SCIENCE OR PSEUDOSCIENCE

The scientific world has been in decline for a long time.  Precisely when science stopped being empirical and became faith based is hard to pin point but I think it started with the popularization of science by Carl Sagan.  Science – real science – is very complicated, technical, and thus hard to follow.  Because of this Carl Sagan in the brief time allotted to him by TV began to state various theories as facts when in fact they not.  From that time on things that had been postulated slowly morphed into facts ignoring the very basis of science which is empirical proof.  This erosion of science started with cosmology but rapidly infected other portions as well, especially the Theory of Evolution.  The very idea that Evolution is theoretical has disappeared.  Darwin reigns supreme even though the proofs demanded by Darwin have been ignored.  What Darwin observed and described is environmental adaptation not speciation.  No where in his seminal book “The Origin of Species” does he describe the origin of species and from that day to this how species originate is unproven and undemonstrated.  Many theories exist but none have been demonstrated.  This problem has plagued science for years but the scientific community is convinced that evolution is real even though they can’t actually prove it.

The evolutionary problem begins with the Cambrian Explosion.  The Pre-Cambrian is that period from the origin of the Earth to the fossil rich Cambrian and the beginning of the Geologic record.  Due to some unexplained process or event – non-divine event – life began in the Pre-Cambrian.  This life – based on limited evidence – was primitive bacterial life that evolved into something like pond scum and possibly simple worms.  But the Cambrian teems with fossils of complex life forms -- creatures with eyes, ears, organs, and complex bodies and ecologies.  How did these come to be and to be so diverse without any indication of their origin?  No transitional fossils exist – a criteria demanded by Darwin. 

The lack of transitional fossils is described as Stasis meaning a particular species exists unchanged in the fossil record for millions of years and then another species suddenly appears without any transitional fossils.   However, on close inspection these new species are really just examples of environmental adaptation by the same species.  That is the new trilobite is similar to the old trilobite, the new brachiopod is similar to the old brachiopod.  This pattern is repeated throughout the geologic record with new species looking like the preceding one, but are these truly new species or merely new versions of the same species much like a race horse looks different from a Clydesdale or a donkey but they are all equines.  How the ancestor of the horse divided into separate and distinct species remains an article of faith rather than a demonstrated fact.  The fossil record is devoid of transitional forms so to address this problem scientists have decided on Punctuated Equilibria.

This theory claims that no transitional fossils can be found in the geologic record because the separation between species happened at an accelerated rate requiring merely thousands of years rather than millions.  Because of this rapid evolution no transitional fossils were created because there wasn’t time.  That is a rather silly argument because the existing fossils were created one at a time and within the life time of the living fossil.  So while Punctuated Equilibria may sound like a viable theory it really doesn’t explain the absence of transitional fossils anywhere in the hundreds of millions of years of the geologic record.

This brings us to the descent of man – from pond scum to interstellar explorer.  Current thinking is that modern man has descended from a primitive ape that lived in Africa approximately three million years ago.  This original human (?) ancestor consists of a handful of bone fragments from which a proto-human has been constructed.  With this as a starting point additional bone fragments have been found in various places which has led the construction of the tree of human evolution which shows various species that have branched off and remained in the animal kingdom while others are shown to have continued their evolution into homo-sapiens and modern apes like the Chimpanzee. 

Whether or not this evolutionary tree of human development is true or not may be arguable but the real point is that this evolutionary span is approximately 3 million years and these various bone fragments can be argued to be transitional fossils.  If this is true then it seems logical that the geological record would contain transitional fossils of other life forms and whether Punctuated Equilibria is true or not-- it wouldn’t preclude finding transitional fossils.  The reality is that throughout the geological record new life forms suddenly appear with the most recent being Cro-Magnon man.  The question of speciation remains open and Darwin’s criteria for proof of his theory remains unanswered.

The Meaning of Life

Why are we here? What is the purpose of our life? Where did we come from? Where do we go after death? Is there life after death or is that the end? These are man’s eternal questions, questions that we all ask and can never get any definite answers. But is that true? Are there no answers or just answers we don’t like?

The Darwinists believe that we are an accident – a sort of cosmic joke – that some errant cosmic particle collided with some collection of inorganic molecules that created an organic molecule. This molecule then mutated through some equally random process and developed the ability to replicate itself. These new organic cells continued to mutate and change into pond scum and ultimately into scientists but with slightly more intelligence. In effect the Darwinists believe that while we may have more intelligence than Chimpanzees, the cousins they claim, we really are just another class of animals. Like the animals we are the product of mating, the circumstances of our lives are serendipitous, our actions have no impact outside of the boundaries of our lives. We are born, we eat, we mate, we reproduce, and we die. We live and die – like animals – with no purpose other than to reproduce the species. This line of thinking is precisely what the atheist has. There is no God, life has no meaning, no purpose, there is no life after death and to think otherwise is wishful thinking.

That brings us to the other side where some believe that we are divinely created by God. That our circumstances are pre-ordained but it is up to us to lead a good and moral life. Lucifer was and Archangel who rebelled against God, was damned to Hell where he rules as Satan, and tempts mankind away from righteousness. Both Heaven and Hell are real although whether or not they are physical places is a little vague. Within this view of life, we have souls created by God, we are born, we live, and we die. But our soul is eternal and on death we are judged by our deeds and go to Heaven or are condemned to Hell and eternal punishment.

According to this view we have one chance at eternal joy in Heaven or through actions an eternal punishment in Hell. This view holds that the circumstance of our one life is ordained by God –but how God chooses those is unknown. So some people are born into poverty or as savages living in savage lands – while others are born into wealth and blessed with physical comfort. On one hand we have people like Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein who misuse power and commit great crimes. They exercised the free will given to them by God in the most evil way possible and we can imagine they ended in Hell, but what about people like Lenin who commit great crimes while thinking they are doing good? Did Lenin end in Hell or Heaven? Can these people ever redeem themselves? Are these people and their fates just a random choice? A throw of the dice by God where one person wins and another loses? That simply doesn’t sound logical so there has to be some rationale behind our lives and circumstances. God is just and undoubtedly rewards good and punishes bad but he is also forgiving so there must be a pathway out of Hell and to redemption – even for the most evil. And this brings us to reincarnation.

Virtually all religions, other than Atheism, believe in life after death as well as reincarnation. References to reincarnation were stricken from the Bible when it was canonized but some vague references still remain. But there is a growing body of evidence that there is life after death and that reincarnation is real. There has been growing interest in “Near Death Experiences” although what these represent remains controversial. The popular position among scientists is that these are nothing more than hallucinations emanating from a dying brain and prove nothing. But many scientists who study NDE’s are increasingly finding that they truly seem to support consciousness after death.

If we conclude that there is life (consciousness) after death then what does that mean? What is the purpose of our lives? The mystics in various ways tell us that our life on Earth is a form of punishment for leaving God in the first place and then not leading Godly lives. That we come to Earth to develop and educate our souls so that we may one day return to God’s grace. The circumstances of our life on Earth are determined by our actions in previous lives. The law of Karma prevails. We come to the Earth over and over in association with the same group of souls in various combinations but always with the same objective – to correct past wrongs while striving to improve our selves. What is the “Meaning of Life?” This question can only be answered by the individual because the purpose of each life is unique to that individual but over all the purpose is to return to God as his companion.

White Cavemen, Evolution, and Questions

The origin of man continues to be a source of fascination and controversy even though science has already concluded that life descended from pond scum and man descended from an ape like creature that was a precursor to man. Of course this ape like creature which has been located in Africa is actually a collection of bone fragments surrounded by a lot of assumptions. Then there is the issue of the races – which are clearly -- according to science the product of Evolution. Of course science really doesn’t make any distinction between evolution and adaptation; these are viewed as the same thing. Then there is the question of early man – generically described as “Cavemen” because they lived in caves. But these “cavemen” seem to have lived in Europe not in Africa, but the time span between the Hominids and Neanderthal is literally millions of years, but there is no evidence in Europe of the Hominids nor any evidence in Africa of Neanderthal or “cavemen”. Then what about Cro-Magnon Man, they appeared as fully developed homo-sapiens with no indication of where they came from or how they were related to Neanderthal or the Hominids or even if there is any relationship at all. The rationale for this entire structure rests on these three pillars 1) Theory of Evolution 2) Bone fragments of a Hominid 3) DNA tests showing Chimpanzees and Homo Sapiens share 98% of their DNA. Of course this is logically equivalent to saying that Helium (a gas) is the same as Lithium (a metal) because there is only one electron difference. Of course the other side is that all protons, neutrons, and electrons in the Universe are the identical so technically everything is related to everything else because they are made up of the same “stuff” but what about life itself? Why do some of these collections of identical pure energy particles think while others remain inert as rocks and still others remain pond scum and fail to evolve into animate beings even after millions of years? They – the pond scum -- are believed to have evolved once so why did they stop their march to intelligent life?

