Aliens From Outer Space

Recently the idea that life on Earth was introduced by Spacemen has become more and more popular as the scientific (and non-scientific) community struggles to describe the origin of life. This is exceedingly important because a failure to provide an explanation jeopardizes the Theory of Evolution. One of the key points regarding this theory is precisely what is meant by life? Are we talking about life in general – that is those first protoplasmic pond scum life forms from which all life has evolved or are we talking about humans? At first glance this question may seem to be ridiculous because the Darwinians insist that all life descended from pond scum so Alien Space Men would have had to introduce the scum and then to have guided the evolution from scum to atheists, but this seems to ask for a great deal of planning and patience given the time frames. In fact it is that time frame that seems to be the problem.

The universe is estimated to be 15 billion years old but the Earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old. This means that those Aliens would have had to evolve from something in the first 11 billion years. Of course that is a long time and certainly it would seem to be enough time to evolve from pond scum to faster than light space craft, but is that realistic? The first signs of life on Earth are 3.8 billion years old so those space creatures – assuming that evolution is correct and applies universally – would have had to have to have started their climb up the evolutionary ladder approximately 7 billion years after the big bang. Perhaps that too is possible but it does begin to stretch the bounds of credibility.

We are told that the universe contains hundreds of millions of galaxies and billions of starts and thus billions of planets – some of which must be Earth like based on probabilities. Thus we are left with the idea that the highly evolved Aliens living on a planet lost among those millions of galaxies found Earth and the Sun among those billions of other stars and planets and then decided to launch an experiment in evolution? What is the probability of one our scientists picking one of those millions of galaxies, selecting a star at random, and then finding that that star is suitable for a life experiment? More importantly recognizing that that planet selected at random whose atmosphere was poisonous was suitable for seeding primitive life – what are those chances? But there wasn’t sufficient oxygen to support life until the Mississippian 360 million years ago. So these Alien Space Men would have had to have been incredibly lucky to find the Earth and then the patience necessary to launch an experiment spanning billions of years. Therefore, it seems more plausible that life on Earth was not introduced by Aliens but some scientists think that life was deposited on Earth via some asteroid or other space debris, perhaps it was but that doesn’t explain how life was created it just shifts the point of creation from Earth to points unknown.

But what about humans – did we descend from pond scum or were we “introduced” by some Alien Beings? Of course this puts us back at the probability of some super intelligent civilization finding the Sun and the Earth thorough some random process. Even if this highly unlikely event was true the questions become – why did the Aliens introduce humans and to what purpose? Furthermore, human evolution spans several million years – assuming of course that humans are in fact descended from apes but then are those apes descended from pond scum? Did those Aliens genetically modify those apes discovered in Africa so they would evolve into humans? Does that sound logical to anyone? Anyone? It strikes me that whatever happened and however we came to be it wasn’t the result of Spacemen, probably wasn’t a random event leading to pond scum, and the answer may never be found in science.

Sin In The Garden Of Science and Philosophy

When was the last time you thought about sin? Probably not recently because I think very few people think about sin on a regular basis and certainly not outside of church. I rather think that few people ever consider sin, theirs or others, much less what the ramifications would be in a world without sin. Of course sin does exist, at least for those people who believe in God, but in case you haven’t noticed, there are a lot of people around who don’t believe in God. These atheists have probably always been around but they seem to be growing in number and influence. Dr. Benjamin Wiker addressed how atheists view humanity and the ramifications of Godlessness in his book “Ten Books That Screwed Up The World”. In this book Dr Wiker deconstructs a total of 16 books which view humanity as animals without moral boundaries and the enormous harm these books have done as a result.

The first book he considers is “The Prince” by Machiavelli, who views those who seek power very objectively and without regard to whether or not his recommended actions are immoral. Machiavelli makes no judgments, he is simply offering a pragmatic description of how to achieve and keep power. But when implemented his actions lead to deceit, duplicity, lies, and even murder. In effect Machiavelli describes a world without any moral boundaries – a world where God is not a consideration. But this leads to the question “Does God Exist?” Descartes and his “Discourse on Method” starts by questioning everything and arrives at his famous conclusion “ I think, therefore I am”. Dr Wiker points out the essential flaw here is that Descartes could just as easily have said “I smell therefore I am”. In effect Descartes has ceased to view himself or man as being in the image of God and through rational analysis he concludes he exists – independently of God.

