Fixing America In 500 Words Or Less


Chapter 69

DOES SCIENCE REALLY
KNOW WHAT IS TRUE?


       A leading 21st Century scientist publicly stated, “science is what is true”. But, is this a fair and honest assessment when weighed in the balances of the known evidence?

       Six hundred years ago, scientists believed our sun circles the earth.  Even after Copernicus died, many insisted he was wrong.  When examined with any fairness, what is called “science” has a historical track record of constant revision regarding even the most fundamental of concepts.

       According to historian Will Durant, medical research was set back decades because scientists refused to accept evidence for blood circulation.  Not that long ago, many scientists believed disease spontaneously arises.  Two decades into the 20th Century, the majority believed in an eternal static universe containing one galaxy.

       Due to modern DNA and other emerging evidence, significant revisions are taking place in virtually every scientific field.  While educators expound on the “universal laws of physics”, some scientists openly question if there are any such laws.  Meanwhile, emerging evidence suggests universal highly advanced mathematical design.

       Many astrobiologists today believe life existed before our own solar system.  Modern theory goes something like this:  What causes life emerged from the big bang, is refined in stars and seeded from supernovas and other cosmic events, ending up in accretion disks surrounding newly formed stars.

       Then, as conditions allow, life probably arises on innumerable planets, most likely in many exotic forms unknown to us.  Whether arising from a singular point on earth, long assumed by Darwinian evolution or, life arose multiple times from many or even “zillions” of original forms, remains entirely unknown.

       Some geneticists openly challenge standard evolutionary models.  While it is indisputable life adapts and changes, exactly how and why such changes occur is hotly debated.  How to define “species” remains undetermined; the term itself is a human construct, part of an invented system artificially classifying life according to our very limited view and understanding.

       According to the Encyclopedia Britannica article “Evolution”, science doesn't know how, when, where, why or in what form life arose on earth.  The article “Virus” concludes, in regards to viruses alone, science knows almost nothing compared to what there is yet to learn.

       And, though what science defines as “species” arise and die out, life itself marches on, in spite of catastrophic events on earth and far greater cataclysmic occurrences within the larger universe.  For all we know, life existed prior to the universe we inhabit and, may continue to exist forever and ever, long after our current universe passes away.

       Many today embrace the worst imaginable science fiction, claiming without a shred of supporting evidence that the universe arose from random, blind, unguided processes, as if a microbe in a petri dish could honestly say no one created the dish, there's no scientist observing it's actions, no laboratory, earth, solar system, etc., as if the universe we and the microbe inhabit somehow magically appeared.

       Does science really know what is true?  Or are certain 21st Century scientists just randomly pulling our DNA chain?  You decide.

Chemistry for Life May Have Been Created in Space, Not on Earth
Key Ingredients for Life May Have Come from Beyond Earth
Life May be Transported Throughout the Universe in Space Dust
Did Phosphates Necessary for Life Come from Deep Space?
Ancient Microorganism Fossils Indicate Life Common in Universe
Evidence Natural Selection Theory is Inadequate
Challenges to Darwinian Evolution at Fundamental Microscopic Level
Microbes Controlling Actions of Host's Genes
Bacteria Recycle Broken DNA (Indicates Mutations Are Not Random)
Bacteria Acquire Resistance from Competitors
Bacteria "Fish" for New DNA (Indicates Mutations Are Not Random)
Archaea and the Scientist Who Scrambled Darwin's Tree of Life
Viruses Can Transfer Genes Across Superkingdoms of Life


INTRODUCTION TO NOTES:      

There is no intention within the following notes to dispute the irrefutable fact that life is constantly adapting and changing.  However, given modern-day knowledge of the size and scope of the universe and the modern-day fact that many actual practicing scientists believe life probably existed prior to our own sun and solar system, it is a great error to assume science knows either when, where, how or why life came into existence either on earth or within the larger universal reality.  Those who pretend modern-day evolutionary theory explains the origins of life are clearly promoting science fiction, as no part of evolutionary theory has ever satisfactorily explained either how or why life exists.  Obviously, given the size and scope of just the known universe, it remains highly unlikely that science ever will know either when, where, how or why life first came into being.

It is also not the intention of anything contained in this work to insinuate in any way that human scientists don't have a right and even an obligation to change their minds as more evidence comes to light.  Rather, the intention is to challenge people living in a 21st Century world of often grossly dishonest and otherwise misleading information, to think outside of our narrow-minded cultural and scientific box and, to question and openly challenge scientists, educators, religious leaders and others pretending to know what no human being could possibly know.  Just because science didn't know until fairly recently that there are billions and perhaps trillions of galaxies in the universe, it does not logically follow that they didn't exist.  Because scientists only recently discovered a purpose for the human appendix, this doesn't mean it is just "left over evolutionary baggage" as previously assumed.  And likewise, because some scientists today claim that only 10% of our DNA has a purpose, while others claim at least 50% and probably considerably more has a legitimate purpose, this does not in any way, shape or form indicate that any of our DNA is "junk", as many rather dishonest evolutionary biologists have long carelessly assumed.

Because Charles Darwin and others were correct in deducing that life adapts and changes, this neither scientifically, rationally or otherwise satisfactorily explains the origins of life, any more than a fire inspector who determines the cause of a fire is arson, can without further information, rationally explain either who set the fire or why it was set.  Unfortunately here in the 21st Century, many scientists and educators have the very bad habit of pretending the theory of evolution explains what in fact no scientist or other human being either knows or possibly could know, by virtue of the fact that our window into universal reality is very small and our view is extremely limited.  Consider for example, how difficult it would be for a micro organism living inside of us to adequately and accurately explain how a human being either came into existence or functions.  Apart from attributing the known universal reality to an Eternal Creator, it is far more likely that a virus inside of a microbe inhabiting a petri dish in a science laboratory could scientifically explain the existence and complete functionality of the Milky Way galaxy, than we humans could conclusively explain either how or why life or the larger universal reality came into existence.

Although it cannot currently be verified by evidence, it is logical to assume life exists in abundance throughout the universe.  If we assume, as many practicing scientists today suggest, that life exists elsewhere and, we consider that stars and solar systems are born and eventually cease to exist, it logically follows that there is no evidence life is either evolving forward or otherwise progressing forward or, that human beings are any more "advanced" than a bird, a spider or an ant.  Rather, the known evidence strongly suggests that all forms of life on earth are more or less equally advanced and well-adapted according to their own particular needs and circumstances.

Birds, spiders and ants for example, can all do things that human beings and so-called other "higher" animals cannot do.  And unlike many very narrow-minded people pretend, it is a very fair assumption, given that we human beings often do likewise, that God creates for both practical, artistic, reproductive and other purposes all woven into the same grand cosmic design, rather than the extremely unimaginative and myopic view of some, that beauty, coloration and design found in abundance on earth is only for reproductive advantage.  Why would any rational human being conclude this, given that we ourselves often design buildings, machines, even paper clips and virtually everything else with both practical and aesthetic purpose woven into the same deliberate design?  We can fairly and safely rest assured that our Creator can do at least as well as we can do.

And thus, based on the modern-day 21st Century evidence, the processes and functionality of life are perhaps more fairly and accurately described as "life in transition" rather than evolution.  As far as we know, life most likely arises and dies out on innumerable planets, only to emerge again in some distant future planetary system.  This clearly leads to a conclusion of "life in transition" or "creation in flux" rather than "evolution"; given today's knowledge, much of it unknown at the time of Darwin, evolution is at best a highly misleading term.  Living forms of life may emerge and die out, but life itself marches on, in spite of great cataclysmic events.  Based on modern evidence, it appears that the entire universe is created to be in a constant state of transition.  As such, life could not logically survive if life was not likewise, created to be in a constant state of transition, adapting and changing to an ever-changing environment anywhere and everywhere life happens to find itself.

The fact life is in a constant state of change does not explain either how or why life exists, an obvious lesson seemingly difficult for many scientists and educators to fully grasp.  It is non-scientific, dishonest and without foundation to pretend, as some modern textbooks and even some supposed 'scientists' claim, that life somehow magically "evolved" and "self-designed" from scratch, magically transforming from lifeless matter into a living being.  In particular to young impressionable students, this is a highly misleading foundation-less position not shared by either Charles Darwin or any honest human being.  One might fairly ask, how would the authors of such textbooks or anyone else know and, how does this or any other lie represent either a reproductive or any other advantage?

What science doesn't know or have any way of knowing doesn't equal "random", "blind", "unguided" "natural", "purely by chance", "entirely random" mutations, "naturally selects", "no breeder", "unguided evolution", "self-designed" or any of the other baseless nonsense promoted in many university textbooks and various popular media and unfortunately, far too often by actual practicing scientists who should be ashamed of themselves and otherwise know better.  What we don't know or otherwise fully understand does not equal no Creator, nor will it ever equal no Creator.  To pretend there is no God, probably no God or might be no God, is to embrace gross superstition having no foundation in evidence.  As discussed in more detail to follow, to honestly state that the universe is not created, probably not created or might not be created requires supporting evidence, the same as any and all other claims in regards to the observable physical universal reality.  There is abundant overwhelming evidence that everything we can observe or otherwise detect requires Primary Cause, while there remains zero evidence supporting any other conclusion.

Many atheists today arbitrarily state out of very thin air that "atheism is the default position", "atheism makes no claims, it just disbelieves in God or gods" and thus, the burden of proof remains on those who believe in God.  Such claims are erroneous, containing several obvious lies:  1) To say that atheism is the default position represents a claim and a very wrong claim at that and thus, it is a lie to state atheism makes no claims; the true "default position" of science and reason, agreed to universally by scientists and other educated people, is that there is a physical reality called "universe"; the true default question then becomes, how and why is there a physical reality called "universe"; atheists and agnostics, if they wish to be taken seriously at all by the rest of us, remain just as much subject to this same two-pronged default question as the rest of us do.  2) "Atheism makes no claims" is another claim and a false claim as already noted and thus this contains two lies in and of itself; 3) God, unlike "gods", is primarily defined today as Creator of the universe and thus, to "disbelieve" in God is to claim the universe either did or could have come into existence in some way other than by deliberate design and creation, which is another claim and infinitely greater lie, because there is no known evidence to support such a position.  No small wonder that many major thinkers throughout human history, from Socrates to Paul to Descartes to modern scientist Francis Collins, have easily exposed atheists as liars and frauds.

Unlike such weavers of self-contradiction pretend, when fairly adhering to the accepted rules of science and evidence, any and all claims in regards to the observable universal reality require supporting evidence.  Consider for example, if Copernicus had stood up among a group of his peers proclaiming that the earth goes around the sun and then sat down, without bothering to provide any supporting evidence.  Atheists and agnostics are required by the accepted rules of science and evidence to provide supporting evidence backing up their foundation-less superstitions.  To pretend otherwise is to openly deny the known history of human civilization, science and reason.  Some agnostics claim that agnosticism is the starting point of all knowledge and understanding and, we must start from zero.  The error of such fallacy is twofold: 1) Because we are born within a human culture of lies, traditions and contradictions and are subject to instruction by others long before we are old enough to research and reason for ourselves, no human being can begin from zero; rather, like the late Pete Seeger pointed out, we spend much of our existence trying to separate false from true, rather than beginning with a clean slate.  And 2) No human being can start from zero because both we humans and the rest of the physical universal reality already exist.  And thus we all, regardless of what we believe or fail to believe, remain subject to the fact that a physical universal reality exists.

According to astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson, "nothing in science is 100% verifiable".  While some might argue that we are 100% certain the sun is larger and warmer than the moon, it is essentially true that the vast majority of what scientists strongly "believe" is based on what historians refer to as a "preponderance" of evidence.  Much of what is called "science" today however, is often based on far less evidence than this.  What is often presented as "science" in modern textbooks and modern public video presentations, is based on what a small majority and sometimes, even what only a minority of scientists believe, with significant percentages of their peers not in agreement.  For example, while some evolutionary biologists today continue to insist only about 10% of human DNA matters and the rest is so-much left over "evolutionary baggage" "junk, many modern geneticists claim that at least 50% and possibly ALL of our DNA does in fact, have a legitimate purpose.

History clearly teaches us that lack of evidence doesn't equal either non-existence or no purpose.  For example, just because neither Newton or Galileo had any knowledge of the vast cosmos we in the post-Hubble Telescope world of today take for granted, this doesn't mean that the billions of galaxies we know of today didn't exist.  And likewise, even though medical science until fairly recently didn't understand why human beings have an appendix, today it is well-established that our appendix does in fact have a legitimate purpose.  History teaches us that what science believes today will more than likely, be either significantly if not entirely discarded within a few generations or even less.  Likewise, the history of science itself strongly implies that eventually, ALL of our DNA will be known to have a legitimate purpose.
Non-Coding 'Junk' DNA Determines Male Gender
Scientists Fail to Study Majority of our Genes
Plant “junk” DNA Proves to be Highly Valuable
"Junk" DNA Apparently Not Junk After All
Human Brain Development Guided by “junk” DNA
Junk DNA Functionality; Differences Between Humans and Chimps

Agnostics like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and atheists like Richard Dawkins often insist that science requires verifiable evidence.  Quite literally, millions of experiments can be set up demonstrating that the existence of energy and motion requires a 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 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 of which position is either plausible, rational, reasonable or scientifically verifiable.  A common problem all atheists and agnostics share is 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 non-scientific and baseless such positions are, nor do such superstitions offer any hope, solution or other value to either science in general or us human beings in particular.

Even Lawrence Krauss, one of the more hardcore atheists alive today, admits science can't explain how the big bang could randomly go boom.  According to Krauss, science can explain “a millionth of a millionth of a second after the big bang”, which has no more validity than saying if someone sets up a row of dominoes and then uses their finger to set the first domino in motion, science can explain a millionth of a millionth of a second after they do so, how the row of dominoes could have somehow magically self-designed and then self-arranged and fallen over by it's own volition.  Such hocus-pocus tomfoolery isn't worthy of the least plausible science fiction imaginable.

Professor Krauss is credited with being a leading expert on "dark energy", which unlike invisible light, cannot be demonstrated to actually exist by any known scientific method and, unlike the term implies, whatever it may be is not necessarily either dark or energy.  The existence of dark energy is largely predicated on the implication that if it doesn't exist, then current theories of energy, light, gravity and/or motion are wrong.  Several of Mr. Krauss' fellow scientists have suggested that just perhaps, current theories are wrong and, dark energy may not even actually exist.  And, in light of the known history of science, even if dark energy does exist, current fundamental theories may still be wrong.  While many of the ideas of Krauss depend heavily on the mystical existence of universal laws that somehow magically exist unto themselves, without any Creator or "brains" behind the universal reality, some of his scientific peers openly question if there are any such laws and even if there are such a thing as universal laws, if we humans can even begin to accurately and adequately, fully understand and explain them.
String Theory Not in Sync With Dark Energy
Dark Energy May Not Exist
Dark Energy and Dark Matter May Not Exist
Accelerating Expansion of Universe May Be Illusion

Regardless of whether or not dark energy exists, one might fairly ask, if Mr. Krauss believes in dark energy based on such shaky implied evidence, why does he openly deny the existence of our Creator, based on the astronomically overwhelmingly far greater inferred evidence of energy, light, motion, quad-zillions of integrated parts within parts, finite beings of intelligence and conscious awareness, the existence and complex dual language of DNA, the overwhelming historical evidence for our shared designed human conscience, along with the rest of the grand cosmic universal design?  How does one justify belief in dark energy, dark matter, black holes and invisible light while openly denying the overwhelming evidence for design, for which there is far more evidence than all of the rest listed combined?  How can mathematics accurately predict the existence of particles prior to their discovery, if the universe is not in fact designed?

Many modern scientists and other educated human beings say they believe in both God and evolution.  Charles Darwin himself stated "one can be an ardent Theist and evolutionist" and, Darwin several times credited our Creator with being behind the universal reality and processes of life.  Human beings can create computers and robotic machines that in turn, perform many functions on their own.  And, human beings can create lottery machines and other types of equipment which can in theory, generate randomness.  Modern scientist Francis Collins has proposed that perhaps God created a giant computer-like programmed universal machine, which in turn engages in random regeneration and otherwise, performs many functions on it's own.  Whether or not this is true, it is a very safe bet that our Creator can more than likely do at least as well as we can do.

What human beings can observe or otherwise detect, including in the quantum reality, is a “result” of a theoretical big bang and thus by definition, is not random.  What may appear to be random from our view within the universal fishbowl, may not in reality be random from a larger universal and beyond perspective.  For example, seemingly 'random' sparks and dust particles, if observed by a being the size of an atom, perched on a spark plug inside of an automobile engine as the car is being driven down the road, would not in reality be random, as they would have a cause attributable to a larger reality the atomic-sized being remains unaware of.  (Discussion on randomness in more detail follows later.)

Because we cannot see God and are otherwise trapped within three dimensions plus time inside of a theoretically much larger reality, theoretically consisting of several more dimensions, there is no way of knowing with any certainty how much or how little our Creator interacts with creation behind the veil of our observable reality.  No scientist or other human being can honestly say there is no God, probably no God or might be no God, any more than one can fairly claim the sun will disappear from the heavens tomorrow and, the burden of proof remains on those believing otherwise.  There is no evidence for the existence of energy, light, motion, universal or any other "laws", biological or any other processes, quad-zillions of parts within parts, conscience awareness, intelligence or the existence of life, perception, coloration or even something as rudimentary as human mathematics, apart from Primary Cause.  As such, atheism and agnosticism represent the greatest of all known human superstitions, having no foundation in evidence and thus, no value to what is called "science".

While several other sources are also linked, the two main sources used for additional information are the Encyclopedia Britannica and Science Daily website.  The reasons for this are, the Britannica is written by practicing scientists, educators and others who are considered experts in their particular field; important articles are extensively peer reviewed and often revised as new evidence and information becomes available.  And, the Science Daily website (linked below) posts many articles each week regarding the most recent emerging evidence and research available to the general public; research conducted by scientists from all over the world.  As such, it is not an "opinion" based website but rather, it merely posts and reports on various new findings and diverse opinions of practicing scientists from around the globe.  Neither the Britannica or Science Daily are infallible sources, nor are any other scientific, historical or other intellectual sources likely to be without error.

Unlike many educators and popular articles on science pretend, modern science doesn't know how life came to be, nor can scientists today adequately explain why life exists or even what life is.  According to the article "Evolution" in the Encyclopedia Britannica, in regards to evolution and current scientific knowledge for how life came to be, "many matters are less certain, others are conjectural, and still others, such as the characteristics of the first living things and when they came about, remain completely unknown".  Astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson agrees science doesn't know either how life arose on earth and more importantly, presumably how life originally came to exist within the larger Cosmic reality, which will likely remain a mystery very far over the collective heads of humanity.

A minority of scientists today don't believe in the big bang theory, while more question the existence of dark energy.  Many astronomers and physicists suspect fundamental theories of energy, motion, gravity and light may be somewhat or very far off from what is actually true from a larger universal view; several have proposed very different ideas challenging mainstream views.  A Princeton scholar stated on NPR radio that there might be no such thing as "universal laws" and, that so-called "laws" of physics may differ throughout the universe depending on one's position in space; our perception of apparent "laws" being affected by the bending and distortion of the fabric of space/time itself.  Obviously, finite beings like ourselves trapped within three dimensions plus time on a comparatively infinitesimally tiny planet, have no way of knowing if there are any such thing as universal laws.  And just as obviously, what is assumed or otherwise appears to be true to the majority of scientists today, is often as not, gone with the emerging evidence of tomorrow.

As a good example, in 2017 some scientists reported there is evidence that life may be transported between worlds in space dust; if true, this negates everything previously believed from Darwin forward regarding the evolutionary origins of life.  As stated previously, what science doesn't know doesn't equate to random, blind, unguided, natural, evolutionary processes, nor does replacing the word "creation" with the word "natural" or the word "evolution" alter the truth regarding either how or why life exists.  It is perhaps fair to say that modern science knows less about the true origins of life than ancient Neanderthals knew about the complexity and vastness of inner and outer space.
Life May be Transported in Space Dust, it's Origin Remaining Entirely Unknown
Study Indicates Molecules Necessary for Life May Form in Space
Ancient Microorganism Fossils Indicate Life Common in Universe
Ingredients for Life Revealed in Meteorites

In 2014, Professor Geraint Lewis from the University of Sydney's School of Physics announced that smaller galaxies don't behave as modern theories of gravity and motion predict they should.  According to Professor Lewis, “This is a big problem that contradicts our standard cosmological models.  It challenges our understanding of how the universe works including the nature of dark matter.”  And he continues, "Throwing out seemingly established laws of physics is unpalatable, but if our observations of nature are pointing us in this direction, we have to keep an open mind.  That is what science is all about."
Smaller Galaxies Not Acting as Modern Physics Predict

Since the mapping of the human genome and recent emerging evidence, several modern geneticists are openly challenging the predominance of Natural Selection over other reasons why life adapts and changes, while other scientists suggest the long held evolutionary "tree" theory of life evolving from a singular source in the ocean may be entirely wrong.  Rather, life may have independently arisen many times in diverse places all over the earth.  This is strongly supported by a discovery of multi-cellular macro and micro life existing in clay sediments 2.1 billion years ago, pushing the existence of complex life back 1.5 billion years longer than previously assumed by the long held Darwinian "tree" model of life arising from a singular source in the ocean, which it is fair to say has been significantly if not entirely discredited.  Life may well have arisen from "zillions" of original no longer existing forms from all over the earth and the larger truth that remains is, science just doesn't know.

Scientists have recently discovered the early earth may have been much cooler and wetter than previously assumed and, may have supported life over 4 billion years ago.  Current evidence for microbes traces back 3.8 billion years and complex macro life may have existed much earlier than the 2.1 billion years currently known, evidence for which may yet be discovered.  Science doesn't know if viruses and/or microbes and/or, some other unknown original form of life arose in one place, hundreds of places or even "zillions" of places all over the earth.  Some scientists propose life may have arrived on "space rocks", again plausibly numbering in hundreds to "zillions" of original identical or nearly identical forms, which would also explain similarity of DNA.  To claim that all of life today arose from a singular source in the ocean, as many Darwinists continue to insist, is at best, only one of several more-or-less equally plausible explanations.

Archaea, which used to be classified as bacteria, are a different type of single-celled micro-organism.  Like bacteria, they have no cell nucleus.  These tiny forms of life transverse across super-kingdoms of living beings, casting significant doubt on the standard evolutionary "tree model" still religiously taught in textbooks today.  This fact alone strongly indicates that life may have arisen from all over the earth, possibly tracing from a no longer existing tiny living thing even smaller than a virus, which some scientists have referred to as a "pre-virus".  Such an original tiny form of life may have been deposited already alive by space rocks or otherwise, may have arisen from all over the earth, numbering in countless trillions upon trillions.  This would also explain similarity of DNA found throughout the kingdoms of living beings today.

According to a 2018 New York Times science article on archaea:  "We are not precisely who we thought we were.  We are composite creatures, and our ancestry seems to arise from a dark zone of the living world, a group of creatures about which science, until recent decades, was ignorant.  Evolution is trickier, far more complicated, than we realized.  The tree of life is more tangled.  Genes don’t just move vertically.  They can also pass laterally across species boundaries, across wider gaps, even between different kingdoms of life, and some have come sideways into our own lineage — the primate lineage — from unsuspected, nonprimate sources."

Note how in spite of the overwhelming evidence (see linked article at end of next paragraph) since the 1977 announcement of archaea being a completely different kingdom of life than bacteria, even in August of 2018, most scientists are extremely reluctant to even dare propose that life may have arisen from many diverse places or from all over the earth.  This would be a complete reversal of what has been taught for generations in universities on a global level, presented as a blind faith orthodox evolutionary religion.  An orthodoxy which neither students or faculty are rarely allowed to ever challenge or even dare question, without fear of expulsion or as some teachers have reported, losing their jobs and even losing tenure for daring to suggest Darwinian evolution may in fact, be even a little bit wrong.

The New York Times article linked at end of this paragraph, adapted from a book by David Quammen, “The Tangled Tree: A Radical New History of Life,” goes on to conclude:  "Among the essential points of the upheaval that Woese (discoverer of archaea as a completely different kingdom) helped initiate are three counter-intuitive insights, three challenges to categorical thinking about aspects of life on earth.  The categoricals are these: species, individual, tree.  Species:  It’s a collective entity but a discrete one, like a club with a fixed membership list.  The lines between this species and that one don’t blur.  Individual:  An organism is also discrete, with a unitary identity.  There’s a brown dog named Rufus; there’s an elephant with extraordinary tusks; there’s a human known as Charles Robert Darwin.  No mixing refutes the oneness of an individual.  Tree:  Inheritance flows always vertically from ancestor to descendant, always branching and diverging, never converging.  So the history of life is shaped like a tree.  Now we know, thanks to Carl Woese and those who have followed him, that each of those three categoricals [of Darwinian theory] is wrong."
The Scientist Who Scrambled Darwin's Tree of Life
Viruses Can Transfer Genes Across Superkingdoms of Life

The truth here in 21st Century is, science doesn't know if life arose from a singular source or from many or even "zillions" of similar or same now extinct original sources and the larger truth is, scientists may never know how life arose even on our own planet, let alone how life first came to exist within the larger universal reality.  What is certain is that the theory of evolution as still being taught in public high schools and major universities around the globe, is entirely inadequate for explaining either how, where or why life first came to be.  There is no evidence whatsoever that life ever has or ever will magically "evolve" from scratch from "random, blind, unguided natural processes".  There is far less evidence supporting such baseless and foolhardy science fiction, than evidence for the previous now thoroughly discredited 'science' of disease spontaneously arising from rat excrement.  For all we know, life may have existed prior to our own universe and, life may continue to exist forever and ever, long after our current universe fades away.
Existence of Multicellular Macro and Micro Life 2.1 Billion Years Ago
Scientists Discover 3.7 Billion-Year-Old Fossils
Life On Earth May Be Over 4 Billion Years Old
4.2 Billion-Year-Old Canadian Fossil Indicates Possible Life on Mars
Life May Have Arisen Very Early on Mars

Diverse scientists say life may have arisen in or near fresh water, in plain dirt, in clay, in caves, under the earth, even inside of rocks, or as one scientist stated, life may be able to arise "wherever there is a little wetness".  Others say either life or necessary ingredients for life may have been carried in on space rocks and at least one scientist has stated there may be life in giant gas planets like Jupiter and Saturn, hovering in the clouds and needing no solid surface to survive.  Suffice it to say, history clearly teaches that what science believes today is more often than not, discarded tomorrow.

Belief in dark energy is what is called an "inferred" position, one that cannot be verified by any known scientific or other method.  And yet some of the same scientists who claim to believe in dark energy continue to openly deny the overwhelming evidence for God, even though there is far more evidence for our Creator than for dark energy, dark matter, black holes, invisible light, the sun being larger and warmer than the moon and the rest of what modern science "believes" combined.  For more information about dark energy and the meaning of "inferred" in relation to science and the scientific method, please Link Here.

Information available to the public at Science Daily and other sources clearly demonstrates that rather than being in general agreement, there is a great diversity and wide range of opinion regarding the theory of evolution and virtually everything else within the modern scientific community, often at the most fundamental of levels.  Following are extensive notes, links to recent scientific research and other material, supporting and otherwise, enhancing what is contained in these relatively short explanatory comments.

Because science continues to move at an ever more rapid pace, much of what is contained in these notes is already in need of revision and, this will likely continue to be the case as new evidence continues to emerge.  As an example, a new theory known as "anamorphic cosmology", involving both an expanding and contracting universe, is far too recent and untested to be discussed fairly at this time.  Due to the complexity of modern science theory, similar and sometimes the same information is repeated in more than one of the following notes, in order to hopefully maintain some context and clarity within the focus of each individual note.  For more research, the Encyclopedia Britannica is highly recommended.  Regardless of what any of us believe or fail to believe, we should never be afraid of what the evidence indicates, as a very wise voice from the past implies, if we do not know or otherwise are afraid of what is really true, we have no hope of being free.

According to some modern physicists, astronomers and other scientists, the universe appears to be designed according to pi 1.3416. . . and according to the golden ratio, 1.6180. . ., both irrational numbers theoretically extending forever and ever.  If true, at least two things become rather obvious:  1) There is no such thing, at least from a human understanding viewpoint, as either the largest or smallest number and, the number of stars (of who knows how large or how many universes) like the Bible claims, may well be "without number".  And 2) Like the Bible also says, only God knows "the end from the beginning".  As such, human science won't likely ever have a truly accurate and complete "theory of everything", nor does any claim of "natural, blind, unguided, processes" have any chance in hell of remotely being scientifically verifiable.

Today, 10 to -43 is about the limit to human understanding of the world of the very small.  If the universe is designed according to two or more irrational numbers, it makes rational sense to conclude that like the Bible long ago stated, human science will never truly know “the end from the beginning”.  Both the realm of the very small atomic and sub-atomic "quantum" reality and the very large macro reality theoretically could extend infinitely smaller and infinitely larger.  That is, as far as human science either currently knows or likely, ever will know.  Obviously because we are trapped within a universal three-dimensional plus time fishbowl, there are limits to human understanding and thus, it remains grossly arrogant and completely and entirely non-scientific and irrational, for any human being to claim there is no God, probably no God or might be no God; as if they somehow would know, as if a virus inside of a microbe trapped deep inside of an automobile carburetor, could somehow know there is no engine, driver, car, road or larger universal reality.

According to Dictionary.com and various other sources with similar definitions one can easily find online, an irrational number is a "number that cannot be expressed as a ratio between two integers and is not an imaginary number.  If written in decimal notation, an irrational number would have an infinite number of digits to the right of the decimal point, without repetition.  Pi and the square root of 2 are irrational numbers."  While the terminology "irrational number" is widely used in both historical and current practice, it is perhaps more accurate to define such numbers as "infinite" numbers.  While such numbers may appear to be "irrational" to human science, it may well be quite natural and easy for our Eternal Creator to use such a number for design purposes.  Even we humans for example, often apply pi and the golden ratio as best we can, in various artistic and other design and construction.
The Great Math Mystery
Nature by Numbers (Fibonacci Sequence & The Golden Ratio)

Even the greatest 21st Century scientific minds freely admit that all human knowledge, science and understanding breaks down inside of a black hole.  What modern science calls a "singularity" is merely a placeholder for what in reality is not understood and arguably, beyond understandable to human beings.  And what this also means, if it is true our universe is designed according to at least two irrational numbers, is that there is no such thing as either the largest or smallest possible measurement or number, thus making the "Planck length" merely a human construct of convenience, rather than being truly the smallest measurement possible (as some scientists claim, while other seriously challenge this).