The Universe is believed to be about 15 billion years old and the age of the Earth is estimated to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. The first simple life appeared about 3.8 billion years ago – which really was just a simple cell with no nucleus. How this came about is a little vague but apparently it was due to some random event but so far no proto cell has been created in the lab. Nevertheless this miraculous cell replicated and ultimately became pond scum. All of this occurred in the Pre-Cambrian Period whose duration spans the time from the formation of the Earth to the Cambrian which began about 542 Million years ago. But this is really about people and cavemen not about all of those creatures that came before.

The first of the apes believed to be precursors of humans occurred approximately 5 million years ago. Various species and subspecies appeared over the next several million years leading up to the Paranthrobus which is believed to be a precursor to the Homo line, which itself has numerous branches and subspecies. These all are bipedal ape like creatures and thus believed to be part of the evolutionary march to Homo-Sapiens. Of course there is not a shred of evidence that any of these species were in fact species or even related to humankind. Even the Evolutionary radical Richard Dawkins concedes that many of these species might have lived concurrently – apparently similar to the equine family today. But the first modern humans generically called Cro-Magnon appeared in Europe 35,000 years ago and the earlier Neanderthals died out at approximately the same time or shortly thereafter.

So there were Hominids in Africa but no sign of “Cavemen” and Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon men first appear in Europe. Apes and Chimpanzees are black while all depictions of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon are white. Is this simply blatant racism or is this depiction the result of the factual reality that Europeans are white? Assuming that the early men found in Europe were indeed white – where did the other races come from? The glib answer is that they adapted (evolved) to their local environments. Meaning that homo-sapiens migrated from Europe to Asia, Africa, North America, and South America, but 35,000 years ago North and South America were not physically connected and even if they were the races would have had to evolve or adapted within that 35,000 years. If that is true then why haven’t we seen modern examples of evolution – has man evolved to the point of perfection and no further change is necessary? What about the animals – how many new species have come into being that have clearly sprung from earlier species? If man can evolve in 35,000 years why not animals – why haven’t they continued to evolve? But we are told that early man – apparently not Homo-Sapiens – migrated to the New World via the land bridge between Asia and Alaska. But the Inuit are clearly Asian, but the Native Americans are not and are classed as the “Red” race. What are their origins? Then we have the “Brown” race which is clearly neither Asian nor “Red”. Unfortunately for all of the evolutionists there is no evidence of evolution among these races – they appear fully developed as Homo-Sapiens with their distinctive racial characteristics in the places where they were found.

So while the Darwinians cling to the Theory of Evolution as a fact rather than a theory the reality is that there are some very serious questions regarding evolution. Adaptation has been demonstrated and is not seriously disputed but there appear to be gaping holes in how one species morphs into another. While the variations in the races can possibly be explained through adaptation there is no evidence that they adapted from some earlier form. The historical record indicates that if they migrated to where they are found then adapted to that environment the evidence is missing. So the origin of the races is unknown and the descent of man from apes is filled with holes and the path from pond scum to humanity is even murkier and unproven.

Darwin Dawkins and Evolution

The focus has for years been on Darwin’s “Origin of Species” while his companion work “The Descent of Man” has either been ignored entirely or sort of lumped into his general Theory of Evolution. Of course the thrust of Darwin’s second view of evolution is that human beings were descended from apes who in turn were descended from still more primitive animals. This is a heavily flawed book whose flaws are explained away today by pointing out that Darwin was a “man of his times” and “science” has come a long way since the book was written. Darwin never actually addressed the “Origin of Species” nor did he ever address the origin of life. Instead those issues were left to modern believers, like Dawkins, who totally excludes God and embraces his religion of Evolution and his Darwin as his God replacement. So Dawkins goes where Darwin feared to tread and the logical end of this evolutionary thread is that man is a direct descendant of pond scum. If you have seen Dawkins you can see the family resemblance. But suppose Dawkins is right, that all of humanity is descended directly from lower animal forms and thus subject to the laws of evolution. What are the ramifications of this?

The ramification of course is according to Darwin and Dawkins the strongest and fittest survive while the weakest perish under the relentless action of evolution. It was Darwin who stated that more individuals in a species are born than can possibly survive, so it is natures way to eliminate the weak through their struggle to survive thus those individuals who have even the slightest advantage are naturally selected. The implication of this when applied to humans would indicate that the evolutionary path of humanity would lead to a superior form of human both physically and mentally. Males would get larger and stronger while females would become more fertile and attractive. Alas – even a casual look at humanity would show that some at taller, some weaker, some less intelligent, and certainly some are less attractive, but these are all subjective evaluations and really don’t address the variations in skin color, body types, eye color, hair color, or appearance.

The logical conclusion is that humanity today is the logical result of “breeding” and not necessarily the evolutionary result of the survival of the fittest. The implication is that mankind is result of breeding much like dogs and cats or any other animal. It then follows that humanity can be improved through programs where only the “best examples” are allowed to breed. Of course this was a policy adopted in ancient times and is best exemplified by the Spartans who only allowed the strongest babies to live. A more recent example of this approach, now given the name “Eugenics” was carried out by Adolph Hitler. Both of these programs were public policy but Darwin himself noted that the “civilized people” were eliminating the “savages” through their superiority, where superiority was defined through intellectual achievement and living standard. The shallowness of this position is generally ignored today but Darwin’s basic position remains intact in the eyes to people like Dawkins, who pick and choose their facts while ignoring those that don’t fit their belief.

This brings us to those variations which according to Darwin are the result of natural selection and for Dawkins the result of mutations caused by cosmic rays. The corollary here is that any mutation that failed to improve the chance of survival would fall by the wayside since the mutant would be eliminated and off spring would not survive. This immediately leads to the conclusion that all of the observed variations are evolutionary changes that have improved humanity’s survival ability. But for Darwin, there was the gorilla, the Negro (savages), and the ultimate top of the evolutionary scale – the Caucasian. This is one of those Darwinian things that Dawkins chooses to ignore; instead he leans toward mutation and sexual selection. But then which is which? Are blonds more attractive than brunettes? Is black skin more attractive than white? The argument is that skin color, hair color, and curly hair versus straight are in fact evolutionary advantages. But this brings us back to survival of the fittest. Certainly the record of man shows that the barbarian, the one who is stronger and has the morality of a sociopath is the preferred evolutionary form. The logical path indicates that morality, sympathy, empathy, or any deep emotion must be weaknesses that cannot lead to a stronger human form, but must be eliminated through natural selection since the men with these characteristics would not be allowed to mate. Clearly this isn’t the case, so these must be traits that describe the strongest and fittest human. But realistically – does the ability to care for another human being, or to have a conscience enable an individual to survive a drought, a famine, or a war?

Darwin simply stated that man was descended from a lower form and was an animal subject to the same rules of evolution that other animals are. What is missing is any real proof that evolution as described by Dawkins is a fact. Darwin never addressed speciation and Dawkins explains speciation through cosmic rays and mutation but offers no empirical proof whatsoever. In fact the fossil record seems to support environmental adaptation which accounts for the variations in humans, but it does not indicate how one animal morphs into another or how pond scum became human.

Dark Energy Darker Science

While empirical science continues to exist, it has largely been replaced by pseudo-science based on statistics. As we have dumbed down our schools and shifted our universities into centers of political correctness and indoctrination, science is under attack from the intellectually lazy who resort to writing papers that make outrageous claims with no factual basis. These have largely been restricted to the medical field where are regularly treated to claims that mayonnaise causes cancer, that poverty causes crime, and apples will kill you, all based on statistical analyses of a sample of four. As low as the medical field has sunk, it seems that other scientific areas are succumbing to the need to make ridiculous claims just to keep the public aware and the money from Washington flowing.

Carl Sagan seems to have launched this trend of stating theories as facts, with his passionate defense of evolution, the origin of life, and interstellar life. To hear Sagan you would think that evolution is an absolute fact, especially since he was successful in convincing the majority of the media. The reality is that Darwin’s book “Origin of Species” never actually addressed the origin of species and all of the examples used to substantiate the claim of evolution are in fact examples of adaptation and not speciation. Then the claim that there is life on other planets is based entirely on the statistical probability that given enough planets around enough stars, that some must be oxygen/carbon based and thus life must have evolved. Of course the a priori position here is unstated and that is that life evolved on this planet and thus must have evolved on other planets as well. Now indeed, it may have but there is no proof of that fact and many people today believe that life on this planet is unique and divinely created. Certainly there is no proof of this position either but in that case neither position should be viewed as factual. But all of these are really topics for another day, because this creeping destruction of science seems to be impacting physics and quantum physics as well.

Cosmology and Quantum Physics exist in a realm where proving anything is almost impossible so those who study these areas rely very heavily on some very esoteric mathematics to describe and substantiate their theories. At first glance this seems to be not only logical but should lead to hard answers, but does it? Do these equations actually describe reality or do they describe a reality that only exists in the equations? First you must agree that science has indeed been able to determine the weight of every object in the universe and the total amount of energy existing in that universe. Of course the assumption here is that the speed of light is a limitation and that we can see to the edges of the universe, which of course we can’t. So if the universe is expanding and accelerating objects at the edge would be invisible to an observer on Earth. Therefore, these equations must rest on assumptions that cannot be verified except through the balancing of these equations. So what’s the problem?