From this starting point Dr Wiker begins to build his case regarding sin, morality, materialism, and immorality through the writings of Hobbes, Rousseau, Darwin, Hitler, et al. These people all share a common thread, which is the denial of sin through the denial of God or that any moral boundary should constrain their actions. Hobbes and Rousseau build a case for materialism and the natural state of man which they see as unbounded by anything other than pleasure and pain, a world in which good and evil does not exist. If man is simply an animal that through chance happens to be more advanced that other animals, then there are no limits on actions other than those that are self-imposed through self preservation but not through any false concept of right or wrong outside of pain or pleasure. All of these proto-atheists were speaking in philosophical terms, but it was Darwin and his books that moved the discussion onto a pseudo-scientific foundation.

Darwin’s book “Origin of Species” was actually not scientific at all but merely a set of observations and some conclusions that described environmental adaptation from which others have concluded the evolution of species. But it was his companion work “The Descent of Man” that described man as an animal descended from apes. This is the work that describes evolution but it also describes man as being composed of what could be “sub-species” with European Caucasians as being the supreme evolutionary result with other races as inferior. This work of Darwin’s is virtually ignored today and when the Darwinians like Richard Dawkins are challenged regarding Darwin’s “science” the response is a facile “he was a product of his time”. This may well be true but it does not excuse his lack of scientific method or demonstrable proof of what he has concluded. Nevertheless it was Darwin’s junk science that was seized upon by Sanger and Hitler to justify their efforts to improve the human race by eliminating “defectives”.

By the 1920”s it had been well established through belief and repetition that man was an animal, descended from lower animal forms, unbounded by morality but in need of improvement. This improvement would eventually be accomplished via evolution, but with the advances of “science” it was now possible to purge the human race of those deemed sub-species, defectives, or undesirables. This idea was first postulated by Margret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. It was she who thought parents should be selected and individuals deemed as inferior or undesirable should be sterilized so they could not reproduce. Notice that this is not voluntary but directed by the state and there is no mention of moral boundaries, God, or sin. Her objective is to improve the human race much like you would selectively breed animals. Naturally her position and support of eugenics led inexorably to Hitler’s decision to eliminate all undesirables from the human reproductive chain. That this led to mass murder was not considered by him in moral terms – it was simply applying science to the problem of racial improvement—i.e. moving toward the superior Caucasian as described by Darwin and Nietzsche.

Following the failure of the eugenics movement, the atheists moved in a different direction but still relying on junk science. Alfred Kinsey decided that his views of human behavior were sound and employed an astounding level of junk science to demonstrate that every weird and perverse sexual preference he had was totally normal and since man was an animal there was no moral constraint that could be applied and thus no sin.

Today the atheists continue their assault on morality and sin as they deny the very existence of God. In their eyes man is an animal, descended form lower life forms, with no purpose, no future, and not obligated to recognize any moral constraint or boundary. I think the time has long past for mankind to look critically at the murders and damage done by the atheists and their denial of sin and God.

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.

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”.

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

Atheism, Dawkins, and Intelligent Design

The Atheist Community has launched an all out attack on Intelligent Design by equating it to “Creationism” which it is not and categorizing “Religion” as superstition, which – at least to some – it is not. It is also worth noting that when attacking religion and religious people the examples seem to always be Old Testament examples and not Jesus and the New Testament, but this is really beside the point. The point seems to be that the Atheists take the position that those who believe in God must demonstrate through the scientific method that God exists while they feel they have no responsibility to prove through that same method that He does not. However, that argument is really moot because the issue really pivots on the accuracy of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

Any challenge to Evolution is seen as an attack on the theory per se and an effort by religious zealots to introduce religion into the study of science, but this really isn’t the case. The reality is that evolution as stated by Darwin has some issues and nagging questions, questions that science has not been able to explain. Of course the Darwinians take the position that just because science doesn’t have an answer that doesn’t mean they won’t have one in the future and therefore, Evolution is factual as stated by Darwin and no questioning of it is permitted. Those who have the temerity to challenge the Darwinians are subjected to intimidation, humiliation, and risk losing their careers. Those non-academics who question Darwin are simply dismissed as a bunch of religious zealots or ignoramuses. But it seems that the Darwinians are really not defending Evolution as much as they are denying God, these are actually atheists who see Evolution as a method to substantiate their belief so Intelligent Design must be denied at all costs, but it is the Origin of Life that is the rub.

