Fixing America In 500 Words Or Less

Chapter 31


       Many intellectuals claim some of what Jesus taught was first said by others and, Jesus himself might agree.  Human rights, morality and ethics are clearly based on our shared human conscience, something the Bible, Thomas Jefferson, scientist Francis Collins and the historical evidence all strongly agree concerning and, something many modern intellectuals apparently fail to comprehend. ¹

       Unlike many educators, Jesus is not about stroking his own ego by pushing his own private vision and agenda.  Rather, Jesus taught the “best” ideas that will best help humanity.  Thus, if an idea was already the best, Jesus used it, if it could be improved on, he did so and, if there is a better idea, he taught that instead.

       This is a far more “enlightened” concept of education than typically found in this so-called “post-Enlightenment” age, where various often highly compensated "pop" pundits push a private agenda with supposedly “new” ideas.  As the Bible says, “there is nothing new under the sun.”  Regardless of how we change and re-arrange terminology, greed, hatred, violence, hunger, disease, suffering, sorrow, death and, the solution for alleviating and eliminating them, remains the same.

       We live in an extreme soapbox bias age of defending various political, intellectual, religious and other “sides”, rather than an age focused on a search for what is really true and, what actually might be the best idea.  Modern education is divided into distinct categories like “science”, “history” and “religion”, as if we can divide reality up and expect to have any legitimate understanding of the whole.  Jesus is conveniently placed in “religion” category and consequently, our children remain ignorant of the best ideas in human history and worse, ignorant of any real solution.

       Jesus taught that treating other people like we want them to treat us is the sum of all wisdom; does Richard Dawkins have a better foundation for human rights? Jesus said, “. . .you will know the truth and the truth will make you free”; ² does Mr. Dawkins have a better goal than truth or a better reason than freedom for being educated?  According to Jesus, a common grass flower is better clothed than Solomon; does Mr. Dawkins have a better foundation for environmental awareness?

       Jesus taught the way to honor God is to love our neighbor as ourselves; does Dawkins have a better foundation for morality and ethics?  Jesus taught the way to achieve peace is to put away our swords and spread peace and goodwill, rather than like many scientists, create ever worse weapons, which is the Greek, Roman, American and world civilization history fallacy for "securing the peace".  Does Richard Dawkins have a better idea?

       Why do modern scientists, after 10,000 years of moral education to the contrary, continue to create weapons of mass destruction?  In a post-Enlightenment age of atheism, science and wonder, why do war and poverty still remain with us, just as Jesus predicted?

       According to Richard Dawkins, Jesus is delusional.  Is he smarter than Jesus?  Is anybody smarter than Jesus?  You decide.
3 - 6

{ See Does Science Really Know What is True? for related information. }


1. The existence of our Creator is far more "self-evident" than evidence for all scientific theories combined.  According to the Bible, ". . .for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness. . ."  Thomas Jefferson was a student of the Bible and this is most likely where the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence trace from.  There is overwhelming evidence for our shared human conscience found in the historical record of human civilization, where diverse both connected and non-connected societies share similar base laws against murder, adultery, theft and false witness.

As modern DNA and disease expert Francis Collins and others have pointed out, similar base laws and similar and often identical so-called "golden rules" appear all over the historical map.  According to Mr. Collins, who claims to believe in evolution and refers to himself as a Darwinist, "modern DNA evidence alone overwhelmingly demonstrates design and not random processes".  Likewise, according to Mr. Collins, the existence of similar base laws and golden rules is not at all what one would expect to find from random evolutionary processes alone. According to Mr. Collins, this cannot be rationally explained by modern Darwinian theory. Nor, as some historians have pointed out, can the known history of humanity be rationally explained by natural selection theory.  The history of Cortez and the Klondike Gold Rush for example, overwhelmingly contradict any notion that reproductive survival is the singular sole motivational base drive within human beings.

There are a great many things that human beings believe based on self-evidence and collective human experience; among them that the sun is larger and warmer than the moon, rain will always eventually stop, if we jump we will always fall down rather than up or sideways, warmer weather will always eventually be followed by cooler weather and, seeds planted at certain depths at certain intervals apart, will yield more food.  It is self-evident that sticks and stones shaped in various ways, will make better cutting tools and weapons, which eventually gave rise to the bow and arrow, the wheel, the chariot, the plow, modern farming machinery and weapons of war.  This might seem very basic and obvious today, but this was all learned over many thousands of years through the self-evidence of trial and error.

It is a fair assumption that all historians, archaeologists and educators believe that someone designed and created the pile of large rocks found at Stonehenge.  This has been assumed for centuries, in spite of the fact that no record has been found by anyone who actually observed the construction of Stonehenge, nor is there any single agreed upon theory today for how, when or why Stonehenge was created or who constructed it.  And similar is true regarding pyramids found in Egypt and elsewhere and many other ancient structures, which were readily assumed to have been a result of deliberate design and creation for centuries prior to any legitimate explanation for how they might have come to exist.