The problem lies in the fact that the equations require some fudging in order to balance. This means that constants (of whatever value is necessary) are required but even with these constants the scientists are left with some big problems – assuming their initial assumptions were correct. The equations indicate that only 5% of the observable universe is visible. There is not enough energy nor is there enough matter to account for what the equations need to balance. This leads to that great flaw in modern science which is to name the unknown and thus give the impression that it exists and that we know about it when in fact it only exists in the minds of these scientists and their equations. These two great unknowns have been given the names of Dark Energy (70%) and Dark Matter (25%), of course these could be called anything but the term dark was chosen because they cannot be observed. The irony here is that Dark Energy could just as easily be called the “Mind of God” and Dark Matter “the Souls of Man”. I am not saying this is the case, I am merely pointing out that the latter nomenclature is just as valid as the former because neither can be verified and the equations would work either way.

But current physics and cosmology all begin AFTER the Big Bang. The belief (it is belief and not factual) is that at some point and with no other causative factor the universe sprang from a primordial speck that contained all of the energy and matter in the universe today. Precisely where this speck was is unknown because space did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Of course there is the POSSIBILITY that God exists and that the causative factor was in fact God. But this would mean there is intelligent design to the universe and life, which is totally rejected by science even though increasingly science is faith based rather than factual.

Faith and Science

It seems that what passes for science today is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish from religion although the religious community is quite open about their reliance on faith while the scientific community is in a state of denial. We are treated every day to new statistics showing the ever growing number of “smoking related deaths”. What is missing of course is any proof that any of these deaths were related to smoking, this is merely a claim based on no facts whatsoever other than some statistical analysis which is never divulged. The actual fact is that no death certificate has ever been issues showing the cause of death to be from smoking. In fact there is no empirical evidence that smoking has any relationship to cancer or any disease other than some statistical correlation, which may or may not be real. This is particularly significant since the incidence of lung cancer has not shown any decline in correlation to the decline in smoking. This is merely one example of how science has ceased to rely on empirical evidence but has shifted to a belief system.

Evolution is another example where science has shifted from facts to belief. The loudest supporter of Evolution is Richard Dawkins who has simply stated that Darwin’s “Origin of Species” is correct, that Intelligent Design is bunk and a code word for “Creationism” which is laughable. Now Evolution may indeed be correct or at least partially correct but outside of the evidence of environmental adaptation there is not proof of speciation or transitional fossils. However, periodically and now almost daily some scientist lays claim to have discovered “the missing link” or the “transitional fossil” that proves Evolution. But saying something is so doesn’t make it so and these claims of transitional fossils are all based on opinion and a belief that what is claimed is so – or in other words – faith. But the question of speciation is the real problem because there is no example of how one species becomes another. How a rat becomes a horse cannot and has not been demonstrated. Instead the scientists assure us that speciation is simply the result of a mutation – a random mutation at that. So the “belief” is that some random cosmic particle impacted one animal – say an ape – and this ape reproduced passing this mutated gene on to its descendants. Then over millions of years this ape became a humanoid who became a human, this is the belief, but there is no evidence other than it must be because there is no alternative. You can hear the Hallelujah’s

But there are even greater questions that the scientific community ignores or attempts to explain with ever greater stretches of the imagination. My particular favorite is the scientific theory that the origin of life on Earth came via some primordial life form arriving on Earth aboard a meteorite. This is viewed as the answer to the origin of life on Earth which of course doesn’t explain the origin of life at all. Another good one is that life on Earth was introduced by Space Aliens which doesn’t really explain the origin of life either although it does seem to support Intelligent Design as the origin. But the major theory is that the primordial ocean was filled with chemicals of all kinds which were constantly being bombarded (as we all are even today) by cosmic particles which caused these chemicals to react and transform into more complex compounds which ultimately resulted in an organic carbon based molecule that became (how is unexplained) self-replicating and evolved into pond scum and then into humankind. Unfortunately this miraculous process seems to have ceased once the miracle of life was achieved, but the true believers have total faith in this miracle and never see the irony between their theory and belief and those who believe in intelligent design.

However, the scientific community generally avoids any discussion or theory regarding the situation prior to the big bang. Apparently there was NOTHING, and certainly there wasn’t any space because space and time didn’t exist prior to the big bang because it was the initiating event. So there was nothing and then – in a flash – there was space, time, and all of the energy ever to exist. What initiated this event is never discussed – but it is believed this is how it happened; of course a careful reading of Genesis might shed some light on the subject. But Dawkins, the Atheists, and science cannot even address this question of the creation of the universe because it opens the door to a Supreme intelligence and with THAT comes credibility for intelligent design and THAT shakes the very foundation of their belief system – a system called “science”.

Evolution Rears Its Head Once Again

The Scientific Community is once again in a dither over the discovery of an almost complete fossil of an ape believed to be 47 million years old, placing it in the middle of the Eocene. What makes this fossil so exciting is that it is complete, which that in itself makes it unique but the excitement is over the fact that this ape has an opposable thumb. Now this ape was roughly the size of a small dog and was found in China and not in Africa, nevertheless we are told this is THE ancestor of humans. The basis of this conclusion is the belief that man is descended from a common ancestor of apes and this ape has that opposable thumb. Of course the operative word is “belief” because there is no empirical evidence to this belief and in fact the entire tree of life from the Pre-Cambrian pond scum to now is riddled with belief and speculation but very little evidence connecting the various members of this evolutionary tree. This tree of life shows that man is a direct lineal descendant of pond scum.

The descent of man from a common ape-like ancestor rests on the discovery of various hominid bone fragments in the Olduvai Gorge by the Leaky family who seem to have created a family business. They have constructed --based on these bone fragments -- a complete hypothetical family tree for Homo sapiens, which must now accommodate the “Link” as this new ape is called. But including this ape, which is dated at 47 million years in the human family tree established by Leakey introduces a problem because the Leakey fossils are dated at approximately 2.4 million years. The problem is that during this 44 million year span this ape must migrate to Africa from China and in the process evolve from ape to hominid. However, the distinction between apes and monkeys is relatively fuzzy but one of the major distinctions is that monkeys are smaller and have a tail. This new ancestor of man is quite small and has a very long tail. So even though the scientific community is calling this fossil an ape and precursor to man, the evolution must also accommodate the transition from monkey to ape to hominid. Of course none of these transitional fossils exist so this 44 million years of evolution are blank. While the 44 million years may be sufficient for this “evolution to occur it does stretch the imagination to accept that this (monkey) ape evolved into Homo erectus or Homo habilius with no corroborating fossils dating from that transitional period.

Of course this opens the door to the additional question of “speciation” So when did the first ape branch off from other apes and precisely when did those apes fragment into the species called Hominids. In fact what proof can be provided that these Hominids are of the Human Species? In order to be of the same species the possibility of inter-breeding must be present and there is no empirical evidence that this happened or was even possible.

So we are left with a fossil called an ape, which looks suspiciously like a monkey which has been labeled a precursor to humans solely on the basis of its opposable thumb. The next available fossil is of an ape-like creature called a hominid on the basis that it appeared to walk upright. The actual timeline is unclear but the first step in human evolution appears to have been between 4 and 6 million years ago but the first actual human is dated to between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago, leaving a very large gap with many gaps and few fossils. Somehow the entire story of evolution appears to be speculative and not really supported by any hard evidence but relies on belief.

HALLELUJAH -- I Believe in Darwin

I have generally used this space to write about various things ranging from science to politics but previously I have not addressed things at a personal level but I feel I must respond personally because my comments on Intelligent Design have prompted the usual attacks from the Dawkins and Darwin true believers. The latest attack cites this WEB site, which purports to describe transitions but it looks like this is more of a description of adaptation rather than transition.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

After reading this I truly wonder about the ability of the Dawkins / Darwin crowd to think critically. They seem to be on a crusade to prove that God does not exist, that Evolution, as stated by Darwin, is 100% accurate, and that anyone who even mentions Intelligent Design is some sort of a yahoo. The recent film by Ben Stein (EXpelled) cites example after example of the intimidating attacks launched against anyone who has the temerity to question Darwin. I never thought my humble little blog, which I admit is more an exercise in ego than anything else, would come under such emotional attack. I feel like I have violated some sort of unwritten law by challenging Darwin and equating what passes for Evolution as adaptation. So I would like make some personal comments in an effort to explain my position and defend myself as an intelligent person who simply is looking critically at Darwin.

First I believe in God. I truly think we are divine creations and not the arbitrary product of some random event that began with pond scum and ended with Homo Sapiens. I believe that God created us in his image but then God is pure energy as are we so God does not exist in some heaven floating above the clouds and has a long white beard. This means that our human form is not the exact image of God and how we came to be may indeed be a result of a line of Homininds. Secondly, I believe in Evolution and I think Darwin got much of it right and when you consider the state of science at the time, his achievement was remarkable. However, I also believe that Evolution as described is incomplete and contains some inconsistencies. The reality is that Darwin's book "The Origin of Species" doesn't really explain the origin of species. The examples cited for Evolution (which are accurate) demonstrate adaptation to changing enviroments and the link referenced above is an example of that. Fish are fish, dogs are dogs, and one species does not change into another -- at least that has not been demonstrated and I don't think the link shows that.