The origin of life is a fundamental problem with the Theory of Evolution, because Darwin’s theory only addresses how life changes not how it began. Therefore the challenge for scientists is to demonstrate how life evolved from inorganic matter. This study has been named “Abiogenesis”

Experiments using inorganic components have been conducted for many years and these have been successful in creating organic molecules from inorganic materials but unfortunately these experiments have either started with components toxic to life or yielded results toxic to life. Much of the controversy rests on the primordial atmosphere of the Earth, which is unknown and must be assumed for the experiments. The mathematical probability of DNA being randomly generated is so great as to be impossible. Because of the failure for Abiogenesis to succeed in demonstrating the origin of life the Darwinists have postulated “Panspermia”, a theory which Dawkins supports or rejects as an explanation depending on his audience. Essentially Panspermia states that life originated elsewhere in the universe and landed on the Earth either via comets, meteorites, or even Aliens – Aliens whose technology is far superior to ours and so superior that they would have solved the question of life itself. Of course THAT solution would not be Intelligent Design because no advanced society could possibly arrive at such an unscientific explanation.

Bypassing the very serious question regarding the origin of life, Darwin himself stated that for his theory to be demonstrated three tests would have to be met. The first of these was that the fossil record would have to yield transitional fossils. To date the fossil record has been unyielding and while it shows various animals adapting to their environment it hasn’t shown any of these transitional forms. The second test is Natural Selection: The belief here is that nature will weed out those least able to survive in their environment and through time new species would evolve, through mutation or gradual improvements through genetic inheritance. This would be demonstrated in the fossil record. New and improved forms would exist in the newest strata with the original and more primitive forms being found in the older strata. This has not been the case and there are examples of the older forms coexisting with the newer and these all remain the same species and not new species.
The third requirement for Evolution is Random Mutation: This postulates that new species appear through a series of mutations that gradually change into new species. How this happens is never explained or demonstrated but mutations do occur but how they result is new species has not been demonstrated either in the lab or in the fossil record. To overcome this problem Stephan Gould postulated “punctuated equilibria”, as a means to explain how one species morphs into another taking place over thousands of years and not millions. This theory neatly eliminates the need for the fossil record to show any transitional fossils.

The fossil record also shows that life in the Pre-Cambrian to be very simple –akin to pond scum but with the Cambrian the oceans teem with life. These Cambrian creatures are complex organisms with eyes, mouths, and bodies –some of which are shelled. This is a fact and an inconvenient one that the theory of Evolution has not been able to explain other than to resort to punctuated equilibria, except that no new species have evolved in the recent period and if more than a few thousand years are involved then the fossil record should show the fossils, which it has not. It is important to understand that no one questions evolution in the form of adaptation, what is being question is the failure of the Darwinians to address speciation and the origin of life itself.

Dawkins and other atheists like him would have you believe that they speak for all of the scientific community but they do not – they may speak for the atheistic community which is undoubtedly composed of some scientists but not all scientists are atheists. They cling to Darwin with the same blind faith that others cling to God. They are convinced that science will ultimately answer how life began and that answer will not be Intelligent Design, even though their fall back position is Panspermia, which either avoids the issue altogether or is an example of Intelligent Design because the aliens from space are presumably intelligent and had some objective in mind when they seeded life on Earth. In any case, the complete failure of these academics to explore Intelligent Design is an example of their religious commitment to Darwin and closed mindedness to any explanation that might have metaphysical implications.

Intelligent Design and Modern Science

Since universities were first founded in the Renaissance they were supposed to be places of dialog and controversy, but almost from the outset the university faculties were not open to challenges or input from outsiders, they were closed societies. Nevertheless, science and learning progressed even as the minds of the scientific community quietly closed. Early in the 20th Century Physics was declared finished as a field of study because Newtonian Physics was all there was – until Einstein and Relativity, but then that in turn was replaced Quantum Physics. But the scientists didn’t seem to have learned their lesson from the debacle in physics instead they have with absolute certainty declared that all psychic phenomena, astrology, ESP, Reincarnation, and Intelligent Design are simply superstition and pseudo-sciences. They have made these statements even in the face of some rather impressive supporting observations, but these are topics that are simply out of bounds as topics for a serious discussion but the resistance to these is nothing compared to the commitment the scientific community has toward Evolution and the Big Bang.