According to Descartes' number one rule for the mind, who some consider to be the father of modern science and reason, "Accept nothing as true that is not self-evident".  This statement implies that all of human science and reason is foundationally based on self-evidence, which at the time of both Descartes and later Jefferson, represented the highest bar of science.  And obviously based on the known history of humanity as described in the above two paragraphs, all of legitimate science today is foundationally rooted in the self-evidence of trial and error learned experience.

What is "self-evident" is sometimes true, such as the sun being larger and warmer than the moon and, sometimes not true, such as it was once believed by the majority of scientists that the sun revolves around the earth.  But human history clearly demonstrates that what is self-evident remains true until proven otherwise, which is likely why Descartes would consider this the number one rule for the mind.  What appears to be true and what is apparently true based on the current known evidence, is all human beings have to go by, unless and until new evidence demonstrates otherwise.  To approach science and reason in some other way, as modern atheism attempts to do, is to embrace gross superstition.

We can only know what is true based on the evidence we have available to us and, to attempt to act in some other way, such as pretending atheism is a default position not requiring supporting evidence, leads to arrogance, deception, insanity and confusion.  The true default position of science and reason is, there is a physical reality called "universe".  The default question then becomes, how and why is there a universe?  Atheists do not get a pass on the this default question of science anymore than the rest of us do.  As even Richard Dawkins has publicly admitted that the "God question" is "central" to all of science.  To which can be fairly added, any more than what causes human oppression can be rationally separated from any hope of a solution for murder, rape, theft, false witness, slavery, inequality of wealth, war and what ails the human race.

Prior to the 20th Century, no human being in their right mind would have believed in the existence of billions of galaxies, "zillions" of stars or the possibility of as many universes as there are stars in our own.  We as human beings are bound by what is "self-evident" unless and until someone can provide conclusive evidence to the contrary.  If Richard Dawkins is going to pretend that energy, light, motion, beings of intelligence and conscious awareness and a universal reality of quad-zillions of intricately designed parts within parts, can magically appear without anyone designing or creating it, then he is required by the rules of science and evidence, to provide significant substantial legitimate conclusive supporting evidence.  Anyone claiming to be an advocate of education, science and reason, who does not base their fundamental positions on evidence, is being fundamentally hypocritical.

We shouldn't let anyone with fancy degrees attached to their names kid us, who are in fact deceiving themselves.  Major historical scientists from prior to Aristotle through Einstein all credited our Creator with being behind the observably universal reality.  The onus remains on atheists and agnostics to overturn previously held scientific positions based on overwhelming verifiable supporting evidence, just as the onus remained on Copernicus, Newton, Darwin and Einstein to overturn previous majority held positions.  The onus is not on the sane among us who base our faith in God on the overwhelming universal evidence.

Atheists like Richard Dawkins and agnostics like Neil DeGrasse Tyson often state that science requires verifiable evidence.  Quite literally, millions of experiments can be set up demonstrating that the existence of energy and motion requires primary cause.  While on the other hand, neither energy or motion can be verifiably demonstrated to exist unto themselves.  If either Mr. Dawkins or Mr. Tyson were fairly adhering to the rules of science and evidence, they would of course side with the necessity of Primary Cause, which is overwhelmingly verifiable, rather than pretending there is probably no God or might be no God, neither position of which is either rational or scientifically verifiable.  A common problem all atheists and agnostics share is one of lack of supporting evidence.  Neither atheism or agnosticism have any foundation in evidence and thus, they don't belong in a legitimate scientific discussion, other than to point out how truly baseless such positions are, nor do they have any value to either science or the human race.

As noted, the true default position of science unlike many atheists pretend, is that there is a physical reality called "universe".  Anyone claiming the universal reality is not created, probably not created or might not be created, is required to provide supporting evidence, based on the known history of science and accepted rules of science and evidence.  Modern atheists and agnostics remain victims of irrational "blind faith" belief in the greatest of all known human superstitions, unless and until they can provide conclusive supporting evidence for the magical appearance of energy, light, motion and the observable universal reality. There is no middle-ground or compromise regarding what is and what is not, evidence-based science.  There is no evidence supporting a position of no God, probably no God or maybe no God.  It remains far more likely that magician David Copperfield can actually cause a 747 airliner to disappear into thin air.