Then there is the issue of the origin of life. This has been a sticking point for science and while they have actually been able to create a replicating non-organic molecule the point that seems to escape the Darwinists is that this is really an example of Intelligent design. In fact the Darwinists are showing increasing signs of religion and religious intolerance in their attacks on anyone who even questions their God Darwin. The demands for the creation of life seem to be mathematically impossible (I am grounded in math and know how to manipulate numbers) so why not look to alternatives -- like Intelligent design. Apparently the Darwinsists are actually atheists so the cannot even consider any challenge to Darwin or the possiblity of an alternative because that alternaitve might lead to God. So instead the Darwinists have postulated Pan Spermia -- life from outer space. Who know's this might be possible but then if this is possible isn't that a form of Intelligent Design and even so why isn't God possible?

From there we go to the problem of speciation and this has never been explained and efforts to breed across species has failed. Since Darwin never actually addressed how species came to be, this had been a problem for the Darwinists and they have generally turned to mutations or cosmic particles creating mutations but these have largely been unsatisfactory so Stephan Gould came up with his "punctuated Equilibria" theory. Essentially Gould was trying to solve two problems the lack of transitional fossils and speciation. His theory may be right although it seems to have a number of holes in it. Essentially his theory states that for some reason one species will go through a series of rapid changes over a period of time measured in thousands of years and not millions and this accounts for a lack of transitional fossils. Gould himself stated that transitional fossils would probably never be found but now he is moving away from that statement, no doubt because to stand by it would threaten his career.

However, let's accept that Gould's theory has merit, so how many thousands of years are necessary for one species to morph into another? Ten, twenty, a hundred, a thousand -- oops that's a million, so it must be less. But we have evidence of animals and even humans that go back a million but still no evidence of those annoying transitional forms. Now Gould like virtually all of the Darwinists equate anyone who challenges Darwin as a "creationist", which really is an example of their towering ignorance as well as intolerance. The Creationists are different than those who ask for a hearing about Intelligent Design. All we are saying is that Evolution is incomplete, that the origin of life is unknown, how life on Earth began is unknown, and that alternatives like Intelligent design should be explored and if wrong demonstrated. Why this meets with such hostility is beyond me.

I have read article after article as the scientific community struggles to prove that Darwin and Evolution are totally correct and they are mostly right,but it is these aggravating details that they can't answer. They can't accept that God exists so rather than even examine that possibility they launch these attacks on anyone who even appears to be something other than a true believer.

This argument over Evolution is simply another manifestation of how science has become increasingly degraded as the requirement for empirical evidence is replaced by belief and statistical analyses. I think a little tolerance and a lot of critical thinking is in order.

Royce

War And The Futility Of Peace Protests

Once again the voices of the morally superior are raised against the military, against war, and in favor of world peace. These well meaning souls don’t seem to have a clue about war, the meaning of war, the impact of stopping a war, the strategic impact of one-sided peace initiatives, or anything beyond their conviction that the world would be peaceful if people just stopped fighting. These are the people who think war is immoral and unnatural because inter-species fighting is immoral. Of course one only has to look at the animal kingdom to determine that inter-species killing and fighting is very prevalent. In virtually every animal species the males fight over females, territory, and resources. In some cases whole packs of animals attack and kill similar packs over territory and resources. Chimpanzees in particular organize war parties and conduct what have all of the earmarks of raids on neighboring groups where killing is the objective. The obvious conclusion is that inter-species killing is commonplace in the animal kingdom but is not viewed as being immoral but simply as the way things are.

The Darwinists believe that man is descended from a common ancestor with apes and is simply another animal. To the Darwinists man is born, reproduces, and dies just like other animals. Man has no purpose, no objective beyond reproduction, and lives a life of futility, but as usual the Darwinists want to have it both ways. On the one hand they know we are just another member of the animal kingdom but being a superior animal we have a concept of morality and of right and wrong whereas animals do not. But if we are an animal like the apes, then why are our wars considered immoral by these people? Clearly the answer must be because we have some inner voice, a consciousness that tells us what is right and wrong. This of course sounds a great deal like a soul, but I digress.

The reality is that World Peace is a dream, much like the Alchemist’s dream of changing base metal into gold. There has never been a time in human history, going back to the Neolithic when man was not engaged in some form of combat. The idea that primitive man lived a life in harmony with nature and at peace with others is simply a dream that these peace advocates have created for themselves but that is all it is – a dream. One only has to look at primitive societies today to see that they engage in warfare that frequently results in fatalities. So the idea that man is by nature peaceful is simply erroneous and those people who mount these peace rallies whose aim is world peace are really indulging in an exercise in futility.

But suppose that these people who are anti-war and anti-military were to gain enough political power that they could put their philosophy of pacifism into practice? Well the history books are filled with examples where various kings and countries have tried to buy off aggressive threats, but it never works – it only delays the inevitable and those that tried to pay tribute always come out the loser. Machiavelli points out that wars cannot be avoided – only delayed. We have examples in our own time. The League of Nations was created as a way of avoiding war, of creating a forum where issues could be talked about and resolved without violence. Well the League did not prevent Mussolini from invading Ethiopia nor did it keep Hitler from invading Austria. The “peace at any price” lobby got control of the British government led by Neville Chamberlain who was so determined to avoid war that he almost singlehandedly brought on the second World War. The United Nations was created for the express purpose of providing a forum for the resolution of conflicts without violence. It was supposed to prevent wars. It has failed and failed miserably. It has not prevented any war, stopped any war, or even come close – it has turned into an ineffectual debating society.

The fact is that war seems to be the natural state of man, but not all men and not all the time. In reality – even in ancient times – only a small portion of the population is engaged in warfare, the majority of the population is law abiding citizens going about their daily lives. Of course these are also those people who are carried off in to slavery, slaughtered by score, and find themselves exploited by the conquerors or even by their own military dictators. So it is only this small portion of the general population – the warrior class – who fight the battles that determine the fate of people, states, nations, or empires. In fact the future of these and the fate of peoples has commonly hinged on one battle, fought by a relatively small number of men, in a small area over a period of hours. These are the battles that yield not just a new order of things but may determine the future of whole civilizations.

It was the battle of Thermopylae that allowed the Athenian city states to organize and fight off the Persians. It was the battle of Waterloo that brought down Napoleon. It was the battle of Hastings that ended the reign of Harold and the Anglo-Saxons and the list goes on and on. Therefore, while the majority of the population may not want war and may not actually fight in a war, their future has always been in the hands of a few warriors. While those who seek peace and protest war may be well intentioned the fact is that war has always existed and it is the warrior who creates and maintains the peace. A nation at peace cannot remain at peace without a strong military defense and any country that disarms is ultimately doomed to destruction and enslavement.

Meta-Science and Evolution

By way of disclosure the ideas being presented here are not original with me but represent a melding of a wide variety of opinions, speculations, and beliefs, but it must be noted that the belief system is not limited to those who believe in God but encompasses much of the scientific community as well.

The battle between Evolutionists, Creationists, Darwinists, Atheists, Scientists, and religionists rages on with no quarter being asked or given. The problem seems to lie in the inflexibility of all concerned and no one seems willing to accept any compromise. You are either pro-science or pro-God and there is no middle ground. After considerable reading it seems to me that we have entered the realm of Meta-Science a place where science and God seem to meet. The Creationists believe that the Bible is revealed truth and literal and some even believe Bishop Usher was correct and the Earth is only 4000 years old. On the other hand there is a large population who believe that God or any spiritual involvement in anything is not just misguided but the height of ignorance. Then there are the Darwinists who have raised Charles Darwin to godhood, much as “Brave New World” did for Ford. However, if you actually read current theories in Quantum Physics and Cosmology and then read other theories and the Bible with an open mind, you begin to see that these things are really not that far apart and it is this area that I call “Meta-Science”.

Of course the first issue is the “First Cause” or “First Singularity” depending on your point of view. The Steady State theory that the Universe has always been as it is has been discredited by Science with the emergence of the Big Bang theory. However, the flaw in this theory is that where did all of this energy come from? Since it created space, time, and mass, all of that had to have existed somewhere and if it occurred spontaneously then how – what was the “First Cause”. The Metaphysicians believe in the beginning there was only a mind-force, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, which was the source of all. This was the “I AM THAT I AM” – the eternal God mentioned in the Bible. The “First Cause” was the self-awareness of God and the Second Cause was desire for creation.

The Book of Genesis Chapters 1 – 5 states that the Earth was without form and God created light. This essentially describes the Big Bang, which was an explosion of energy that established space, time, and mass. Genesis goes on to establish the order of things as the Earth evolved from a molten state through the various stages of evolution – from the bumping and thumping of electrons and protons to the creation of life, in the form of fishes, plants, and animals. This is poetically delivered but does not vary from the current scientific thinking if the term “day” is not taken literally but poetically. Of course the real stumbling block here is the creation of “life” those simple little microscopic collections of primitive electrons and protons that miraculously not only sub-divide and grow but procreate in the more advanced forms.