Even though the Big Bang is widely accepted by many scientists, it carries some very unfortunate implications, which makes in unacceptable to many in the academic and scientific community. The problem stems from the fact that if all of the energy in the universe was contained in some primordial pinprick or speck of something. It could not exist in space or time because the Big Bang actually created space and time. It could not have had tangible mass because there was no space for it to occupy, so this singularity really has no scientific explanation although the scientists BELIEVE that one exists. Those who BELIEVE the creation of the universe was an act of God are scorned as yahoo’s but the fact that both beliefs are FAITH based is lost on the scientists and those who scorn anything that cannot be demonstrated except when they believe at some point in the future science will find the answer. Of course these are the same people who accept Psychology, Economics, Philosophy, and even some science without demonstrable proof or repeatability so they seem to have a double standard when it comes to Intelligent Design and God. People like Richard Dawkins and other atheists challenge religion to prove there is a God without accepting that they cannot prove there isn’t. They fail to see that their position is as much a faith based belief as the belief there is a supreme being.

The other topic that academia and many scientists reject as a topic of discussion is Evolution. Evolution is not in their view a THEORY but a FACT so no challenge is allowed and no contrary opinion or questions can be raised and to do so is to be ridiculed and exiled from the intellectual community. However, there are some significant flaws in Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, not the least of which is that his seminal work “The Origin of Species” does not address the origin of species but merely reflects how existing species adapt to their changing environmental conditions. However, it seems relatively obvious that adaptation is factual and demonstrable but precisely how a new species arise remains a mystery but even that might eventually have a scientific answer. The real problem lies with the origin of life itself and this is where Intelligent Design enters the picture and where the Darwinists get the vapors. They not only get the vapors their explanations sound like they are coming from a stand-up comic.

Richard Dawkins when challenged to explain the origin of life, stumbled and mumbled and admitted that he actually doesn’t know how life began but that he is absolutely sure it began through some scientifically explicable process, a process that was random and absolutely positively did not reflect Intelligent Design. In the Darwinian World life began as a single self-replicating molecule that led to a single cell which led to pond scum and we are direct lineal descendants of pond scum. When Dawkins was confronted with the fact that science has not been able to create a self-replicating molecule so this theory of his fails the first test of the scientific method which is that the hypothesis must be demonstrable and repeatable, he simple says that we don’t know everything but THAT is how it happened. The similarity to those who believe in Intelligent Design never even enters his head.

When Dawkins is then confronted with the mathematical fact that for the 250 proteins necessary to form the DNA strand for a simple cell to form randomly is 1 in a trillion trillion trillion or to anyone other than Darwinist – zero chance of happening, he resorts to the Theory of Pan Spermia. If this Theory were described by a stand-up comic he would have the audience laughing but the Darwinists and Dawkins really take this theory seriously. Pan Spermia is a theory that aliens from outer space came to the Earth and started life or alternatively some space debris crashed into the Earth and brought simple life with it. The fact that this does not explain the origin of life but merely turns it into a geographic problem is totally wasted on Darwinists who insist that this explains the origin of life on EARTH, ignoring the original question which was how did life originate.

As hysterically funny Pan Spermia is, there is even one that is crazier and that is that life originated on the surface of CRYSTALS. In this case man is descended from rocks, which I presume explains why some people are hard headed, others hard hearted, and some are just diamonds in the rough. Nevertheless, this is actually a serious theory being put forth by Darwinians in their efforts to avoid Intelligent Design. In this theory molecules on the surface of crystals began replicating themselves and evolved into bacteria and thus life began. Precisely how the molecules became self-replicating is attributed to – and I quote “some mysterious force” sort of like “May the Force be with you”. How this “mysterious force” is distinguished from God is not allowed as a topic of discussion because as any Darwinian knows – God does not exist and Intelligent Design is just a code word for Creationism.

The reality is that the more science explores life and the origin of life the more difficult it is to avoid Intelligent Design as an explanation. Quantum Physics as well as Molecular Biology are leading us ever closer to Intelligent Design as the only logical conclusion. Whatever the ultimate answer will be it is certainly clear even now that the Darwinians do not have the answer and that the Theory of Evolution does not have the answers.