According to astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a single molecule of water is so incredibly small that the total number of molecules in a single cup of water is greater than the number of same-size cups of water in all of the earths oceans, lakes rivers and other surface water combined.  Meanwhile modern mathematicians, who some might suspect have a little too much time on their hands, estimate that the number of particles in the human body is 1.46 x 10 to the 29th power.  The number of protons, neutrons, electrons and neutrinos in the known universe is estimated to be 10 to the 80th power, while the number of photons estimated as 10 to the 89th power.  As one can see, relatively small increases in powers of 10 result in extremely incredibly larger numbers.  And yet, according to mathematical calculations performed by British mathematician Roger Penrose, the odds of the universe existing by non-designed random processes are at least 10 to the power of 10,123 against this being true.  To try to even begin to illustrate how irrationally non-scientific a position of atheism truly is, a relatively extremely tiny number by comparison of 10 to the 150th power, is a number extremely incredibly larger than all of the both verified and theoretical particles and photons in the known universe.

But the number calculated by Penrose, being 1 followed by 10,123 zeros, is extremely incredibly far beyond all human conception, vain and other imagination, very, very, very far beyond unimaginably larger than this.  In short, it is not only non-scientific and irrational to pretend the universe is not created, any such claim is extremely incredibly very, very, very far beyond any hope of ever being verifiable, which is why neither atheism or agnosticism belong in any scientific or other legitimate rational discussion (other than to point out how far beyond astronomically incredibly ignorant such positions are).  It takes far more blind faith to embrace atheism than it does to believe in Santa Clause, the flying spaghetti monster, astrology, prime time television, the honesty of priests, preachers, self-help and other gurus, politicians, lawyers, used car salesmen and all of the religions, mythologies, science fiction and other fiction novels, children's stories and fairy tales and any and all other known tales in the history of human civilization combined.

One might fairly add, to pretend that mathematics alone could somehow randomly magically exist without any "brains" behind the universal reality, represents a complete and total fabrication of non-scientific dishonesty and complete mathematical and other scientific self-contradiction.  It is not only true that Las Vegas would never even begin to consider covering such odds, one might also fairly and honestly conclude that again like the Bible says, our Creator isn't likely to excuse those who pretend that the universe we inhabit is a magically existing result of "random, blind, totally by chance" processes.  One could legitimately conclude that a scientist pretending the moon is somehow larger and warmer than the sun would have a very far better chance of being correct.

And one might fairly ask, how loudly, roundly and soundly would a scientist be ridiculed if, upon stumbling upon some previously unknown architectural masterpiece akin to Stonehenge, he or she just randomly invented out of a black hole rabbit's hat, that because science can't fully explain its existence, such a wondrously and carefully designed creation must have somehow magically appeared and "self-designed" from scratch due to magically existing "blind", "natural", "unguided", "random", "totally by chance" processes?  And then again, how does our father in heaven feel when those vainly imagining themselves to be practicing 'science', impress upon our children the embracement of baseless science fiction propped up by clueless gross superstition, rather than science, reason and not to mention, common horse sense; outright lying to God's children from ostensibly ultimately randomly appearing textbooks, pretending that our entire universe somehow magically self-designed all by itself, as if they somehow would know?  And speaking of horse sense, who in their right mind would bet on such an atheistic black hole dark horse winning either the Kentucky Derby or any other race?  What evidence do they have and, why should either we or any self-respecting horse believe them?

Physicist Paul Davies has stated "there is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life".  However, according to Davies, "the conclusion is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires."  When human beings decide to construct a tall commercial building, they typically first survey a potential parcel of land, carefully consider what costs, building codes and long-term stability such a skyscraper will require, draw up architectural plans, dig a deep hole, drill even deeper to secure footings and otherwise, carefully first prepare the 'environment' that the skyscraper is going to eventually occupy.  Then steel, wood, concrete and various other "building blocks" are carted in by truck and carefully positioned at the construction location.  Only later does the general public begin to see the actual high-rise tower emerging from the ground.  One might fairly ask why many scientists today refuse to consider the obvious overwhelming probability, that the reason the universe is fine-tuned for the "building blocks" and "environments" that life requires, is because our Creator first planned, prior to the universe coming into being, for the eventual emergence of life ? ? ?


NOTE 1 - GENETIC AND OTHER EVIDENCE CHALLENGING DARWINIAN THEORY:  The research described in an article detailing how bacteria recycle DNA Linked Here, is one of many examples of how new evidence is challenging long held positions of Darwinian biologists.  This article is interesting not only for what it says, but also for what it does not address.  Recent research has revealed that bacteria can recycle DNA, adding old scraps of DNA from external dead organisms to their own genome.  According to a scientist quoted in this article, “That DNA from dead organisms drives the evolution of living cells is in contradiction with common belief of what drives the evolution of life itself."  Such emerging genetic evidence also has major implications for the entire theory of evolution for several reasons besides what is noted in the article.

This adds to the growing pile of evidence indicating that what is called Natural Selection is only one of several possible reasons why forms of life adapt and change.  In fact, there may or may not be any such thing as "random mutations" by Natural Selection.  Besides what is discussed in the article linked above, this new evidence adds a whole new wrinkle into theories of disease and disease origins and why disease exists and persists within a theoretically advantage driven system.  This discovery also tosses a big monkey wrench into long-held assumptions of “random” mutations.  If microbes living within macro forms of life make changes to their own genome, this could and very likely would cause macro forms of life to in turn, adapt and change.  Such changes while appearing to be 'random' from Darwin's limited view, would in fact not be random at all.  And thus, what science has long assumed are "new" species resulting from "random" mutations would instead be a misleading interpretation of the true reality.

If trillions of tiny organisms inside of us can incorporate changes into their own DNA, God only knows what seemingly 'random' mutations might occur on up the chain of larger visible macro forms of plant and animal life; changes that in fact can be attributed to the actions of microbes inhabiting larger forms of life and thus, seemingly random changes that are in fact, not random at all.  Leading DNA and disease expert Francis Collins has publicly stated that "modern DNA evidence alone overwhelmingly demonstrates design and not random processes."  And like Thomas Jefferson states in the Declaration of Independence, echoing from a Bible Jefferson apparently read and generally ignored today, Mr. Collins goes on to say that similar base societal laws and similar and sometimes identical so-called "golden rules" found throughout the human civilization record in (well over one hundred) both connected and non-connected cultures, clearly demonstrate a designed shared human conscience.

Francis Collins, who describes himself as a "Darwinist" concludes that similar base societal laws and similar and nearly identical "golden rules" are not what one would expect to result from random processes.  Many today claim to be agnostic, vainly imagining they can worm out of the scientific requirement of providing supporting evidence to back up any claim regarding the physical observable universal reality, as if they are deceiving anyone other than themselves.  To say there is no God, probably no God or might be no God, is to claim the universe is either not created, probably not created or might not be created.  All three claims are required by the long established rules of science and evidence, to be supported by evidence demonstrating a better explanation than Eternal Creator for the existence of the observable universal reality.

A "better" explanation, in order to remain within the bounds of science, reason and evidence, must be able to better satisfy origins and better explain all of the known evidence.  A much better and more honest question is, why would anyone propose that the universe is not created or might not be created?  What fears do they have of being ridiculed by their atheistic peers, what best-seller list are they trying to climb and, what evidence do they have supporting such blind faith superstition?  Wouldn't such folks pretending to adhere to the rules of science and evidence, roundly and soundly criticize someone like Copernicus, if he had just proposed the earth either does, probably does or just might go around the sun and then sat down, without bothering to provide any explanation, reason, rhyme or supporting evidence?  Who are such people posing as 'scientists' trying to fool and, why should we believe them or have any confidence in what they have to say?  Why would the average truck driver or waitress want to sacrifice hard earned tax dollars for their children to be taught by such deceitful puppet masters of baseless superstition?

We humans can design complex machines that in turn can perform many functions on their own.  Who is to say the great universal "machine" is not in fact, a result of deliberate conception, design and creation?  We humans can design lottery and other types of machines which theoretically generate random numbers.  Who is to say our Creator cannot incorporate random regeneration within a larger designed complex universal reality?  And, we humans often create with both practical and aesthetic design incorporated into the same building, pottery bowl and paper clip.  Who is to say that the colorful feathers of a peacock are not an example of both artistic and practical reproductive purpose woven into the same grand design?  Consider the extreme arrogance and narrow-mindedness of many modern scientists, who would pretend our Creator cannot do at least as well as we can do ! ! !

These implications are fundamentally important to the entire theory and concept of evolution by Natural Selection, which has long assumed far too much without conclusive supporting evidence.  There is overwhelming evidence that all of life is created to adapt and change, while there is zero evidence that life ever has or ever will "evolve" from scratch from magically existing "random, blind, unguided, natural processes".  In fact, if life predates our own sun and solar system, as many modern scientists suspect, it remains irrational to pretend that science can every know with any certainty either how, when, where or why life first came into being.  And even if it were true that the entire universal reality somehow randomly self-designed and magically sprang into existence, as if the moon is somehow larger and warmer than the sun, it remains humanly impossible to even remotely begin to scientifically verify such a baseless and foolhardy position.

To observe the functions of life and changes within living creatures and then conclude they are “random” from the top down, requires an astronomically amount of blind faith that many scientists criticize others for having.  Can a microbe living inside of a human intestine scientifically and accurately determine there is no human being on which it depends on for survival?  How then can a scientist like Lawrence Krauss say with any certainty at all that there is no God?  And, how can a scientist like Neil DeGrasse Tyson say with any certainty at all that there might be no God?  What evidence do they have for magically appearing universes filled with magically appearing beings of magically existing intelligence and conscious awareness?

True randomness not only remains unsupported by any evidence, it contradicts the entire notion of our universe having a beginning.  If the universe began with a bang (or in some other fashion as some scientists have proposed), everything that follows is by definition, not random, regardless of how much or how little the universe from there, may or may not be operating of it's own accord.  No one can say with any certainty how much or how little our Creator inputs behind the three-dimensional plus time veil hidden from our own ability to detect.  From lowly viruses, archaea, bacteria, ants, spiders and other insects, it is often the little creatures and small parts of matter acting like they supposedly should not, that manage to confound and humble the wise.
Bacteria Recycle Broken DNA (Indicates Mutations Are Not Random)
Microbes Controlling Actions of Host's Genes
Bacteria Acquire Resistance from Competitors
Bacteria "Fish" for New DNA (Indicates Mutations Are Not Random)
Viruses Transfer Genes Across Life Superkingdoms (Non-Random)

Modern science has discovered that microscopic algae function in a "quantum" way and has also discovered that plants appear to have a type of "molecular language" enabling them to communicate with each other.  How life came to be and functions is becoming more and more difficult to express in any kind of evolutionary or other rational human terms.  Science knows very little about the quantum reality, which is at the root of how both life and disease came to be and functions, as well as at the root of how the entire universe is both structured and functions.  As discussed in more detail elsewhere, today there is strong evidence the universe is designed according to both Pi and the Golden Ratio, two irrational numbers theoretically extending forever and ever, exactly what one might expect from an Eternal Designer.  And as also discussed elsewhere, many scientists today believe the entire universe is "fine-tuned" for the emergence of life, which again, is exactly what one would expect to find in a deliberately designed universal reality.
The Great Math Mystery
Nature by Numbers (Fibonacci Sequence & The Golden Ratio)

Current understanding of the quantum reality is similar to trying to piece together a very large picture puzzle when many and perhaps most of the pieces are missing, the rest lie scattered around in no particular order, rhyme or reason and, there is no photograph of what the completed puzzle would look like on the box it came in.  How the universe actually functions from a true universal and beyond perspective is simply far beyond human capability of understanding here in the 21st Century, although likely highly rational from the view of a much greater Mind than our own.  As a molecular biologist stated a few years ago in a PBS Video, it is irrational to pretend science will ever have an accurate theory for how life either came to be or functions, given the complexity of the micro, atomic and quantum reality.
Quantum Biology
Molecular Language of Plants
Plants Make Decisions
Plant Communication; Plants Warn Other Plants of Danger


Note 2 - EXAMPLES OF RECENT RESEARCH CHALLENGING CONVENTIONAL BELIEFS:  It was recently discovered that due to what is called species "cross-breeding", every European alive on the planet today shares a common ancestor no older than 1000 years ago and, everyone alive today may share a common ancestor no older than the biblical Noah and perhaps, considerably younger.  Such knowledge wasn't possible prior to the mapping of the human genome and it represents such a radical shift in thinking, that most people heavily indoctrinated by standard Darwinian evolution refuse to believe we could all share a recent common ancestor; "most people" in this case however, does not include geneticists, archaeologists and others who study such things.
Recent Common Ancestry for Europeans About 1000 Years
Recent Common Ancestry for Modern Humans Estimates

Discoveries in astronomy since the dawn of the 21st Century, including the apparent existence of innumerable "zillions" of exo-planets and the existence of molecules for life around newly formed stars and elsewhere in space, significantly challenge any kind of notion that life either first "evolved" or otherwise began on earth.  As stated previously, for all we know today, life may have existed before our current universe and, may continue to exist forever and ever, leaving scientists with no theory and arguably, no hope of ever having a conclusive legitimate theory for the origins of life, other than the "God did it theory" that Socrates, Aristotle, DaVinci, Copernicus, Shakespeare, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Jefferson, Paine, Darwin, Harriet Tubman, Eleanor Roosevelt, Helen Keller, Einstein, Francis Collins, Martin Luther King, Jr., Cesar Chavez, Rosa Parks, Bob Dylan and billions of other rational people have long concluded.
New Molecule Found in Space Connotes Life Origins
Organics for Life May Have Arrived on Space Rocks
Organics Probably Formed Easily in Early Solar System
Building Blocks of Life Found Around Young Star
Did Comets Contain Key Ingredients For Life On Earth?
Key Ingredients Necessary for Life May Have Come from Beyond the Earth
Study Indicates Molecules Necessary for Life May Form in Space
Evidence Comets Could have Seeded Life on Earth
Ancient Microorganism Fossils Indicate Life Common in Universe
Long-Held Assumption About Emergence of New Species Questioned
Evidence Natural Selection Theory is Inadequate
Example of How Evolutionary Assumptions Can be Way Off

Several recent discoveries indicate there are vast differences between humans, apes and chimps, apparently largely controlled by supposed "junk" DNA, which many geneticists are now saying apparently isn't junk after all.  False assumptions based on standard Darwinian evolutionary theory that about 90% of our DNA is so much "junk", likely set disease research back at least 50 years.
Non-Coding 'Junk' DNA Determines Male Gender
New Genes Spring, Spread from Non-Coding DNA
Junk DNA Functionality; Differences Between Humans and Chimps
Hundreds of Small Regions of Human Genome Key to Uniqueness of Humans
Human Brain Development Guided by “junk” DNA
Junk DNA Plays Important Role
Junk DNA Has Vital Role in Evolution of Human Genome
Plant “junk” DNA Proves to be Highly Valuable
Short DNA Strands Key to Cognition and Disease Development
Divergence of Humans from Apes, Apes from Chimps

Since the release of the information linked above, some hardcore Darwinian biologists claim to have demonstrated by further testing, that the above linked research is flawed.  And thus, they continue to insist that most human and other DNA is mainly "junk".  This isn't surprising, as science over historical time has often back-tracked on new ideas, only to eventually embrace them yet again.  Given that evolutionists insisted for a long time that the human appendix is an example of evolutionary "junk", it is fair to assume that most likely in the future, scientists will eventually admit that ALL of our DNA does in fact, have a legitimate function and purpose, just as now today, the appendix has been conclusively demonstrated to have a valuable and legitimate purpose.
Scientists Fail to Study Majority of our Genes

While it is true we can survive quite well without an appendix, we can also survive quite well without a finger, hand, arm or leg.  This of course, doesn't prove that all of our fingers, hands, arms and legs don't have a valuable and legitimate purpose for being attached to our bodies.  Because scientists today don't know of a purpose for some of our DNA doesn't at all demonstrate or even remotely indicate, that all of our DNA does not in fact, have a legitimate purpose.  It is wise to remember that the majority of scientists once believed the sun goes around the earth, once believed disease spontaneously arises from rat excrement and, until the late 1920's, believed in a static, eternal, non-expanding universe containing a single Milky Way galaxy.

And now once again, since the counter-claims of Darwinian biologists noted, new research strongly indicates that these geneticists were in fact correct after all.  The research at the following link, which was released in October 2014 after all of the research noted above, including counter-claims based on further testing, now strongly indicates that ALL of our DNA does in fact, have more than one purpose.  Including, as other scientists have also independently confirmed, regulating inheritable diseases, as well as formerly assumed "junk" DNA is responsible for the existence of males in mammals.  Without certain so-called "junk" DNA, there would be only females found among mammal populations.  If this all seems rather jumbled and confusing, it is because evolutionary and other science is filled with many conflicting reports and opinions often on the most fundamental of positions, rather than representing overwhelming agreed to consensus, as highly misleadingly misrepresented in high school and university textbooks and mainstream media.

Whether or not 90% of our DNA is "junk" is significantly important because, as this article linked here details, determining it is not junk opens up significant new avenues for research dollars into finding cures for cancer, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease, Muscular Dystrophy, heart disease and other devastating problems.  And, it may also lead to significant breakthroughs in agriculture and other plant and animal applications.  As already stated, the narrow-mindedness of evolutionary biologists has held back important medical research for generations, causing research dollars to be focused primarily on only 10% of our DNA while mainly ignoring the rest.
Non-coding Half of Human Genome Unlocked
"Junk" DNA Apparently Not Junk After All
Sins of the Fathers; Epigenitic Evidence for Negative Inherited Characteristics
Genetic Evidence Divorce Runs in Family Lineages

However right or wrong this new theory is about what caused the big bang (see following link), what is interesting is that the scientists interviewed have publicly admitted, because we are trapped within a 3-dimensional (plus time) view, modern science may be way off the mark regarding what is actually in fact true about the universal reality.  That is, current theories of gravity, light, energy and time, among other things, may be anywhere from partially to entirely wrong.  The truth is, science doesn't know how either the universe itself or life came to exist, nor does science know very much about how either the universe or life functions from a true and accurate universal and beyond (logos) view.  And, if our universe has 10-11 (or more) dimensions as the late Stephen Hawking states on his website, it is very likely that human science never will have a true and correct and fully adequate explanation for the observable universal reality.
New Theory of What Caused the Big Bang

It was announced in 2014 that the efficiency of photosynthesis, the foundation for how life on earth obtains energy to survive, can only be explained by quantum mechanics and such processes cannot be explained by classical physics.  This strongly implies that science knows far less about how both disease and life itself functions at it’s most basic root levels than previously assumed.  The theory of evolution and virtually all of human thought is based on classical physics, which has for some time now been known to be inaccurate at basic root levels of how everything works, including gravity, light, motion, energy, evolution and life itself.  There is significant disagreement among quantum theorists over basic concepts and claims of quantum theory and as such, there is no agreed to theory for how either life or the universe itself works at root levels or from an accurate Cosmic (logos) perspective.
Quantum Mechanics and the Efficiency of Photosynthesis

It was also recently discovered that DNA is encoded using at least a double code system (possibly more than two) and, that these codes operate in tandem yet independent of each other, as if someone were building a house while communicating in both Chinese and English and, both languages were necessary for the totality of the house to be produced.  In the 21st Century, the mystery of life has become far more rather then less complex and as such, creation will very likely always remain very far over our collective heads.  Human beings can logically no more understand how the universe works from a true and adequate view, than microbes living inside our intestines could be expected to grasp the existence and complexity of a human being and the computers, automobiles, skyscrapers and other things we create.
Dual Code Language of DNA

According to biologist and militant atheist Richard Dawkins, all of life evolved from a singular source in the ocean.  Mr. Dawkins doesn't bother to qualify this statement as being an opinion not shared by all scientists but rather, he just states this in a video on YouTube to an unsuspecting public, as if it is an indisputable fact of science.  Some of Mr. Dawkins' peers over the past couple of decades have proposed that life, rather than beginning in the ocean, may have first arisen in or near fresh water, in caves, under the earth, in clay, in plain dirt and "where ever there is a little wetness".  One scientist even proposed life may have began inside of rocks and, several have proposed life may have arrived on space rocks.  Yet in spite of such diverse opinions, few if any modern scientists have been brave enough to make the obvious leap and suggest that just perhaps, life may have arisen from all over the earth, rather than from an extremely coincidental "chance" singular origin in the ocean, as extremely narrow-minded Darwinists have long assumed.

Such grand diversity of opinion clearly demonstrates the bias of Richard Dawkins presenting his opinion as established scientific fact, when in fact many of his peers do not agree.  If life arrived on space rocks, it could well have arrived on many space rocks rather than just one and, if life can arise in some or all of these places noted, then indeed it is more legitimate to conclude that life probably arose from all over the earth.  A recent report pushes back the earliest evidence for colonies of bacteria to at least 3.5 billion years ago (some newer research suggests over 4 billion), making it even more difficult to determine exactly how, when, where and why life first arose on earth.  Just because scientists like most human beings, prefer things to be simple, neat and tidy rather than complex, difficult and irreducibly hard, it does not necessarily follow that they are.  As a molecular biologist recently stated on PBS, both the origins of life and how life functions in true reality, is so overwhelmingly irreducibly complex, it is irrational to pretend that science will ever have a legitimate theory of either evolution or any other theory of life.
Life May Have Arisen in Clay
Evidence for 3.5 Billion Year Old Bacteria
Mars May Have Supported Life

Scientists recently discovered that micro-organisms living several miles deep into the earth's rocky crust are often similar all over the globe, rather than significantly different as evolutionists might assume.  This similarity can be explained if life arose from many tiny identical or nearly identical forms, rather than from just one as the standard Darwinian "tree" model has long assumed.  There is also strong evidence supporting a "many emergent point" theory found in the realms of viruses and archaea, both of which today are well-established to cross superkingdoms of life.
Similarity of Microbes Living Miles Deep Under the Earth's Crust Viruses Can Transfer Genes Across Superkingdoms of Life
Archaea and the Scientist Who Scrambled Darwin's Tree of Life

Another example of opinion posing as scientific fact is demonstrated by astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson in a PBS video program.  In this video, Mr. Tyson looks into the camera and states point blank to his public audience, that our universe will continue to expand indefinitely forever and ever, until it becomes a charred out remains of it's former self, with no visible light anywhere.  What Mr. Tyson fails to tell his unsuspecting audience is that only about one third of astronomers agree with this theory.  Another approximately one third still believe the universe will eventually roll back in on itself ("the big crunch"), creating another big bang and a new universe, the dominant theory not long ago back in the days of Carl Sagan.  And another approximate one third of astronomers are either uncertain or have other theories besides these two.  This division of opinion by (approximate) thirds was discussed in a different PBS video that was released around the same time.

Such grand divergence of opinion does not equal "science", regardless of how accurate or inaccurate Mr. Tyson's claim may be.  What is presented as "science" is not fairly called science when two thirds or even ten percent of current scientists disagree.  According to certain mathematical calculations in quantum mechanics, the universe perhaps may have an infinitely long history of expansion followed by an eventual receding universe, which in turn would cause a new universe to come into being, followed by another contraction and so on, backward and forward towards infinity in both directions, a concept insinuating that time as human beings perceive time to be, has an infinite number of beginnings and endings, something far beyond the ability of a non-eternal being to even begin to fairly comprehend.

Regardless of which modern theory one chooses to hang their hat on, apparently the Bible predicts the universe will eventually recede back in on itself, followed by a new "big bang" beginning.  According to the Bible, the current heavens will "pass away", "grow old like a garment", God will "fold up" the heavens like a cloak, the heavens will "roll back like a scroll", "all the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine" and, a new heavens and earth will come into being.  According to modern astronomy, in a receding universe scenario, the stars would quite literally fall towards the earth from a view on earth looking upward, exactly as described by the prophet Isaiah.  After which, a new heavens and earth would come into being, as described in the New Testament book of Revelation.  One might conclude that at least according to the Bible, Mr. Tyson's disagreeing peers appear to be more closer to the truth.  Perhaps we'll all just have to wait and see.
New Evidence Indicating Universe May Roll Back in on Itself
Biblical References:
Isaiah 34
Hebrews 1
Revelation (very much agrees with modern climate science predictions)

Rather than the universe collapsing back in on itself in a "big crunch" due to gravity slowing and eventually reversing it's expansion, a theory believed by many scientists at the time Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" was written, today there is a different theory proposed by some scientists of what will cause the universe to collapse.  According to this theory, the universe could completely collapse at any time, rather than just in a very far distant future:  Scientists Say Collapse of the Universe is Closer Than Ever.  According to the Bible, God will make a "short" work upon the earth, perhaps indicating that something unexpected and dramatic will happen out of the ordinary, either in our local vicinity or the entire universe.  The theory linked here most certainly matches such a scenario.

To be fair to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he does manage to virtually completely and entirely agree with the Bible regarding an entirely different space phenomena, although he may not personally be aware of this.  According to Mr. Tyson, there is a certain type of black hole unknown to science until the 1990's that, rather than like the more familiar kind residing at or near the center of galaxies, instead resides in dark voids in space where no visible stars are located. According to Mr. Tyson, this type of black hole contains an inner second event horizon that is like a "sea of fire", consisting of the fiery remnants of stars torn apart and devoured by the black hole.

To give Mr. Tyson a little help, we can turn to the Encyclopedia Britannica, which describes such a space object as a "bottomless pit".  And here's where this gets interesting:  According to the Bible, there is a "bottomless pit" located in "outer darkness", that contains a "lake of fire", from which no one can escape.  Some sources say that black holes are not a bottomless pit, while the Britannica distinctly describes them in this manner and, the Smithsonian online describes black holes as a "virtual bottomless pit"; Hubblesite.org also uses "bottomless pit" in describing black holes, as does NASA in an online PDF, as does the Science Center of Iowa in an online PDF.  Many other claims in the Bible that once seemed preposterous, such as a third of the stars not giving their light for a time, apparently due to a large volcanic eruption, another claim, of significant amounts of fresh water pollution occurring when the earth is struck by a large object from space and, claims of significant famine, disease and pestilence occurring because of either one or both of these cataclysmic and other related events, are today all considered to be "science" by the majority of modern scientists.
Smithsonian: Black Holes "virtual bottomless pit"
Hubblesite.org: Black Holes "bottomless pit"
NASA: Black Holes "like a bottomless pit"
Iowa Science Center: "a bottomless pit--a Black Hole"

The late Stephen Hawking, a 20th-21st Century leading physicist and black hole theorist, describes black holes as "bottomless", "black voids" in space.  Although Mr. Hawking recently has suggested that black holes as currently defined don't exist, this has been in large part misunderstood by popular media.  Apparently it is not that Mr. Hawking is saying that nothing exists where what is called a "black hole" resides in space but rather, that what exists there is not in reality, truly a black hole, because according to Mr. Hawking, light and information may be able to escape by actually traveling faster than Einstein's established speed of light.  Whether or not science is accurate about the true nature of black holes, what the Bible claims regarding what is commonly called a "black hole" remains exactly accurate as far as science knows and, it remains overwhelmingly far beyond chance coincidence astonishing that a collection of writings written over 2000 and more years ago, could precisely accurately describe the existence of a place located in "outer darkness", as being a "bottomless pit" containing a "lake of fire", from which no human being can escape.
Stephen Hawking: Black Holes are Bottomless Black Voids in Space
PBS Article Discussing Stephen Hawking's Recent Claims

In the television series "Cosmos", Neil DeGrasse Tyson takes a few swings at conservative religious folks who believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, while tip toeing rather carefully around the "God Question", a question militant atheist Richard Dawkins says is central to all of science.  Mr. Tyson chides such folks for not going by evidence, but then he randomly out of thin air invents "entirely random", "purely by chance", "unguided", "natural" processes in reference to evolution, failing to provide any supporting evidence or explanation as to why he would make any of these claims.  Mr. Tyson never mentions that many scientists believe in both God and evolution, as if such a position isn't compatible with science, even though Charles Darwin himself stated "one can be an ardent Theist and evolutionist".  It is no small wonder that our children and the public in general remain confused.

In the next installment of Cosmos, Mr. Tyson states that modern science doesn't know how life came to be and, that scientists shouldn't be afraid to admit what they do not know.  This not only agrees with the Encyclopedia Britannica but also with many other scientists, who have publicly stated that how life came to be remains one of the greatest mysteries of modern science.  One might fairly ask why in the previous installment, Mr. Tyson says life came about by random, blind, unguided natural processes, if in fact neither he or the rest of his colleagues know how life came to be ? ? ?  Why doesn't he just say science doesn't know and leave it at that, rather than inventing random blind unguided natural processes out of thin air?  Again, as it begs repeating, it is no small wonder that our children and the public in general remain confused.  See also, Bonus Chapter near bottom of page at this link, Is the Television Series "Cosmos" Remotely Honest? for more information.

Not very long ago, the majority of scientists believed that disease spontaneously arises from rat excrement.  Not content with learning anything from such a dubious misassumption, today many scientists would have us believe that the entire universe spontaneously appeared out of nowhere, as if motion, energy, light, intelligence, conscious awareness, along with zillions upon zillions upon more zillions of parts within parts, all somehow working together to eventually produce life as we know it, just somehow randomly appeared, self-created and self-selected on up and beyond the big bang chain of events, from some unknown pre-universal, completely inexplicable and entirely coincidental, unguided random chance starting point.  Why would anyone draw such a conclusion and, what verifiable scientific evidence do they have?

Mr. Tyson seems like a nice enough man who sincerely wants to help save our planet and the people on it, but sincerity doesn't necessarily equal what is true.  Mr. Tyson says that "science is true" but if science is true, why is what science teaches today so much different than what I was taught in a public high school?  I can't speak for Isaac Newton, but perhaps Newton might inquire of our science today, as to how a re-action can occur without any Primary Cause.  Newton might be puzzled as to why modern science would assume the least obvious rather than the most obvious, assume that somehow, motion can arise from non-motion, energy from no energy and, light from no light, rather than accepting what to him seemed to be obvious, that they neither can nor did.  Why would anyone assume such a least likely position and, what evidence do they have?

One cannot honestly hide behind claims of random appearing particles or random motion arising from non-motion within quantum fields.  Whatever can be detected in quantum fields or anywhere else in the universe, is a "result" of the big bang or however the universe came to be and thus, by definition whatever we can observe or detect within the universal reality is not random, nor can it rationally be demonstrated to be random.  Such apparent randomness has also been explained by some quantum theorists as particles traveling in and out of dimensions we cannot detect and thus, it only appears to be "random" from our three-dimensional plus time viewpoint.  It gets more and more difficult to be an atheist or agnostic, the deeper down one digs into the bottomless black hole sewer of such non-scientific, baseless inventions.