This problem of “Creation” was first addressed by Thales in 600BC who postulated that water was the source of all things which is not too far from the current position of science who postulate that life began in the seas. Then Plotinus who postulated that from a pure God came emanations or beings as light flows from the sun. This view corresponds with later metaphysical views that God created all souls before he created the universe. But then modern science maintains that the Earth is just an accident and independent of any external cause and that man emerged from some simple state through the natural evolution described by Darwin -- however progressive this idea may be viewed as it was first postulated by Epicurus in 306 BC. But alas the rub is that “simple state” from which all derived is left unexplained by all but science believes it was simply a coincidental collision of random atoms and events – with belief being the operative word. So there you have it – you can believe that God created the life force in those microscopic organisms or you can believe in the scientific view of random coincidence but both require unproven belief. The pivotal issue really seems to revolve around homo sapiens and where did he come from.

The Darwinists believe that man evolved from ape-like animals into hominids which went through various evolutionary stages culminating in homo sapiens. Most of these branches on the human evolutionary tree seem to have gone extinct and gradually mankind evolved from primitive beginnings into the five races of man today. God was never involved and everything happened by pure chance which is what is believed by the Darwinists. However, in a reading of other sources including the Bible we find a very similar description, which can be summed up as follows: God created man in his image but since God is not human that image – whatever it is can be described as “energy”. However, God also created humanity which could be viewed as these first hominids – no one knows how this happened but it is possible it was God as well as evolution. We are told that God created Adam and Eve, the first perfect humans, which means that His first try didn’t work out. The descendants of Adam and Eve mixed with these early humans, which resulted in God destroying humanity in the Great Flood. The human race today is descended from the survivors.

When examined critically these two views are truly not in great conflict, of course one is rather poetic but follows the scientific train of thought fairly closely. It certainly allows for the evolution of man from a more primitive form to the superior creature we have today. The sticking points are really rather few. First of course is what caused the Big Bang – no proof on either side but God is probably as logical as any other explanation. The second sticking point is how life was created. In Genesis 20-21 we find God brought forth the moving creatures, having earlier brought forth the dry land and vegetation. Admittedly this view skips over the actual initiation of living micro-organisms and goes directly to plants, which is contrary to the scientifically accepted sequence of events but then the Cambrian explosion of life lies unexplained so we are left with what do you believe – coincidence or God. If you accept God and intelligent design then everything falls into place but rests on belief. If you reject God then you are left with the first cause conundrum and then your position rests on belief that it can be explained independent of God --take your pick. But it seems to me that God is looking more and more like the logical choice because even police detectives don't believe in coincidence so why should scientists?

Do Atheists Fear God?

It seems that in all of the discussions regarding religion and atheism the focus has been on the defense of God and why do otherwise rational people believe in a supreme being. When challenged the atheists simply state that they are intelligent people who believe in science and would believe in God once His existence was verified by science. But what is not explored is why do these atheists go to such lengths in attacking those who believe in God? Why are they so determined to stamp out God? If God is only a figment of man’s imagination then what possible harm can come to an atheist if others persist in this “God Delusion” as stated by Richard Dawkins? Is it possible that these atheists really fear God and are compelled to erase Him because they are afraid that they – like most of mankind – cannot meet the standard of conduct established by God?

The belief in a supreme being seems to have always been inherent in man because there is evidence that even Neanderthals had some recognition of life after death and of course the Ancient Egyptian’s entire society seems to have been centered on the afterlife. But while the majority of ancient men believed in a supreme power, not all did and in fact history shows us that the atheists have always been with us. We find in the writings of Greece that Epicurus stated his goal was to “get rid of the gods, the immortal soul, and man’s longing for immortality.” This would appear to be the precise goal of atheists today. But Lucretius opposes the gods because “ the burdens they impose in the form of duty and responsibility are too heavy”. But Epicurus goes further and states that the gods seek to enforce “their” rules on man which creates anxiety in men because they threaten to punish us both in this life and in the next. So the obvious conclusion is that these early atheists simply chose to deny the existence of divine power because of their fear of that power. If the gods didn’t exist then they would not have to worry about their conduct but were free to do as they pleased. When you examine the writings of the current crop of atheists this seems to be their motivation as well.

The philosopher Thomas Nagel perhaps best describes the atheist’s point of view when he confessed that he had a fear of religion itself. He stated that “I want atheism to be true. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God – I don’t want there to be a God – I don’t want the universe to be like that.” ‘But perhaps the real motivation for atheists is the exhilaration that they feel once they are free from the encumbrance of God. Karen Armstrong in her book “A History of God” sums up this feeling of freedom that atheists enjoy in her statement:

It is wonderful not to have to cower before a vengeful deity, who threatens us with eternal damnation if we do not abide by his rules.

But not all atheists see the denial of God as liberating and exhilarating; for example Karl Marx described religion as the “opiate of the people” meaning that religion was the drug they used to numb themselves from the misery they found in their lives. The French atheist Michael Onfray speaking in a similar vein said “God is a fiction invented by men so as not to confront the reality of their condition”. But some are just cynical about God and James Haught sees religion as a vehicle where the religious leaders reap personal benefit when he wrote “... churches and holy men reap earnings and exalted status from the supernaturalism they administer to their followers”.

It should be noted that all of these denials of God start with what appears to be two premises; the existence of God must be proven by science, and; God and religion are simply wishful thinking invented by men to avoid accepting the futility of their existence. This is an interesting point because these same atheists accept many scientific theories without proof, so they have a double standard when it comes to God, therefore, this argument of theirs can simply be ignored because the existence of God is as self-evident as many of their unproven theories. So the crux of their opposition seems to be God, the soul, and life after death is simply the wishful thinking of the gullible who are afraid of death. This is a very interesting point but if man’s wish fulfillment caused him to invent heaven then why would he invent Hell? If man invented God then why is God such a terrifying force with such strict standards? Even the gods of the ancients were terrifying and vengeful so if man invented them why didn’t he invent gods that were more friendly and less demanding?

This raises the question of what benefits do atheists gain from not just denying the existence of God but from their determination to stamp out any belief in a supreme being. Superficially it appears that the atheists are Darwinian converts who wish to convert the religious to Darwinism. The similarity to this motivation to missionaries attempting to convert ignorant natives seems to be lost on them – except for the ignorant natives’ part. The reality is that Darwinism is really just a primitive form of religion similar in nature to the primitive religions of ancient man. In effect Darwinism is the law of the jungle, the world of tooth and claw, a religion that assigns man no purpose other than the animal objective of reproduction and survival. Even the Darwinists admit that Darwinism can be summed up in the phrase “survival of the fittest”. So this new religion of Darwinism draws a very negative picture of mans existence and purpose, similar to other religions but without any promise of redemption, forgiveness, or a “do over”. The fact is that atheism is a dismal ideology and any benefit to be reaped from it appears to be the ability to act without fear of retribution.

This lack of fear of retribution may be the major, if not the only, benefit of atheism. In a world without God, man is free to do as he chooses and this is liberating and exhilarating to the atheist. They are free from the constraints of religion and in their eyes they are free to practice virtue, charity, and brotherhood. Of course any priest or pastor could tell these liberated atheists that these are the central themes of Christianity. So it appears that the only benefits to be gained from atheism are those offered by religion. Perhaps they need remedial Sunday School.

God Versus Dawkins v2

In a search of the various atheist sites I was unable to find any proof or demonstration that God does not exist. It seems that the atheists among us are driven by a rock hard belief that God does not exist and a faith in themselves and science that certainly meets if not exceeds the faith of those who do believe in God. What is interesting is how these alleged scientists not only fail to prove their allegation that God does not exist they simply branch off into completely irrelevant points and arguments. For example we have the following quote from the High Priest of the Darwinian faith – Richard Dawkins:

"Paranormal phenomena have a habit of going away whenever they are tested under rigorous conditions. This is why the $740,000 reward of James Randi, offered to anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal effect under proper scientific controls, is safe."Richard Dawkins

This is a rather typical refutation of God as mounted by the Atheists. Here we have Dawkins equating God to Fortune Tellers, Psychic Phenomena, and other paranormal actions. He cites the well known iconoclast James Randi as an authority while simply ignoring the various experiments and tests of paranormal abilities that illustrate that there is some validity to these claims but no solid proof that the results are the result of some paranormal ability. Hence the conclusion is that any belief in God is akin to a belief in ghosts and thus unfounded and fake. It should be noted that Dawkins takes the position that God doesn’t exist and His existence cannot be proven through any rigorous scientific process and is equated to other paranormal phenomena which is also false, if not down right fake. When this same rigor is applied to Darwinism Dawkins – like his fellow practitioners – simply fall back on adaptation and their faith that science will eventually be able to explain these anomalies. They demand that others prove God exists while not demanding that same level of proof for Darwinism.

