; Epigenetic Evidence for Negative Inherited Characteristics Learned Behavior Genetically Passed Down for Generations Human Caused Pollution Harms Every Organ of Human Body Evidence Poverty Leaves Significant Changes on Human Genome Genetic Evidence Divorce Runs in Family Lineages Study Indicates Human Morality Partially Genetic 12) The Bible in several different places apparently claims that our universe is surrounded by water.  While it is not possible so far here in the 21st Century to prove this is true, it also remains impossible to prove it is not true.  Interestingly enough, according to the late Carl Sagan, at least two scientists in the recent past have proposed that the universe might be surrounded by water, which would help explain the abundance of hydrogen. Perhaps just as interesting, a 21st Century scientist recently proposed that rather than springing from a 'big bang', the universe we see today resulted from "cracks" and "fissures" in a giant ocean of unknown liquid-like substance.  The unusual properties of water, which is necessary for all of life as far as we know and, which has different properties than any other known liquid, are discussed Here. 13) According to NASA, scientists suspect that every star in the universe has at least one planet orbiting it.  And, there is at least one other star that has at least as many planets as our own sun.  It is likely that many stars have less planets than our own, while other stars probably have far more.  There are an estimated 2 trillion galaxies in the known universe, with an average of about 100 million stars per galaxy.  Though most scientists believe our own universe is finite, some suspect that the actual size may be comparatively extremely larger than the known universe we can detect from our position and time in space. If the nucleus of an atom was represented as a period on this page, the entire size of the atom would be over 6 miles in diameter.  And, an atom is incredibly large in comparison to quarks and other particles within atoms.  Like much of outer space, most of the space inside of an atom appears to be empty.  Viruses are the smallest living things known and yet, there are over a half trillion atoms in a single typical virus.  About 5 trillion atoms make up the head of a pin. The earth's solar system is kind of similar to an atom, the sun being the nucleus, while the planets are like particles traveling around the nucleus of an atom.  While an atom doesn't really fairly equate to our solar system in terms of its structure, comparing them serves to paint a general picture.  Like an atom, much of our solar system appears to be empty space, as does the rest of the universe. The distance to the nearest star from our sun is about 25 trillion miles and, the distance to the Andromeda galaxy is about 15 quintillion miles (15 x 10 to the 18th power).  The largest star is 2,000 times the radius of our sun, while it is believed our sun is slightly larger than average. The majority of stars are believed to be red dwarfs , most of which are too faint to see with current telescope technology.  This makes it difficult to estimate the actual number of stars even within our own Milky Way galaxy and other galaxies nearby. Larger structures in the universe include galaxies, clusters of galaxies, super-clusters and large dark voids , some of which are larger than many super-clusters.  It is known today that the entire universe is latticed in a great web consisting of filaments of galaxy clusters with large comparatively empty regions in-between. The visible universe is about 29 billion light years in diameter.  However, it is believed the actual size of our universe is much larger.  Some scientists today ascribe to what is called multi-verse theory, some postulating there may be as many universes as there are stars in our own, while others believe there is a growing quantity of universes stretching to infinity. Even though human beings are very small in comparison to the known universe, we are very large in comparison to viruses, which are very large when compared to an atom, which in turn are very large in comparison to a quark.  As such, we are not necessarily comparatively either large or small but rather, we find ourselves as being somewhere in-between the two extremes. Incredibly like our Creator and father in heaven, creation itself may have always been and long always will be, stretching backwards and forwards on forever and ever, inside and outside of and far above, below and beyond what we perceive as time , having no beginning and no ending, a concept far beyond the human mind to even begin to grasp. GOD: a perspective; a video of comparative sizes 14) The Marvelous World of Tiny Baby Spiders. 15) Science has discovered that the ancestors of modern crocodiles and alligators were vegetarians.  So, the next time either you or someone you know gets eaten by a gator or a croc, consider that perhaps it's because they just got tired of eating salad.  Who can say for sure why our Creator's creatures behave as they do in any given day, time or place? Ancestors of Modern Crocs and Gators Were Vegetarians Who can say for sure when a man or woman weaves a basket, a spider spins a web, a deer selects a particular blade of grass, a bacterium harvests a scrap of DNA from outside of itself, a squirrel goes scampering and skipping across a road or a bird rather than flying in a straight line, travels in a large swooping curving arc motion, zipping and dipping higher and lower and higher yet again across the horizon, how much is instinctual, how much is learned behavior and, how much is due to individual freedom of choice? Living in a 21st Century of science and wonder, we all need to get over the fact that we really don't know very much about how either life came to be or functions in true reality.  We should learn to be more honest with both ourselves and our offspring, freely admitting what we do not know, fully understand or otherwise, remain uncertain in regards to. click here to read "Fixing America In 500 Words or Less" click here to eMail the author Published by Freedom Tracks Records; Nashville, TN Copyright © December 10th, 2019 by Richard Aberdeen Copyright © December 10th, 2019 by Freedom Tracks Records ( including from several earlier copyrights ) No part of this material may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including printing, photocopying, recording or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher and signed by the author. For inquiries, please contact Freedom Tracks Records.