2. John 8:32

3. Though they by no means agree with each other, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, DaVinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Faraday, Darwin, Einstein and a very long list of noted historical and current scientists credit our Creator with being behind the universal reality.  This does not prove there is a God, but it does prove that unlike many atheists pretend, many intellectual giants of human history do in fact, believe the universe is designed.  Modern militant atheists often try to marginalize belief in God by pretending that everyone who believes the universe is designed believes in what is called "intelligent design" theory, which is clearly a lie.  Modern Francis Collins for example, claims to believe in both God and evolution, as do many of his peers, while Collins strongly denies believing in intelligent design theory.  If atheists had even a splinter of scientific evidence to stand on, they wouldn't need to resort to such obvious overt dishonesty.

And unlike many modern educators conveniently leave out, Charles Darwin in five out of six editions of his most famous work credits our creator with being behind the universal reality, writing in his final edition of "On the Origins of Species": "There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one".  Unlike many atheists pretend today, who vainly imagine they can speak for Darwin, there is no evidence whatsoever that Darwin either did or would have deliberately misrepresented his position on the most fundamental of all questions, nor if he did so, could anything else Darwin ever said be trusted.

It is more likely that Darwin left this out of his first edition because the vast majority of his peers believed in God.  And, only after his first edition had created quite a stir and much confusion as to his own position concerning God, did Darwin then find it necessary in every subsequent edition to clearly state his own position.  Although no one can speak for Darwin, this is fairly a more likely conclusion, based on the known historical facts.  Darwin often openly debated with religious leaders and others who challenged his theory, rather than showing any signs of fearing or otherwise bowing down to either them or the wishes of his family (as modern atheists claim, as if they somehow would know).  See Can Charles Darwin be Trusted? for more information.

In a well-known 1879 letter preserved in the Darwinian library written shortly before his death and thus representing a lifetime conclusion, Darwin writes one "can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist".  And in the same letter, he writes he has "never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God".  Darwin goes on to say that his mind is "mainly agnostic, but not entirely".  Because agnosticism in the past often referred to distrust in religious and other human claims about God, rather than questioning God's existence, Darwin could without contradiction, credit our Creator with being behind the universal reality, while remaining "agnostic, but not entirely".

According to Alison Pearn, leader of the Darwin Correspondence Project at Cambridge University, "Darwin welcomed debate because he believed that, eventually, the better ideas would win."  And according to James Moore, philosopher of science at the same University of Cambridge, who is the author of several books on Darwin, ". . .Darwin believed he was showing something even more grand, that God's hand was present in all living things."  what Charles Darwin believed neither proves nor disproves there is a God, but it does prove that modern atheists often overtly lie and otherwise, consistently misrepresent the known facts of the history of science, including the written positions of Charles Darwin himself.

The conclusion of both a recent PBS documentary and a recent book published on the life, writings and science of Issac Newton, is that if Newton had not believed in God, he most likely would never have become a scientist, so much was his belief in God entwined with his scientific and other intellectual endeavors.  And the same can be fairly stated concerning Michael Faraday, a far more important historical scientist then generally given credit for being.  Various statements concerning God by Albert Einstein are well-documented, while many others lack authenticity and because there are many of both, it can often be difficult to know what Einstein actually believed.  The Encyclopedia Britannica concludes that Einstein was not an atheist, while Walter Isaacson, who is considered the greatest living authority on Einstein, not only agrees but says that Einstein became extremely upset when atheists tried to misrepresent him as being one of their own.

In an interview as reported by G.S. Viereck, Einstein says: "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist.  We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages.  The child knows someone must have written those books.  It does not know how.  The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is.  That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."  And in regards to Jesus, again as reported by G.S. Viereck, Einstein says: "As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud.  I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.  Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. . .No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus.  His personality pulsates in every word.  No myth is filled with such life."

4. It has been postulated by some modern scientists that physical reality of existence has always been, that is that matter, the "stuff" that the universe is made of, has no beginning or ending.  Given that some scientists believe that there may be as many universes as there are stars in our own, it might be fair to conclude that creation goes on forever and ever.  This leads to the only rational scientific conclusion, that a) there is a God and b), God is eternal. Any other explanation for the known observable and/or speculative reality falls, as the author of "Letter to the Romans" might say, rather "short" of explaining what we can observe and otherwise detect.  Jesus said, "before Abraham was, I AM".  Eternal Creator or Eternal Creators rationally explains the existence of ourselves and the rest of the universe.  Neither atheism or agnosticism rationally explain anything at all and unlike Jesus, neither offer any hope, help or solution for human oppression and what ails the human race.  Atheism and agnosticism represent nothing but blind baseless superstition, having no foundation in evidence.