As an example Dawkins ties evolution to DNA as we see in this quote taken from an interivew:

I think that something very special happens in the universe, when a self-replicating entity, which DNA is -- DNA is probably not the only one, but DNA is the self-replicating entity that we know. When that comes into existence, then there is a whole new game that starts. Before that, you had just physics; you have molecules bumping around, forming new molecules according to the ordinary laws of chemistry. Once, by those ordinary laws of chemistry, a molecule springs into existence which is self-replicating, then immediately you have the possibility for Darwinism, for natural selection to occur.

This actually represents the core belief to the atheists and that is that following the Big Bang the Universe was filled with protons, electrons, and neutrons that sort of randomly collided with each other and formed things like hydrogen, oxygen, and other more complex molecules until eventually – through random chance – they formed a “self-replicating” molecule. Of course he doesn’t call James Randi to verify this claim because it cannot be duplicated under laboratory conditions. In fact this claim falls into the same realm as all of those monkeys hammering away on typewriters until they reproduce all of the works of Shakespeare. The probabilities here probably favor the monkeys.

But when challenged, Dawkins – resorts to that age old response – the ad hominem attack which we see in this quote from the same interview:

"You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution. Now there are plenty of sane, educated, religious people: there are professors of theology, and there are bishops ... and so obviously they all believe in evolution or they wouldn't have gotten where they have because they would be too stupid or too ignorant. So, it is a fact that there are evolutionists who are religious and there are religious people who are evolutionists"

His statement of fact of course is really just his opinion and not an opinion shared by very many people including scientists, which he kindly acknowledges. However, he arrogantly concludes that these people must believe in Evolution because they could not have risen to their positions in life without believing in it. The flaw here is that Dawkins cannot separate his blind faith in Evolution from his blind faith that there is no God – He cannot or does not separate adaptation from Evolution but uses demonstrated adaptation as evidence that God is not involved in creation without actually offering any proof that Evolution is responsible for speciation outside of chance. He does acknowledge that there are people who believe in God as well as Evolution, but he is not one of them because he has faith in science and rejects the mere idea of a God. In fact he believes that any person capable of thought and education cannot logically reject evolution (which he confuses with adaptation) or believe in God without being an ignoramus.

But in a breathtaking display of egotism, arrogance,and overweening self-confidence, Dawkins basically says that he is RIGHT and anyone who disagrees with him is WRONG. This is a vivid example of the open-mindedness one observes in academia today.

God And Atheism

Perhaps the greatest irony with regard to Atheism is that the practitioners display as much faith in their Bible (The Origin of Species) and their god (Darwin) as the typical religious zealot does in theirs. The reality seems to be that the flaws in Darwin’s theory are overlooked and ignored because at its core, Darwinism is really atheism masquerading as science. In fact the way Evolution is taught in the schools and colleges it is in reality a social agenda that is anti-religious and indirectly amoral. But this focus on Darwin simply ignores the glaring flaws and inconsistencies in the theory. The Darwinist – when confronted with these – will admit they exist but expresses complete faith that science will eventually be able to explain them and they in no way justify God or intelligent design. Thus “faith” in “science” is not seen as equivalent to faith in God, so we are left to believe that God believes in Darwin but Darwin does not believe in God.

Of course the first problem with the Darwinists bible – The Origin of Species – is that it really does not address how species originate, it merely addresses how the various species adapt to their environment – changing over time but remaining within the boundaries of their species. This hole in the theory is simply glossed over by the Darwinists who maintain that the demonstrated facts of adaptation lead to the logical conclusion that if changes of the magnitude wrought by adaptation are demonstrated then it is not much of a stretch to believe that one species can be transformed into another. For example they claim that it isn’t difficult to believe that a Lion and a Tiger had a common ancestor, but what they choose to ignore is that Tigers and Lions have been known to interbreed yielding the “Liger” so they are the same species and this argument at least is simply sound and fury signifying nothing. The reality is that despite a long history of experimentation breeders (biologists) have not been successful in breeding across species lines and creating a new species. Nevertheless, the Darwinists and Atheists (if these are not one and the same) would have everyone believe that this has in fact occurred through some random, accidental process that they cannot explain or duplicate but believe happened. These same people deny that there “belief” is not the same as the “faith” expressed by the deists.

The fact is that evolution cannot explain the origin of life and makes no effort to do so. Darwin’s a priori position was that there was initial life – that there was some initial living organism from which all life sprang. The idea that life sprang from lightening striking the primordial ocean made up of hydrogen, methane, water, and ammonia and creating an amino (organic) acid has turned out to be a false alarm because this does not reflect conditions on Earth when life came into being. The origin of life remains “an unsolved mystery of science” yet the Darwinists insist that life evolved from a single cell even though they cannot explain how that single cell came into being. Now Richard Dawkins the high priest of Darwinism cites the genetic code as an algorithm for transcription and reproduction, because it is essentially a binary code similar to what is found in computers. How this single cell came into being complete with the complex DNA and RNA sequences necessary for life and reproduction is attributed to some sort of random event. Dawkins cannot explain this but simply states that “it must have happened this way because we are here.” The idiocy of this statement is lost on the Darwinists but the fact is to believe that some random combination of chemicals could have produced life any different that assuming that some random combination of atoms could have assembled themselves into a submarine or birthday cake? The similarity of Dawkins faith in science to the faith of the intelligent design proponents is lost on his closed mind, but to any rational mind intelligent design seems more logical than some random event that has never been duplicated since the first event.

The fact is that the Universe cannot have evolved through natural selection because the universe makes up the totality of nature – which brings us back to the great singularity known as the Big Bang. Prior to the postulation of the Big Bang the prevalent idea was that the universe was constant, was always there, and would always be there. This was known as the “steady state theory” but once it was discovered that the universe was not only expanding but the expansion was actually accelerating the steady state theory was doomed. Unfortunately the Big Bang led to the only logical conclusion and that was the universe not only had a beginning but it had an end and that it started from some common point. In effect the universe was formed out of nothing because there was no space or time prior to the creation of all energy and mass and space and time. Interestingly the Bible states that the universe came into being at a particular instant as an act of creation by an already existing cosmic force which – for lack of a better term – we call God. Although when Moses asked God who he was or what he should be called he said :I am that I am” Not very explanatory but the Jewish Kabbalah states that when God became aware of himself he became conscious and created all of us as companions. So when the Bible states that God created man in his image it isn’t referring to our human form but our eternal souls.

Naturally this entire description is viewed as laughable by the Darwinists because they are convinced that at some point science will discover “the truth” and will be able to explain how life came to be, how the Earth came to be, and how any belief in a divine being or force is ludicrous. However, these same fun loving Darwinists should go back and read Genesis because it is a relatively accurate description of the Big Bang. Not only is it a good description of the Big Bang it was described and documented by a bunch of nomadic goat herders thousands of years ago.

None of this should be viewed as a refutation of Evolution because much of this theory is accurate – once God got everything started.

Science God and Time

Science studies the material world – the physical aspects of our existence and denies the metaphysical because it cannot be demonstrated by any known scientific method; ergo science rejects psychic energy, telepathy, souls, and God. The scientists assure us that their secular world relies on reason and facts while religious people rely on faith. While this is what the scientists would like you to believe – and they probably believe themselves – the reality is that much of science requires the same level of faith as the religious and metaphysical. In fact, Carl Sagan stated “The cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be”. This statement was made as if it were a known scientific fact – a fact that he undoubtedly believed in – but is really not a fact and is nothing more than a belief – a faith based argument and in light of current Quantum Theory most probably wrong. The Big Bang Theory has certainly thrown a monkey wrench into the tidy little world of science.

The discovery that the universe is expanding and that galaxies are moving away at an increasing rate led inexorably to the Big Bang Theory. This is a theory that is generally accepted – reluctantly accepted – by most scientists today. But if the galaxies are continuing to accelerate as they move away from each other the implication is that at one time they were closer – in fact compacted into one bundle of energy which exploded. Unfortunately this conclusion led to some very uncomfortable questions with some very disturbing potential answers. How big was this primordial bundle of energy? Apparently it was smaller than an atom and we know how large that would be. BUT, the Big Bang created both space and time so where was this bundle of energy in microsecond before the explosion? If the Cosmos is as it has always been then space and time are not an issue – but then why is the universe expanding at an accelerating rate? The obvious conclusion is that Carl Sagan and his supporters are wrong. But if the Big Bang is a true picture of the beginning of the universe then what initiated the Big Bang and where did the energy come from? Science doesn’t approve of God so that answer is disallowed on the basis that scientists have faith that a better answer will be discovered, but what does God say?