There is abundant evidence that human beings can design great buildings with many inter-connected parts having both artistic and practical functions incorporated within the same design; grand spiral staircases, carefully crafted columns, ornate light fixtures, large elaborately designed bridges and skyscrapers and much more.  Isn’t it then rational to assume our Creator can design peacock feathers, an infinite variety of living forms and the rest of the universe with both practical and artistic functions woven into the same grandly designed cosmic universal whole building?  There is abundant evidence humans can create computers and robotic machines that in turn can do many functions on their own and, we humans can create lottery machines that theoretically generate random numbers.  Isn’t it fair and reasonable to assume our Creator can do at least as well as we can do?

Why isn’t this evidence fairly discussed either on Cosmos, in our mass media or in our university, high school and other classrooms?  Why aren’t our children and the public in general fairly taught the scientific opinions of the great many historical and currently practicing scientists who believe the evidence demonstrates creation by a Supreme Intelligence?  Why are modern educators and the producers of Cosmos, Time Magazine, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times afraid of the historical and current truth regarding the scientific conclusions of many historical and currently practicing scientists?  Some scientists believe the evidence demonstrates creation, some believe it doesn’t and some claim they don’t know or otherwise refuse to give their opinion.  Isn’t this the real truth and, isn’t the real truth what we should be teaching our children, if we want them to respect us and, if we want to truly be a free and just society?

The ancient Greek concept of “Gaia”, long considered to be mythology, is similar in many ways to what science has discovered in the 21st Century.  The Greek theory of Gaia proposes that living organisms on our planet interact and are dependent on the larger organism of earth, which itself is a living organism.  Science has discovered over several years of combined multiple satellite operations, that the earth operates very much like a very large, inter-connected living organism, even though it isn’t necessarily alive in the sense we normally think of a living being.

For example, large clouds of microscopic plankton in the ocean, the foundation for larger living things, are dependent for their existence on forces all over the planet, from earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes and monsoons and, the resulting minerals they create like iron, sulfur and magnesium, to both cold and warm air circulation, which itself is dependent on various forces circulating around Antarctica; along with huge amounts of salt water brine pouring out of Antarctica deep under the ocean up past the equator to the northern Arctic regions and back again, all of which are dependent on the rotation of the earth and balanced intricate interactions between the earth and the moon.  As well as, all of life is dependent on our position in relation to the sun and the various layers of protection around the earth, including the magnetosphere, which is dependent on the iron rotating at the earth’s core spinning faster than the earth itself.  And, this is only a small fraction of the entire picture of how the earth working as an interconnected whole, is able to support life as we know it.

Science has also discovered that the size and position of Jupiter for example (not covered in video linked below), is necessary for life to exist on earth and possibly, all of the planets and their moons in their specific sizes and arrangements effect the ability of life to exist on earth, as well as life possibly existing elsewhere within our solar system.  The earth is in a much more intricate dance balance than previously understood, both within it’s own operations, within the larger solar system and, within the galactic whole.  And today, it is becoming more and more likely that life probably exists elsewhere within our own solar system, as well as abundantly throughout the larger universal reality.

Astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson, in a recent segment of Cosmos, demonstrates how utterly complex life may be “seeded” in the larger universal reality, in a grand cosmic interactive dance between supernova’s spewing out chemical elements necessary for life; creating large molecular clouds giving birth to new stars and solar systems; planets moons, and asteroids passing through molecular clouds as their respective solar systems circle their galaxies, perhaps picking up necessary ingredients for life along the way; asteroids seeding planets with necessary ingredients for life; particles in turn created by space rock impact, bounding off into space carrying ingredients from planets already sustaining life, back into space to in turn, seed other planets.  A grand cosmic interactive creation of life very far over the collective heads of humanity, far too complex to even begin to adequately describe with words on a page.
New Molecule Found in Space Connotes Life Origins

And the key phrase coming from Mr. Tyson is “may be”; science more and more has no idea whatsoever how life actually came to be or, how life functions from even a larger earth perspective, let alone a larger universal and beyond (logos) view.  Just one of the innumerable necessary things for life to exist on earth, includes the delicate balance of earth in relation to the sun, the moon and the rest of the planets in our solar system, as well as life on our planet depends heavily on the existence and position of Jupiter.  Rather than decreasing, odds in favor of deliberate design keep astronomically increasing, the more that science discovers.  So much so, that British scientist Roger Penrose has calculated (as noted previously) that the odds of the universe not being a result of deliberate design are 10 to well over the 10,123 power against, a number so inconceivably large, that there is no known comparison on any kind of cosmic scale (i.e., the number of all photons and bits and pieces of atoms combined in the known universe, is estimated as far less than 10 to the 100th power).
NOVA Video: Earth Operating as an Inter-connected Whole

According to both Jesus and all of the known historical and scientific evidence, what causes greed, hatred, irrational fear, envy, prejudice, stress, tension, murder, rape, theft, false witness, inequality of wealth, slavery, war and other human oppression, arises from what is within all people (source; Encyclopedia Britannica; "Human Sexuality" and related).  Children can be observed on a school playground ostracizing and being deliberately mean to other children.  This carries over into adulthood, where adults typically join groups of "like minded" individuals, ostracizing and shunning others from our perceived superior grouping.

The Mensa Society for example, openly practices human segregation, banning everyone from their club of self-anointed intellectually superior individuals who doesn't score 150 or higher on a so-called 'intelligence' test; a test that doesn't contain a single question about how to help humanity or otherwise make life on our planet a little less stressful and more pleasant experience for us all.  This isn't surprising in a nation that views loving our neighbor as ourselves as a "religious" idea forbidden to be taught in our public schools or, in a nation where the highly overused term "empathy" is for whatever reason, viewed as somehow being a superior concept to teach our children than instructing them to actually reach out and pro-actively love their neighbor as themselves.

One might fairly ask, if we humans have no inborn obedience problem, why are there police, jails and Nobel prizes for adults, ethics and morality classes taught at major universities and gold stars, trophies and other enticements offered to both children and adults, enticing us to act as we perceive we already should be acting in the first place?  And one might fairly ask, why do both children and adults need to be threatened with punishment and enticed into being what we perceive as "good", while we are what we perceive as "bad" quite easily on our own, often in spite of severe threat to our physical health and well being and, in spite of threats of punishment, jail time and even execution?

Why is there a song entitled "We Shall Overcome"?  What exactly is it that we are trying to overcome and, why?  If you don't believe in sin, try doing what you think is good all the time and, see how well you do; a simple test all of us fail every single day and, a test clearly demonstrating what scientists, educators and others continue to openly deny.  Changing terminology and calling sin "negative behavior" or the "seething mass within" (as the Britannica calls it), in no way, shape or form changes the resulting stress, tension, hunger, pain, suffering, sorrow, death and other human oppression that sin causes.
Do Chimpanzees and Baboons Only Think of Themselves?
Staggering Differences Between Chimpanzees and Human Beings
Sins of the Fathers; Epigenitic Evidence for Negative Inherited Characteristics
Genetic Evidence Divorce Runs in Family Lineages

Apparently according to the Bible, the universe is surrounded by water and an "expansion" divides the waters above us from the waters on earth.  This cannot be disproven by modern science, as we cannot "see" beyond the theoretical big bang and can only theorize what may or may not lie beyond the universe.  Interestingly enough, other than apparently claiming the universe is surrounded by water, the rest of Genesis One agrees with modern science as far as modern science knows, given that the "days" of creation refer to periods of time, which some scholars say is a more accurate translation (further discussion regarding the "days" of creation elsewhere).

According to the late Carl Sagan, there was a theory proposed by two scientists some time ago that the universe is surrounded by water, which would help explain the abundance of hydrogen and where it came from.  Recently, several scientists proposed an alternative theory to the big bang, that the universe formed when cracks appeared in a primordial liquid analogous to water.  And, if the universe is surrounded by water, this explains the existence of hydrogen coming out of the big bang prior to the existence of stars (deuterium, lithium and helium could in theory have been created by the extreme heat from energy acting within a large cosmic ocean of water, which may of itself be different than either salt or fresh water types of water familiar to us on earth).
One of Several Alternative Theories to the Big Bang
One Example of Many Challenges to Dark Energy Theory
Evidence Earth Originally Covered with Water, as Genesis Claims
Recent Scientific Evidence for the Great Flood of Biblical Fame

Both religious and secular sources claim there is evidence for the Garden of Eden, now underwater, discovered by recently improved NASA satellite imaging technology.
Lost River of Eden (confirmed in a separate History Channel video documentary)
Evidence for Garden of Eden

Unbiased surveys conducted by Rice University taking a large statistical sampling of over 2000 American scientists of all kinds, combined with surveys conducted by the University of Chicago and elsewhere, report that about 50% of American scientists, 75% of American physicians and 80% of American educators believe in God.
Rice University Survey
Chicago University Survey

Unlike many modern educators and others pretend, belief in God as taught in the Bible, is an evidence-based view, the same as belief in invisible light and black holes are evidence-based views.  According to the Bible, faith "is the evidence of things not seen" and, we believe in the invisible God based on the overwhelming mirrored evidence of God's visible creation, the same as scientists today believe in invisible light and black holes, based on the observable evidence that invisible light and black holes create.  There is no rational difference between belief in God based on the mirrored physical evidence and belief in invisible light based on the mirrored physical evidence, except in the twisted imagination of self-contradicting atheists.
Romans 1:20

Militant atheist Sam Harris in a video on YouTube, anoints himself as being on the "side" of science and reason, while lumping everyone who believes in God as being on the same "side" as Pat Robertson and conservative religion, as if Jesus, Aristotle, Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Darwin, Einstein and Francis Collins all agree with Robertson and unlike Harris paints himself, are on the "side" of gross superstition, not to mention far grosser hypocrisy.  This is a common trick used by atheists to confuse evidence-based belief in God with religion in general and, religious fundamentalism in particular.  Harris and other atheists like Daniel Dennett waste countless hours talking about religion, which anyone with even a rudimentary education is aware has no relevancy to either the existence of or true nature of God.  What human beings claim about the shape and nature of the earth has no relevancy to the actual shape, nature or existence of the earth.  Likewise, what human beings claim about the existence and nature of God does not change what is true about either the existence of or true nature of God.

Modern atheists who attempt to marginalize belief in God by equating God with religious and other dogma, openly demonstrate a lack of rudimentary understanding, vainly imagining they are fooling the rest of us as to why they can't instead, provide a better explanation than Eternal Creator for their own existence.  A book written by militant atheist Richard Dawkins implies by it's title, that Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, Paul, Socrates, Aristotle, DaVinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Shakespeare, Newton, Descartes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Locke, Jefferson, Paine, Darwin, Tolstoy, Schweitzer, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Eleanor Roosevelt, Helen Keller, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Cesar Chavez, Francis Collins, Paul Simon and millions of noteworthy human beings of demonstrated intelligence and accomplishment, are all delusional, while Mr. Dawkins himself is on the "side" of logic, science, reason and the enlightened few and far between.  One would suppose each one of us can make our own decision as to who in fact, is most likely a victim of delusion.

It is not true that Darwian theory is wrong about reproductive advantage being why life adapts and changes.  Rather, the evidence indicates reproductive survival is only one of several reasons why all of life adapts and changes.  The word "natural" in Natural Selection itself represents human assumption and bias rather than science.  Labeling a process "natural" and referring to environmental reality as "the natural world" doesn't prove anything, other than the fact that scientists like other human beings, are prone to bias and assumptions having no foundation in evidence.  Pretending that the term "natural" somehow demonstrates or even slightly indicates the universe is not created, is similar to pretending there is no sin and meanwhile, standing on the corner holding up a peace sign.  Why would anyone be holding up a peace sign if war is a good and positive thing, rather than a bad and negative thing for humanity?

Because there is only one universe as far as we can detect, there is nothing known to human beings that rationally compares to it.  But for purposes of discussion, if we view the universe as a giant computer, we can understand, based on our own human ability to create computers, that the universe represents a grand cosmic designed "machine", operating far beyond human ability to fully grasp and comprehend.  It is impossible to know how much or how little our Creator inputs within the grand cosmic scheme of things, while on the other hand, there is no evidence at all that either a computer or the universal reality can magically exist unto itself.  All evidence known to humanity points in the other direction, that parts within parts working in combination together require intelligence, conception, design and creation and, cannot magically exist unto themselves, as the bottom-line gross superstition of atheism requires one to blindly believe.  It is fair to state that atheism represents the least likely blind-faith religion in the known history of humanity.

Apparently even Richard Dawkins understands the superiority of the teachings of Jesus, as a photo of Mr. Dawkins wearing a t-shirt with the words, "atheists for Jesus" printed on the front, was at one time displayed on his website.  According to historian Will Durant in his epic volume, "Caesar and Christ", the teachings of Jesus in the four "gospels", represent a singular highly advanced mind, far greater than any other mind known in human history.  And as the writings of Durant clearly imply, to not study the Bible and the history and cultures surrounding the Bible, is to have no understanding of ancient history, Western history, American history, human rights, civil rights and essentially, no understanding at all.  How is it a reproductive or any other "advantage" to our children, for American education to ignore the greatest mind in human history?  Why did Jesus insist there is a God and claim that his father in heaven told him what to teach us, if there is no God?  Why are our educators afraid to teach our children the truth regarding the overwhelming historical influence and importance of Jesus and, why did we crucify our greatest teacher?

The universe is known today to be far more complicated than previously understood prior to the 21st Century.  In 2007, it was discovered the universe contains a very large void.  One theory proposed because of this discovery, is that all of the super-clusters in the entire universe encircle a very large black hole, similar to how much smaller black holes by comparison, reside at the center of galaxies.  If this theory is correct, then there is no need for the existence of dark energy to explain why the universe appears to be expanding faster than modern physics predicts it should.  This very large void known as the “Eridanus Supervoid”, is much larger than the Virgo Super-Cluster our own Milky Way galaxy is only but a small dot in comparison to.  This void is much larger than a typical super-cluster of galaxies. 

The “Eridanus Supervoid” is a good example of how little science actually knows about the universe.  The various explanations given at the link below, many of which are very different from each other, indicate that science doesn’t really know very well at all about how the universe works from true perspective.  What seems correct from our view here on earth has often been proven incorrect later on down the historical road as more evidence is discovered and no doubt, much of what seems correct today, will later be proven mainly if not entirely wrong by future generations of scientists.

It would be refreshing and beneficial for us all if modern scientists and educators were a little less arrogant and a little more humble about it all.  The truth is, human beings don't really know very much about what is really true from true universal and beyond (logos) perspective; that is, from God's view.  Can a virus within a microbe trapped within a human being's small intestines, say there is no human being on who it depends on for survival and far less so, can human beings remain remotely honest while saying there is no Creator or probably no Creator, on who we depend on for the very breath of life itself?  The size of the Eridanus Supervoid in comparison to the Virgo Super-cluster of galaxies we ourselves live within:
Link to various explanations for the very large Eridanus Supervoid
Video Comparison of Large and Small Universal Sizes

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Sigmund Freud believed that human babies are born "blank".  However, modern psychologists working with infants have discovered that, like the Bible says and Jefferson echoes in the Declaration of Independence, babies are born already "hard-wired" with a moral sense at birth.  To be fair, not all scientists agree with these findings.  What may be more likely true, is that humans are born with an innate moral conscience that develops over time along with the rest of our brain.  It is well established that the human brain continues to develop long after birth into and beyond our teenage years, rather than representing a "completed" package out of the womb.  A complete understanding of the human mind, human consciousness, intelligence and awareness still today remains severely lacking and, obviously it is difficult to test and fully understand what is going on in the minds of very young infants.

For example, while the myth that we humans only use about 10% of our brain has long endured, in reality it is now well-established that we use all of our brains.  While it was long assumed our brains are highly compartmentalized, it is now known that our brains are both compartmentalized while various processes function outside of specific areas at the same time, meaning human thought processes are far more complex than previously assumed.  As another example, it was recently discovered that unlike previously assumed, neurons in the human brain can carry more than one signal at the same time, thus greatly complicating the overwhelming complexity of how our brains actually function.
Brain Neurons Carry More Than One Signal

According to various studies, babies as young as three months old in various tests display choices based on perceptions of goodness as opposed to meanness (infants younger than this are extremely difficult to test).  And again like the Bible says, babies appear to have inborn tendencies towards selfishness and bias, ostracizing humans who they perceive as being outside their own group.  Such tendencies are clearly displayed on grade school playgrounds, where children are often cruel and mean to other children, accepting some while rejecting others for being the "black" kid, the "Jewish" kid, the "fat" kid, the "uncool" kid, the "ugly" kid, the "weak" kid, the "stupid" kid and similar superficial reasoning.  However "moral" our perceptions may already be at birth, it is beyond dispute that young children clearly make selfish, moral verses immoral and related choices.

As already noted, such inborn bias carries over into adulthood, where adults separate themselves into various often highly divisive groupings.  The Mensa Society for example, openly practices human segregation, excluding other humans from their exclusive club of theoretically intelligent people who fail to score high enough on a test supposedly measuring intelligence, a test that doesn't contain a single question about how to improve human behavior or otherwise, leave a less violent, greed-filled and polluted planet for our children to inherit (as if caring about our neighbor and our own offspring has no relation to human intelligence).  History is filled with the carcasses of human beings who vainly imagine they are better than other human beings, and vainly imagine it wise to divide ourselves into groupings as races, classes, liberals, conservatives and a myriad of other superficial divisions, as if we don't all fall "short" of what our own conscience dictates, as if we are not all collectively, like the Bible says, part of the global human oppression problem.
Do Babies Know Right from Wrong?
The Moral Life of Babies
Disputes Among Various Scientists Regarding Infant Morality
The Dark Core of Human Personality

The fairly new science of geometric "fractals" has been used to demonstrate how a "random" section of the Amazon Rain Forest, where various trees, shrubs and other plants appear to be randomly strewn about, is instead a simple to complex systematic design that can be described in human mathematical terms.  The same is true regarding a typical mountain scenic view environment, including the mountains, waterfalls, rivers, all of the trees, plants, animals, insects and even microbes, anywhere within the larger environment.  There is grand Cosmic design everywhere we look, both inward and outward as far as microscopes and telescopes can see.  The structure of the universe, from the micro world on up through the largest macro scales, can be described in fractal geometric design mathematical formula.

Even if the science of fractals is completely wrong, the fact that it exists at all clearly reflects grand cosmic design, even though we fail to fully understand it.  Some scientists have publicly stated they are shying away from using the term “random”, because they think it makes them look bad.  Perhaps there is a very good reason why it makes them look bad.  Some scientists today, who would no doubt openly scorn the formerly held "scientific" belief that disease spontaneously arises, would have us believe the entire universe somehow spontaneously arose.  It is no small wonder such 'scientists' are concerned about looking bad to the common people who Jesus seemed to think are as valuable (and perhaps as smart) as anyone else.

If we can describe the universe in rational terms, if human mathematics can exist at all and, if human mathematics can predict the existence of particles before they are discovered, which mathematics has already succeeded in doing, how can anyone pretend there is no intelligence behind the universal reality?  Why would any scientist or other human being today, who readily dismisses the once commonly held beliefs that the sun travels around the earth and that disease spontaneously arises, embrace a far more foolish notion, that the entire universe magically appeared?  Haven't modern scientists and educators learned anything at all from such incredibly wrong assumptions of the historically recent past?
The Science of Geometric Fractals


NOTE 3 - ABIOGENESIS, ASTROLOGY AND MAGIC:  Rather than changing the name of the theory itself, modern scientists and educators have rather cleverly taken up the misleading practice of continuing to call a supposed overwhelmingly agreed to theory "Evolution", while constantly tweaking and changing how evolution is defined as new evidence emerges.  So much so, that several scientists have recently stated biology 101 is in need of complete revision.  It is as if someone started out describing what is commonly called an elephant as an ant and, over many generations gradually tweaked and re-defined the description until now, it is closer to how an elephant actually appears, but still very far away from being a complete and accurate portrayal of an elephant.  As one scientist implied a few years ago on PBS, it may be that the theory of evolution is more and more becoming the elephant in the room, out of sync with the rest of the furniture.

If life existed prior to the earth itself, as many scientists now assume, then evolutionary theory has no value in determining the origins of life and, exactly how, when, where or why life first appeared will likely remain both unknown and unknowable to human science.  A few brave scientists long ago contended that what is called "abiogenesis" (more accurately called believing in magic) doesn't belong in a rational discussion and, based on the emerging evidence of theoretically zillions of planets harboring life, abiogenesis research more and more appears to be a huge waste of valuable time and energy that instead could be focused on eradicating horrible diseases and global mass pollution, not to mention being a complete waste of billions of taxpayer dollars.  One would suppose such theorists will eventually get over the obvious, that exactly how, where and when life actually began is so far over our collective heads, as to be like the rest of God's ways, "past finding out".

It is fair to say that the word "evolution" itself is misleading in relation to what the modern evidence actually indicates.  Educators often hastily sweep this under the rug, some now saying that evolution simply means "change".  However, in the minds of many if not most average people, the word evolution does not equate with the word change, nor does it equate with "adapt and change", as if these are equally interchangeable ideas.  While there is overwhelming evidence life adapts and changes within an ever changing universal environment, there is no evidence at all that life ever has or ever will "evolve", as the word is commonly understood by most people.  One might fairly ask, why not call the theory "life in transition" rather than evolution, which more clearly and accurately defines what the modern evidence actually indicates (discussed elsewhere in more detail).

According to the Bible, God's "understanding is infinite" and, God "counts the number of the stars" and "calls them all by name".  Although there are estimates for the number of stars in the universe, such estimates are highly questionable, as the size of our universe remains unknown and, there are far more stars in our galaxy alone than was assumed only a generation ago.  Some scientists believe there are multiple universes and at more than one scientist has stated there may be as many universes as there are stars in our own.  It is fair to say that stars are "beyond number", far beyond the ability of humans to detect and human mathematics to conceive of or comprehend.  And yet, it has been established by science today that electrons and other particles swirling around the nucleus of atoms are woven in intricate patterns, giving the various elements distinct properties, rather than just haphazardly whirling at random.

If a human being could somehow shrink down to the sub-atomic level and reside on an electron inside of an atom, inside of a strand of DNA, inside of a virus, inside of a bacterium, inside of another human being's small intestines, such a tiny human residing on the electron would be far larger compared to the size of an average adult human, than we humans are compared to just the known universe.  Our "window" into the universal reality is indeed so very tiny compared to what may be, that it cannot be fairly represented by a period on this page.  Yet, there are scientists prancing around the earth today pretending to be "almost certain" there is no God, as if they would somehow know and we should all just bow down and take their word for it, rather than seek advice from the real God who unlike such gross liars, is worthy of our awe, honor and respect.  It is no small wonder that the Bible says, "he who sits in the heavens shall laugh".

Such 'scientists' are living examples of why a common truck driver or waitress shouldn't waste his or her hard earned money having their children 'educated' by such practitioners of gross superstition and self-contradiction.  It is fair to say that rational human beings, whether a scientist, a truck driver or a waitress, don't believe in either the "spaghetti monster", astrology or magically appearing universes, while anyone comparing God to the spaghetti monster openly demonstrates themselves to be devoid of understanding of basic logic 1-A, reason and common horse sense.  Perhaps someone should have explained a long time ago to a certain militant atheist, that God by definition is Creator of the universe, while nobody in their right mind is claiming the spaghetti monster created much of anything.  How the ancient Greeks would utterly scorn such an infinitely preposterous lopsided apples and oranges comparison, before banning anyone making such a grade school juvenile delinquent error in basic logic from the Academy for life.

Is science being fair to artificially divide life up into species and then claim that one artificial division evolved from another?  Isn't it more honest to say that all of life is in a constant state of transition and, scientists then come along and arbitrarily divide life into artificial categories of human invention?  Is it fair to say that a bird "evolved" a certain type of beak, as if a bird induced change on it's own?  Isn't it more honest to conclude that all of life is created to adapt and change within an ever-changing universal reality, rather than change being somehow magically induced by random appearing, unguided, totally by chance processes; as if energy, motion, light, life and the rest of the observable universal reality somehow magically appeared by it's own volition?

What verifiable scientific evidence is there for energy, motion, light, quad-zillions of parts within parts, life, intelligence, the dual language of DNA or even something as rudimentary as human mathematics, magically appearing and randomly existing unto itself without any Primary Cause and, why would anyone either propose or believe such non-verifiable gross superstition?  Does replacing the word "creation" with "natural world" change the reality of how God creates the universe?  Isn't it more fair to say that our Creator may conceive of an entire universal space/time continuum, speak and then the grand cosmic reality unfolds accordingly, that life abundantly arose in the ocean and on land on earth and, far more abundantly arises throughout the larger universal reality?  Isn't it fair to conclude that science is slowly catching up to what the Bible already says is true, rather than the other way around?


NOTE 4 - GOD AND CHARLES DARWIN:  Charles Darwin appears to have been a rather careful scientist trapped within the scientific knowledge of his own times, as is every scientist of every age in every generation tracing back into the mists of historical time and, including every scientist here in the 21st Century.  It would be interesting to know what Darwin would say if he was alive today and had the current post-Hubble Telescope DNA knowledge we take for granted, to compare against his own earlier conclusions.  Perhaps he would have long ago called for the exclusion of the term "evolution" from modern science textbooks, who can say for sure?  Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" is not really about the origin of life itself but rather, an attempt to explain the great diversity of living forms of life found on earth.  Based on 21st Century evidence unavailable to Darwin, it is grossly inacurate to pretend that the theory of evolution satisfactorily or even remotely explains the origins of life.  Obviously if life existed prior to our own sun and solar system, as many modern scientists believe, human beings have no idea either how, when or where life first came into being.

Unlike many modern scientists and educators, Darwin openly welcomed any and all challenges to his theories and ideas and unlike many today pretend, Darwin states that "one can be an ardent Theist and evolutionist".  How the term "evolution" today is often used by far less qualified and less intelligent people, strongly implies there is no Creator or brains behind the universal reality (as if a human being somehow, could possibly know).  In doing so, such superstitious charlatans merely open themselves up to the ridicule such a gross baseless assumption richly deserves.  It remains grossly unfair and scientifically and morally, just plain wrong for public schools in modern-day America to allow only the religion of atheism to be taught in a so-called "science" class, at the expense of the 50% of American scientists and 80% of American educators who claim to believe in God.  If we had true freedom of speech and if we truly adhered to the First Amendment, both the views of scientists who believe in God and the views of scientists who do not would be fairly represented in high school and university textbooks.

According to Charles Darwin:  “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one”.  Note that unlike the modern standard "tree" theory of evolution, Darwin himself allowed for multiple origins of life.  This statement appears in every edition of Darwin's “On the Origin of Species” except for the first.  The reason it may not have appeared in the original edition, is probably not because Darwin was trying to appease religious leaders or please his wife, as several Darwin apologists have just randomly invented out of thin air.  Based on Darwin's own actions and willingness to debate religious leaders and other skeptics of his theory, there is every reason to believe otherwise.  Rather, the reason Darwin may have failed to mention this in his first edition is because at that time in history, the vast majority of scientists and other educated people believed in God and thus, the existence of God didn't apply to either Darwin's theory or his purpose for writing the book.  It is more likely Darwin included this statement in subsequent editions to clarify is own position, after his first edition had created a significant amount of public controversy.

Near the very end of his life, Darwin himself described his mind as “mainly agnostic, but not entirely”.  Since the term “agnostic” at that time sometimes referred to distrust in religions and human understanding of God, rather than doubt concerning the existence of God, it may be fair to conclude that while Darwin seriously doubted the religions of his society (as did Socrates, Jesus, Paul and Einstein among many other historical people of prominence), even till his dying day Darwin still either believed in God or at least suspected there might be a Creator.  It is more fair to say that neither Darwin or any other legitimate scientist or honest human being would say there is no God or probably no God, as there is simply no known evidence supporting such an irrational, non-evidence based, non-verifiable position.  And, as anyone who is even a little bit familiar with the history of philosophy, science, reason and the known evidence is aware of, what Darwin believed or failed to believe has no relevance to the existence of God, nor does what any of the rest of us believe or fail to believe have any relevance to God's existence, any more than what humans believe about the shape of the earth would somehow change the actual shape of the earth.

There is no evidence energy, motion or light can exist without Primary Cause, while there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  There is no evidence finite beings of intelligence and conscious awareness can randomly arise and magically exist unto themselves, while there is overwhelming evidence that intelligence and conscious awareness, if not eternal, requires previous intelligence and conscious awareness in order to exist.  There is no evidence parts within parts can magically self-assemble, while there is overwhelming evidence that computers, automobiles and anything and everything else containing parts within parts, requires intelligence, conscious awareness, conception, design and construction in order to exist.  There is no evidence that mathematics can magically exist unto itself, as if a math test sitting on a student's desk in a classroom at MIT or Oxford could randomly just magically appear, without an intelligent being conceiving of, devising and creating the test; as if math could somehow randomly accurately predict the existence of a particle of matter before the particle is actually discovered.

If the modern "big bang" theory is accurate, there is no evidence for "random" anywhere within our universe; whatever we can observe and otherwise detect, including in the quantum reality where scientists often carelessly apply the term "random", is a result of the big bang and by definition is therefore, not random.  It is helpful to state here as previously noted, some quantum scientists have suggested that what appears to be particles of matter "randomly" popping in and out of existence is in reality, merely a result of matter traveling between dimensions we can detect and other dimensions we cannot detect.  Suffice it to say, it overwhelmingly appears that modern science knows very little about the quantum world, compared to what there is yet to learn.  Near the beginning of the First Century, Jesus said, "before Abraham was, I AM" and here in the 21st Century, there remains no other known rational explanation other than Eternal Creator(s), for the existence of the observable reality called "universe".

There is far more evidence for God than there is for invisible light, black holes and all of the rest of modern science evidence combined.  And yet here in a 21st Century of greed-is-good philosophy, extreme arrogance and avarice, violence, a growing lack of love and empathy and looming planetary catastrophe, as clearly and scientifically accurately predicted by Jesus, many scientists and educators continue to pretend there is no evidence for God; as if they would somehow know and we should just take their blind faith word for it; as if Jesus wasn't correct regarding the blind leading the blind into an eventual common ditch of deception and destruction; as if our modern science and education doesn't continue to produce scientists who work for the global war machine and bankers and politicians of extreme avarice and even less intelligence, who while living in opulent excess, continue to deliberately rob the common masses out of life, liberty, health, homes, jobs, life savings and any hope of a pursuit of happiness; as if a so-called "age of reason" hadn't resulted in the rise of global imperialism and slavery, violent and bloody American, French, Russian, Chinese and many other revolutions and far more destructive wars; as if our science and education hasn't resulted in weapons of mass destruction, looming WWIII and a pollution filled environmental nightmare for our children and children's children to inherit and try to survive in as best they can; as if any of this somehow proves that life is only about survival of the fittest and, human rights and morality have no origin, basis, rhyme, reason or purpose; as if modern science and education would somehow know what is really true.


