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.

White Cavemen

The Theory of Evolution continues to be taught and accepted as factual even though this theory has never met the strict rules of science. The fact is that all of the evidence offered in support of evolution is evidence of adaptation to the environment and not of speciation. How one animal morphs into another entirely different species has never been demonstrated but the glib answer has always been – mutation. That may be but it is not supported by transitional fossils. What have been described as transitional fossils could just as easily be examples of adaptation, so how species emerge remains speculation and is not supported by the fossil record or demonstration. And this brings us to human evolution, where we came from, how we got to be different colors, and why some people are blonde.

The Leaky family has turned human evolution into a family business claiming that humans evolved from a group of hominids in Africa. This claim rests on a series of bone fragments about three million years old and a few primitive tools. Recent discoveries of mostly bone fragments show that hominids are also found in Asia but what relevance this has to human evolution remains a little vague although scientists are convinced that these hominids are really the root species of Homo sapiens. That is the current belief is that these hominids adapted to their environment and through these adaptations they became human. That may be true but somewhere along the line the root species of apes became hominids – a separate species. Precisely how this happened is believed to be through mutation, but when you actually examine the whole series of proto-humans there seems to have been a lot of mutation going on without any real evidence.

In fact a large part of the belief that humans are descendents of these apes and hominids partially rests on the fact that the DNA of chimpanzees and homo-sapiens is almost identical with the chimpanzee’s being 98% human. Of course this proves nothing at all because that is tantamount to saying that Helium (a gas) and Lithium (a metal) are essentially the same because there is only one electron difference. Or to put this into another perspective the entire universal is composed of identical electrons, protons, and neutrons but how these are combined makes things unique and very different. So the DNA argument means nothing and now back to the hominids and why are cavemen white instead of black.

There is no evidence of primitive man in Africa just the hominids and the early humans are found in Europe. These early humans – the Neanderthals are believed to be white skinned. There is no evidence of primitive man in the Americas but there is some evidence in Europe and Asia, but no hominids. The hominids seem to be only in Africa but there is really no evidence of primitive man in Africa – just those hominids, which consist of bone fragments. But if those hominids evolved into humans – even primitive humans – then it seems logical that there would be some evidence of that. Some primitive art, skeletons, weapons, etc, but there is nothing in Africa other than what is believed to be primitive stone tools. However, primitive tools prove nothing by themselves since even some birds and other animals use tools, including Chimpanzees.

For the sake of argument let’s assume that Leaky is correct and that those hominids are in fact the human root species that separated from apes. Well apes are black with straight hair while modern Negroes are black with wooly hair. But all cavemen – that is primitive men in Europe are seen as white with blonde or brown straight hair. So the argument seems to be that the early apes separated into apes and hominids in Africa. Those hominids evolved into primitive humans and migrated to Europe, without leaving any evidence of their evolution in Africa but arriving in Europe as primitive humans with no evidence of their hominid beginnings. On arrival in Europe the black skin and straight black hair they started with became white skin and blonde or light brown hair in Europe. According to the rules of evolution these changes were driven by the European environment.

Black retains heat much better than white so why did the black skin of the hominids change to white in a colder climate? Currently the answer to this question is sexual selection both for skin and hair color. That is those early pre-humans with the lighter skin and hair were more sexually attractive leading to white cavemen with blonde hair. Assuming this is correct then where did the black and brown skins come from? We must believe that these early humans migrated back to Africa with white skin and evolved black skin because the darker people were more sexually attractive in Africa or that their evolutionary changes were environmentally driven. So we must believe that whites evolved through sexual selection while blacks evolved through environmental adaptation. This whole evolutionary structure begins to test the boundaries of credibility.

What about those brown skinned people that inhabit the Americas? All of these people we are told migrated to the Americas as homo-sapiens from Asia or somewhere undetermined. All of these early Americans have straight black hair with brown skin, not black or white. So is their brown skin the result of adaptation to environment, sexual selection, or mutation? What about the Amerindians? These people are seen as the Red Race and are not related to the brown race that surrounds them. What is their origin? There is no evidence they evolved where they are found but that they came from somewhere else, but where since they are not found anywhere outside of North America. Furthermore all of the races (out side of the Australian Aborigines) have black hair while only the white race has blonde, red, and brown hair. If these are mutations then why are these found only in whites? Are the other races immune to mutations?