5. The teachings of Jesus not only assume there is a God, Jesus claims that everything he taught us was taught to him by his "father in heaven".  All of the known evidence demonstrates creation.  There is no evidence of random appearing universal or any other physical reality, nor is here any evidence of random self-generating energy or motion. Seemingly random motion and random appearance and disappearance of particles in the world of the very small occurs within a closed universal system of motion within motion and parts within parts.  Unlike many modern scientists pretend, there is no evidence for true randomness within the observable universal reality, any more than a being the size of an atom perched on a spark plug observing seemingly "random" sparks and dust particles flying around as the car was being driven down the road, would be observing true randomness; as if there were no automobile, no driver, no road, no planet the road is on, no solar system, no galaxy and no universe, as if such scientists could somehow, possibly know.  No one should allow a scientist or educator to lie to them or otherwise misrepresent what science may know, as opposed to what modern science absolutely does not know nor has any way of knowing.

Perhaps two far better questions we should be asking are:  How do we get God to help us treat each other better?" and, "Is God willing to help us clean up the global mess that our science and education and so-called "age of post-enlightenment" is leaving for untold future generations to somehow cope with?  What does Richard Dawkins have to offer towards eliminating global hunger, pollution and weapons of mass destruction, theft, rape, murder, inequality of wealth, war and rumor of war, that Jesus hasn't already taught us for free?  And if he doesn't have anything better to offer, why isn't he promoting the ideas that Jesus already outlined for us long ago?  What kind of educator insists on teaching our children ideas that are not as good, rather than teaching our offspring the best ideas?  Who among us wants to invest vast sums of valuable time and hard-earned money, only to be short-changed with inferior ideas and blind-faith superstitions of magically appearing universes, when the best ideas are readily available for free?

6. There was a time not long ago when many scientists believed disease spontaneously arises from rat excrement, sewage and other piles of garbage.  It took a while, but eventually such an assumption was entirely discredited.  Nevertheless today, there remain among us scientists with various important-sounding titles and expensive degrees attached to their names, who not only would have us believe disease spontaneously arose, but that all of the unfathomable complexity of life along with the rest of the entire universal reality, somehow magically randomly appeared.  See also, Does Science Really Know What is True?.

Bonus Chapter


       Atheists often claim “atheism is the default position; atheism makes no claims, it just disbelieves in God or gods.”  This statement is a lie unto itself, containing several claims: 1) Atheism makes no claims; 2) It's doubtful there is a God; 3) It's doubtful the universe is created; 4) Atheism is the default position; 5) The Encyclopedia Britannica definition of atheism is wrong.

       Rather than providing evidence for his baseless positions as required by the rules of science and evidence, Richard Dawkins instead attempts to ridicule and marginalize Francis Collins and other scientists who believe in God.  He compares their scientific positions to belief in the spaghetti monster, while branding everyone who believes in God as delusional.

       This is a gross contradiction of logic, science and reason and the very worst example of trying to compare apples with oranges imaginable.  The obvious reason being, if we eliminate the spaghetti monster, we aren’t left having to explain our existence along with the rest of the universe.

       The true default position of science is that there is a physical reality called “universe”.  The default question of science then becomes, how and why is there a universe?  Even Richard Dawkins agrees with this, stating that the “God question” is “central to all of science” and cannot be ignored.

       Mr. Dawkins then contradicts himself, claiming the “onus” belongs on those who say there is a God.  The “onus” remains on every human being to explain how and why there is a physical reality called universe.  Atheists and agnostics don't get a pass on the “God question” any more than the rest of us.

       And, the history of science clearly demonstrates that the onus belongs on anyone contradicting previously held positions of the majority of scientists.  To say atheists aren’t required to provide supporting evidence for their baseless superstitions, is to say Copernicus could have just stood up in a roomful of his peers, claimed the earth goes around the sun and then sat down, without bothering to provide any supporting evidence.

       This is exactly the position many modern atheists take, a clear violation of the rules of science and evidence and established history of science.  Another well-known Richard Dawkins position is that the universe "represents nothing but blind, pitiless indifference", exactly as one would expect if there is no God.

       This statement openly contradicts the known evidence of Isaiah, Jesus, Gandhi, Schweitzer, Tubman, Keller, Parks, King, Chavez and literally billions of people who demonstrate the opposite of “blind, pitiless, indifference”. Obviously if people, who are part of the universe, have concepts of both good and evil, the universe clearly does not represent nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

       What is called “science” rarely represents 100% proven fact.  Rather, science when applied accurately, is the best conclusion based on the known evidence.  And, science requires evidence to overturn previously held scientific positions.

       Is Richard Dawkins really a scientist?  Would the Greeks allow someone making such claims into the Academy or ban him for life?  You decide.

Click Here to Go Back to Contents

Click Here to eMail the Author

Copyright © August 20th, 2003 by Richard Aberdeen.
Copyright © Jaunary 7th, 2014 by Richard Aberdeen.
Copyright © February 1st, 2014 by Freedom Tracks Records.

No part of this material may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including printing, photocopying, recording or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher and signed by the author. Inquiries: Freedom Tracks Records or requested via eMail.  Essays entitled Revolution and Revolution ~ Side B are open copyright and may be reproduced and distributed as desired.