NOTE 5 - DESCARTES, PHILOSOPHY, ATHEISM, SCIENCE AND REASON:  God, philosophy, science and reason were for a very long time on earth, viewed as all being part of the same pursuit of what is true.  This is clearly demonstrated in both the Bible and the ancient Greek concept of "logos".  Many historical people of renown from Socrates and the Greeks and Jesus and Paul in the Bible to Jefferson, Paine and others, made a distinction between God and religion.  But for the most part, there is no such division between God, science and education found anywhere in human history until after Thomas Jefferson and the American founders were dead.  Many modern intellectuals very carelessly and very wrongly try to lump God in with human religions, as if human invented religions have any relevancy to either the existence of or true nature of God.

For this reason, a great many historical people are very wrongly interpreted and otherwise grossly misunderstood in a modern age of neatly divided educational categories, leaving students devoid of any context or proper understanding of the whole.  Atheism is largely absent among noted historical scientists, while deism, unlike many modern educators pretend, was a deliberate effort to separate discussion of God from religious dogma and instead, place free and open discussion of God under philosophy, science and reason.  Which as noted, were viewed as all being part of the same whole pursuit of what is true.  It should also be noted that unlike Deism is normally defined today, all of the American founders, based on the Declaration of Independence and all of their known subsequent writings, believed in a personal God who intervenes within the affairs of humanity and the larger universal reality.

What is called "science" is not the same as what is true, as history very clearly demonstrates; often what was once mainstream "science" is soon no longer believed to be correct.  Rather, what is called science is at best when applied correctly, what is true as far as we know and, only as far as we know, based on the current evidence available to us.  To present science in some other fashion as modern educators often do, as a set of irrefutable scientific facts, is to deceive our own offspring, grossly misrepresenting the known historical track record of human science.

Unlike astronomer Neil Degrasse Tyson has stated on PBS, science does not equal what is true.  No historical scientist of renown would likely agree with him concerning this and, neither do the known historical facts.  Mr. Tyson is known for publicly chastising religious people for failing to go by the evidence, as well he should.  He openly admits in the television series "Cosmos" that science doesn't know how life came to be, which agrees with the Encyclopedia Britannica and many other scientists.  Unfortunately, in the same Cosmos series, Mr. Tyson just randomly pulls random, blind, "totally unguided", "natural processes" out of thin air, failing to provide a single shred of supporting evidence as to how he would know or why he would state such processes are either random or unguided; evidence that neither Mr. Tyson or any other human being could possibly provide.

If the universe began with a big bang, then everything that follows is by definition, not random.  To arbitrarily state that what we can observe as human beings is random, is like a virus inside of a microbe inside of a carburetor inside of an automobile engine, as the car is being driven down a road, claiming that various sparks and dust particles flying around inside the engine are "random" and, that the engine, the automobile, the driver, the road, the earth, the solar system, the galaxy and the universe they all reside in, somehow all magically randomly appeared, as if the virus inside of the microbe, somehow would know.

Any self-respecting Greek philosopher could easily contend there is no such thing as random within a universal system already in motion and, even if there is, such a claim cannot be verified by any known scientific or other human method.  It may be true that our Creator deliberately designed a universe which in turn, can generate randomness and otherwise perform many functions on it's own, as even human beings can create lottery and other machines which in turn can theoretically generate randomness, but true universal from the top down randomness remains completely and totally non-verifiable by any living being trapped within the larger universal system in motion.

Throughout much of human history, what today is called the "natural world" was instead referred to as "creation".  Like many modern intellectuals, Mr. Tyson seems to assume changing the term "creation" to "natural world" doesn't require any supporting evidence and far worse, that this somehow makes God unrelated to science, as if God doesn't know how his own universe came to be or functions and, as if changing a human language term somehow dictates true universal reality.  Whether we believe the earth is square, spherical or triangular in shape, this does not change the true shape of the earth. And likewise, whether we call what we can observe "creation" or the "natural world" or, if we call how life functions "evolution" rather than "creation", this is no way, shape or form dictates how the universe either came to be or functions.  Many historical people of note including both Einstein and Charles Darwin appear to have understood this, while many modern scientists and educators and consequently students and the general public unfortunately, apparently do not.

Today, atheism and agnosticism at the bottom-line, is demanding that the rest of us embrace magic and baseless superstition, the opposite of science and reason.  Atheism requires a blind faith belief that energy, motion, light, quad-zillions of parts within parts, life, intelligence, conscious awareness, the dual language of DNA and mathematics can randomly exist unto themselves, without any Primary Cause, which is not supported by any verifiable scientific or other evidence.  Rather, ALL of the known evidence points in the opposite direction towards the necessity of Eternal Primary Cause.  Newton's famous contention that for every action there is an equal and opposite re-action strongly implies that every action requires Primary Cause somewhere up the chain of events.  Fully 100% of the known evidence demonstrates this to be true, while there is zero evidence indicating otherwise.

Modern atheists and agnostics tend to not relish standing naked and peeled back accordingly and, they have emailed from all over the world strongly protesting that they don't believe in magic and that I have just misunderstood their position.  While not surprisingly, not a single one has provided a shred of supporting evidence.  Instead of providing evidence to support no God, probably no God or even possibly no God, they instead invariably resort to accusing the messenger, saying I have never studied science or otherwise failed to understand what they supposedly know.  It is fair to say that demonstrating the absurdity of modern atheism is far easier than shooting blind fish in a rotten barrel.

Various atheists have emailed me the same exact or similar talking points which they apparently believe to be unique clever positions, as if they all have a copy of the same atheist bible.  One of the most common talking points sent by atheists is the following: "Atheism is the default position; atheism makes no claims, it just disbelieves in God or gods".  The problem with this statement is that it is a lie unto itself, as there are at least six claims contained within this single statement; 1) atheism is the default position; 2) atheism makes no claims; 3) the universe is not or probably not created and 4-5) there is no God or probably no God and, there are no gods or probably no gods.  A sixth claim contained within this statement of obvious self-delusion is, that the Encyclopedia Britannica, Merriam-Webster dictionary and various other generally reliable sources are somehow, all in great error concerning how atheism should be properly defined.

The first claim is an obvious lie, as the true default position of science and reason is, there is a physical reality containing various phenomena called "universe" or to be more concise, simply "there is a universe".  The two-pronged default question then becomes, how and why is there a universe?  Atheism isn't a default position of anything, nor can it rationally explain anything at all and as such, atheism remains just a faulty position, having no value to science, reason and the human race.  Regarding claim #3, God in the modern age is defined by billions of people and by both Google definitions search and the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, as Creator of the universe.  To claim to "disbelieve" in God is to claim to doubt the universe is created, which has no more scientific value than to doubt Stonehenge is created, to doubt the sun is larger than the moon or, to doubt anything else.  Doubt without supporting evidence as to why one would doubt, has no value whatsoever to anyone.

Anyone can make a claim regarding anything or claim to doubt anything.  For example, anyone can claim to disbelieve the sun will appear in the sky anywhere on earth next year and, they can also then claim the burden of proof remains on those insisting the sun will appear somewhere on earth in the sky, pretending as atheists do, that to "disbelieve" lets them off the hook of providing verifiable evidence.  Such a position doesn't prove anything, nor does it have any value to the human race.  An atheist might argue that we have evidence for the sun appearing in the sky each and every year as far back as history knows.  And that is true, but it is also true we have evidence that the existence of energy and motion and everything else noted previously requires a Primary Cause, as far back as the history of science goes and, as far backwards, forwards, sideways, inward, outward and every which way as can be verifiably demonstrated here in the 21st Century.  Atheism and agnosticism are obviously no better than any other superstitious non-evidence based positions.

If someone were to tell a child in public school that the computer they are using is not created, such a child would most likely want to know how otherwise it happens to exist.  And likewise, if atheists and agnostics are going to lie to God's children and pretend God doesn't exist, probably doesn't exist or might not exist, we want to know how otherwise, energy, light, motion, intelligence, conscious awareness and quad-zillions of parts within parts putting every computer on earth to shame, somehow happen to magically exist.  At the bottom-line, atheists would have us believe that not only every computer, but also everything else that can be observed or otherwise detected by human beings, somehow magically arose all by itself.  If no one created the human brain, then everything human beings have ever created at the bottom line, somehow magically appeared.  Mature human beings eventually cease to believe in magic and embrace such gross superstition.

The general globally accepted definition among scholars for atheism is for some strange reason, far different than the definition provided to me by atheists themselves, which isn't surprising, given that atheists in general habitually misrepresent the known evidence.  From the Encyclopedia Britannica, this definition of atheism represents a globally recognized scholarly consensus:  "Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. . .Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable."  According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary, atheism is not only defined as disbelief in God, atheism is also defined as "the doctrine that there is no deity."  Atheism according to both sources, is a claim that the universe is not created.  And quite obviously, atheism is just another blind faith religious belief having no foundation in evidence.

Agnosticism is no better, as it is a claim the universe might not be created, which also requires supporting evidence to remain within the bounds of science and reason.  Language is not a science and at best, language is an imperfect communication tool.  If someone claimed to "disbelieve" in love, it would be understood by most rational people to mean that they don't believe in love.  Perhaps someone should point out to such self-contradicting people, that trying to hide behind human language in order to worm out of the scientific requirement of having to provide evidence to back up any and every claim in regards to the physical reality called "universe", doesn't serve to make them look any less dishonest.  We humans all remain subject to the universally agreed to fact that there exists a physical reality containing various observable phenomena called "universe".  Words like atheism and agnosticism and "random processes" do not excuse us from the obvious default question as to how and why there is a physical universal reality.

The universe and everything contained therein is evidence for God, just like what are commonly called "x-rays" taken by a dentist or physician and music heard from a car radio, are evidence for invisible light.  Atheists and agnostics, just like the rest of us, are required by the accepted rules of science and evidence, to provide evidence for any claim they make regarding the physical universal reality, however magical, baseless or otherwise absurd it may be.  As far as there being no plurality of gods, I have no particular quarrel with such a claim, although one might fairly ask, how would they know?  And one might also fairly ask, how would atheists know any of the other claims contained within such ridiculously absurd grossly superstitious positions?

It is said by many today that, "God is not a question for science" and it is common modern practice to divide science and religion, including belief in God, into two neat non-connected categories, as if God doesn't know anything about how the universe God created came to be or functions.  Belief in God is labeled "faith based", while science is supposedly based on evidence, even though throughout the vast majority of human history, no such distinction existed.  According to the Bible for example, "faith is the evidence of things not seen" and we believe in God based on the overwhelming evidence revealed in creation, clearly an evidence-based position.  This is no different than how modern science is commonly applied today in relation to dark energy, dark matter, black holes, invisible light and tracings of particles on photographic plates.  Not to mention, the entire theory of evolution is based on an apparent progression of changes that have never actually been either witnessed or otherwise, directly observed while occurring.

There is no difference between believing in God based on the visible mirrored evidence, than believing in black holes and invisible light based on the visible mirrored evidence, except in the minds of self-contradicting human beings.  Belief in God based on evidence is found in the historical record long prior to Socrates and the Greeks, who would undoubtedly utterly scorn any foolish notion of separating God from science.  Even militant atheist Richard Dawkins has publicly stated, the "God question" is central to science.

It is both dangerous and illegal in most states for a teacher in the United States to discuss deliberate design in a public high school 'science' classroom, even though according to unbiased surveys conducted by Rice University and the University of Chicago, over 50% of American scientists, 70% of American physicians and 80% of American teachers believe in God and thus by default, believe in some form of universal design.  Rather than teach our children the truth, that some scientists believe in deliberate conception, design and creation and some do not, those who pretend to speak for Thomas Jefferson and the other American founders prefer that we deliberately lie to our children by omission instead, ignoring the scientific opinions of 50% of American scientists, 70% of American physicians and 80% of American educators.

It is perhaps more than fair to say if these same pretenders to the throne of freedom were to whisper a little too loudly near the grave of Thomas Jefferson that Mr. Jefferson couldn't discuss evidence for creation in a science class, that he would rise from the dead and immediately begin making plans for a second revolution.  Based on everything known to history that the American founders said and did, it is very fair, correct and accurate to conclude they firmly believed in the right of a public science school teacher and anyone else within our borders, to freely say what they believe the evidence demonstrates anywhere within our borders, on both public and private property and especially, in a public school classroom, without fear of any economic or other recrimination.  This is the foundation of what freedom of speech is, to be able to speak freely without fear regarding what one fundamentally believes, regardless of who may or may not agree or how accurate or wrong one may in fact be.

Descartes states as his first rule of the mind and primary foundation for philosophy, science and reason:  "accept nothing as true that is not self-evident".  This statement by Descartes is not invented out of thin air but rather, it comes from an analysis of the known history of science, where scientists have long assumed what is self-evident to be true until proven otherwise.  Self-evidence, rather than being non-scientific, represents the highest bar in science at the time of Descartes and, also in the time of Jefferson and arguably still today.  It was "science" at one time to conclude that the earth is flat, until there was evidence indicating otherwise.  It was practicing correct "science” for Ptolemy to conclude that the sun revolves around the earth, which remained the majority held scientific theory for much longer than Darwin's theory of evolution has existed, until there was conclusive evidence demonstrating otherwise.  And, as Einstein himself initially believed, it was practicing correct “science” to maintain there is only one galaxy in a static universe, until conclusively proven otherwise by Edwin Hubble and others in the 20th Century.

It is NEVER correct science to just say the earth is spherical instead of flat, without providing any evidence or, that there is no Creator, probably no Creator or might be no Creator of the universe, without providing conclusive supporting evidence as to how otherwise the universe happens to exist.  What is self-evident remains true and correct "science" until proven otherwise, even if some hypothesis eventually proven accurate may have already been stated.  For example, some scientists disputed the earth-centered theory prior to Copernicus and, some disputed the static theory of an eternal universe with only one galaxy prior to Edwin Hubble.  It is one thing to suspect a long held majority scientific position is wrong, such as many scientists today suspect some if not all of Einstein's theories may be inaccurate.  But it is quite another thing to provide conclusive evidence supporting a BETTER explanation regarding time, energy, motion, gravity, light and the rest of the observable universal reality.

If Einstein had not provided a better explanation than Newton, he most likely would never have been included in a history book.  Just having a different explanation is not “science” unless and until it is conclusively demonstrated by evidence, to be a better explanation than what the majority of scientists previously believed.  Until someone provides a better explanation for the observable universal reality, that better and more accurately explains and satisfies origins than Jesus has already taught us, "before Abraham was, I AM", Eternal Primary Cause remains “correct science”.  In order to overturn this long held historical position, atheists and agnostics are required, by the established history of science and rules of science and evidence, to provide a BETTER explanation.  A different explanation is not "science" unless and until it can better satisfy origins, which so far no human being has been able to do, nor will any human being likely succeed in doing in a trillion, trillion, trillion and more years.

I have never met or heard of a successful gambler who would remotely consider taking odds in favor of atheism.  As former atheist Antony Flew relates in his book "There Is a God", an actual scientific experiment conducted in the United Kingdom provided six caged monkeys with computer keyboards and after a month of random banging away, not a single word resulted on fifty pages of randomly typed digits, not even an "a" or “I” properly spaced.  From there, the odds of a Shakespearean sonnet being randomly created were calculated as 10 to the 690th power.  To provide a comparison to how great of a number that is, the sub-atomic parts which make up all of the stars, planets and everything else in the entire universe, are estimated to be 10 to the 80th power and number of photons as 10 to the 89th power.  And, that is just to randomly produce a single Shakespearean sonnet.  Consider how much greater of a number would be necessary to produce Shakespeare's brain and then, how much greater to produce all of the other life forms, planets, stars and everything else in the universe.

It has been calculated that the possibility of a single protein randomly self-assembling is 1x10 to the 164th power, which is a great many trillions to one.  And, it has been calculated that the possibility of a simple cell self-assembling is 1x10 to the 340 power, a very far greater many more trillions to one.  This number is so large, if we were to purchase a jackpot lottery ticket every day of our lives, we would have an essentially infinitely greater chance of winning every ticket.  Yet again, British mathematician Roger Penrose calculates that the odds of the universe randomly appearing without any intelligence behind it is at least 1x10 to the 10,123 power against.  And, in spite of such astronomically overwhelming mathematical odds, so-called “science” textbooks in public schools continue to teach our children that the universe and everything contained therein magically appeared.  Of course textbooks don't use the word "magic", but it would obviously be far more honest if they did.  It is difficult to even begin to grasp just how utterly and entirely insane a position of atheism truly is.

Based on drawings and later early recorded writings, the sun was believed to be larger and warmer than the moon by people far and wide across the earth, long before there was conclusive scientific evidence or even any concept of "science".  This conclusion was based solely on self-evidence that the sun appears to be larger and warmer than the moon.  What is "self-evident" is not always true, but it remains true unless and until proven otherwise.  And yet, the self-evidence for deliberate design and creation of the universe is far greater than any modern evidence regarding the sun in relation to the moon.

Even before more conclusive evidence based on modern science observations and calculations, why would anyone in their right mind propose or conclude the opposite, that the moon is larger and warmer than the sun?  Yet, this is what atheism continues to demand of us today in the face of the astronomically overwhelming evidence for deliberate design and creation.  At least in ancient times, people had the observable evidence of the moon as a counter-intuitive possibility, while there is zero evidence for a conclusion of atheism, not even an obviously smaller and cooler moon to offset the overwhelming evidence demonstrating deliberate conception, design and creation !!!

According to some modern physicists, astronomers and other scientists, the universe appears to be designed according to Pi 1.3416. . . and according to the golden ratio, 1.6180. . ., both irrational numbers theoretically extending forever and ever.  If true, at least two things become rather obvious:  1) There is no such thing, at least from a human understanding viewpoint, as either the largest or smallest number and, the number of stars (of who knows how large or how many universes) like the Bible claims, may well be "without number".  And 2) Like the Bible also says, only God knows "the end from the beginning".  As such, human science won't likely ever have a truly accurate and complete theory of everything, nor does any claim of "natural, blind, unguided, processes" have any chance of remotely being scientifically verifiable.

Today, 10 to -43 is about the limit to human understanding of the world of the very small.  If the universe is designed according to two or more irrational numbers, it makes rational sense to conclude that like the Bible long ago stated, human science will never truly know “the end from the beginning”.  Both the realm of the very small atomic and sub-atomic "quantum" reality and the very large macro reality theoretically could extend infinitely smaller and infinitely larger.  That is, as far as human science either currently knows or likely, ever will know.  Obviously because we are trapped within a universal three-dimensional plus time fishbowl, there are limits to human understanding and thus, it remains grossly arrogant and completely and entirely non-scientific and irrational, for any human being to claim there is no God, probably no God or might be no God; as if they somehow would know, as if a virus inside of a microbe trapped deep inside of an automobile carburetor, could somehow know there is no engine, driver, car, road or larger universal reality.
The Great Math Mystery
Nature by Numbers (Fibonacci Sequence & The Golden Ratio)

Even the greatest modern scientific minds freely admit that all human knowledge, science and understanding breaks down inside of a black hole.  What science calls a "singularity" is merely a placeholder for what in reality is not understood and arguably, beyond understandable to human beings.  And what this also means, if our universe is designed according to at least two irrational numbers, is that the "Planck length", is merely a human construct of convenience, rather than being truly the smallest measurement possible (as some scientists claim, while other scientists seriously challenge this).  Theoretically, the energy required to measure anything smaller would create a black hole, but this remains only theoretical and has never in reality as far as science knows, actually occurred.

According to astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a single molecule of water is so incredibly small that the total number of molecules in a single cup of water is greater than the number of same-size cups of water in all of the earths oceans, lakes rivers and other surface water combined.  Meanwhile modern mathematicians, who some might suspect have a little too much time on their hands, estimate that the number of particles in the human body is 1.46 x 10 to the 29th power.  As noted previously, the number of protons, neutrons, electrons and neutrinos in the known universe is estimated to be 10 to the 80th power, while the number of photons estimated as 10 to the 89th power.  Thus, as one can see, relatively small increases in powers of 10 result in extremely incredibly larger numbers.  And yet as noted, according to mathematical calculations performed by Roger Penrose, the odds of the universe existing by non-designed random processes is at least 10 to the power of 10,123 against.  To try to even begin to illustrate how irrationally non-scientific a position of atheism truly is, a relatively extremely tiny number by comparison of 10 to the 123rd power, is a number extremely incredibly larger than all of the particles in the known universe, which in turn, is a number extremely incredibly larger than the chance of the grand cosmic design being a result of random unguided processes.

The number calculated by Penrose, being 1 followed by 10,123 zeros, is extremely incredibly far beyond all human conception, vain and other imagination, very, very, very far beyond unimaginably larger than the number of photons in the entire known universe.  In short, it is not only non-scientific and irrational to pretend the universe is not created, it is extremely incredibly very, very, very. . . typed to a length extending very far larger than the circumference of the observable universe, far beyond the remotest, tiniest conceivable possible chance of being true.  It takes far more blind faith to embrace atheism than it does to believe in Santa Clause, the flying spaghetti monster, astrology, prime time television, the honesty of priests, preachers, self-help and other gurus, politicians, lawyers, used car salesmen and all of the religions, mythologies, science fiction and other fiction novels, children's stories and fairy tales and any and all other known tales in the history of human civilization combined.

One might fairly add, to pretend that mathematics alone could somehow randomly magically exist without any "brains" behind the universal reality, represents a complete and total fabrication of non-scientific dishonesty and complete mathematical and other self-contradiction.  It is not only true that Las Vegas would never even begin to consider covering such odds, one might also fairly and honestly conclude that again like the Bible says, our Creator isn't likely to excuse those who pretend that the universe we inhabit is a magically existing result of "random, blind, totally by chance" processes.  One could legitimately conclude that a scientist pretending the moon is somehow larger and warmer than the sun would have a very far better chance of being correct.

And one might fairly ask, how loudly, roundly and soundly would a scientist be ridiculed if, upon stumbling on some previously unknown architectural masterpiece akin to Stonehenge, just randomly invented out of a black hole rabbit's hat, that because science can't fully explain its existence, such a wondrously and carefully designed creation must have somehow magically appeared and "self-designed" from scratch due to magically appearing "blind", "natural", "unguided", "random", "totally by chance" processes?  And then again, how does our father in heaven feel when those vainly imagining themselves to be practicing 'science', impress upon our children the embracement of baseless science fiction supported by clueless gross superstition, rather than science, reason and not to mention, common horse sense; outright lying to God's children from ostensibly ultimately randomly appearing textbooks, pretending that our entire universe somehow magically self-designed all by itself, as if they somehow would know?  And speaking of horse sense, who in their right mind would bet on such an atheistic black hole dark horse winning either the Kentucky Derby or any other race?  What evidence do they have and, why should either we or any self-respecting horse believe them?

It is not up to believers in the self-evident obvious to prove that the obvious is true.  What is self-evident is not always correct, but it is often correct and it remains correct until proven otherwise; such as the self-evident conclusion that the sun is warmer than the moon, the self-evident conclusion that rain will always eventually stop, that colder weather will always eventually follow warmer weather, that a given amount of seeds planted in spaced rows at certain depths, will in normal weather years, yield an approximate amount of food, that stones and timber beams constructed in certain ways will support a roof and keep a human being from falling through a second-story floor.  These are long held human civilization conclusions based on self-evidence, all of which existed long before any concept of "science" existed.  Just as it was up to Copernicus and others to provide a BETTER explanation than Ptolemy and, just as it was up to Einstein to provide a BETTER explanation than Newton, the "onus" remains on atheists to demonstrate by evidence, a better explanation for universal existence, rather than the other way around, as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett in very great historical, philosophical, scientific, logical, rational, intellectual and any and all imaginable other very great error pretend.

There is no evidence for a position of atheism while there is overwhelming evidence that randomness can never produce anything at all.  If matter has always existed, as some scientists postulate, why doesn't it just stay in whatever state it was initially in?  There is no evidence that energy can magically arise and cause a big bang to go boom or that motion can exist apart from Primary Cause, that conscious awareness and intelligence can magically arise from bits of non-conscious matter, that so-called "universal laws", systems or life processes called “evolution”, "Natural Selection" or any other process or system can magically exist unto itself.  Atheism represents a blind faith embrace of gross superstition and the worst kind of science fiction imaginable, having no foundation in evidence, rhyme or reason.

The late Pete Seeger once remarked that God has given us a brain presumably with the expectation that we will attempt to use it.  There is no evidence for a conclusion of atheism and thus, to say there is no God, probably no God or might be no God, is to say, "I don't believe in the overwhelming evidence in front of my eyes, ears, nose and mouth, nor do I trust the reasoning capability of my own brain."  The question of "where did God come from" is answered by "before Abraham was, I AM".  This statement satisfies origins and thus, it remains the correct primary postulate of science, philosophy and reason, until proven otherwise with conclusive supporting evidence.  And one might wish anyone trying good luck on that one, because they sure as hell or going to need it.


NOTE 6 - MISLEADING TERMINOLOGY AND LIFE IN TRANSITION: Scientists and educators today typically grossly misleadingly refer to the reality we perceive as the "natural world" rather than creation, as if changing terminology somehow changes reality.  Many educators and others say God is not a question for science, as if we could somehow just accept there is such a thing as a computer without having any theory as to how computers happen to exist and, still have a legitimate science of computers.  Scientists often misleadingly use the word "evolve", stating that a certain species of bird "evolved" a different type of beak or, a certain species of frog "evolved" new skin coloration, as if a living form of life somehow induced change by it's own will and volition.  There is no supporting evidence to ever use the term "evolve" in this manner or for that matter, in any other manner in relation to how life actually functions in true reality.  Teaching students and the general public that all of life is in "transition" and life "adapts and changes" to ever changing universal environments, is far more accurate and less misleading, based on the current known evidence.

The term "species" is itself a human invention and neither changes or affects how the processes of life actually function; this is clearly demonstrated by the fact that life adapted and changed for billions of years prior to any concept of either evolution or species.  Whether a child calls all snakes simply a snake or, a scientist divides snakes up into many distinct "species", this is no way, shape or form changes how snakes came to be as they are or, how life otherwise actually functions in true reality.  And, calling what we perceive to exist the "natural" world rather than creation, doesn't change either how life came to be or how life functions.  Rather, changing terminology for no good reason creates significant bias and confusion.

Suppose 100 birds all classified by science as being of the same "species", were living in San Pedro, California.  Now suppose someone caged 75 of these birds and the cage was placed on a ship heading for the South Pacific.  Now suppose the ship began sinking near three very different island environments, the birds were mercifully released from their cage before it sank and, 25 of the 75 birds ended up trying to survive in each of three different island environments.

After many generations, assuming they all reproduced normally, a scientist might then happen along and discover three "new" species of birds, classifying the now several hundred of each population as four "distinct" species; three "new" species on each of the three islands being traced back as having "evolved" from the rest of the original "species" left behind in California.  Given this simplistic scenario, what is actually true is that the same part of life (or life form) has so dramatically changed due to varying survival circumstances, that science now artificially classifies it as four distinct different "species" of bird. While in true reality, it is the same bird, the same life form, which has adapted and changed in order to survive.

Although what is called "evolution" is far more complex than this deliberately simplistic example, it illustrates a much different reality than what the general public typically is taught and believes, due to the misleading term "evolution".  Largely because of this misleading term, the general media, PBS and other science videos and school textbooks, continue to paint a false picture in the minds of students and others.  Such media often contains extremely biased, non-evidence based conclusions, such as human beings are often said to be descended from the "ape family", which Darwin himself denied.  Even Richard Dawkins admits that apes and humans represent two modern life forms that didn't exist in the not too distant past.  It is just as accurate to say that apes "evolved" from the human family as it is to say that humans "evolved" from the ape family, although neither statement is accurate.

What most biologists assume is that somewhere over at least 6 million years ago, both apes and humans shared a common ancestor, an ancestor that was neither an ape or a human as we perceive apes and humans to be today.  This may or may not be true, as a true "missing link" has so far not been found.  If it is true, then both apes and humans "transitioned" from the same life form which was neither a modern ape or a modern human being.  The term "evolution" creates a bias of evolutionary "advancement" where none necessarily exists, which in turn creates the bias of human beings descending from apes, rather than the other way around.

Certain kinds of spiders weave a complex differently patterned web every day; most ants are arguably far less lazy than most human beings and, an ant's neck can withstand over 2,000 times it's own body weight.  Is it fair to conclude a very recent "species" that, even after 10,000 years of moral instruction to the contrary, continues to create weapons of mass destruction, frequently go to war for no rational survival or any other good reason at all and, continues to severely pollute the environment of its own offspring, is more "advanced" than an ape, a spider or an ant or, even cockroaches, which have managed to survive and reproduce for over two hundred million years?

Rather than focusing on what modern science "believes", modern educators should be focused on a search for what is true.  If we want to be free, what matters is what is really true, as opposed to what is not and only assumed to be true.  Regardless of what we human beings believe or disbelieve and, regardless of which theories, ideas, formulas and terminology we invent to describe and explain what we can perceive, what is actually true remains the same.  This is not entirely true, because what we believe influences how we think and act, but it is essentially true in the larger universal reality.  Whether we believe the earth is spherical, square or shaped like a pyramid or, whether we insist the earth doesn't exist, none of this changes the shape of the earth or the fact of it's existence.  Other than influencing our actions and in turn other people and the larger environment around us, what we believe or refuse to believe does not change what is actually true.

One of the most blindly accepted and rarely thought through very carefully claims of modern science is, that species “evolve” from other species.  This concept is religiously indoctrinated into the impressionable minds of modern students from elementary school forward.  But, is this in fact really true?  What appears to be actually true, based on the modern evidence, is that all of life is constantly adapting and changing in reaction to an ever-changing universal environment.  This is more fairly and accurately described as “life in transition” rather than evolution.