So we must believe that humans evolved from apes with black skin, they migrated to Europe and evolved into white skinned people, who migrated to the Americas where they became brown skinned. The black skinned people either remained in Africa without leaving any evidence of their early evolution or migrated back to Africa from Europe and evolved back into black skin with wooly rather than straight black hair. The origin of the Australian aborigines and the American Indians remains a mystery unless they are examples of mutation. So the origin on Homo Sapiens remains unknown but speculative. Why Cavemen are white is based on sexual selection while blacks are the result of reverse adaptation. None of this is very convincing.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

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.

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.

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.

Cavemen – White – Blonde

Science is a wonder and sometimes you wonder what they know and what they don’t know and if they know they don’t know it. In fact science seems to follow the patter of observing, theorizing, speculating, repeating, and then converting the speculation into common factual knowledge because everybody knows it. Evolution falls into this category but rejecting any part of Darwin makes you a nincompoop because everybody knows that Evolution is a fact although those “facts” are examples of adaptation and not speciation. And that brings us to the question at hand which is the evolution and descent of man.

We are assured that the Leakey family – who have made a cottage industry out of early hominids have identified the root of humanity and that man evolved out of these hominids. These early hominids are given wonderful sounding scientific names and we are told they evolved into primitive men and migrated north. This migration is necessary because outside of a few bone fragments and some rather primitive tools there is no real evidence that primitive men lived and evolved in Africa. There is some small evidence of “Rhodesia Man” but that is a pretty small reed on which to rest the evolution of man in Africa.

The interesting thing is that modern apes are black skinned with black hair although the Orangutan has orange hair but black skin. Depictions of hominids and early primitive men are shown as black skinned with black hair. The hair is always shown as straight and not wooly which is a characteristic of modern Negroes. Neanderthals are found in Europe and not in Africa or on any other continent. Cro-Magnon men seem to be indigenous to Europe as well. These early men are always shown as white skinned with black hair. There is some evidence of primitive men living in China but once again there is scant evidence and the modern Orientals all have black hair and sallow skin. So some questions seem to be in order.

Where did Negroes come from? Did they migrate from Europe to Africa? If they developed in Africa why isn’t there any evidence of that development outside of a few bone fragments, none of which are from Homo sapiens? Where are the art, the tools, the campfires, and the bones that would indicate that primitive men originated in Africa? When precisely did the black skin and woolly hair develop? If these early primitive men did in fact evolve from these ape like hominids where did the white skin come from? If we assume that this lack of evidence is irrelevant and that man did develop in Africa ( a huge leap in logic) and migrated to Europe then what happened to the black skin and woolly hair? There is no contemporary evidence that while Neanderthals were merrily hunting mammoths in Europe they had any relatives in Africa. Furthermore the Neanderthals and later Cro-Magnons’ are always viewed as white with straight black hair, so where did the blonde hair come from or the red hair or the brown? Of the five races only Caucasians have hair that is some color other than black? Why is that?

We are assured by scientists that the five races developed out of a common ancestor who originally lived in Africa about three million years ago. The fact that there is virtually no evidence of this evolution from ape to man is blithely ignored because it is common knowledge that this is true. However, from that three million mark established by the Leakey’s there is a large amount of time elapsed before Neanderthals appear so this evolution from ape to Neanderthal to modern man must have happened in the blink of the evolutionary eye. But we are still left with the question of where did the Negroes come from? Where did other races come from and why only the whites have different colored hair?

Science assures us that Homo sapiens migrated from Asia to Alaska and drifted down to South America. Unfortunately the Eskimo’s appear to be Asiatic and with brown skin but not related to the Red race or even the Brown race. The South American Indians do not appear to be related to the North American ones and even if they all indeed are related they clearly are not indigenous and certainly not blonde and all are Homo sapiens. There is no evidence that primitive man ever existed outside of Europe and parts of Asia. We are shown bone fragments of hominids, which in fact are simply early ape-like creatures and indeed might actually be apes for all we know. Given this sketchy evidence scientists state that these are really the root stock of the human race and man developed in Africa, migrated to Europe and Asia and eventually to North and South America.

All of these theories and suppositions may be true – or not – but the questions remain – if Negroes came first where is the evidence? If cavemen were white where did the other races come from? While the evolution of man from apes (hominids) is pretty thin the evolution of the races is non-existent. So why are cavemen white? Why is the Caucasian the only race with blonde, brown, and red hair? When did the woolly hair of Negroes develop? In fact – since primitive men seemed to be consistent and successful why did the races evolve at all?