In paraphrasing Genesis it seems that the Earth was without form and void and that darkness was upon the face of the deep and God said let there be light (Bang) and there was light and God divided the light from the darkness. This was God’s work on the first day of creation and it sounds like a fairly accurate description – albeit somewhat poetic – of the first moments of the Big Bang. The scientific community likes to shrug off Genesis as a fairy tale suitable only for the gullible because they KNOW that the cosmos is at least 15 billion years old so it could not have been created in six days. Alas imagination is not a strong characteristic of the scientific community but the actual word translated in the Bible as “day” is actually a word that is much less precise and could describe a period of time from a second to an epoch. So perhaps Genesis isn’t too different from the current paleontological record, but that really isn’t the problem. The problem lies with Darwin and Evolution and the scientific community has replaced the Bible with “The Origin of Species” and God with Darwin. Of course the irony is that “The Origin of Species” does not describe how species come into being and the only explanation provided by science is an undemonstrated theory – a belief in how it all came about. So the Darwinists are not really too different than those ignoramuses who believe in God.

Science does not believe in miracles but only deals in facts – demonstrable facts – so Genesis is out and Darwin is in. First it should be noted that everything in the cosmos is built from the same stuff – protons, electrons, and neutrons – all indistinguishable from each other. It also should be noted that all of these are pure energy and that what we perceive as material is in fact energy fields – and that includes all living things. Now Genesis tells us that God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed life into his nostrils – a miraculous beginning but science rejects miracles so there must be a rational explanation of how life was formed without bringing God into it. All of those protons and electrons bumped into each other and formed atoms, the atoms bumped into each other and formed other things which coalesced into the sun, moon, and stars and eventually the oceans, which presumably were composed of water and various salts – but lifeless.

At least some of these errant atoms floating around in the ocean either bumped into each other or were hit by some random cosmic particle that caused them to mutate into a complex molecule, which in turn evolved into a self-replicating simple cell and we were off on the evolutionary pathway to life, humankind, and the space shuttle. Of course all of this is speculation and in spite of years of effort science has failed to demonstrate any of this and it remains theory, which is science talk for a belief which is another name for faith and this brings us back to that aggravating Big Bang Theory.

The Big Bang represents the beginning of both space and time, but everything that has a beginning has a cause – some initiating action. This means that since the material world did not exist prior to the Big Bang then the universe must have had a nonmaterial beginning, which would be metaphysical in nature or spiritual – in effect it was MIND not MATTER that was the initiating factor. It was a MIRACLE – something that seems to be the province of God.

Summary of Evolution

Evolution and faith based science continues to fascinate me. If I understand science this is describes in simple detail how we got to be where we are today – enlightened but relatively pointless pieces of protoplasm. And it all began with – nothing – nothing at all. In the beginning there was nothing, no space, no time, no mass, and no energy. Then there was a huge explosion called the “Big Bang” by scientists and God’s cosmic Belch by Creationists. In this primordial instant there was nothing and then all of the energy in the universe was created in a flash along with the space needed for the energy. At this point it gets a little tricky because where did the space come from? Was it always there? Can space exist without anything occupying it? Did the creation of all of this energy simultaneously create the space required? How much space was created in this primordial moment – all of it – or just enough to contain the energy and that space continues to expand and will continue to expand either indefinitely or until the “Big Crunch”. If the “Big Crunch” occurs what will happen to all of that mass and energy? Will everything disappear or simply restart? If it does then how did it all begin in the first place? The Big Bang of course defies the Law of Entropy but then the Big Crunch follows the Law of Entropy. It’s all very confusing but scientists – who are very wise men—tell us that this is the way it was and they have written very weighty books on the subject so it must be true, We are expected to believe these high priests of materialism and set aside those aggravating questions which they cannot answer.

So if we accept the scientific explanation for the beginning on faith, even though they really don’t have any answers for the really tough questions, we can move on to the next steps. Following the Big Bang the Universe was a whirling mass of energy composed of protons, electrons, and presumably neutrons. These represented the total number that was ever to be created (Laws of Conservation of Energy and Mass). But as these particles whirled about they collided and over time created all of the Stars, the Planets, and of course all of the elements that make these up. Among all of these millions of stars and planets, the Earth came into being and as it cooled the mountains and seas formed. So we now had a planet with oceans but no life – not a trace.

During the period of coalescence all of the minerals were formed, including Carbon – which we observe today in its many forms ranging from soot to diamonds. How it existed in its primordial state is not actually known but some form must have been present in the oceans. This is the logical conclusion reached by those wise men called scientists so it must be true, besides, life began in the oceans (didn’t it?) so Carbon atoms must have been present or even Carbon based molecules. And then the miracle happened, but in science there are no miracles so there was a random chance event. The Sun is constantly showering the Earth with particles and cosmic rays and one of these little particles – who we can call Bob – hit one of these Carbon Molecules causing it to join with another Carbon Molecule – who we can call Stella – and these happily married molecules began to split and reproduce – thus giving life to the Earth. Not a miracle but a chance event that hasn’t happened again and has never been observed, but this must be the way it happened.

Now random Carbon Molecules reproducing like mad only give you more of the same thing and are really not very useful but gradually these common molecules (Clara and Phil) combined and formed Chlorophyll and Pond Scum. Not a very dignified beginning for mankind but then we all have to start somewhere. Of course – as they say – the rest is history. The benevolent Sun continued to shower the Earth with Cosmic particles and these allowed the descendants of Clara and Phil to morph into sea weed and algae. Eventually these rascally reproducing molecules combined to form a worm, which was the next step up the evolutionary ladder because the worm was alive and mobile. Precisely how this worm achieved life is a little vague but it undoubtedly happened because Pre-Cambrian fossils show worm burrows. But the stage was now set the next huge step forward – The Cambrian Explosion.

At the opening of the Cambrian Period the seas were teeming with complex life forms, primarily Trilobites, but Trilobites with eyes, digestive systems, complex organs, appendages, and hard shells. How these came about or where all of this life came from is unknown but we are assured that it was through some random evolutionary event. From this point on, science assures us that Evolution picked up steam and ever more complex life forms evolved, lived, and became extinct making way for newer and more complex life forms. This inexorable march of life resulted in all of species with each one springing from a predecessor and ultimately resulting in Homo sapiens. Of course precisely how this happened is not known because there is no evidence of one species morphing into another, but scientists assure us this is what happens and we must believe them because after all THEY are scientists and learned wise men.

When critically examined evolution seems to be nothing other than a series of random events that occurred millions of years ago but for some mysterious reason have ceased to occur since no new species has emerged in historical times. Nevertheless, we continue to have faith that science and scientists have the answers.

Another Milestone in Evolution

Well it seems that the most recent studies of the fossils from Africa have led to some interesting and disturbing conclusions. First it should be noted that these are not fossils in the true sense and certainly not anywhere near complete skeletons. What these bone hunting scientists have found are fragments, pieces of skull, teeth, and bone fragments. From these fragments these scientists have constructed an entire being, determined the sex, the species, the size, and have named them, apparently laboring under the Amerindian philosophy that to name a thing is to know it. But it isn’t much of a logical stretch to question these conclusions, after all no complete skeleton exists so what they have could be fragments from different animals and at the least they are probably from different individuals even if they are of the same species.

To give you an idea as to how this works – take a cup, a bowl, and a plate from your cupboard and smash them to pieces. Mix all of these pieces together so they cannot be easily distinguished as to their source. Now remove six pieces and throw the rest into the trash. You now have six pieces of what appears to be china but from these you can determine their age, the chemical content, the probable size of the original piece. This is essentially what these scientists have done except they have gone one step further and have concluded that what they have are fragments from a set of china that includes a cup, a plate, a saucer, and possibly a teapot. Naturally these conclusions are written in the most convincing scientific jargon and presented as “facts” when in actuality they have is a lot of speculation resting on a rather tenuous set of facts. After all, they do know they have pieces of china, the pieces are the same age, they have the same chemical content, and the fragment from the plate looks like many other plate fragments, so it is probably a plate.

Of course all of these fragments have been discovered in Africa, many in the Olduvai Gorge by the Leakey family, who have turned early hominids into a family business if not a cottage industry. They have constructed – working from fragments – an entire hypothetical family tree for Homo sapiens. Of course they grant that these fragments are really not human but bone fragments from a Hominid whom they have christened Homo erectus or Homo habilius and who lived approximately 2.4 million years ago. This connection between these fragments and humans rests on the various stone tools found in association with them. The rationale is that only humans are clever enough to make and use tools so these creatures must have been proto-humans.

Several things have crept into this otherwise beautiful hypothesis that is causing some strain. First, it has now been determined – through observation – that various animals make and use tools and pass this information on to offspring and to each other. This behavior has been observed in chimpanzees, baboons, and even birds and otters. So making and using tools does not automatically qualify one for a position on the human family tree. The other fly in this ointment has to do with the bone fragments themselves. Even if we accept that they are pre-humans but of different species it seems that these creatures were contemporary and not the proclaimed evolutionary steps that show development from ape to human. The conclusion is that they must have had a common ancestor that was even older but then no evidence of that exists. So in effect the Leakey family’s revolutionary work becomes interesting but does not bear up under scrutiny. Indeed these early hominids may be related to Homo sapiens but then maybe not, maybe they are just extinct apes.