While all of life continues to adapt and change, human beings have invented a system that artificially divides life up into categories like “species”, “genus”, "family", "order" and so on.  Such artificial divisions obviously have no bearing on how life either came to be or actually functions in true universal reality.   It is neither logical, rational or reasonable to claim that a “species”, an arbitrary artificial division of human science, gives rise to another artificial division of science.  Such a claim is misleading, as what we call birds and snakes and all of life adapted and changed long prior to the existence of any concept of species.  Life long has and continues to function as it does, regardless of how human beings choose to classify and otherwise, divide life up.

For example, scientists still debate today how to actually define and correctly categorize various species, various differing methods of biological classification currently exist for the same observed living forms of life and, widely used biological classification methods today are considerably different than used even a generation ago.  One need only do a quick web search to find several different illustrated methods of life classification, some dividing life into more "kingdoms" than others.  Clearly, how human science chooses to categorize life has no influence over how life actually behaves in true universal reality and thus, to claim that one species "evolves" from another species represents human arrogance far more than a legitimate adequate explanation of what is really true.

If someone creates an apple pie and then, someone else slices the pie into twelve pieces, it isn't true that one of the pieces gave rise to one of the other pieces.  Rather, someone created the whole pie and then, someone else arbitrarily divided it into pieces.  Individual pieces of the pie have no relevance to how the pie either came to be or functions.   Even if individual pieces of the pie were observed to be constantly adapting and changing, such changes would be due to the nature of how the entire pie was created, rather than being caused by specific individual pieces.  If the pie was instead divided into six or four pieces or, if the pie was left uncut, it would still have come into existence in the same way and, it would still function in the same manner.

This is also true of the whole pie of life.  If we call all birds simply a "bird" or, if we divide birds up into many species of birds, doing so has no relevance to how birds either came to be or function within true universal reality.  Human interpretations and artificial divisions of life do not and cannot rationally dictate how life either came to be or functions.   Based on the modern evidence, much of it unknown to Charles Darwin, it is fair to conclude that all of life is created to adapt and change within a constantly changing universal environment, so that life itself can survive.  This is what the modern evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates when human prejudice is stripped away.

As far as human beings know here in the 21st Century, the entire universe is in a constant state of transition.  No observed structure in the universe is believed to be permanent and unchanging, whether it is a strand of DNA, a microbe, a frog, a planet, a star, a galaxy, a cluster or a super-cluster of galaxies.  Everything that human beings can detect is in transition, constantly re-arranging, adapting and changing.  Our planet itself and everything contained within our planetary environment, including all of life and everything life is made of, exists in a state of constant and ongoing transition.

If the modern "big bang" theory is correct, everything we can observe traces back to what came out of the big bang.  Life, like everything else tracing back to the big bang, is in a constant state of transition; life is constantly re-arranging, adapting and changing.  If life didn't adapt and change, it obviously wouldn't survive in a constantly changing universal environment.  The modern evidence clearly demonstrates, as far as we know, that the universe and everything contained therein is created to adapt and change on a grand cosmic scale, very far over our collective heads.

There is no evidence that structures like the universe could magically arise all by themselves and, there is no rational reason for considering that they would, any more than for considering a house could magically arise without any trees for wood, iron for nails or other parts necessary for a house to exist and far more absurdly, without any Builder to conceive of, design and construct the house.  Yet, this is precisely what atheists and agnostics would have us believe, that something as overwhelmingly incredibly complex as the universal reality either did or could have magically arisen.

Rational and reasonable adults don't typically believe in magic, nor do rational and reasonable adults believe in a magically arising energy, motion, light and process called "evolution" or any universal law or process magically existing unto itself.  What science rather arbitrarily classifies as "species" come and go, but life itself marches on.  As far as we know today here in the 21st Century and arguably, as far as human science can ever know, life may have existed prior to our current universe and, life may continue to exist long after our current universe fades away.  Beyond what human scientists can observe and otherwise detect, modern science simply doesn't know.

However, as any experienced historian does know, lack of evidence does not equal or prove non-existence.  Lack of evidence for Moses outside of the Bible doesn't prove Moses didn't exist, as certain "pop-culture" pundits posing as historians have a vary bad habit of pretending.  And likewise, lack of evidence for billions of galaxies prior to the 20th Century doesn't mean they didn't exist, a lesson of history apparently lost on far too many narrow-minded intellectuals.

What human beings can observe is neither fairly or legitimately called "evolution".  Rather, based on the modern evidence of grand universal (and theoretically beyond) design, it is fairly and legitimately called creation in flux or, creation in transition.  Given the current 21st Century evidence reality, the term "evolution" does not fairly or adequately apply to any known observable reality. Do species really evolve from other species?  Or, is modern science just pulling our chain, denying the overwhelming evidence for Who is behind the DNA chain of life and larger universal reality?


NOTE 7 - MORE EVIDENCE CHALLENGING STANDARD DARWINIAN THEORY:  According to a 2010 PBS video, a scientist recently was able to demonstrate in the lab that RNA might have been able to form by first two of the necessary four RNA nucleotides combining in warm fresh water.  It is theorized that the first two in combination may have been carried by wind up into the air and later fell like raindrops, eventually combining with the other two that formed separately, perhaps one at a time.  As such, life could well have arisen from all over the earth, as the Bible apparently says is true, rather than “evolving” from a singular source in the ocean, as evolutionary theory has long assumed.

According to various theories, what causes life to form came out of the big bang, is refined in stars and finds it’s way around the accretion disks of newly formed stars, which are formed from stardust left over from super-nova and other cosmic events.  These accretion disks eventually form planets, moons, asteroids, comets and various other left over debris and, as conditions allow, life then arises on unknown "zillions" of planets (and perhaps moons, asteroids and other space debris).  According to some scientists, it appears what caused life to eventually arise on earth included both molecules found on the original earth itself and, other molecules transported to the earth on asteroids and comets.
New Molecule Found in Space Connotes Life Origins
Organics for Life May Have Arrived on Space Rocks
Organics Probably Formed Easily in Early Solar System
Building Blocks of Life Found Around Young Star
Did Comets Contain Key Ingredients For Life On Earth?
Key Ingredients Necessary for Life May Have Come from Beyond the Earth
Evidence Comets Could have Seeded Life on Earth

After planets are formed, the essential four repeating subunits of RNA, called nucleotides, eventually form.  Although some viruses contain RNA only, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, it remains unclear if or how any kind of life could survive without DNA.  As far as is known, neither RNA only or other viruses can survive without a host containing DNA and thus, viruses are believed to have arisen after both RNA and DNA existed.  Some scientists claim there is evidence life arrived on space rocks in an already living form and, there are many other theories besides what is discussed here.  A satisfactory explanation for exactly how life came to exist in the larger universal reality remains far beyond the knowledge of human science and very likely always will.  It appears virtually certain that life did not originally "evolve" or otherwise begin from scratch on earth and thus, any claim that life magically appeared without any creative brains behind the universal reality remains what it long always has been, nothing but non-scientific gross superstition having no foundation in evidence.

As discussed in more detail elsewhere, many scientists today conclude that the universe appears to be "fine-tuned" for the emergence of life, which is exactly what one would expect if the universal reality is a result of deliberate design and creation and, not at all what one would expect from random occurring unguided designer-less processes.  According to the Bible, life came forth in abundance from the ocean and from the land, which is exactly what one would expect from a designed universal reality fashioned for life.  And, as demonstrated by newly evolving theory, life could well have sprung up from all over the earth; in the ocean, on land, under the earth, in caves and, as one scientist stated, anywhere there is a “little wetness”.

All of the known evidence indicates that God creates life woven within a grand universal design far above our collective heads; created to adapt and change so that life itself can survive within ever changing universal environments.  In observing such changes, modern science then artificially divides life into categories as species, genus, family, order, etc., on up to the highest scientific classification of "life" itself.  Such classifications are merely human constructs (inventions of convenience based on human perceptions) and have no bearing on the reality of how life either came into existence or functions.  This is self-evident by the fact that life continues to adapt and change today as it did long before human beings or any concept of science, evolution or species ever existed.

How humans choose to classify life has no relevance to how life first came into existence, nor does it change how God creates life, any more than calling the shape of the earth spherical, flat or triangular in shape, would somehow change the actual shape of the earth.  There is no evidence that species “evolve” from other species through some magically existing spontaneously arising processes of “evolution”.  Rather, ALL of the known evidence dictates that life is deliberately designed and created to adapt and change, so that life can survive within a deliberately designed every-changing universal reality.  What science comes along after the fact and classifies as a “species”, remains an artificial human classification, having no bearing on the reality of life or how life functions in true reality, any more than calling a certain type of animal an "elephant" rather than a "rabbit", has any bearing on either the appearance of or true nature of the animal.

And, though what science calls a “species” arises and dies out, life itself marches on, just as our wise Creator apparently intended, so that life can survive within God's ever-changing universal environment.  Scientists and intellectuals need to grow up and get over the obvious fact that God is far greater and more intelligent than we can rationally begin to fathom, far more so than we ourselves are in comparison to a bacterium or virus, an atom or even a quark.

Life is very likely far more complex and cross-integrated at root sub-atomic, atomic, virus, archaea, bacteria and higher levels, than science has long assumed.  And, modern scientists are recently waking up to that fact, as some have publicly stated on PBS that life is far too complex for human beings to ever fully comprehend and explain.  There are far more micro-organisms than visible macro-organisms and it is believed, far more viruses than all other forms of life combined.  Modern biological theory breaks down at archaea, virus and lower levels (atomic, quantum), which is where the explanation for how life arises most matters for a theory of "evolution" or any other theory to have any hope of being remotely accurate. Viruses Can Transfer Genes Across Superkingdoms of Life
Lowly Archaea Humble Darwinian Tree-Theory of Life


NOTE 8 - IS EVOLUTIONARY THEORY AS "ROCK-SOLID" AS WE'VE LONG BEEN TAUGHT? - A secular non-creationist biologist in a 2009 PBS video discussing and detailing some of the most recent scientific evidence, stated that evolutionary theory as generally believed today will likely be mostly if not entirely discarded within fifty years.  And a secular molecular biologist in the same video stated that life is so overwhelmingly complex at the atomic and sub-atomic (quantum) levels, it is irrational to pretend that science can ever have a legitimate theory of life functionality and origins.  These were two currently practicing professional secular biologists merely trying to go by the evidence, stating their professional opinions in a public evolutionary science video.  This video was not produced by creationists, did not feature a single creationist, nor did it mention either God, creation or intelligent design.  More significantly, discoveries since then have caused many scientists and educators to call for a complete re-write of biology 101, underscoring what these scientists stated in this 2009 video to be correct.

According to a 2010 article by Oliver Burkeman published in The Guardian: "Epigenetics is the most vivid reason why the popular understanding of evolution might need revising, but it's not the only one.  We've learned that huge proportions of the human genome consist of viruses, or virus-like materials, raising the notion that they got there through infection – meaning that natural selection acts not just on random mutations, but on new stuff that's introduced from elsewhere.  Relatedly, there is growing evidence, at the level of microbes, of genes being transferred not just vertically, from ancestors to parents to offspring, but also horizontally, between organisms.  The researchers Carl Woese and Nigel Goldenfield conclude that, on average, a bacterium may have obtained 10% of its genes from other organisms in its environment."  As detailed elsewhere, Natural Selection claims of changes due to "random mutations", based on modern genetic evidence unknown to Darwin, appears to be partially if not entirely wrong, thanks in no small part to evidence demonstrating that microbes living within macro-organisms can change their own DNA, in turn inducing changes in macro forms of life once assumed to be "random".
Why Everything We've Been Told About Evolution is Wrong


NOTE 9 - IS REPRODUCTIVE ADVANTAGE THE SOLE EXPLANATION FOR WHAT OUR EYES CAN PLAINLY SEE? - It seems to have never dawned on many modern scientists, that just perhaps like God's human creations, God can create works of art displaying both practical reproductive and aesthetic design purposes in combination.  For example, human beings typically include non-functional aesthetic design in virtually everything we create, from paper clips to the largest buildings.  For example, the U.S. Supreme Court building has ornate columns that both hold up the roof and are also aesthetically designed to be pleasing to the eye of the beholder, even though there is no practical reason for including such design for holding up the roof.  Just perhaps, God is at least as capable of creative multiplicity in design as human beings are and just perhaps, the beautiful feathers of a peacock are created for BOTH sexual reproductive and aesthetic purposes woven in combination, who can say for sure?

Consider the incredible complexity of what science calls the “natural” world, where trillions of microbes, plants, insects, mammals and other living things react individually and differently within the same general environmental “scene” based on what kind of eyes, ears or other perception tools they may possess.  Just perhaps, a Being great enough to design the universe is capable of creating for both practical functionality and aesthetic purposes woven into the same design, given that such a comparatively lowly creature like a human being does so consistently on a daily and ongoing basis.  Even some spiders create a differently designed, yet practically functional web every single day of their lives.  Why wouldn't our Creator be at least as capable of combined artistic and functional design creation as a human being or a spider is capable of?  Like not being able to see the forest for the trees, atheistic scientists are clearly victims of their own narrow-minded egotistical foolishness.

One also might fairly ask why a great many organisms living deep below the ocean surface where there is no visible light, would represent a multitudinous rainbow of coloration, even when many of them don't have eyes and cannot either see or perceive color as far as can be determined.  Biologists provide explanations based on Darwinian theory for why red is a dominant color among deep ocean marine life, but there seems to be no satisfactory explanation for why a large variety of other coloration is also found. 

If the coloration of a male peacock arises and remains only as a reproductive advantage and if it would eventually disappear if it lost any and all reproductive reason for being there, why isn't all marine life below a certain depth mainly transparent, black, red or another singular plain opaque-like color, especially when it is located very deep into the blackness three miles or more below the surface?  Why does marine life at great ocean depths instead, vary from being sometimes transparent-like, to also often displaying not only red and black, which may be explainable by Darwinian theory, but also a great rainbow variety of other coloration? 


NOTE 10 - THE IMPROBABILITY OF MATHEMATICS - One of the most thought-provoking NOVA science videos is entitled "The Great Math Mystery".  While it has been known for some time that mathematics can predict various properties of the universe before they are verified by evidence, much of what this video discusses was unknown to science until quite recently.  According to some scientists, not only can mathematics help explain the universe, it appears that the universe is in fact, mathematics; essentially meaning, if you were to break down a computer game to it’s most basic elemental nature, the result would be mathematics and, if you were to break down the universe to it’s most basic elemental nature, the result would also be mathematics.  It has been known since Pythagoras and the ancient Greeks that there is a direct relationship between mathematics and music.  Since we know today that music is a sound wave pattern similar to light waves, the question then becomes, is there a relationship between math and everything that we can see, hear, smell, taste and touch?

According to this NOVA video, however strange and bizarre it may seem, it appears that what science calls “universe” and “nature” is designed according to pi, even though pi, as far as far as science knows, is an irrational number that continues on forever and ever, without ever having any repeating pattern of numbers.  Various repetitive patterns appear frequently in nature, from the very large to the very small, while the numbers of petals on various flowers have an incremental mathematical relationship.  As this video points out, patterns found in a sea shell, a head of cabbage and a galaxy of stars are incredibly similar.  Various symmetrical patterns are found all over nature, translating into a preference by humans for symmetrically designed architecture, by far the most common form of building and most other design.

Perhaps one of the most strange and bizarre discoveries ever made by science, it is now known that everywhere we look in nature, it appears that whatever scene we are looking at is designed according to pi.  For example, the relationship between the actual length of a winding river and a straight line length of the same river appears to be based on pi.  If the scene is either cut down to a smaller part of a river or enlarged to a larger part of the same river, the relationship apparently remains according to pi.  The same is true when viewing a series of ocean waves or mountain peaks.  It may be true that our brains are designed in such a way that mathematics is in one sense, a human invention, while in another sense, mathematics may have existed long prior to the emergence of our own solar system and perhaps, prior to the universe itself.
Mathematics in Biology

Some scientists say that human beings have never actually invented or discovered math but rather, humans merely continue to uncover what is already there and was there long before our own sun and planets came into being.  One would think the same claim could be easily made regarding what science calls “evolution”, that is, whether we divide living things up into categories like “species”, “family”, “order” and similar or, simply call all fish a “fish” and all monkeys a “monkey”, God just goes right on creating the way God has always created.  It would be refreshing if scientists and educators could grasp the obvious, that what we human beings believe or fail to believe doesn't either fully explain or change the reality of the way life actually came into being or, the reasons why.  To conclude that one "species", an artificial category of human invention, evolved from another "species", is rather frighteningly naive in it's grade-school absurdity.  As discussed in more detail elsewhere, there is also strong evidence today that the universe is designed according to the "golden ratio", another irrational number theoretically extending forever and ever.
Nature by Numbers (Fibonacci Sequence & The Golden Ratio)

Not all scientists agree that mathematics are behind the universe, but as is typical historically of many scientists, such dissenters seemingly hold the view that if something is over our heads and far too complex to grasp or realistically describe mathematically, like weather patterns currently are for example, therefore it can’t be really true that math is behind the universe.  One would think that such scientists would eventually learn that something isn't false simply because we aren't aware of it or don’t fully understand it.  Obviously if science keeps revising the most basic of claims, concepts and ideas, then the larger truth is that human beings simply don't know very much about what is really true.  Isaac Newton for example, universally viewed as one of the greatest of all scientists, had no idea there was anything smaller than an atom and had no idea of how large even our own galaxy is, let alone the vastness of the known universe taken for granted today.  This of course, doesn't mean that the vast universe didn't exist in the time of Newton, nor does it mean that particles taken for granted today like protons, neutrons, quarks and leptons, didn't exist long prior to humanity itself.

Careful historians are aware that lack of evidence doesn't prove non-existence, nor does lack of understanding prove anything other than that we don't understand.  As a good example today, some scientists continue to insist that only 10% of our DNA has a legitimate function, even though the modern evidence clearly indicates otherwise, many other scientists now concluding that most if not all of our DNA has a legitimate purpose.  This makes rational sense, given that every part of our body, including the much maligned appendix, is known today to have a legitimate function.  While it is true we can survive quite well without an appendix, it is also true we can survive quite well without a finger or even an entire hand, but it doesn’t rationally follow that our fingers and hands have no legitimate function.  And likewise, just because we don't fully understand the purpose of all of our DNA, it doesn't rationally follow that therefore, most of our DNA has no legitimate function.  Given the known history of human science and reason often changing our collective human minds on even the most fundamental of former beliefs, claims and positions, why would anyone draw such an unlearned conclusion?


NOTE 11 - WRONGLY ASSIGNED CAUSES OF WAR AND OTHER INTELLECTUAL BIAS:  In physics, bias created by Einstein's theories (though no fault of Einstein) is clearly abundant today, such as the fairly recent invention of "dark energy"; which essentially represents juvenile delinquent cart-before-the-horse science, postulating a non-proven entity invented solely in order to prop up existing theories.  Some astronomers and physicists suspect there may be no such thing as dark energy and that rather, existing theories of gravity and light may not be correct.  If the speed of light is not constant, as many modern scientists suspect, then virtually all current science theory may be way off the mark (reasons why the constancy of the speed of light may be in question addressed elsewhere).
String Theory Not in Sync With Dark Energy
Dark Energy May Not Exist
Dark Energy and Dark Matter May Not Exist

In biology, bias is seen not only in the writings of Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss and other militant atheists, but also throughout the Britannica and practically every educational source, where nearly every subject related to science, history or human thought and activity in any way, is now seen through an artificial lens of evolution by Natural Selection, which has completely re-written former theories of animal behavior, to give just one example.  Animal behavior is viewed differently today than when just a generation or two ago and very much differently than in the time of Darwin.  To be fair, some scientists object when they hear evolution applied to practically any and every discipline, such as the "evolution" of history, language, art, religion, psychology, morality and similar.  Such perceptions are a by-product of the theory of evolution, virtually absent from human civilization and thought prior to Charles Darwin.

Animal behavior is extremely important to human evolutionary science.  The Britannica under the heading "animal behavior", devotes considerable space comparing human behavior with non-human animals and insects.  Britannica admits that the science of animal behavior is essentially in it's infancy and there is far much more to learn than is currently known.  There are several conflicting ideas and thus, there's little unified scientific consensus regarding how animals perceive, think and act.  A lot is assumed based on Natural Selection theory, rather than based on hard science evidence.  And, how animals typically act generally differs significantly from the human carnage of greed and avarice leading to ever more war and rumor of war, splashed across the historical civilization map.

Obviously, it remains difficult for scientists to think and perceive like a monkey, a dolphin, a bird or an ant.  Rather than any real "advancement" up a chain of from lower to higher, it might be more fair to say that all forms of life are more or less equally "well adapted" within their own environmental needs.  Many insects and perceived "lower" forms of life are arguably more "well adapted" in some ways than human beings are.  It has been discovered fairly recently that even microbes exhibit a type of individual choice and, it is known that a small change in diet of a single termite can greatly affect an entire African ecosystem.  There appears to be far more learned behavior among animals than what was formerly mainly dismissed as "instinct" and, it may be true that all forms of life other than flora possess some ability to make individual choices, rather than being just robotic-like creatures of genetic program and instinct (and, as discussed elsewhere, the jury seems to still be out regarding plant life).

Once any theory becomes “mainstream”, it tends to artificially “color” and influence emerging ideas forward.  Thus, human science, history and other intellectual pursuit contains a significant amount of bias built on previous bias, built on even earlier bias, built on still earlier bias and so on, stretching on back into the mists of historical time.  For example, similar to how Einstein's theories are based on the assumption that the speed of light is constant, modern evolutionary theory is based on a long held assumption that reproductive advantage is the singular primary drive of all species, including humans and, the fundamental "engine" that drives changes in all living things.  As some brave historians and even a few scientists have pointed out, this does not at all seem to agree with how human beings behave within the known historical record.

If this fundamental assumption is wrong or only partially correct, as some historians, geneticists and others contend, then such an error is likely to distort everything else that evolutionary theory influences.  Recent evidence discovered since the decoding of the human genome indicates that reproductive survival advantage is only one of several reasons why forms of life adapt and change (as noted previously).  And in the historical record, we find an insatiable drive of human greed causing people to act in all manner of irrational ways seemingly contradictory to reproductive survival.

According to the Bible, human beings have at least two primary drives or one "dual" primary drive, which can perhaps fairly be called singular, because our reproductive and irrational sub-conscious motivations (i.e., "irrational" equals against human rights and reproductive survival) are so interlaced and entwined at root levels, they are essentially inseparable from any fair observational level.  The Bible, in agreement with modern behavioral science evidence, claims what we perceive within our own conscious minds and the actions we can observe in other people, are "results" of highly deceptive and "desperately wicked" motivations from deep within us, which the Britannica refers to as the "seething mass within".

Many modern intellectuals, entirely contradicting the known scientific and historical evidence, blame religion for war and other human violence, as if an external entity invented by human beings could somehow be the root cause of human oppression, rather than blaming human beings ourselves for our own actions.  If religion was the real root cause of war, there would be no violent war record of atheists like Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin and Mussolini, there would have been no such thing as the American, French, Russian, Chinese and many other revolutions and, no such thing as WWI, WWII, the Vietnam War or the recent war in Iraq.  Studies today indicate that what many consider to be socially counter-productive or “evil” human traits like egoism, Machiavellianism, moral disengagement, narcissism, entitlement, psychopathy, sadism, selfishness, spitefulness and other non-caring and non-empathetic traits, stem from a common “dark core” within us.
The Dark Core of Human Personality

Agreeing with the known historical and scientific human behavioral evidence, a key teaching of Jesus is that murders, thefts and other anti-human rights actions originate from within individual human beings; see Mark 7:14-20 and Matthew 15:16-20.  According to the New Testament James, agreeing with Jesus and human behavioral evidence, war and other human violence comes from irrational desires at war with ourselves within our own beings; see James 4:1-2.  And according to the Old Testament Jeremiah, "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked"; Jeremiah 17:9.  And again, modern science has 'discovered' that human surface motivations are deceptive as to our true motivations at sub-conscious root levels, which as already noted, the Encyclopedia Britannica refers to as the "seething mass within" (compare "desperately wicked").

Jesus, the authors of the Bible and the historical and modern behavioral science evidence agree, that greed, hatred, irrational fear, envy, prejudice, stress, tension, murder, rape, theft, false witness, inequality of wealth, slavery, war and other human oppression, are caused by what the Britannica refers to as "the seething mass within" individual human beings and, what the Bible calls "sin".  Changing the word sin to "negative behavior", "social maladjustment" or "seething mass within", does not change the resulting slavery, hunger, violence, pain, suffering, sorrow, death and global mass pollution and destruction resulting from what is within us.  After thousands of years of moral and other education to the contrary, many scientists today continue to work for the global war machine and, educated bankers, politicians, lawyers and Wall Street brokers continue to bilk the common people who Jesus loves out of jobs, home, health and life savings.  For more information, see Romans chapters 1-2 in the New Testament and "Human Sexuality", "Freud", "Jung", "Psychology", "Animal Behavior" and related articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

There is no evidence war is caused by either "religion" or "belief in God" (which are not synonymous) as many rather poorly educated modern people claim.  War can just as logically and fairly be attributed as being 'caused' by science and education, pointing to the weapons created by science technology and idealism like "socialism", "communism" and "democracy" resulting from human education.  Since the invention of cheap printing, modern idealism like capitalism, communism, socialism, anarchism, fascism and nationalism, over which very much blood has been spilled, has gradually replaced religious excuses for war, although religious fervor is often used as a tool to stir up modern masses to commit violence yet today here in the 21st Century.

From a purported "Age of Reason" forward, because of mass decimation of human knowledge previously reserved primarily for priests, scholars and the wealthy, excuses for war have been gradually shifting away from religion towards intellectual idealism and, this gradual historical shift is still in process here in the 21st Century.  War and other violence in recent history has often been fomented using both religion and intellectual idealism in combination.  While religion played a relatively minor role in the major wars of the 20th Century, as well as in the American, French, Russian, Chinese and other revolutions emanating from a so-called "Age of Enlightenment".

Belief in God and institutional religion are often carelessly lumped together into a highly deceptive historical misrepresentation by modern intellectuals who theoretically should know better.  Religion, science and education are all three often wrongly used as "tools" to foment war and otherwise justify enslaving the masses, but there is no evidence any of these three are a root "cause" of war and other human oppression.  Both modern science and the Bible agree that such oppression is actually caused by a deeper problem found within all human beings.  War and other violence is a "collective" human problem arising from what is within us all and emanating outward into both individual and collective group actions.  Historically, war at the surface bottom root level, including in particular the oft poorly understood Crusades, is ALWAYS about either protecting property and other forms of wealth or, taking property and other forms of wealth and, war is almost always about both.  War differentiates from self-defense in that war is about the protection and taking of property, whereas self defense is about protecting the physical being of our own self, family and/or immediate group.

Human greed erupting on the surface as war and other violence, is caused by deeper problems within us tracing from both conscious and sub-conscious levels.  Is it just me, or does anyone else find it rather odd that Jesus and the Old and New Testaments agree a lot more with both the historical and modern science evidence, than do Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, the late Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and comedian Bill Maher (who should perhaps stick to comedy).  Like Jesus, Mr. Maher is adept at making fun of conservative fundamentalists and in this, he is perhaps unwittingly doing God and the rest of us a big favor.  As I've inquired of the so-called Skeptics Society, why limit one's targets to the obvious easy television sham religionists and those purporting to bend spoons with their minds, rather than being more like Samuel Clemens and, making sport of puffed up intellectual demagoguery posing as 'science' as well?  A true skeptic remains truly as skeptical of science and education as they are of either religion or anything else.

So-called "religious" wars like the Crusades very clearly have their roots in human greed; various popes, kings, nobles and wealthy merchants teamed up together to take back valuable land and key trading positions which had been seized previously by Muslim invaders and various Crusade leaders and common foot soldiers were promised much "booty" to the victors.  There isn't a single war in human history that can't be traced to human greed at it's root, just as the Bible long ago stated and, just as now modern science is beginning to grudgingly agree.  Reasons for why radical Muslims flew airplanes into buildings in the 21st Century United States, have their roots in the fact that the United States armed Israel to the teeth at the extreme peril of Israel's Islamic neighbors, while U.S. corporations earned billions of dollars in the process.  U.S. corporations were earning vast sums from both WWI and WWII long before the United States entered either conflict and, one of the consistent habits of Hitler was to seize gold, art and jewels wherever his armies invaded.  According to Britannica, in the days of Charlemagne, it was accepted standard practice to go to war simply for the sake of taking other people's "stuff", without even bothering to justify such murderous activity for any other reason.

War has long been and will likely long be, about either protecting property or taking property and almost always, it is about both, in regards to any and all "sides" involved.  There are great profits to be made in direct literal and other forms of human slavery, such as wealthy capitalists profiting handsomely off of so-called "illegal" aliens and homeless day laborers in our own morally twisted 21st Century American society.  Note how the sincere religious beliefs of millions of common people have been twisted to justify everything from the American Revolution to the recent current U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  And also note how the intellectual idealism of democracy, capitalism, socialism, communism and anarchism, is like religion, used as a "tool" of U.S. warmongers to stir up the often sincere masses of common citizens to support our "manifest destiny" battles for a few gold, oil and other dollars more, all wrapped up neatly in a red, white and blue blood-drenched bow of sham 'patriotism' and supposed 'self-defense'.

The known history of Columbus, Cortes, the United States expansion West and the Klondike Gold Rush overwhelmingly demonstrate that the Bible is correct and modern evolutionary theory is only half right at best.  Perhaps a few abiogenesis theorists should spend a little more time in comparative analysis of the Bible against the human civilization historical reality and, a little less time lying to our children about how we and the rest of the universe happen to exist.  According to Richard Dawkins, the universe is exactly as one would expect it to be if there is no God, representing "nothing but blind, pitiless indifference".  If this were remotely true, there would be no concept of human rights, no laws against murder, rape, theft or false witness and, no such people as Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, Gandhi, Harriet Tubman, Helen Keller, Albert Schweitzer, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther king, Jr., Robert Kennedy or Cesar Chavez in the historical record.  Rather, we would all act far worse than the worst tyrants of human history and, humanity would have long ago ceased to exist.

Similar base laws against murder, adultery, theft and false witness are found all over the historical map, as are similar and often identical so-called "golden rules", clearly demonstrating like the Bible says and, like Thomas Jefferson and the modern scientist Francis Collins echo, humans clearly possess a designed shared human conscience.  Parents attempting to care about their children don't provide them with rules, restrictions, instruction and guidelines because they aren't at least trying to care but rather, because they are trying to care.  And, our Father in heaven likewise, didn't give humanity a conscience, instruction and rules to live by because he doesn't care but rather, because he clearly does care.  If our Creator didn't care about us, he wouldn't care how much we murder, rape, steal or lie and, we would have no conscience dictating otherwise.  (The following four paragraphs are repeated from Note 1.)