Science Under Attack

The daily news continues to document the continuing decline of science from a search for the truth into a faith based system where belief and opinion transcend facts and observation. It is hard to pinpoint precisely when this decline began but it was already well advanced when Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring” launched its’ attack on DDT. Even though contemporary scientific observation contradicted Carson’s postulations the media and the usual bevy of environmentalists unburdened by facts demanded in the name of SCIENCE that DDT be banned. The irony of this position was totally lost and DDT was banned even though Carson’s work was later proved to be a fabrication if not a complete hoax. Nevertheless DDT remains banned even though Malaria which was largely controlled by DDT is reaching epidemic proportions. Even more ridiculous is the recent report that ties the shrinking population of Polar Bears to the pollutants “like DDT” that are condensing out of the atmosphere and into the food chain affecting everything from plankton to polar bears. Of course DDT hasn’t been manufactured in over 40 years and the actual total population of polar bears seems to be growing. But science is no longer burdened by facts but is being driven by some sort of weird belief system that rests of the premise that humans are a destructive force and must be controlled if not eradicated and at the least reduced to cave man status.

Following DDT the next great assault on science came with the attack by lawyers aided and abetted by a group of “scientists” with a social agenda, on smoking. The initial cry was that smoking caused lung cancer and the lawyers made millions sucking the blood of deep pocket corporations. It is now considered common knowledge that smoking causes lung cancer even though there has never been any empirical evidence supporting that claim. In fact as the number of smokers declined the incidence of lung cancer remained constant. Clearly this could not true and there must be some other connection – hence the attack on side-smoke. The actual EPA report which was widely unread actually stated that there was no connection and even using their A PRIORI starting point (which allowed them to eliminate any contrary finding) there was never any valid statistical correlation and even worse there has never been any empirical connection to tobacco smoke and lung cancer. Nevertheless and undaunted by facts the media and that same group of social reforming busybodies have managed to successfully curtail individual rights which they disapproved even though there is not one shred of physical proof supporting their position. This is faith based science where a belief in a position is sufficient to take corrective action in the form of legislation.

But this attack on science even by scientists or at least those who claim to be scientists has escalated to the point to where empirical science seems to be disappearing altogether. There has always been a level of discomfort between science and religion. This discomfort began to grow with Darwin’s book “Origin of Species”. At the time Darwin was attacked by the scientific community starting with the simple fact that his book did not discuss or even address the origin of species but merely described how a given species adapted to its environment. With the growth of paleontological knowledge several problems arose beginning with the origin of life itself. Then there was the problem with Cambrian explosion of life. Life in the Precambrian was largely very simple life forms and pond scum followed by highly developed and diverse life forms in the Cambrian. Then there remains the problem of speciation. How species develop is BELIEVED to be through mutation and evolution, but no proof of this exists and transitional fossils either don’t exist at all or are believed to exist based on some conclusions and opinions.

However, Evolution and the problems associated with it really pale when the total picture is examined because today science seems to be nothing more than statistical studies, with very little examination of any facts or empirical evidence. So we see statistical studies that show that cancer is caused by such a variety of things that virtually everything is a carcinogen. Statistics are used to justify taking a variety high priced drugs to lower cholesterol and to control type two diabetes but the reality is that some people with low cholesterol have heart attacks and some people with high cholesterol don’t. Virtually everyone today has type II diabetes because the metric for determining the diabetic threshold was lowered from 199 to 100. This was done arbitrarily and precisely what causes diabetes remains unknown, but science marches on.

Beyond these statistical studies are the new “social” diseases like alcoholism and obesity. Precisely how one catches these diseases is unknown but clearly something must be done by the government or science or someone other than the individual in order to stamp out these diseases. The idea that both of these diseases are the direct result of personal decisions and actions by the individual involved is totally rejected. Instead there are calls by the usual coterie of self-described intellectuals and celebrities to stamp our fast food, to force children to eat only healthy food no matter how unappetizing while launching one excuse after the other so individuals no longer have to suffer the stigma of being called a drunk. Why is obesity being subjected to direct action but not alcohol? Well all of those folks calling for action on trans-fats and fast food are almost universally on a diet and only eat tofu and sushi anyway so it only seems right to force the rest of the population to conform to their dietary standard. But those same people drink wine – only good vintages though and then you have the advertising dollars, besides prohibition didn’t work anyway, so rather than address the disease of alcoholism the solution is excuse it as being something out of the control of the individual.

Where is the science behind all of this? Where is the outcry from the scientific community about this distortion of science? The silence is deafening as science slowly slips away from empiricism and into beliefs, opinions, and excuses.