The problem with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is that it remains unproven. There is no empirical evidence that any species has ever evolved into another species. The fossil record provides ample evidence of species adapting to changing conditions but they remain the same species. Elephants do not become Rhinoceros nor do snakes become alligators and these family trees that purport to demonstrate how various contemporary species are related are pure speculation and have no basis in fact. So the highly publicized “Lucy” fossil that is the bread and butter of the Leakey family appears to be an ape or hominid that may have used tools and might be related to humans if we only knew how they could have changed from ape to hominid to human. Evolution remains a theory and unproven.

The Dawkins Delusion

The rise of militant atheism is getting a great deal of press and Richard Dawkins who has authored the book “The God Delusion” is rapidly achieving the position as the spokesman for this movement. In the interest of full disclosure I have not read his book but a summary of his comments appear on this WEB page: http://horizonspeaks.wordpress.com/2007/05/25/81/

In his interview Dawkins is asked “Why are you against faith?” His response is that he is a person who cares about the truth and that religion is virtually impervious from criticism in our politically correct society. It is his opinion that religion – any religion – is illogical. What goes unsaid here is that his total rejection of any idea of a supreme being requires the same level of faith as the believing and perhaps more. Science has only been able to speculate on the origins of life much less the origin of the species. Evolution is a theory that is on increasingly shaky ground and any belief in it as stated by Darwin requires an increasing level of faith. Even if you believe in the "Big Bang” which in itself requires some level of faith, you are still left with the question of where did it come from and what was the initiating force. The current scientific beliefs on this subject are just as illogical as believing in God.

Certainly Dawkins is correct in his position that certain topics seem to be immune in today’s politically correct society from criticism, but he neglects to point out that one of those forbidden topics is Evolution, the Magical Creation of Life, and that multi-culturalism is bad.

When asked how he describes the billions of people who believe in God, he responds in the most condescending way. Dawkins feels they are “harmless” but that they carry the “virus” of faith. He classifies faith as a virus because it cannot be demonstrated through the scientific methodology. However, he once again neglects to point out that the effects of side smoke, Evolution, and the origin of life have never been scientifically demonstrated either so his belief in “science” requires the same level of blind faith as a belief in God.

Of course there are many scientists today are coming to the conclusion that God cannot be denied, but Dawkins simply dismisses them as being wrong, illogically religious, and people capable of compartmentalizing their life. Perhaps he should look into a mirror because he offers no real answer to this question and once again demonstrates the shallowness of his own position.

Dawkins then goes on to reject religion as the basis for morality in our society and states that atheists like everyone else including those who believe in God, derive their morality from the environment in which we live, not any religion. Morality is derived from newspapers, movies, novels, and parents but Dawkins does graciously admit that religion “might have a minor role to play in it”. Dawkins overlooks the Ten Commandments which certainly are older than the New York Times. He equates morality to equality of women, anti-slavery and points out that these moral grounds are recent. What relevance that has is not obvious because morality is indeed driven by society but then there is a moral foundation that is found in all societies and this universality of belief is ignored by Dawkins – primarily that murder is wrong.

When this point about not killing your neighbors is raised to Dawkins he responds by shifting to an attack on Christianity and both the Old and New Testaments, with a glancing blow to the Qur’an. He really doesn’t answer this question but instead points out that the God described in the Old Testament isn’t a “good” God, but the God in the New Testament is better and that the Qur’an (which he doesn’t mention by name) calls for the killing of Infidels. In effect Dawkins seems to say that the scriptures themselves violate the very moral principles they are supposed to advocate. An interesting point but then its relevance isn’t clear because the morality taught by all religions is practiced every day by billions who accept God as he identifies Himself in many ways.

The supreme irony here is that Dawkins when pressed does admit that while God “almost certainly does not exist” he would accept his existence given scientific proof. The irony of course is that he is willing to accept Evolution, the origination of life by chance, and the creation of the universe without any scientific proof but denies God’s existence on that same basis. The ridiculousness of his argument is highlighted by his statement that “to believe in an unlikely event or a deity only because we cannot disprove it sounds foolish”, which of course is his precise position with his blind faith in science, which has yet to prove Evolution (as opposed to adaptation) or even the effects of side smoke, of the source of global warming, much less the Permian Explosion of life. None of these is supported by any scientific proof other than scientific specultion.

Dawkins then raises the point that if you believe in a God capable of creating the Universe, then THAT God would have had to have a creator. Of course this is a good point and it is addressed in the Jewish Kabbalah, but it is too complex of a response to address here. But he goes on to say that Darwin explains how simple life forms evolve into complex ones. Of course Darwin never addressed how species come to be but only addressed how a species adapts to its environment. Neither Darwin nor Evolution can explain the Permian Explosion nor how a species develops, other to call on the magic of mutation, but no scientific evidence is provided -- just faith. In fact the Law of Entropy is another point that goes unaddressed when talking about how simple things become complex.

In the end it would seem that Dawkins real motivation is power. He appears to be attempting to organize atheists into a group as large as any other religious group who can then lobby on behalf of a “God-Neutral political view" for a better balanced world. How not believing in God would help society is not addressed or how it would bring it into “balance” is not noted. In fact, in listening to Dawkins it becomes very clear that he is just as religious in his blind faith in science as most people are in their belief in God. Dawkins search for the truth seems to be determined by his personal opinion regarding what is true and what is not – in short he has as much faith in faith based science as those who believe in a God have in God based science.

Critical Thinking - Death of

At one time critical thinking was one of the primary lessons learned as an undergraduate. This was taught in a variety of ways but was always viewed as a fundamental learning technique. The rationale was that in order to learn one must think and thinking must be disciplined because undisciplined thinking led to poor learning while a disciplined and structured approach led to better thinking and thus better learning. Good teachers cultivate critical thinking and encourage it in their classrooms frequently using the Socratic Method of questioning and some common questions are:

a) What did the text say or what was meant?
b) What is the source of your information?
c) How did you arrive at that conclusion?
d) What assumptions have you made or what assumptions were made by the author?
e) Are there alternate interpretations?
f) So why is this relevant?

This form of thinking lies at the heart of the “Scientific Method” which rests on these basic facts. These are “Observation” – the phenomena or topic of inquiry must be observed. The second is “Description” so that data presented to describe the phenomena must be repeatable and pertinent. “Prediction” is third so that the data must be consistent through time and the phenomena predictable. The fourth is “Control” meaning that the data sample must be across all possible occurrences and not dependent on selected or opportunistic data. The purpose of this step is to prevent falsification – intentional or unintentional – of data in support of the original postulation. This means that a “theory” must remain a “theory” until there is a sufficient body of evidence that demonstrates the postulation and allows for a predictable result in every case.

Alas this seems to be where the educational system has gone astray because increasingly the classroom has become a bastion of “belief” rather than a center of skepticism. This begins with what is perhaps the most egregious example of “belief” rather than “science” and this is “Evolution”.
This debate began with Charles Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution” as described in his seminal work “The Origin of the Species”. The first problem of course is that Darwin’s book did not address or describe the origin of species, it simply described how existing species “adapted” to their environment. At the time of it’s publication critical thinking was alive and well in the universities and there was widespread skepticism at the time about his conclusions. Darwin himself established criteria that must be met in order for his theory to be proven. To date none of those requirements have been met. Yet “Evolution” is taught in the classroom as a fact and any questioning or critical analysis of this is not permitted. This is a vivid example of how critical thinking is rapidly approaching extinction in our universities.

Most recently there is the issue of “Global Warming”. While the reality of global warming is really not questioned, the debate on causation –as allowed in the classroom – is restricted to human activity. Data from climatologists is dismissed as irrelevant and popular opinions, none of which meet the test of scientific investigation as outlined above. Another example of how critical thinking is being abandoned by our educators in favor of “belief”. However, while these are two of the most obvious examples they are not the only ones.

Perhaps the one that has most impacted our society is that of “side smoke” or “environmental tobacco smoke”. It is widely reported that anywhere from thousands to millions of people die each year from the effects of “side smoke” yet there is not a shred of empirical evidence to support this belief. The entire foundation for this conclusion rests on “statistics” but even these statistics – such as they are – are highly suspect because their source is not disclosed and not disclosed for a very good reason. No death certificate has ever read – cause of death – side smoke. These statistics are almost always couched in terms of “smoking related” but then the statistics almost by definition are suspect because everybody dies of something and virtually everyone on the planet has been exposed to side smoke in some form. Therefore, every death on the planet can be ascribed to “smoking related”. However, does anyone challenge these figures? No - -because students are taught to believe what they are told and not to think for themselves.

But then we get into the metaphysical realm, where challenge is certainly not encouraged. In spite of numerous examples and scientific studies, life after death is not accepted nor discussed, even though it meets enough of the scientific method to at least qualify as a theory. It must be remembered that all reasoning has a purpose and all too frequently the reasoning in our classrooms is aimed at conversion or indoctrination to a belief rather than leading to an independent conclusion. Educated people, schooled in critical thinking cannot be stampeded or swayed by demagogues or those given to flawed and fallacious thinking, so it is no surprise that critical thinking is dying in our bastions of learning where the objective no longer seems to be education but the espousal of belief.