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Sigmund Freud believed that human babies are born "blank".  However, modern psychologists working with infants have discovered that, like the Bible says and Jefferson echoes in the Declaration of Independence, babies are born already "hard-wired" with a moral sense at birth.  To be fair, not all scientists agree with these findings.  What may be more likely true, is that humans are born with an innate moral conscience that develops over time along with the rest of our brain.  It is well established that the human brain continues to develop long after birth into and beyond our teenage years, rather than representing a "completed" package out of the womb.  A complete understanding of the human mind, human consciousness, intelligence and awareness still today remains severely lacking and, obviously it is difficult to test and fully understand what is going on in the minds of very young infants.

For example, while the myth that we humans only use about 10% of our brain has long endured, in reality it is now well-established that we use all of our brains.  While it was long assumed our brains are highly compartmentalized, it is now known that our brains are both compartmentalized while various processes function outside of specific areas at the same time, meaning human thought processes are far more complex than previously assumed.  As another example, it was recently discovered that unlike previously assumed, neurons in the human brain can carry more than one signal at the same time, thus greatly complicating the overwhelming complexity of how our brains actually function.
Brain Neurons Carry More Than One Signal

According to various studies, babies as young as three months old in various tests display choices based on perceptions of goodness as opposed to meanness (infants younger than this are extremely difficult to test).  And again like the Bible says, babies appear to have inborn tendencies towards selfishness and bias, ostracizing humans who they perceive as being outside their own group.  Such tendencies are clearly displayed on grade school playgrounds, where children are often cruel and mean to other children, accepting some while rejecting others for being the "black" kid, the "Jewish" kid, the "fat" kid, the "uncool" kid, the "ugly" kid, the "weak" kid, the "stupid" kid and similar superficial reasoning.  However "moral" our perceptions may already be at birth, it is beyond dispute that young children clearly make selfish, moral verses immoral and related choices.

As already noted, such inborn bias carries over into adulthood, where adults separate themselves into various often highly divisive groupings.  The Mensa Society for example, openly practices human segregation, excluding other humans from their exclusive club of theoretically intelligent people who fail to score high enough on a test supposedly measuring intelligence, a test that doesn't contain a single question about how to improve human behavior or otherwise, leave a less violent, greed-filled and polluted planet for our children to inherit (as if caring about our neighbor and our own offspring has no relation to human intelligence).  History is filled with the carcasses of human beings who vainly imagine they are better than other human beings, and vainly imagine it wise to divide ourselves into groupings as races, classes, liberals, conservatives and a myriad of other superficial divisions, as if we don't all fall "short" of what our own conscience dictates, as if we are not all collectively, like the Bible says, part of the global human oppression problem.
Do Babies Know Right from Wrong?
The Moral Life of Babies
Disputes Among Various Scientists Regarding Infant Morality


NOTE 12 - PHILOLOGY, HISTORICAL AND BIBLICAL TRANSLATION:  From a fair historical and unbiased perspective and, unlike Christianity has misrepresented Jesus for many centuries, it is fair to say that Jesus is neither the founder of Christianity or any other religion.  Rather, it is fair to conclude that Jesus is the founder of human and civil rights and free quality public education for the masses.  As an example of how poorly translated most Christian bibles are today, the now famous John 16 and 17 is more accurately translated as:  "For God so loved the people that he gave his only conceived son, that whoever believes in him will not die but have eternal life.  For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the people, but that the people through him, might be saved."

Note how much more focused and "people-centered" this more accurate biblical translation is, which is consistent with Jesus being portrayed as a champion and friend of the common people throughout the New Testament narrative.  The word translated as "church" in most modern bibles, does not at all refer to either a religion or a religious organization or edifice; the book of Acts for example, clearly states that God "does not live in temples made with hands" and, in God "we live and move and have our being".  Note how the Bible does not refer to a "little man in the sky" in reference to God, as many modern atheists are found of misrepresenting.  Rather, according to the Bible, God fills the heavens and what lies beyond.

Because modern science is aware that trillions of microbes are living within every human being and, it is believed there are far more viruses than any other form of life on earth, it is not at all hard to accept that God is everywhere and we live within God.  Can a virus inhabiting a microbe living within the intestines of a human being, say there is no human being, probably no human being or might be no human being upon which it depends on for it's very survival?  And likewise, can human beings say with any honesty at all that there is no God, probably no God or might be no God?  How would they know, what evidence do they have and, why should common average people either believe them or pay taxes to have our children 'educated' by purveyors of such gross superstition?  What evidence do they have that energy, motion, light, life, intelligence, the dual language of DNA or even something as rudimentary as human mathematics, can magically exist without an Eternal Primary Cause?

Many historians believe the term "church" derives from a Roman word assimilated into Greek culture, roughly translating as "a group of common people assembled together for socio-political cause".  Note how both Jesus himself and his early followers chose this particular common-people centric term to define followers of Jesus, which is again consistent with the champion of common people New Testament portrayal of him.  Note how in modern-day America, how badly we need a true champion of the common people to offset the greed and avarice of the wealthy, powerful, popular and elite among us, which is also overwhelmingly true regarding common people throughout the record of human civilization.

Philology, the science of human language, a discipline carefully applied by careful historians, is unfortunately often carelessly ignored by many, educators, religious leaders and prominent media voices.  It is well known among scholars that both Hebrew and Greek, like English, contain many words with multiple meanings.  Thus, when Hebrew and Greek are translated into English, often one meaning of a word is arbitrarily selected over the others.  This problem is multiplied because translators, like scientists, historians and all other human beings, are limited by the scientific and historical evidence and knowledge of their time.  Several translations in KJV reflect the scientific knowledge available in the late 16th to early 17th Century, rather than necessarily being accurate translations.

One of the most glaring examples is the English word "firmament" found in the creation story in Genesis in the King James translation, which in the late 16th and early 17th Century, apparently was referring to the heavens stretched above the earth.  However, the Hebrew word "raki'a" literally means "expansion", a concept of the universe very familiar to us today, but which obviously made no sense to the KJV translators.  Because KJV translators had no way of reconciling "expansion" within their own 16th-17th Century science experience, the Bible has been ridiculed for centuries, rather than applauded for being the first and only known source in human history prior to the modern age, that got it right.  Today it is universally believed by scientists and educators that the universe indeed represents an expansion.

Another glaring example is found in the story of Noah, which is often ridiculed unfairly by many who don't bother to study the evidence for themselves.  The Hebrew “kol eretz” (or “erets”) is translated in KJV as referring to the whole earth in the story of Noah.  But in the story of Abraham, found later in the same book of Genesis, the KJV translation refers to a local region and not the whole earth.  And, the translation often refers to country, region or land, such as the “land” of Israel elsewhere in the Bible.  A great many documentaries, scientific and other writings can be found addressing the historical and scientific evidence for a great regional flood.  See Biologos Foundation; Language of Noah and the Flood for more information.  When the Bible is accused of being inaccurate today, rather than representing legitimate historical or scientific criticism, it is often a matter of translation choice among words with multiple meanings and a matter of interpretation of the translators, who in the case of the KJV, are trapped within the comparatively limited knowledge of the late 16th Century.

Other times, what was once assumed to be mythological in the Bible, such as the stories of Solomon and David, now have strong supporting evidence.  History has repeatedly proven hundreds of times, that claims found in the Bible once thought mythological and often seemingly preposterous exaggerations and otherwise scientifically absurd, are now here in the 21st Century considered to be historical and scientific facts.  Historians are well aware that the vast majority of history is not preserved and thus, lack of historical evidence doesn't prove non-existence, nor does lack of current evidence equal mythology.  This is not just true regarding the Bible, but also regarding Egyptian and other ancient cultures.  Archaeologists have found Egyptian granite artifacts that cannot be duplicated today using the most modern advanced electronically powered high-speed diamond-tipped hardened steel drilling equipment and yet somehow, they were made more than 2,000 years before the New Testament was written.

Nuclear physicist and former professor at Princeton University Gerald Schroeder, who received his doctorate from MIT and has impeccable scientific credentials, has a rather intriguing explanation for the six "days" of creation found in the first part of Genesis.  The essential premise of Professor Schroeder is that time itself is expanding along with the rest of the universe and so, what from our view looking backwards towards the "big bang" is calculated by us as being 18.6 or so billion years, from a view of our Creator behind the creation of the universe looking forward, mathematically actually equates to six literal days plus one more day of "rest", perhaps indicating the universe after 15 or so billion years (looking backwards from our view here today on earth) is more or less on auto-pilot.

Rather than attempting to explain in detail why Schroeder believes this is scientifically mathematically accurate and correct, which would take several paragraphs to adequately do, a detailed explanation can be found here at this video link:  Six Days of Creation and Modern Scientific Dating.  An interesting sidebar of this theory if correct, is that someone on earth 2 billion years from now, if the human race were to last that long, when calculating the age of the universe from their view, would calculate it as being considerably older than just 18.6 + 2 billion.  This is because if Gerald Schroeder is correct, time as we humans perceive time to be, is expanding faster and faster along with the rest of the universe.

Another interpretation of the Genesis story also requires a bit of explanation, but is yet again an example of the Bible being unfairly ridiculed and dismissed.  The Hebrew "yowm", which is translated as "day" in KJV and most modern Bibles, can also refer to an indefinite period of time or an entire age or epoch.  The Hebrew words for what is translated in KJV as "evening" and "morning" have multiple meanings and, the literal Hebrew rendering is somewhat ambiguous in the syntax it is arranged.  According to astrophysicist and scholar Hugh Ross, "a long period of time is clearly acceptable within the definitions of yowm, ereb, and boqer", which in KJV are translated as "day", "evening" and "morning", respectively.  Link here for a Detailed analysis of multiple meanings of "Yowm", translated variously in the Bible as referring to a day, an indefinite period of time, a year, age, season and evermore.  This plainly illustrates how human language and the true intentions of the original author can be misconstrued and mistranslated from language to language, culture to culture, era to era and source to source.

As Mr. Ross points out, the first part of Genesis Two, unlike the rest of the chapter, is a continuation of the same thought sequence as Genesis One and, says the following as translated in KJV: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."  Note that all six "days" of creation are referred to here as "the day" singular, obviously referring to a longer period of time than 24-hours.  More importantly, the Hebrew word "toledah" translated as "generations" in English Bibles, refers to a lengthy period of time that is neither a day or a week.  "Generations" as used in Genesis Two in the plural, implies no particular time frame and, could refer to anywhere from several human generations to billions of years:  Hugh Ross Website.

The book of Daniel, as translated by KJV, uses the same phrase "evening and morning" to describe a period of time stretching more than 2,000 years, indicating that to ancient Hebrews, this was an acceptable method of describing a lengthy period of time.  A discussion in regards to this usage in the book of Daniel and to how it may apply to the story of creation can be found Linked Here.  The Bible also says elsewhere, "For a thousand years in your sight are like yesterday when it is past and like a watch in the night", which in spite of what religious fundamentalists would have us believe, implies that passage of time has no particular meaning to our eternal Creator, who is neither bound by time, human science or our way of thinking.

This is supported in the Exodus account of Moses, where God is revealed as "I AM", which is underscored later by Jesus, who says "before Abraham was, I AM".  Unlike every other ancient "god", Eternal Creator more and more matches the unfolding modern evidence.  In spite of untold forests of trees and reams of paper wasted trying to come up with a better scientific explanation, "before Abraham was, I AM" remains the ONLY known explanation in all of human history that satisfies origins, satisfactorily explaining both our own existence and the existence of the larger the observable universal reality.  It is more than fair to say, until they have a better explanation than Eternal Creator for their own existence, atheists remain well outside the boundaries of evidence, science and reason.  It is fair to say that atheism remains the greatest of all known human superstitions, having no foundation in evidence, reason, rhyme or common horse sense.

Legitimate historians are aware that the true intention of language when spoken often doesn't translate very well over historical time within the same language, generation upon generation of language change and corruption making it difficult to accurately translate ancient Hebrew even into modern Hebrew, let alone into Greek and much later, into modern English.  Other than the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are three primary sources for the modern Old Testament, one from an ancient Greek translation, one from a Jewish translation made long after Genesis was probably first orally handed down and, one based on a Samaritan translation known as "paleo-Hebrew".  Thus, one can begin to see how arguing about the meaning of ancient words that are known to have multiple meanings, rarely results in a satisfactory conclusion.

Although unclear, the phrase “evening and morning” in Genesis may refer to the beginning and ending of an indefinite period of time, rather than to a literal 24-hour day.  Unlike we typically view things in the modern age, it is scientifically correct to say "evening and morning" rather than the other way around, as first there was darkness and then there was light.  What is unclear should always be stated as being unclear, rather than as being an indisputable fact, one way or the other.  This remains a lesson often lost on modern scientists and educators eager to prove that science is “true”, rather than as is far more often the case, just an educated guess as far as can be determined, based on the current known evidence.

There are many other examples in the Bible where the KJV translation has caused entire fundamentalist religions to arise out of bad translation, rather than being fairly based on what the Bible actually says.  For example, the KJV translation of the book of John, "in the beginning was the "word", is a very poor translation of the actual Greek word "logos", a philosophical concept apparently well-known in the world of the author of John, but largely unknown today.  This poor translation has resulted in many Christian fundamentalists equating the Bible with God, claiming that Jesus is the spoken "Word" and the Bible is the written "Word".  Suffice it to say, "logos" is neither correctly or adequately translated as "word", nor does either John or any other author of the Bible remotely imply that the Bible is on an equal plane with our Creator.  According to the Bible itself, the universe was created by the word of God's mouth, which most obviously does not equate the Bible with being the word of God.  Apparently according to the Bible, the word of God is a powerful living entity, powerful enough to cause our universe to come into being.

Often criticism of the Bible in the modern age is due to inaccurate and misleading translation and misunderstanding of the changing biblical cultural reality over the great span of historical time the Bible represents.  For example, the term "slave" in modern-day America conjures up memories of the horrible treatment of Africans by American slave holders, when in fact many "slaves" and "servants" in Hebrew, Roman and Greek culture were treated far better than immigrants and homeless day laborers in modern-day America and many American industrial so-called 'free' laborers of the recent past.  One of the worst translation misrepresentations found several times in the Bible is what is translated by KJV and other modern translations as "unicorn".  Various scholars believe the true intention of the Hebrew is simply referring to an animal with a single horn, such as a rhinoceros or narwhal as examples or, possibly to a now extinct single-horned animal unknown to modern science (modern scientists believe there have been many now extinct animals of the past for which there is no current fossil record).
Ten Animals That Look Like Unicorns
Explanation of Unicorns in the Bible

The discipline of "philology", as used by historians, often represents an attempt to understand the intentions behind words spoken in a particular historical time-frame, rather than wrongly assuming that word definitions found in a modern dictionary necessarily apply to ancient texts.  For example, it being difficult for a camel to go through the eye of a needle as referenced by Jesus, was apparently a well known scenario to the common people he was talking to.  Many if not most scholars agree this is apparently a reference to when travelers arrived at the gates of a large city like Jerusalem, they had to unload baggage off of their camels so the camel could squeeze through a small opening in the wall, commonly known as "the eye of the needle", which was purposefully constructed for security reasons.  Another example is the famous "lilies of the field", where Jesus in reality is apparently referring to a common weed flower, similar to a dandelion in American cultural experience, making this a far more powerful statement than commonly understood today, due to the poor translation of "lilies" found in KJV.

Jesus is sometimes criticized for not mentioning slavery, when in fact most of what Jesus said and did was not recorded (according to the New Testament narrative itself) and thus, we don't know what Jesus had to say about slavery in private to his intimate followers.  What we do know is that according to the New Testament and unlike often presented in various religious and motion picture contexts, many thousands of men, woman and children followed Jesus on a daily basis.  And what historians do know is, that if Jesus had openly opposed slavery, he would have placed not only his own life in serious jeopardy but also, the lives of the many men, women and children who hung around him on a daily basis.  We can see this reality later in the letters of Paul, who is careful to warn slaves who became followers of Jesus to be content to remain as slaves or if they could obtain their freedom, to use their freedom wisely (as should the rest of us).  Doing otherwise in their particular Roman-controlled reality would mean certain imprisonment and likely excruciating execution.  Unlike activists often take for granted in modern-day America, common people in ancient Palestine couldn't just stand on the corner and hold up an anti-government, anti-war, pro peace or anti-slavery sign and, expect to live to do it ever again.

As an outside example unrelated to biblical times, modern educators who unfortunately like most of us, aren't always careful historians, often broad-brush the American founders as being "deists", when in fact virtually all of them ascribed to some form of Christianity, while several but by no means all of them had deist leanings.  More importantly, as far as history knows, every American founder believed in a God who interacts with creation and the affairs of humanity, which is not how deism is commonly defined today.  A pro-active God is clearly displayed in the writings of Jefferson, Franklin, Adams and many others, while there is no hint of separation of God and state to be found.  Separation of "church" and state obviously refers to separation of institutional religion and state, based on the choice of the word "church" rather than "Creator".  Thomas Jefferson's family for example, belonged to the Church of England, a recognized Protestant brand of institutional religion in the 18th Century.

It is fair to say that not allowing discussion of God and design in relation to the evidence in a 21st Century public science classroom, is the opposite of what the First Amendment and every American founder intended.  Because today 50% of American scientists, 70% of American physicians and 80% of American educators claim to believe in God, it remains a gross violation of the most basic human and civil rights and, an open shame and disgrace before God and the rest of the modern global community, to not freely allow discussion of God in a public school classroom.  Based on their own subsequent actions, the First Amendment and freedom of speech clearly meant to the American founders, that both educators and students who believe the evidence demonstrates design and, educators and students who do not, as well as everyone else anywhere and at any time within the borders of the United States, are free to say so, without fear of any economic or other penalty.


NOTE 13 - ADAM AND EVE AND MODERN SCIENCE:  The majority of what is contained in this note pertains to recent evidence which is typically not found in standard education texts, most of which represent a "science" 20 or more years behind the current evidence curve.  It wasn't possible prior to modern computer technology and mapping of the human genome, for science to confirm what has long been claimed in the Bible regarding recent common ancestry of modern human beings.

According to the Bible, all modern people alive today trace from Noah's family after a great flood in the general region of the ancient Fertile Crescent area occurred.  "Adam" in Hebrew literally means mankind or humanity and "Eve" literally means mother of humanity or mother of us all.  According to the Bible, Noah and his descendants trace back to Adam and Eve and the New Testament traces the genealogy of Jesus to Adam.  According to modern DNA evidence, all human beings alive today trace from a single female no earlier than 12,000 years ago and possibly as recent as 4,000 years ago.  The Bible also says the offspring of Adam and Eve were farmers.  Modern evidence supports that farming emerged rather suddenly (in evolutionary terms) in and around the same historical time frame window as the biblical Adam and Eve.

The emergence of farming represents a 2-4,000 or so year window on a global basis, depending in part on how one defines farming.  This extremely "sudden" emergence in evolutionary terms of the ability to conceptualize farming, is considered a significant evolutionary "advancement" by many scientists, archaeologists and historians.  Very quickly after farming appears, neolithic villages give way to towns, city-states and larger nations with highly sophisticated pyramid structure and other complex technologies, demonstrating a significant difference in intellectual ability between such people and other earlier creatures commonly defined as "homo sapiens".  There is no rational reason to assume our Creator defines a true modern human being in the likeness of "adam", the same as the majority of modern scientists rather arbitrarily define human beings, often dramatically disagreeing with each other as detailed in the next paragraph.

A minority of researchers in various disciplines have suggested over the years, that perhaps true modern human beings are best defined as arising from the emergence of farming forward.  The majority scientific view places humans as emerging between 30,000 to about 80,000 or so years ago, while a minority on the other extreme stretch this to over 200,000 years.  Obviously, given such a rather large diversity of opinion among scientists themselves, what actually defines a true modern human being is quite arbitrary and, open to significant debate and revision.  If God defines a true modern human being as emerging somewhere around the time of farming, then the stories of Adam and Eve and Noah could quite literally be true.  Likewise, the New Testament claim that Jesus descends directly from Adam is accurate as far as modern science knows.

In spite of the fact that the Bible and modern science (as far as science knows) now agree concerning the genealogy of modern human beings and, have long agreed concerning the general time frame for the emergence of farming, many atheists and others severely denigrate anyone trying to point this out, even though it is documented by modern science evidence.  Research linked below was independently confirmed by a leading anthropologist in Tennessee with many years of field experience in Africa and elsewhere, who confirmed this is well known within his field of anthropology; he added that having been raised in a Protestant environment, he personally finds it quite interesting.
Recent Common Ancestry for Europeans About 1000 Years
Recent Common Ancestry for Modern Humans Estimates

NASA in the late 1990's, using improved satellite mapping technology, discovered there is a region in the greater Mesopotamian area now located under ocean water, where four rivers at one time converged north/south/east/west, precisely as described in Genesis in relation to the Garden of Eden.  According to scientists in a secular video describing this recent discovery, this region during the historical time frame for Adam and Eve, would have been on dry ground and would have been the "lushest" most Eden-like area in the entire region.  Thus, the known modern evidence now agrees with the Bible as to a) when farming arose; b) when modern human beings share a relatively recent common ancestor; and c) where such a relatively recent ancestor could have been dwelled in a literal garden of Eden.
Lost River of Eden (confirmed in a separate History Channel video documentary)
Evidence for the Garden of Eden

To explain in more detail for the intellectually hard of hearing, there is something in science known as species "cross-breeding", which is not the same thing as evolving from one species into another, as certain poorly educated atheists apparently assume.  Speciation is when a "new" species theoretically "evolves" from one species into another.  Cross-breeding on the other hand, refers to breeding within an existing species, such as in the case of human beings, natives of Australia breeding with Europeans and natives of the Americas breeding with people of African descent; it also refers to Americans (or citizens of any other nation) of German descent breeding with Americans of Irish descent, Asian descent, African descent, Norwegian descent and, so forth.

According to Natural Selection theory, what are called stronger "strains" in human cross-breeding will "weed out" what are called "weaker" strains along the same extended family lineage "tree", thus over a relatively few thousands of years time, based on global DNA statistical analysis conducted since the mapping of the human genome, all human beings alive today trace back to a common female ancestor in the recent few thousand years past.  All "weaker" strains along the homo sapiens sapiens lineage family tree have died out.  Thus, even though human beings as defined by the majority of scientists trace back 30 to 80 or more thousand years, depending on which scientist one chooses to believe, how God may choose to define a true modern human being in the likeness of Adam, may trace back only 5-10 or so thousand years.  God does not bow to human science but rather, as has been clearly demonstrated over historical time and is still in process today (looming planetary disaster, for example), science eventually bows to God.


NOTE 14 - MYSTERY OF THE VIRUS:  According to the Encyclopedia Britannica article "Virus", science knows almost nothing about viruses compared to what there is yet to learn, even though they are the majority living entity on earth (a virus is not properly classified as an "organism").   Viruses are not necessarily harmful to host organisms and viruses may be overall more beneficial than harmful.  Based on various information contained in a recent video on the science of viruses, even though the video itself did not conclude this, it may be true that all of life on earth began as something like a virus or pre-virus and adapted and changed over time from that level.  A virus is essentially a little ball or cylinder of DNA; some viruses contain a single strand of RNA only.  As such, life may begin as something like a virus or pre-virus at a biological root level.  And as such, life may well have arisen from all over the earth and, be complexly cross-integrated at root levels, rather than arising from a singular source in the ocean as standard evolutionary models have long assumed.

According to Britannica, it is currently generally believed viruses evolved after host cells rather than the other way around, but this is not conclusive because some viruses consist of a single RNA strand and contain no DNA.  One current evolutionary theory is that DNA evolved from RNA to allow for more complexity and thus, RNA viruses may have appeared prior to an existing host.  One might contend they appeared at the same time because as far as is known, a virus cannot reproduce without a host, but such a conclusion is irrational if one “evolved” from the other; a scientist can't fairly have it both ways any more than a conservative religionist can.  Thus, even though a virus as far as science knows, cannot reproduce apart from a host cell, a certain type of RNA virus-like pre-organism could be a foundational element of life.  According to Britannica, “other possible progenitors of viruses are the plasmids (small circular DNA molecules independent of chromosomes), which are more readily transferred from cell to cell than are chromosomes. Theoretically, plasmids could have acquired capsid genes, which coded for proteins to coat the plasmid DNA, converting it into a virus.”

Viruses are so prevalent in all living things, it may be impossible to separate the rest of life from viruses at any kind of legitimate scientific physical (non-atomic) root level.  Thus, the true origins of life even on earth may always remain an unsolvable mystery.  And, if life exists elsewhere in the universe, the true origins of life will likely always remain beyond human understanding.  If life can arise from a type of virus-like pre-organism or pre-virus, then it may well have arrived already living on “space rocks” as some scientists believe.  As such, tiny organism or pre-organisms may have been “seeded” all over the earth and thus, life may have sprung up from hundreds, millions or “zillions” of original sources, rather than from a singular origination point.  Thus, the standard evolutionary "tree" model of singular origination at best, remains only one of several plausible scenarios.

Consider the overwhelming molecular complexity of much smaller atomic and sub-atomic parts which make up what constitutes a virus and even what constitutes RNA within a virus and, consider how or why sub-atomic parts could or would somehow magically or otherwise formulate into a strand of RNA and/or DNA, which is incredibly overwhelmingly larger by comparison.  Then consider modern science doesn't really know how RNA, DNA and viruses came to be, if or how an RNA virus could exist without a DNA host or how DNA could exist without first evolving from RNA or, how RNA could exist independently of the existence of DNA.  As one can begin to see by such lengthy sentences of circular explanation, life may be irreducibly inter-entwined and complexly overlaid and inter-mixed beyond all hope of separation, rather than what would by comparison be, the simplistic Darwinian “tree-model” of evolution currently generally assumed to somehow, in some currently inexplicable way, have coincidentally "self-designed" from a singular origination source in the ocean.  Perhaps certain scientists should be reminded that most of us eventually stop believing in magic.

Some followers of Richard Dawkins might contend that it is in fact, explainable how life came to be.  But if it was truly explainable, there would only be one single universal general consensus theory of abiogenesis, rather than the huge pile of spontaneous generation trash heap contradiction currently pretending to be a legitimate theory of science.  Abiogenesis, which is arguably nothing more than an “ivory tower”-cloaked term for spontaneous generation, currently consists of a great many different often contradicting theories in the plural.  Whenever several contradicting theories exist among current practicing scientists, it is a safe bet that in reality, SCIENCE DOESN'T KNOW, which historically has almost always proven to be the correct conclusion, as any legitimate historian will verify.  From a fair historical analysis, what is “rock solid” science today is tomorrow, gone with the winds and shifting sands of newly revealed evidence.

Human beings may be intermixed with fish, insects, reptiles, micro-organisms and everything else many times over, back and forth, sideways, crossways and every which way, rather than evolving up a simplistic chain from a singular origination point.  Virtually all of science historically moves from simple to more complexity as more evidence is discovered, rather than from complex to simple.  Just as a former comparatively simplistic view of a very large flat earth with a much smaller sun, even smaller moon and tiny stars fixed in a relatively tiny heavens, has gradually given way to the grand complexity of the micro and macro universal reality known to exist today.  As discussed elsewhere, it is known to science today (and completely unknown to Darwin) that both viruses and archaea are spread throughout the living world as standard evolutionary models insist they cannot be, cross-integrated across vast superkingdoms of life.

Is it really true that all of life might be much more complexly crisscrossed and irreducibly inter-entwined and cross-integrated than either religious fundamentalists or evolutionary biologists wish to believe?  Is it true that life came forth in abundance from all over the planet rather than from a singular origination point, as the Bible seems to indicate?  Is the universal reality created by the Grand Universal Designer logically simple enough in functionality, to be adequately explainable in human language, even in a trillion volumes?  Who can say for sure?

In an interview with G.S.Viereck, Albert Einstein says: "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist.  We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages.  The child knows someone must have written those books.  It does not know how.  The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is.  That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."  And Einstein writes in a letter to Guy Raner Jr.,“I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being.”

The reality of how life actually functions, changes and adapts in the real world is so overwhelmingly irreducibly complex, it may be irrational to pretend science can ever have a legitimate theory of either life origins or functionality.  Problems begin at a root sub-atomic (quantum) level, where virtually nothing behaves according to any "macro world" theory.  As such, the great mystery of life at the level of the very small, remains a very great enigma that may well be far beyond the ability of human beings to ever rationally resolve (see several links in Note 1 for more information).
Video on Comparative Micro and Macro Universal Sizes


NOTE 15 - THE EVOLUTIONARY "MONKEY-WRENCH" OF INDIVIDUAL CHOICE: In it's article on animal behavior, Britannica doesn't go much into detail about microbial behavior, which is an emerging science.  It has been recently discovered that even theoretically "brainless" microbes exhibit types of individual choices, which greatly adds to the evolutionary pie mystery mixture, as there are virtually infinitely more microbes on our planet than visible organisms.  Individual choice no doubt greatly affects adaptive change within the animal kingdom, a fact virtually ignored by many educators and even some scientists.  Like humans, various animals have been observed to be highly "choice-oriented", rather than mainly robotic creatures operating from gene-inherited "instinct", as was religiously taught in textbooks only a generation or two ago; "instinct is a term seemingly used less and less these days.

Many actions of some if not all animals apparently represent learned behavior rather than inherited instinctual traits.  Scientists today are attempting to compile an "elephant language dictionary", which represents a very complex language, as does the "language" of dolphins, whales, birds and other forms of life.  Certain spiders weave a new differently designed web every day, some ants bury their dead and again, elephants have been observed holding a type of funeral procession, standing over and apparently mourning over a recently deceased member for days.  While there is a plausible alternative explanation for why ants bury their dead, but science so far has not been so fortunate regarding mourning elephants.

If a termite by individual choice alters it's diet in some small way, it can eventually alter an entire eco-system in Africa on up the chain, which is one very tiny example of just how overwhelmingly complex the overall process of life functionality is in true reality.  Consider a more easily understood example, of Ray Kroc's influence on the modern fast food industry.  If Mr. Kroc had become a carpenter rather than a salesman, human disease may have been significantly affected by this one simple choice variation.  Not that the fast food industry and resultant mega meat, vegetable and fruit farms wouldn't have eventually thrived without the influence of Mr. Kroc but rather, the modern reality of corporate mega-farming would have likely been more slowly introduced without the rapid rise of the McDonald's hamburger franchise and, subsequent competing franchises would have probably arisen more slowly, thus altering the type of food human beings consumed for a decade or more and significantly altering human disease reality for a period of time. 