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.

Richard Dawkins, The Man of Faith

The Atheists are leading a virulent attack on religion, especially Christianity and in its place they substitute science, particularly Darwin. In fact these secularists actually call themselves “Darwinists” and place Evolution in the center of their new religion, and religion is what it is because their science is based on faith just as that old time religion that they are attacking is based on faith. In fact these Atheists who believe in science have built their new religion on two cornerstones – Evolution and the Big Bang – and each of these requires a leap of faith just as great as any other religion.

The Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago, the exact month and day is as yet unknown. According to the Big Bang model the universe began as an extremely dense and hot state of pulsating energy which suffered a sudden inflation leading to the expansion of energy and space which is still going on. Precisely how much space existed prior to this expansion is unknown although it must have existed – even in a miniscule form for this bundle of cosmic energy to exist. Where this energy came from is unknown but it can only have two possibilities – it was always there or it appeared spontaneously. If it was always there then what caused it to suddenly explode and expand into the known universe? If it suddenly appeared, what were the conditions to cause it to appear and then explode? In the latter case was space always there but empty? Did this singularity also create space? Of course it is stated that this singularity had infinite density which means mass and mass requires space in which to exist so we can conclude that the initial singularity existed in space or that space must have been created prior to the introduction of this bundle of energy.

Obviously the entire Big Bang Theory is much more complicated but complication doesn’t add any substance because it still leaves these questions unanswered. Stephen Hawking and others have postulated the “Big Crunch” meaning that the universe will eventually stop expanding and begin contracting down to a singularity and this may be an eternal cycle. Of course then that poses the question of what happens to Space. Will the current universe which is measured in light years contract and disappear or merely contract to the point where all of the mass/energy in the universe is once again squashed together until the temperature and energy becomes so great that it once again explodes and expands into a new universe. All very interesting stuff but where did this little bundle of mass energy come from in the first place? What created it and what caused it to expand? Science can explain and describe everything that happened within microseconds of this initial Big Bang – what they can’t explain is what initiated it and where all of this energy came from. This question is left unanswered because all of the equations work so science has faith that they understand how the universe was created --- and accept the fact that it was an accident or just a random event, but under no circumstance was God involved because they don't believe in God. A careful reading of Genesis seems to pretty well describe the Big Bang.

The second foundation stone of Atheism is Evolution. The logical flaws of Evolution and the failure of paleontology to meet the criteria needed for proof established by Darwin are well know just as the failure to explain the Cambrian explosion of life is glossed over, but undaunted the Atheists with Richard Dawkins in the forefront continue their war against God. The real conundrum for these Darwinists is “why would evolved creatures like human beings, bent on survival and reproduction, do things that seem unrelated and even inimical to those objectives?” By this they are referencing the universal belief by humans in a God or some cosmic force. Even biologists like Dawkins say there must be some natural and evolutionary explanation for the universality and persistence of religious belief.

In the Dawkins view humans are descended from some primordial molecule that evolved into pond scum and through the intervention of arbitrary mutations over billions of years evolved into apes,who in turn became humans, who became enlightened biologists like Dawkins. Thus humans are simply arbitrary products of reproducing organisms without purpose, past, or future – a pointless existence, unless you accept that the point of their existence is to demonstrate the very futility of their existence. On the other hand, those people who suffer the scorn of the Darwinists believe we are the products of a good and powerful God who has placed us above all other life forms and has created us as his companions and who has given us purpose and direction in this life and in future lives.

Given these two positions and given that Evolution favors those who are best adapted to their environment, which of these two groups seems best able to survive? Which of these two groups is flourishing and has flourished since man was placed on the Earth? The reality is that these Atheists are actually a pathetically small group – admittedly they seem to flourish in academia and scientific circles, but within the population as a whole they represent a minority. In fact it is one of those supreme ironies that some scientists who believe in Evolution attend church regularly and profess a belief in God.

The logical conclusion is that a belief in God is built into mankind and that this belief has been to our evolutionary advantage. That faith based science is really just another manifestation of this evolutionary trait and people like Dawkins believe just as strongly in their religion as those do who believe in God.

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.