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

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.

Why Are Cavemen White ?

Science is convinced that man evolved from an ancestor shared with modern apes. This is based on a number of bone fragments found in Africa and a DNA analysis that shows chimpanzees and man have approximately 98% common DNA. Of course this is tantamount to saying that the only difference between Helium ( a gas) and Lithium ( a metal) is one electron. Everything in the universe is composed of protons, electrons, and neutrons that are precisely alike but quite obviously how these things are combined makes a great deal of difference, therefore, to conclude man and chimpanzee have a common ancestor on this evidence is really not convincing.

The Bible – given some latitude for poetic license – describes the Big Bang and subsequent development of life on Earth fairly accurately, but it is much less clear when describing the emergence of man. Adam was the first man and Eve the first woman but then there was Lilith who seems to have preceded Eve. Then there was Cain and Abel who somehow acquired wives and the source of these wives is a little mysterious but at the least indicate that there were humans in existence BEFORE Adam and Eve. So how could they be the FIRST humans? The scientific community doesn’t find this to be a problem because they don’t believe anything in the Bible anyway. To them it is just a story and even if it isn’t humans evolved from a common ancestor with apes and there were various branches of humans that simply died out with Homo sapiens being the only survivor. But neither view actually addresses why cavemen are always shown as being white when our alleged nearest relatives apes and chimpanzees are clearly black. While evolution might explain why there are different races, their origin and rationale remains a mystery, but is it?

According to the psychic Edgar Cayce the Earth – as stated in Genesis – was created in phases over billions of years and was filled with animals in various forms. The soul companions of God, given free will – began to visit the Earth and inhabit these animal forms where they could experience the physical aspects of the Earth, including sex. Although initially they could enter and leave these animal forms gradually they became entangled in the physical and this gave rise to the first human form. While this could be viewed as the first human or human-like race, they had no genetic boundaries and their intermixing with the animal kingdom gave rise to the monsters that fill our myths and legends – Satyrs, Centaurs, Nymphs, and the various mixed forms seen in Egyptian Art. So there were some human forms (hominids?) prior to the creation of the first perfect human, which answers the question of where the wives came from as well as where all of these mythical creatures came from. But these were the creatures destroyed by God when the perfect human forms – who had genetic barriers for mixing species – emerged.

Now let us consider the five races of man. Science tells us they evolved from a common ancestor and perhaps they did, but their origins were scattered across the globe according to the metaphysical sources. The White Race originated (evolved?) in what is now Turkey and Iran and spread to the Caucasus and portions of India. The Yellow Race emerged in what is now called the Gobi Desert and Indo-China but the Gobi Desert wasn’t a desert at the time and part to the original land mass where they emerged is now sunken beneath the sea. The Brown Race emerged in what is now known as the Andes region but the larger portion of their source lands is submerged beneath the Pacific Ocean. The Black Race is erroneously believed to be the first race even though only the hominids are shown as black while Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon are shown as white. However, the Black Race did emerge in what is now known as the Sudan and Upper Egypt (which is a geographic joke because Upper Egypt is actually Southern Egypt). This leaves the Red Race which has always been an anomaly for science. They are a separate and distinct race who are clearly not related to the Aleuts who are oriental in origin or the Brown Race who occupy South America and Mexico. According to the metaphysical sources the Red Race – the Amerindians – had their origins in Atlantis and migrated to North America where they completed their evolution. It must be remembered that these races did not just appear out of nowhere but evolved over a period of time, but they were always separate and distinct races with a common genetic base. The point here is that Evolution as described by Darwin is essentially correct but not totally. The Five Races of Man are in fact products of Evolution in the sense of adaptation to existing conditions. The contentious point is the creation of Man himself did we evolve from a common root with apes or are apes simply members of the animal kingdom and man was the divine creation?

The Bible says that God created Man in his image and this statement has led to centuries of confusion because man looks into the mirror, sees his reflection, and concludes that God looks like him. Of course this is an erroneous conclusion because God is not in a human form but is a spiritual or possibly even an energy form, not flesh and blood. So God created our spirits, our souls, or the indwelling spirit that fills our bodies. So the manlike form that we see is the product of creation, possibly the result of Evolution and certainly the product of adaptation, but our spirits are without doubt divinely created. The primitive men we see in illustrations are really just speculations and may or may not be true. The reality – according to the metaphysical sources – is that early man was Red, not white or black and the races sprang from the Red race.

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?

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.

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.