No legitimate scientist disputes that large corporate mega-farming affects human disease, some corporate lobby hacks even arguing it might "improve" the equation.  But nevertheless, grain fed and hormone injected cattle, compared to grass fed cattle does indeed, very much alter the human diet and human disease reality in significant ways.  Small choices that parents make, such as what neighborhood block to purchase a home on, which church or club to join or where to send their children to school, can have global altering consequences in terms of raising a heart surgeon or dictator, the inventor of a viable alternative fuel, a plumber, teacher, scientist, violin player or a violent anarchist. 

The reality of how life actually functions, changes and adapts in the real world is so overwhelmingly complex, it may well be irrational to pretend human science can ever have a legitimate theory that adequately accounts for the global living-world reality.  Primary problems begin at quantum and atomic levels, where nothing works according to Einstein or any other "macro world" theory.  As one physicist recently stated in a PBS video, the only thing certain about quantum theory is that no two scientists entirely agree.  And problems are incredibly magnified, just in considering the overwhelmingly complex role individual choice can play on a local to global environmental reality.  As such, the great mystery of life at the level of the very small, as well as at every other level, remains a very deep mystery that may well be beyond the ability of humanity to ever adequately address.


NOTE 16 - HOW ACCURATE AND DEPENDABLE IS MODERN SCIENCE? - Modern scientists have discovered that light slows down about 40% when passing through a diamond.  Because space itself is made of a “fabric” and is not completely void, the fabric of space itself may alter the speed of light.  The speed of light may also be altered gravitationally when passing stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies (as compared to darker “void” areas of space) and, it may slow down or as more likely the case, speed up as the universe itself expands.  It may be true that the speed of light is constant in a complete vacuum, but otherwise it's speed may be altered by whatever it passes near or through. Thus, current estimated star distances may be off, as well as the current estimate of 13.81 billion years for the age of the universe.  The speed of light may not even be constant in a complete vacuum.  Either way as the history of science clearly insinuates, virtually all of modern science theory may be slightly off or way off the mark of what is actually correct, from true universal and beyond (logos) perspective.

A scientist at Princeton University has proposed that so-called "universal laws" may not be universal; such laws, if they do exist, may be dependent on one's position in the universe and, may differ throughout the greater cosmos.  Theoretically, this is because the twisting and bending of space/time itself differs depending on one's position in the universe.  The distribution of matter throughout space is not uniform and also, a planet nearer the center of a galaxy resides in a considerably more densely crowded region than a planet located closer to the edge.  As such, the twisting of the fabric of space/time itself would theoretically vary significantly enough to alter one's perception of so-called universal laws, assuming of course, that there is any such thing as a universal law, which of course human beings have no way of scientifically verifying with any reasonable certainty.

Various other scientists have suggest other reasons why the speed of light might not be constant, including the fact that measurements for light's speed taken several generations ago seem to be somewhat different than the speed of light is currently calculated to be.  It should also be noted that the speed of light as calculated today remains an approximation, rather than an exact measurement (approximately 299,792,458 meters per second or 186,282.397 miles per second).  Some scientists have proposed the speed of light was much faster in the early universe and, that light slowed down over time as density increased.  Yet another suggestion is that light might actually be speeding up as the rate of universal expansion increases.
Speed of Light Faster in Early Universe
Physicists Say Speed of Light May Not Be Constant
Evidence Speed of Light Not So Constant

If the speed of light is not constant, there may be no such thing as “dark energy” and, all current theories of gravity, light, evolution and practically everything else may be incorrect, as some scientists have publicly stated.  Newton's theories conclusively demonstrate, that just because a theory seems to work well within our earth-bound experience, this does not prove that the theory is correct from a larger view.  Just because science can create an atomic bomb, this does not prove Einstein is correct about the speed of light being constant and, just because science can use evolutionary theory in practical application ways on earth, this does not prove it is entirely, in the main or, even remotely accurate from a true universal and beyond perspective.

Virtually everything modern science "believes" today remains suspect for at least two very well established reasons:  1) Nothing works as expected based on current "macro" theories of physics, in the quantum reality.  And 2) The history of science clearly demonstrates that the vast majority of what scientists believe to be true within any given historical time frame, will no longer be considered true not long thereafter.  In comparison to the Pythagorean Theorem, one of the oldest theories still considered to be "science" today, evolution is just a "baby" theory, barely out of the scientific womb.  It is also worth noting, that the "theory of evolution" is not at all like the Pythagorean Theorem or E = MC2 and, it is logically not even a theory by normal definition.  Rather, the theory of evolution is itself in a constant state of evolution.  While modern education spoon-feeds the unsuspecting student into accepting the grand mythology that evolution is a universally agreed to and accepted theory, in reality the term "evolution" to scientists merely represents the current "median norm consensus" of many different and often conflicting and contradictory ideas, here today and gone with the winds of evolving evidence tomorrow.

While the Pythagorean Theorem and E = MC2 remain the same today as taught in my high school textbook, the "theory of evolution" presented to me in high school is so much changed today, as to not fairly even be called the same theory.  Several university level educators today say that evolution simply means "change", while such an idea wasn't on the education radar map in my 1960's high school.  No modern biologist today believes in the simplistic evolutionary chain portrayed in my high school textbook, where an ape was pictured in a drawing, with gradual step "creatures" "advancing" into a modern human being.  Rather today, both apes and human beings are considered to be two current recent species, neither of which lived in the not very distant past and thus, neither of which "evolved" from the other.  Even Richard Dawkins insists that humans did not evolve from either chimpanzees or any other living species.  Rather, according to Dawkins and most scientists, humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor that was neither ape or human.

Today, Natural Selection theory is openly being challenged by peer scientists and with the discovery of exo-planets, it appears that life may well predate the earth itself, negating any and all attempts to demonstrate how life somehow magically "evolved" from unguided scratch here on earth.  If life is abundant in the Cosmos as many if not most scientists suspect today, it is irrational to pretend science will ever know how, when, where or why life came into existence.  In reality, there is no such thing as an agreed to "theory of evolution" but rather, how the theory itself is defined is constantly changing and adapting and, the theory has an obvious evolving, adapting and changing history of it's own.  One might fairly ask, if evolution simply means "change", why not call it "change" or more accurately, "life in transition", rather than continuing to use the misleading term "evolution"?

As noted previously, is science being fair to artificially divide life up into species and then claim that one artificial division evolved from another?  Isn't it more honest to say that all of life is in a constant state of transition and, scientists then come along and arbitrarily divide life into artificial categories of human invention?  Is it fair to say that a bird "evolved" a certain type of beak, as if a bird induced change on it's own?  Isn't it more honest to conclude that all of life is created to adapt and change within an ever-changing universal reality, rather than change being somehow magically induced by random appearing, unguided, totally by chance processes; as if energy, motion, light, life and the rest of the observable universal reality somehow magically appeared by it's own volition?


NOTE 17 - EVOLUTION WEIGHED IN THE BALANCES OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR:  According to evolutionary theory, “there are costs as well as benefits to learning, so learning abilities will be beneficial, and favored by Natural Selection, only when the benefits outweigh the costs” (from Encyclopedia Britannica; “Animal Behavior”).  In view of the consistent and ongoing war and rumor of war, slavery, murder, rape, theft, false witness and other anti-human rights behavioral history of human civilization, which many historians believe is increasing as a percentage of total human population, rather than decreasing, this fundamental conclusion of modern biology remains highly suspect.  Children and adults have to repeatedly be taught to behave, based on what parental and societal peer conscience dictates to be morally correct. 

In order to convince us human beings to be what we ourselves perceive as "good", all manner of threats of punishment, rewards and various other pat-on-the-back “carrots” are dangled in front of our faces, from candy, ice cream, spankings and stars on primary report cards, to monetary and other prizes, trophies and plaques on up to the "Noble Peace Prize".  While on the negative side, we quite easily and consistently disobey on our own, without any parental or general societal approval, encouragement or reward and, quite often in the face of severe punishment, including societal ostracization, lengthy incarceration, painful torture and even execution.  Why are classes on morality and ethics taught at major universities and, why do some students decide to work for organizations like Doctors Without Borders, while others choose to work for the global war machine?

Why are adults rewarded with an international "peace prize", which includes not only international recognition but also a substantial monetary reward, for behaving like we believe we all should already behave?  In particular, this modern evolutionary view is highly suspect because many of the most educated modern human beings continue to engage in the same highly destructive anti-human rights behavior as in ancient Babylon, Egypt and Rome.  Highly educated modern scientists continue to create ever more destructive weapons of war and otherwise, pollute all hope of our species' reproductive survival into planetary oblivion, even in the face of dire warnings and predictions from peer scientists.  And, educated bankers, lawyers, politicians, preachers and self-help gurus most callously and deliberately continue to defraud fellow human beings out of what meager wealth they may possess and otherwise, continue to sell our children's future down the great historical river of tears for a few dollars more, regardless of how many millions or billions of dollars they may already possess.

Thus, this fundamental assumption of modern evolutionary theory is weighed in the balances of human behavior in both the historical and current record and found severely wanting.  As for example, if human babies are born morally “pure”, as many modern people pretend or, if babies are born neutral (i.e., morally “blank” and prone to act 50/50 in either direction) as Freud assumed, then it would be self-evident that what humans collectively perceive to be “good” would be just as easily acquired and adhered to, as what humans collectively perceive to be “bad”.  When in fact, the balances are heavily weighed towards disobedience, rather than obedience of societal moral norms and otherwise, moral uprightness consensus, derived from individual and collective conscience, custom and in the modern age, declared human rights law.

If we aren't born with an inherent moral obedience problem, why is there any necessity for a theory of human rights and, why do some atheists and agnostics stand on street corners holding up peace signs?  If we don't have an innate greed problem, why is there such a great disparity of wealth here in the 21st Century?  Why after thousands of years of moral instruction, are we today standing on the verge of World War Three and global pollution planetary destruction?  How does this represent a reproductive or any other advantage for our children's future?  Why do we still have walls, bars on windows, locks on doors, soldiers, police, courts, judges, juries and jails here in a 21st Century emanating from a so-called "Age of Enlightenment"?  If this is just our Natural Selection manifest destiny, then why is Jesus still revered even by some of modern history's most highly educated people?  How does Natural Selection weighed in the balances of 21st Century human behavior equal respect for the teachings of Jesus and all combined, equate Darwinism with what is really true?

As the New Testament teaches, God did not give us laws and a conscience because our Creator is naive and expected us to obey him but rather, to prove to us that we have an innate moral obedience problem, which the Bible calls “sin” and thus, we cannot save ourselves and need God's help.  Changing “sin” to more modern terminology like “anti-human rights behavior” or “anti-social behavior”, in no way, shape or form changes our underlying fundamental moral problem, nor does it relieve any of the resulting violence, slavery, inequality of wealth, suffering and sorrow sin causes.  As noted previously, studies today indicate that what many consider to be socially counter-productive or “evil” human traits like egoism, Machiavellianism, moral disengagement, narcissism, entitlement, psychopathy, sadism, selfishness, spitefulness and other non-caring and non-empathetic traits, stem from a common “dark core” within us.
The Dark Core of Human Personality

Human beings both individually and collectively, represent a significant failure to live up to the fundamental human rights morality dictates of our own conscience, of treating others like we ourselves wish to be treated.  The legacy of so-called ages of "reason" and "enlightenment" of European and American imperialism, the American, French, Russian, Chinese, Cuban and many other revolutions, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Iraq and many other horrendous modern wars of unparalleled historical violence and destruction, coupled with modern global mass pollution and a looming WWIII and planetary disaster, very clearly demonstrates that science and education cannot save us from our sins.

World leading DNA and human disease expert Francis Collins has publicly stated, that modern DNA evidence alone overwhelmingly demonstrates design and not random processes.  And, as he has also stated, one would assume from a purely Darwinian perspective, that human civilization laws would be fundamentally significantly different, when in fact, basic laws against murder, adultery, theft and false witness are commonly shared throughout human civilization history, as well as a similar "golden rule" appears in at least 37 both connected and non-connected historical cultures spread across the human civilization record.

Thus, clearly indicating as the authors of the Bible claim and Jefferson echoes, that we human beings possess an "endowed" shared human conscience.  And, as Jefferson, Collins and others have pointed out, clearly demonstrating deliberate design and not random processes.  As stated previously, all people who believe in God by default believe in some form of deliberate design and many such modern people like Francis Collins, also subscribe to the theory of evolution,  Belief in God based on evidence, which is how faith is taught in the Bible (unlike Christianity), should not be confused with creationism and intelligent design theories, as many poorly schooled atheists do today.

Based on dire predictions of modern science about our planet's future, which agree with many predictions made by Jesus and others in the Bible, there will soon come a time on earth when humans in large numbers wish we had never been born.  As the Bible predicts will happen, we are already losing a significant amount of green plant life and weather patterns, food and water supplies are already warning of major famine, pestilence, disease, anarchy and war on unprecedented scales looming on the global horizon.  Modern global warming computer models alone grossly contradict any notion of any benefit from human science and technology outweighing the horrendous downside of modern nuclear, bio and other weaponry and global mass pollution.

The ongoing human carnage of war and rumor of war differs significantly from the actions of the rest of the animal kingdom, in that animals tend to war out of necessity, rather than being motivated by greed and engaging in irrational behavior for no good reproductive survival or any other rational reason at all.  As a few brave historians have dared suggest, the known history of Cortes and the Klondike Gold Rush alone, cast a giant question mark shadow over any claim of human actions being based solely on reproductive survival (problems with Natural Selection theory are discussed in more detail elsewhere).


NOTE 18 - NOTES ON NATURAL SELECTION:  As discussed previously, modern geneticists and other scientists and intellectuals have recently begun to openly challenge Natural Selection theory, publicly stating that modern genetic and other evidence indicates reproductive survival is apparently only one of several reasons (some unknown to Darwin) why life adapts and changes.  Whether or not life changes due to "random mutations" and reproductive survival advantage may be partially true, but it is well-established today that this most certainly isn't the entire truth, due to expanding knowledge of microbial behavior.  Because this has already been addressed above with several links to the research evidence, this note rather than repeat such information, instead addresses issues geneticists, biologists and educators otherwise, often tend to ignore.  For those questioning whether new research indicates Natural Selection theory is only at best partially correct, repeating just this one link should remove any such doubt:  Bacteria Recycle Broken DNA

In particular what is ignored by many scientists and educators is the way we human beings often act when even the remotest possibilities for gold and other forms of wealth are dangled in front of us.  Many people today who can ill afford it and who otherwise need their meager incomes for their own children's survival and well being, often spend vast amounts of time, money and effort playing lotteries with mega-millions to one odds.  Meanwhile, legal gambling, once reserved mainly for cities located in Nevada, has become a booming industry across the American landscape and, internet gambling is a significant growing global human addiction in process.  Any claim Natural Selection theory is correct must fairly address what all of this has to do with reproductive advantage and survival.  It is not enough to say wealth is necessary for survival or that enhanced wealth enhances reproductive opportunity, as many people of extreme wealth and limitless opportunity continue to engage in such practices, often dominating much time and energy that could otherwise be used in an arguably far more reproductively advantageous manner.

One of the greatest flaws created by bias arising from the term “evolution” itself, is the modern evolutionary bias assumptions of "advancement" and "descent" from "lower" to "higher" forms of life, assumptions not necessarily having any validity in the real world.  Even Charles Darwin later in life opposed the idea of descent as commonly understood, in spite of the title of one of his works.  If there is a true evolutionary “advancement” based on reproductive “advantage” and, if this is the ONLY fundamental driving force within species or, as some try to explain, the “engine” that drives evolutionary change", then logically organisms would become disease free over time.  Otherwise, one must assume step-by-step "lock-sync” adaptive changes within disease organisms in exact lock-step synchronization with host organisms, rather than the overall evolutionary process involving even a tiny fraction of “randomness”.  This in itself would demonstrate "brains" behind the process and design, rather than randomness.

Otherwise organisms would logically gradually move away from anything that is not a reproductive advantage.  And more logically, disease would never arise in the first place in an advantage driven system.  If what we can observe is a "blind watchmaker" “reproductive advantage” driven system, then why would disease or anything else against reproductive advantage ever arise?  From where did such disadvantages to reproductive survival come from and why?  And on a practical everyday level, why would an educated human being continue to eat at fast food restaurants in the modern 21st Century age, undoubtedly aggravating when not directly causing much human disease and, even though there is scientific medical knowledge today clearly demonstrating that eating certain foods can cause us and our offspring significant harm?  Why would we buy our offspring "special treats" that physicians warn cause obesity, diabetes, heart and other disease and ongoing addiction to harmful foods, knowing full well, that the more our children eat junk, the more likely they are to eat far more junk the older they become?  How is this a reproductive "advantage" and if not, why do modern highly educated as well as other not so highly educated people continue to engage in such practices?

Most practicing scientists today question the idea of "descent" in evolution as commonly perceived, but they almost invariably believe in reproductive survival advantage advancement and, that human beings are advancing morally, while based on the historical record, there is no evidence for and overwhelming evidence against such a conclusion.  How does the record of war and human oppression recorded from the rise of British imperialism forward, represent a moral advancement over ancient Babylon, the Roman Empire or Middle Age Europe?  Many if not most historians believe if anything, it represents moral regression rather than advancement.  One is left perplexed by a so-called "Age of Enlightenment" resulting in the modern 21st Century reality of global mass pollution, rising global corporate dominance and mass human enslavement and civilization teetering on the brink of nuclear annihilation.  How does this represent moral "advancement" and, why do many educated scientists, bankers, lawyers and politicians continue to engage in far worse deception and human oppression than the common thieves of human history ever dreamed of?

Perhaps the most significant problem with Natural Selection theory, as has been pointed out by a few brave historians, is that actions predicating "reproductive advantage" are grossly contradicted by human beings in the known historical record.  To claim that the sole fundamental drive of human beings is reproductive advantage, is essentially irrational in the light of the known history of Cortes, the American West and the Klondike Gold Rush; just a few of millions of examples of the severe reproductive downside to the overt human greed splashed all over the historical record.

Human beings throughout the historical record in droves forsake any and all hope of reproduction at the mere hint of a wisp of a few gold or other dollars more; often risking life and limb in the harshest of conditions, engaging in much violence, war and brutality and again, risking life and limb, enduring all manner of hunger, disease, pain and suffering and, often dragging spouses and children along with them, for a few dollars more.  People of vast wealth, power and ease and availability of reproductive opportunities, have been known to leave all of this far in the dust and engage in the most egregious brutality and severe risk of personal, family and extended group safety, traveling long distances in harsh, unforgiving weather conditions, to where there is little to no hope of finding any suitable mate, at the slightest hint of finding gold; often in the face of preposterous claims of wealth to be found that any sound mind would have rejected as gross exaggeration and complete fabrication long ago.  How does the history of the Klondike Gold Rush demonstrate reproductive survival or any other kind of advantage to a race called "human"? Wikipedia: Klondike Gold Rush

A common blunder that even Richard Dawkins admits is incorrect, yet an error often found in articles in the Washington Post, New York and Los Angeles Times science sections and often taught by poorly trained educators and popular pundits, is the notion that humans are "descended" from the "ape" family and as such, we belong to the "ape" family.  Several articles published in the NY Times and LA Times made this claim in 2010 alone.  And not surprisingly, this is a common belief prevalent in modern society.  This is one example of how the term "evolution" itself is misleading and why it should long ago have been replaced with "life in transition", a far more accurate general descriptive idea of how life actually behaves at least hear on earth and theoretically, on a universal level. 

Apes are just as logically a part of the "human" family and "descended" from humans, as that humans are part of the "ape" family, while Richard Dawkins and assumedly most professional biologists (hopefully) agree that neither one of these are accurate.  Some scientists might contend that evolution is in fact "life in transition", but if this is the case, why not change the terminology so that poorly trained educators and popular media 'science' editors don't continue to mislead the general public?  What reproductive or other advantage is there in continuing to use misleading terms, when improved terminology like "life in transition" could help minimize false assumptions?  Mr. Dawkins, being a trained scientist, admitted in a 2010 PBS video that humans did not descend from apes but rather, apes and humans represent two modern species that didn't exist in the recent past.  There is no evidence evolution represents a "descent" or "ascent" of humans from the "ape" family.  Rather, the evidence demonstrates ALL of life is designed to be in a constant state of transition, so that life itself can survive within changing environments.  Any life form observed today didn't exist in it's current form not very long ago (in evolutionary terms).

The terms life "form", "forms" of life and similar are used frequently in this work to help offset the fact that "species" and other classifications of science are human inventions, which neither dictate the reality of how life came to be or how life functions.  One way to view the actual reality of life, is to view everything living as being a "part" of life and thus, all living forms of life are part of the whole of life itself.  Some life forms change a lot more dramatically than others.  Some forms of life remain about the same for millions years.  This is because change is predicated on necessity of survival, environmental, freedom of choice and many other factors and thus, life forms that don't need to change very much, change very slowly, whereas a life form introduced into a completely new environment or living in a dramatically changing environment, will tend to change comparatively rapidly.  The famous example of lightly colored moths changing into dark moths as industrial "soot" began clinging to buildings in industrial age England, is a good example of comparative rapid change due to a dramatically changing environment.

It is not true that reproductive survival isn't why all of life changes and adapts.  Rather, the modern evidence indicates reproductive survival is one of several reasons why all of life adapts and changes.  The word "natural" in Natural Selection itself represents human assumption and bias, rather than science.  Labeling a process "natural" and referring to environmental reality as "the natural world" doesn't prove anything, other than that scientists like other human beings, are prone to bias and assumptions having no foundation in evidence. 

Because there is only one universe, there is nothing that rationally compares to it.  But for purposes of discussion, if we view the universe as a giant computer, we can understand, based on our own human ability to create computers, that the universe represents a grand cosmic designed "machine", operating far beyond human ability to fully comprehend.  It is impossible to know how much or how little our Creator inputs within the grand cosmic scheme of things, while on the other hand, there is no evidence at all that either a computer or the universe can magically exist unto themselves.  All evidence known to humanity points in the other direction towards Primary Cause, that parts within parts working in combination together cannot magically exist unto themselves.

A significant reason why life forms change is due to their own individual choices, which is only part of "Natural Selection" in the vague larger sense, as well as another highly significant reason is due to dramatic environmental changes, whether caused by humans or caused by natural disasters, such as floods, fires, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc.  And, sudden introduction or elimination of predators and food sources can cause rapid significant changes that otherwise would not have occurred.  This includes Natural Selection in the vague larger sense, but it has little to do with slow selective step-by-step changes normally associated with the idea of Natural Selection as presented in textbooks and to the public at large.  Human pollution alone represents a giant thorn in the side of evolutionary science, as we have yet to learn the complete negative ramifications of our own insatiable human greed, which today is clearly sending us down a historical oblivion road of no return.

Natural Selection is a human invented term attempting to explain how and why life adapts and changes over time.  "Species", "family" and other categories of life science are artificial classifications and have no bearing on the reality of life or how life functions in the real world, any more than a formula E = MC2 has a bearing on the actual functionality of gravity, energy and light.  They are not "gods" or processes or systems unto themselves, as atheists invariably treat and capitalize Natural Selection, but rather, they are just invented terms attempting to define and explain what is occurring in what is commonly and rather biasedly called "the natural world" and more accurately called, "creation" or "the universal reality".

The term “universe” to most scientists means whatever human beings can detect in both macro and micro directions, although scientists themselves often refer to the "known universe", as opposed to what is beyond our ability to detect.  The actual size of our universe is believed to be incredibly larger than the comparatively tiny amount we can currently detect.  Some scientists have tried to calculate what they believe may be the actual size, while some continue to propose that although it appears to us to be expanding, it may in fact be infinite in size.

The only real system that we can unbiasedly observe is "the universal system" or what is commonly called, “the universe” or “the universal reality”.  Calling it the "natural" world and using a term "natural" selection creates bias between atheists and theists and causes all manner of debates to arise between "evolution and creation", which are just a big waste of everybody's time and energy, having nothing in common with either God or science or reality. Whether or not there is a Creator, deliberately creating bias serves no rational purpose and is counter-productive to human science, human rights and human survival itself.

Any description smaller than "universal system" or "universal reality", which includes all of life functionality and life itself, becomes biased and colored with human interpretation and terminology invention.  There are of course many "sub-systems" going on within the larger "universal system", but to be accurate, science needs to explain this accurately and to allow for human error and the bias that such terms as "nature" and "natural world" arbitrarily impose, rather than to place all of it's marbles in one "Natural Selection" basket, as Mr. Dawkins and other atheists tend to do.  The more a scientist just arbitrarily chalks everything up to evolution by Natural Selection, treating it as some sort of "Boogieman" god to explain everything, the more inaccurate such a notion becomes in terms of the larger universal reality weighed in the balances of the known evidence.

What many intellectuals never learn or learn very well is the following axiom, which should be taught as basic to all education and other intellectual pursuit:  Regardless of what we believe or fail to believe, what is true remains the same.  In other words, we can believe there is no God or, we can believe the earth was created in seven days or billions of years or, we can believe the earth is the center of the solar system or is round or flat or triangular in shape, but regardless of what humans beings may believe, what is true remains the same.  And whether or not we "believe" in evolution or even have a concept called "evolution", what is true regarding how life came to be and functions remains the same.

This not entirely true, because what we believe colors our perceptions and causes us to think and act in certain ways we otherwise wouldn't think and act, but outside of how what we believe effects us and causes us to act, the above is essentially accurate and it should be emphasized in every first year college if not high school science classroom.  Ingraining this basic fact of universal reality in the minds of students would help minimize counter-productive and unwarranted bias.  As Socrates is reported to have said, he considered himself to be wiser than others because unlike others, he understood how little he knew and by extrapolation, how little "we" collectively as human beings know.

When education is presented accurately as “truth” being the goal, rather than defending what scientists believe against religion, then categories such as "religion", "science", "philosophy" and "history" become irrelevant to the greater whole, irrelevant to what modern science "believes" as opposed to what a conservative Christian believes or, what a liberal progressive might "believe", as opposed to what a right-wing political conservative believes.  None of what any of us believe either overrides or changes what is true, other than the fact that human misconceptions have caused a great deal of human oppression, misery and woe and, continue to dramatically do so.  Other than "coloring" how we think and behave, what is actually true remains the same, regardless of what any of us believe or fail to believe, at least in terms of the physical observable reality.

And then there is the very large can of worms carelessly lumped together under one common heading "religion", as if belief in God based on evidence, institutional religion, morality, ethics and various television scam artists and pedophile-leaning priests, all represent one and the same thing.  Bill Maher, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, the late Christopher Hitchens and others are fairly correct in their claims that institutional religion is far more harmful than good.  Unfortunately, such biased media voices insist on lumping belief in God based on evidence, as demonstrated by virtually all of human history's leading scientists, philosophers, sages and moral figures, as being in the same general bucket of slop as fundamentalist religious quacker-jackery of the most fundamentally egregious kind. 

Where many people in modern American society are in very great error, is in assuming that Jesus is the founder of Christianity or belongs in a category called "religion" and thus, not in a history, philosophy, behavioral science, psychology, human rights, political science, ethics, education theory, environmental science and various other categories where he more accurately and correctly does belong.  Any legitimate intellectual should have a huge quarrel with that, because it is completely historically irrational and plainly, very harmful and very wrong to teach our children that Jesus should be isolated under "religion" category or, that he even rationally belongs in a "religion" category.  It is inarguable that Jesus has had more influence in human history than any other single individual and, to not include his teachings and example in the main instruction of our children is to insure they are not remotely educated at all and thus, remains an open shame.

As a few examples:

   a) You will know the truth and the truth will make you free. This saying is carved on the wall of one of the most liberal colleges in America.  Why does this belong in "religion" class, rather than "education theory", "philosophy" and "life motivation" classes?

   b) Solomon in all his glory was not clothed as well as a common weed flower.  Why doesn't this belong in "environmental science", rather than "religion" class?

   c) Whatever you want people to do to you, do also to them.  Why isn't this taught in "human rights", "political and social theory", "psychology", "philosophy" and "morality and ethics" classes, rather than in "religion" class?

There is probably no such thing as a historian who does not believe that the life and teachings of Jesus are a major influence in human history.  Yet, I never once heard anything about the life or teachings of Jesus taught in any course I have ever taken in either a public high school or college history class.  Jesus is a profound influence on key European, American and other authors and artists from DaVinci, Michelangelo and Shakespeare on up through the present, on every scientist, philosopher and other thinker of the so-called "Enlightenment" and, on every American and French revolutionist.  Yet I have never once heard Jesus mentioned in any European or American history class, other than in speeches and texts quoting him, invariably without crediting the source.

According to the Britannica, the foundation of modern socialism is "to each according to need".  What Britannica does not say in it's article "Socialism", is the same thing that modern educators fail to mention in American, European and other classrooms.  Which is, that every member of the so-called "enlightenment" and every American founder attended schools where the Bible was required study.  And thus, it naturally follows that what is found in the New Testament book of "Acts", where they "distributed to each as anyone had need", would find it's way into modern human rights, political and social theory.  This is clearly why American citizens remain poorly educated, vote for the wrong people, often ignore those without homes, jobs and health care and, why many conservatives and liberals believe conservative Christianity represents Jesus, when in fact it represents the opposite of virtually everything Jesus ever said or did.  Based on what the Bible says Jesus actually said and did, Jesus is far closer to Bill Maher and Gandhi than to Pat Robertson and, far closer to Helen Keller and Pete Seeger, two of the great liberals of American history, than to any brand of modern Christianity.

Apparently even militant atheist Richard Dawkins understands the superiority of the teachings of Jesus, as a photo of Mr. Dawkins wearing a t-shirt with the words, "atheists for Jesus" displayed on the front, was at one time posted on his own website.  According to historian Will Durant in his epic volume, "Caesar and Christ", the teachings of Jesus as found in the four "gospels", represent a singular advanced mind, far greater than any other mind known in human history.  And as the writings of Durant clearly imply, to not study the Bible and the history and cultures surrounding the Bible, is to have no understanding of ancient history, Western history, European history, American history, human rights, civil rights and essentially, no understanding or education at all.  How is it a reproductive or any other "advantage" to our children for American education to ignore the greatest mind in human history?  Why did Jesus insist there is a God and claim that his father in heaven told him what to teach us, if there is no God and, why did we crucify our greatest teacher?


NOTE 19 - SOLOMON AND ATHEISM:  As briefly noted previously, it is arguably difficult to explain the existence of disease organisms in a theoretically overall "advantage" driven system.  In an overall advantage driven system, which is fundamental to the theory of evolution by Natural Selection, why would anything that is against reproductive advantage arise in the first place?  Why is there both advantage and disadvantage, rather than just advantage to greater advantage?  Why is there competition rather than integrated synchronized harmony among species?  Why would reproductive disadvantage ever arise and even though obviously it did, why wouldn't all of life eventually become entirely synchronized in integrated harmony, if evolution is driven by overall reproductive "advantage"?  What would it mean to our entire education system if in the future, scientists were to discover a planet of living beings cohabitating in harmony and peace, without any concept of greed, violence or competition known to them?

Even if it can be satisfactorily explained why disease arises, why don't host organisms eventually become disease free in an evolutionary "advantage" driven system?  That is, since Natural Selection assumes advantage will ultimately triumph over non-advantage, then one must assume disease organisms can somehow evolve in lock-sync, step-by-step advantage direction with the host.  Even very tiny "random mutations" within host organisms could not logically be copied in complete step-by-step synchronization harmony by disease organisms in a totally blind random reality and thus, host organisms would logically eventually become disease free, which they do not.  Why wouldn't random mutations coupled with selective advantage eventually result in organisms being freed from whatever is a reproductive disadvantage?

The larger question that atheists continue to ignore is, how can universal or any other laws, processes and/or, an integrated functional system of any kind, exist unto themselves, without any “brains” behind them.  Can a factory of robots and computers, with the ability to “self-design” and perform many complex functions all by themselves, somehow magically exist unto themselves, apart from a designer somewhere up the chain?  Why would any scientist or other rational human being even consider such a possibility?  And, it is fair to ask, why would a concept of God and atheism both exist in a blind random advantage driven system?  What advantage is there for a species to deliberately lie to itself and it's offspring?

And the obvious unanswered question for atheists is, why would anybody be an atheist? What evidence is there for magically appearing universal laws and complex universal systems containing zillions of parts within parts within more parts and more importantly, what is the point?  What reproductive advantage does an atheist bring to the table, that can't be surpassed by a totally uneducated Catholic Bolivian farmer, who believes in God but is rather atheistic when it comes to contraception?  From a fair and unbiased Darwinian perspective, is someone with more offspring and no educational degree, less or more intelligent than someone with several educational degrees and few or no offspring?

I don't personally know if an evolutionary disease expert can satisfactorily answer the questions of why disease would arise in an advantage driven system or, why it would continue to persist within an advantage driven organism.  I am by no means a qualified expert on disease or how disease factors into the theory of evolution by Natural Selection.  But it remains illogical to me, that any such theory can satisfactorily explain either the origin of, or the persistence of disease in host organisms.

Jesus said, "before Abraham was, I AM".  God as "I AM" which, as far as I am aware, is not found anywhere else in human history prior to Moses, remains again, as far as I am aware, the only ancient concept of God that matches the current modern evidence.  And again as far as I am aware, it remains the only known concept in all of human history satisfying origins, rationally explaining the known observable universal reality.

The question remains, why would a modern educated man or woman choose an inferior explanation, rather than the best explanation currently available?  Or as in the case of atheism, why would an educated human being choose an irrational position that can't rationally explain either our own existence or rationally explain anything at all, rather than instead choosing the best explanation currently known?  It doesn't take much of a "Solomon" to ask a few obvious questions:  What reproductive or any other advantage is there to being an atheist and, why is the blind faith religion of atheism religiously promoted in American public schools, while any and all mention of our Creator is denied?  What reproductive or any other advantage is there to overtly lying to our own offspring?


NOTE 20 - BIAS CREATED BY THE TERMS "EVOLUTION" AND "NATURAL SELECTION":  Since Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species", even though scientists themselves tend to cringe at the thought, there has evolved a plethora of sidebar applications to the concept of evolution in nearly every field regarding nearly every topic known to humanity.  For example, today we hear about the "evolution" of civilization, the "evolution" of education, the "evolution" of society, the "evolution" of thought and reason, mathematics, art, psychology, human rights and the "evolution" of virtually everything else.  This in spite of the fact that throughout most of recorded history, no such concepts existed.  Obviously the term "evolution" has so colored our way of thinking as to become irreducibly inseparable from the way reality is perceived here in the 21st Century.

Such broad-brush thinking and the claims of certain modern evolutionists should be openly challenged by honest rational human beings.  Some biologists demonstrate only a rudimentary understanding of history at best, sometimes drawing erroneous conclusions clearly contradicting the historical reality of how human beings actually act in the real world, as some modern historians have bravely pointed out.  Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and other militant atheists have a bad habit of equating belief in God with the religious beliefs of human beings and otherwise, contradicting the known scientific and historical facts, in spite of the fact that many modern practicing scientists believe in both God and evolution, while many historically prominent voices such as Socrates, Jesus, Paul, Einstein, Jefferson and Paine, believed in God but adhered to no particular religion at all.

Suffice it to say, what religious figures or other human beings claim about God has no relevance to either the nature of or existence of God.  Consider for example, if someone were to claim the earth is flat or triangular in shape or, to claim that the earth doesn't actually exist in spite of the overwhelming evidence, such claims of course, would neither alter the existence of or change the actual shape of the earth.  Nevertheless Daniel Dennett, a leading voice for modern atheism, while speaking to an international convention of atheists as posted in a video on YouTube, quite literally wastes over an hour detailing what he considers to be wrong with the Catholic Church, as if this somehow has any relevance to the existence of or nature of God.  Meanwhile comedian Bill Maher often ridicules belief in a "little man in the sky", even though the Bible says that God fills the heavens and what lies beyond and, in God "we live and move and have our being".  Others ridicule the idea of God creating animals one at a time and placing them individually in a garden, as a human doll maker might create individual dolls, while the Bible in agreement with modern science, says that living creatures came "forth in abundance", first in the ocean and later on land.

The late Christopher Hitchens is held by certain atheists as being historically astute, even though he grossly contradicts basic historical facts anyone can easily research for themselves.  For example, Hitchens states in a YouTube video posted prior to 2010, that "all Jewish historians now admit that Moses probably didn't exist"; Hitchens could then use this total and complete historical fabrication to extrapolate from a foundation of historical quicksand that "Jesus also probably didn't exist".  According to the 2010 Britannica article on Moses, which was written by a Jewish historian, the majority of historians, including Jewish historians such as himself, believe that either Moses or a leader like Moses probably did exist.  And in his book "Caesar and Christ", learned historian Will Durant, who may be human history's most educated man, concludes it is historically irrational to pretend that Jesus didn't exist, based on the "singular" advanced mind his teachings alone clearly represent.

The Britannica also concludes that the Bible is considered by most historians today to be "generally reliable history".  Even if one disagrees with such conclusions, it is clearly a TOTAL LIE to state that "all Jewish historians now admit Moses probably didn't exist" when in fact most historians do believe a leader like Moses probably did exist and, a far greater lie to pretend Jesus didn't exist. According to Durant, Jesus is far more intelligent than any other known person in history and, there is no known person or group of people capable of inventing his teachings.  As such, it is completely and entirely irrational to pretend Jesus is an invention of First Century common fishermen, farmers and laborers.

Durant goes on to point out, that Paul mentions Jesus was known "in the flesh" by some of those he is writing to in his First Letter to the Corinthians, which is considered authentic by virtually all historians.  This letter casually mentions elements of the Jesus story as if Paul's readers are already familiar with the story.  Thus, there is convincing evidence the story of Jesus existed in some form prior to 54 A.D. when I Corinthians was written and most likely, considerably earlier.  Compare for example, how a great many historical and even modern biographies of people like Alexander, Julius Caesar, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King, Jr., the Kennedys and many others have been written considerably longer after the main subject died than when the story of Jesus first appeared.  In light of Paul's letter alone, the story of Jesus cannot rationally be an invention of monks or anyone else in a later century, as some atheists for generations have long pretended; a claim having no foundation in evidence and representing incredibly poor scholarship over the most likely historical conclusion.

The term "evolution" creates all manner of bias in fields essentially unrelated to biological science.  Modern atheists often try to apply Darwinist theory to historical social and political reality, in a twisted and vain attempt to minimize criticism of what violent atheists like Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Engels, Pol Pot and others are known to have done, as well as to cover for dangerous promoters of human selfishness and greed like avowed atheist Ayn Rand.  Whatever these historical people actually believed, to claim their  agenda did not succeed because communism violates Natural Selection, as some atheists claim, is very clearly historically false, based on the successful influence of Jesus alone, a true communist and denouncer of human aggression, selfishness, violence and greed if there ever was one.

This should also be a wake-up call to any and every human being who consider themselves "progressive", as modern progressivism by common consent, is an attempt to "communize" social and political reality by creating legislation and political systems that take wealth from the top and distribute it back from the bottom upward.  As noted previously, the foundation of modern socialism, "to each according to need", traces directly from Acts in the New Testament, on up through the so-called "ages of reason and enlightenment" and, is alive and well today in many diverse forms, including modern progressivism, socialism and human rights theory.

Both Marx and Engels considered themselves to be socialists.  Apparently Marx, a student of the Bible in his youth, eventually viewed himself a communist as being somewhat distinct from a socialist, while the avowed atheist Engels may never have done so (in spite of the title "Communist Manifesto").  Socialism and communism share a common historical root tracing from Acts in the Bible, which teachings also find their way in various forms in the ideas of Descartes, Rousseau, Locke, Paine, Jefferson, the environmentalism of Schweitzer, the activism of Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks and Cesar Chavez and a host of others.  For example, the concept of "we the people", which has an uncertain origin, is highly communistic in historical root, tracing from Jesus and his "common people" theory of socio-political activism.  The importance of focusing on the poor and common masses was later effectively demonstrated in various ways by Gandhi, Schweitzer, Keller, King, Parks, Huerta, Chavez, the formation of workers' unions, women's movements and, in many other modern examples.

Jesus and his original followers promoted a share all things in common lifestyle, communism in it's purest historical form, upon which later perhaps Marx, being a student of the Bible, based some of his ideas.  However poorly either Marx or modern Christianity may represent Jesus and his 1st Century followers, the fact that the world now contains over 2 billion professing Christians and a whole lot of communists and socialists, clearly demonstrates the overwhelming historical influence of Jesus.  Even if nobody alive today professed to follow Jesus, the fact that ideas attributed to him survive and continue to be published and influence many people, very clearly demonstrates humanity is about a whole lot more than merely "survival of the fittest" due to as Richard Dawkins theorizes, a "selfish" gene.  One does not have to believe in Jesus or accept the Bible as accurate to grasp the obvious and overt bias created by the modern term "evolution". 

The term "evolution" itself is probably responsible for more bias and misinformation than any other word in the modern English language.  Other than perhaps "religion", which also manages to create an overwhelming volume of extreme bias and false conclusions, largely because of the utterly foolish modern notion of lumping belief in God and the teachings of Moses, Jesus, Buddha and others, in with organized institutional religions and all manner of pontiff / tv evangelist quacker-jackery, all together under a common heading "religion"; as if this represents one and the same thing and can somehow, be exorcised from scientific, historical and educational reality.  Such lumping together of diverse beliefs and opinions represents an extremely inaccurate and twisted view which Socrates, Newton, Descartes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Jefferson, Paine, Einstein, Durant and a host of others including Darwin himself, would likely openly challenge today.

Unfortunately, what is contained above in this note only represents a token faction of the extreme bias prevalent today caused by human invented terminology like "evolution", "natural" selection, "nature" and, "natural" world.  Many modern people are probably unaware that throughout much of human history, what today is called "nature" was referred to as "creation".  And likewise, what today is called "social maladjustment", "negative behavior", "aberration from the norm", "anti-human rights behavior" and "human nature", was for a very long time simply referred to as "evil" and "sin".  Many people today who hold up anti-war and pro-peace and pro-human rights signs claim to not believe in sin, as if changing terminology somehow changes reality or, somehow changes the human oppression, pain and suffering caused by the sin within us all.


NOTE 21 - RANDOM APPEARING NON-EVIDENCE BASED POSITIONS OF SCIENCE -  Many modern intellectuals conclude that because the earth and universe are billions of years old and apparently God doesn't create species individually one at a time like some great doll maker in the sky, as many religious fundamentalists once believed and apparently some still believe, therefore this proves there is no God.  While they typically don't state this directly, this is invariably the conclusion many draw, claiming there is no God simply because the modern evidence doesn't agree with fundamentalist religious claims.  All this in reality proves, is that a) God doesn't create like we do and b) atheists and conservative religious fundamentalists are two extremely narrow-minded peas, sprouting from the same corrupt pod of arrogance, hypocrisy and gross superstition.

There is no evidence that either the big bang magically went boom or that life, so-called "universal" or any other processes or the larger universal reality magically appeared or otherwise, can randomly exist unto themselves.  The existence of motion alone requires a Primary Cause, as far as ALL of the known evidence demonstrates.  If the majority opinion of astronomers is correct and there was a big bang, then any and all observable motion today is a result of the big bang, including in the "quantum" reality, where scientists often carelessly apply the term "random" and claim particles can be observed randomly popping in and out of existence.

Any claim that particles can randomly pop into existence contradicts a primary postulate of modern science, that matter can neither be created or destroyed but only re-arranged.  Some quantum theorists have proposed that what appear to be particles of matter randomly popping in and out of existence are in fact, particles moving in and out of dimensions we cannot detect.  And thus, it only appears to us from our view trapped in 3-dimensional space (+time) that particles are randomly coming into existence.  Obviously scientists can't have it both ways and until such time as they can make up their collective minds, like much of what else is discussed in these notes, it is true and honest and fair to simply state, science doesn't know whether or not randomness in true universal and beyond reality has ever existed or, randomness currently either does, does not or every could randomly exist.  What evidence is there that either matter or anything else can randomly do anything without a Primary Cause or otherwise, that random motion can randomly self-generate?

Based on the majority opinion of modern science, anything that can be observed today in the quantum or any other reality known to human beings, is a "result" of a "big bang" and thus by definition, is not random.  Educated people claiming to go by evidence should know better and, any scientist or educator using the term "random" or anything remotely like random in regards to origins, should be publicly reprimanded for lying to our children.  There is no such thing as random from the top down, as far as modern science knows.  Those who pretend otherwise need to grow up and get over the obvious fact that God is very far greater and smarter than we are and, creation is very, very far, way over our collective heads.  As discussed previously, it may be true that the universe is created to in turn, generate randomness, similar to how we humans can create lottery machines, but this is very far different than a claim of true universal randomness from the top down, which is neither scientifically verifiable, rational, logical or reasonable to conclude.

Interestingly enough, Genesis agrees with modern science, that what science calls "fauna" arose in "abundance", first in the ocean and, later on land; the Bible does NOT say that God creates either "species" or elephants as opposed to snakes, dolphins and spiders, individually one at a time.  What the Bible does say, is that God created everything in the universal reality including life and that God allowed "adam", which in Hebrew means "humanity", to name life whatever Adam chose to name it.  Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God creates "species" or living forms of life individually, one at a time.  The Bible does not say how God creates, other than that God speaks and various phenomena occur accordingly; i.e., "Let there be light and, there was light", "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures" and, similar.

It might be fair to conclude that the Bible implies God conceives of various physical realities in mind, speaks and, such realities unfold accordingly, which unlike modern science, offers an excellent explanation for why the big bang went boom, if indeed modern "big bang" theory is correct.  Based on the known history of science, one should never assume that modern theories of universal origin, energy, motion, gravity, light, evolution or any other modern theory will in fact, be considered "science" one hundred or even fifty years into the future.

The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 appears to deliberately weave back and forth between "adam", as referring to humanity in general and, "Adam", as referring to a single human being, so much so that it can be difficult to separate them, which is accurate as far as science knows.  As noted previously, since the mapping of the human genome, it appears that all people alive today share a common female ancestor no older than Noah's wife, impregnated by a single male, which is what Genesis says is true and, which cannot be disproven by modern evidence.

Various scientists in diverse disciplines claim that true modern human beings arose anywhere between the emergence of farming, 8-9000 years ago, to as much as 200,000 and more years ago.  Obviously with such vastly different estimates, the truth is that science doesn't really know when modern human beings first appeared or more accurately, doesn't really know how to exactly define a true modern human being.  And the larger truth is, regardless of how science classifies either human or any other form of life, this in no way, shape or form dictates how God views life or otherwise, determines what is a true modern human being in the likeness of Adam.  Based on modern genetic evidence, the genealogy of Jesus in the New Testament tracing back to Adam, who Genesis describes as being a farmer, is accurate and correct as far as historians and scientists know.
Recent Common Ancestry for Europeans About 1000 Years
Recent Common Ancestry for Modern Humans Estimates

The creation story in Genesis 1 stresses that types of living forms reproduce "after their own kind", which remains scientifically accurate today.  It is well established by modern science that life forms have distinct reproductive boundaries which cannot be successfully crossed and, the story in Genesis repeats this several times, as if deliberately emphasized for a reason.  When human beings engage in bestiality for example and even when we choose to eat harmful foods, such "iniquity of the fathers" can adversely affect the human gene pool for generations, just like the Bible long ago claimed is true.
Epigenetics, Diet, Disease and Negative Human Behavior

Modern science has discovered that starvation can effect inherited characteristics for at least three generations in a study involving worms.  Other research clearly indicates that other negative characteristics from disease, what humans eat and various human activity known to be harmful, such as sex with animals and promiscuity leading to sexually transmitted diseases, likewise translate into negative inherited characteristics.  It is well established that sexually transmitted diseases can cause blindness and various deformities in the offspring of infected parents.  Such deformities can trace from the father, as well as the mother.

It is also well established that various foods humans consume can result in diseases like cancer, heart disease, diabetes and much more on down the generational tree.  And, it is well-established that adultery can be extremely psychologically, emotionally and even physically harmful to partners who are cheated on and in particular, to children caught up in subsequent broken relationships.  Psychologists confirm that many adults and children suffer extreme damage from adultery, leading to a lifetime of depression, suicidal tendencies and in many cases, actual suicide.  To pretend that whatever two consenting adults choose to do or even what one adult chooses to eat or otherwise do is "harmless", is very plainly a lie.

Many who mock various dietary laws in the Old Testament and other ancient sources are naively unaware that modern science knows virtually nothing about the true origins of many devastating diseases, in particular from the virus level on down.  According to the Encyclopedia Britannica in a rather lengthy article "Virus" and elsewhere, modern science knows virtually nothing about viruses compared to what there is yet to learn and, far less about the origins of disease at molecular and quantum levels.  In my lifetime alone, many foods once thought to be "good" for us are now considered harmful, while others once thought to be "bad" for us are now recommended.  Some foods such as milk have been flipped back and forth more than once.  Very clearly, we are in no position here in the 21st Century to mock dietary laws of the ancient past, as if we know any better, which quite obviously, we do not.

As an interesting sidebar to a discussion on diet, some historians today believe that what killed off millions of Native peoples in the Americas was not disease transmitted directly by European settlers themselves but rather, disease spread around by herds of pigs they brought with them.  While not harmful to the pigs themselves, diseases pigs are known to carry could have been extremely toxic to Native peoples who unlike Europeans, didn't have multi-generational immunities built up against them; pork was a popular food of Roman soldiers and, had a long history of European consumption.  There may well be more subtle and less obvious reasons why pork and certain other types of foods are forbidden in Old Testament law, among them that refrigeration, knowledge of bacteria in relation to disease and modern farming and curing techniques we take for granted today didn't exist in ancient times, as well as diseases living forms of life such as pigs can carry, without appearing to be sick themselves.

According to this article linked below, negative effects of starvation can be inherited for at least “three generations”.  According to the Bible, the “iniquity of the fathers” is visited upon their children to the “third and fourth generations”; note the article linked here says to the “at least” third generation, indicating fourth would also be accurate at least some of the time, thus it would be exactly accurate to say “third and fourth” generations, rather than just fourth.  Once again, the Bible exactly agrees with modern science evidence.
Effects of Starvation Passed to Future Generations

As far as we know, the Creator of life doesn't divide life up into various categories like "genus" and "species" but rather, we do.  Classifying life into various categories is an artificial system invented by humans, billions of years after life first arose on our planet.  As such, what we call a "species" has no bearing on how life actually functions in true reality; life functioned as it does now long before either we or any concept of evolution existed.  Nor is it accurate to claim one artificially classified part of life "evolves" from another artificially classified part of life.  This is grossly misleading, because how human science chooses to classify life doesn't affect how life functions.  Artificial human classifications do not rationally dictate either how or why life either came into being, adapts and/or changes.

What is true, is that all of life adapts and changes and then, we humans come along and artificially divide life up however we choose, which according to the Bible, is something our Creator allows us to do.  Science arbitrarily decides that one part of life now differs enough from another part of life to be classified as a different "distinct" species.  It is childish and irrational to claim that one of our artificial divisions of life evolves from another artificial division.  Rather, life adapts and changes and we then arbitrarily determine that a "new" species has arisen.  To say that one species "evolved" from another species implies that the first species is fully formed and no longer changing, which no modern scientist believes is true.  And far worse, to say that one species evolved from another species, is to say that how we artificially divide life determines what life actually does, as if we ourselves created the universal processes of life.

Because the concept of "species" is a human invention, claiming that one species "evolved" from another species doesn't rationally follow in the larger reality of life; in the larger universal reality, life adapted and changed long before any such concept as "species" existed and apparently today, long before even our planet existed.  Life would continue to adapt and change, even if a concept of "species" and evolution had never existed and, even if for some reason science completely re-invented the wheel, defining life processes and classifying life in a very different manner than today.  Whether or not a child calls all birds simply a "bird" or, a scientist divides birds up into a thousand or more separate "species", has no bearing whatsoever on how life actually either came to be or functions within the reality we call "universe", where life marches on, in spite of great earth based disasters and far greater cataclysmic supernova and other cosmic explosions.

According to the Bible, God defined himself to Moses as "I AM".  And Jesus later in the New Testament says, "before Abraham was, I AM".  As far as I am aware, this concept does not exist prior to Moses anywhere in human history.  And again as far as I am aware, not only is this the only ancient concept of God still matching the current modern evidence, it is the only concept known in all of human history that rationally satisfies origins.  All other theories, ideas, concepts and claims, like Paul implies in his Letter to the Romans, fall rather "short" of rationally explaining the observable reality we call "universe".  If there is no Eternal Creator, there is no rational explanation for the observable reality; there is no such thing as science or reason, there is no rational explanation for our existence and, there is no rational explanation for anything at all.  God is not a "strawman" creation as many self-contradicting atheists erroneously pretend but rather, Eternal Creator remains the ONLY rational conclusion known to humanity.


NOTE 22 - ON THE ORIGIN OF THE STANDARD DARWINIAN MODEL:  One would assume that something as grandiosely promoted and universally accepted as Darwinian evolution would be based on a very carefully thought out and documented theory from the ground up.  But in the case of the standard Darwinian model (which is no longer agreed to by some scientists), such is far from the reality.  The vast majority of Darwinists don't like to be called "Darwinists" and unlike Charles Darwin himself, they have long assumed that all of life traces from a singular origination point in the ocean.  Because there is no surviving geological or fossil record for the early earth, there never has been and remains no way of scientifically verifying if this is either true or completely wrong.  Life in colonized microbial form has existed for at least 3.5 billion years, with recent evidence moving this number back to apparently over 4 billion years.

Meanwhile today, evidence of multicellular life remains considerably less than 1 billion years ago.  Because there are no existing fossil records of multicellular life earlier than this of course, does not prove that even relatively large forms of life didn't exist on both land and in the ocean much earlier.  It is feasible that cataclysmic events and other unknown conditions erased any and all trace of earlier larger life forms.  As some scientists have proposed, there may have been several "genesis" of life rather than just one and, earth's earliest years may hold currently unforeseen evidence of great future significance.  It is possible that sometime in the future, there will be some evidence found of much earlier forms of plant and/or animal life.  It has been discovered fairly recently that very early macro life forms appear to have been much more complex than previously assumed.

Many scientists today contend that because of similarities in DNA, this proves that all of life arose from a singular source.  This however has already been dissected previously as not necessarily being correct.  The basic Darwinian assumption of life originating from a singular source isn't supported by Darwin himself, who allows for either a singular origin or multiple origins in his final revision of "On the Origin of Species".  And unlike Richard Dawkins and other atheists like to admit, in this same final edition, published about five years prior to his death, Darwin credits God as "Creator" with being behind whatever processes of life there may be, however right or wrong human science and his own theories may be.

The basic Darwinian assumption of life originating from a singular source “evolved” long before modern DNA knowledge and thus, similarity of DNA has no relevance to any reason for why this idea originated.  Even though it is not written down and historically documented for certain, it appears this idea arose from incredibly biased assumptions of certain atheistic scientists, blindly assuming the universal reality isn't a result of deliberate design and creation and thus, the extremely chance random occurrence of life must be an extremely rare, happen-chance and most likely, one time random freak accident chance event.

Thus, it was believed by some scientists for generations after Darwin that earth might be the only place in the entire universe where life exists or at best, life must be extremely rare.  Not every scientist of course believed this and this rather narrow minded view has gradually given way since the launch of the Hubble telescope, to a relatively more open-minded viewpoint that just perhaps, life may in fact be somewhat common and may even be abundantly spread throughout the cosmos.  Which is of course what the Bible claimed a long time ago, as well as it just makes plain old fashioned common horse sense that such is probably the case, given modern knowledge of the vastness of the universe.  After all, why would God create such a vast grand universal reality simply so life could arise on one planet?  As one scientist recently stated in a PBS video, life may be able to appear “where ever there is a little wetness”, indicating life could have arisen virtually anywhere on earth or, from all over the earth and likewise, life could arise on untold quad-zillions of planets elsewhere spread throughout the grand universal design.

Scientists today believe there may be at least 100 million or more earth-like planets in our Milky Way galaxy alone, capable of supporting life similar to what we find on earth.  And they assume there are a lot more larger gas-like planets similar to those in our own solar system, since a large number have fairly recently been discovered.  However, many scientists continue to assume, narrow-minded creatures they insist on being, that only smaller rocky-like planets with water like earth could possibly allow for life to appear, even though non-carbon based methane breathing creatures have been found on our own planet and, even though some scientists have proposed that methane, helium, hydrogen and possibly other exotic forms of life may well exist in the larger universe, at least one theorizing even possibly hovering in gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn.  Again, given the known vastness of the universe, possibilities for types and quantities of life appear to be far beyond any number conceivable within the human imagination.

The main point here being, modern science in reality knows very little about life or even how, when, where or why life first arose on our own planet.  And, most scientists continue to be extremely conservative and narrow-minded in approach.  It is one thing to say if we have no experience of something, then we don't know if it could be true.  It is quite another thing to continue to come from the extremely biased position of, if there is no evidence of something, therefore it is not true or probably not true.  Or worse yet, when there is no conclusive evidence something is in fact true, to continue to pretend to know and present to an unsuspecting general public, that designerless random appearing mythology posing as science, is somehow in fact true.

This type of regressive and non-productive behavior is openly displayed today by many scientists, educators and other intellectuals, which in reality represents an arrogant and dishonest position, since the vast majority of what exists in our universe remains largely unknown and, as yet to be discovered.  If we are uncertain, we should say so and, if we don't know very much about how life actually came to be, we should freely admit this to ourselves and our offspring.  As one of several particular bad examples and as already noted previously, a well known scientist recently looked straight into a PBS camera and stated, the universe will continue to expand forever until it becomes an unrecognizable burned out charred remnant of it's current form.  What he failed to tell an unsuspecting viewer is, that only about one-third of modern astronomers agree with his position, this according to another PBS video released about the same time.  When what is "science" depends on which PBS video one randomly chooses to view, then it is fair to say modern education is in serious trouble.

Given that the earth is believed to be 4.4 billion years old and traces of microbial life remain 300 million or more years less than this, there exists a rather large “gap” in the known sequential evidence for how, where, when and why life first arose on our planet.  Pretending in front of our children and the general public at large, that science knows what in fact, science may never know, serves no rational reproductive survival or any other purpose, regardless of what we believe or fails to believe.  To blatantly lie and otherwise misrepresent the known evidence remains the rather questionable ongoing anti-human rights bad habit of a reproductive advantage self-contradicting species called “human being”.  It should be noted that estimates for the earliest microbial life on earth range between a conservative 2.5 billion to Wikipedia's more liberal 3.8 billion years.  Recently in late 2013, it was reported that Australian scientists have verified colonized microbes existing 3.5 billion years ago, while very recent evidence suggests a number around 4 billion.  Thus leaving as noted, a significant gap beyond current limits of human knowledge.

Scientists often fundamentally strongly disagree among themselves, in spite of the fact that PBS, the Washington Post and LA & NY Times and other mainstream publications, along with American educators in general, often pretend otherwise.  Today, well over 1,000 scientists claim to have a better and different explanation than mainstream "big bang" theory, while a scientist at Princeton University claims there is no such thing as a "universal" law.  Other scientists have publicly stated that recent genetic evidence appears to directly contradict evolutionary theory and that the theory of evolution may well be on it's way out the scientific door.  It is wise to consider that virtually every majority agreed to theory of science, from the ancient Greeks to Copernicus to Newton to Darwin to Einstein and continuing into the 21st Century, once was a perceived to be a "crackpot" idea of only one or a few scientists daring to challenge the majority opinion of their time.

As noted previously with several supporting links, many scientists today are saying so-called "junk" DNA actually has very important functions making us far different than chimpanzees and other forms of life.  Some scientists are calling for a complete revision of biology 101 and all of the many disciplines basic biological knowledge affects.  And last but not least, a medical scientist recently released a complex theory explaining why the human appendix actually does have an important function after all.  One might fairly assume that if every observable "macro" part of the human body has an attributable function, it is fairly certain that ALL of our DNA likewise, probably has an as yet to be discovered scientifically attributable reason and purpose.

How incredibly arrogant to pretend there is no God, given the known size and scope of the macro and micro worlds and, given that virtually everything known to humanity has some type of function and in the case of disease and negative human actions, malfunction, as if there are not forces of both good and evil behind the universal 3-dimensional (+time) vale, just like the Bible has long claimed to be the case.  One might ask why these notes keep referring to the Bible, as if God doesn't know the end from the beginning and, as if God couldn't reveal what God chooses, while keeping the rest hidden for future generations to uncover, as if God is somehow required to bow to human science and reason, as if God is not astronomically very, very, very far over our collective heads.

Apparently long before the Greeks, the Bible mentions the "circle of the earth", while long prior to modern science, the Bible claimed the universe is an "expansion" and talked about multiple heavens.  And, long before modern computer science models predicting the same, Jesus predicted the earth will one day lose a significant amount of green plant life, including all grasses we and cattle depend on to eat.  And, these are only a few of well over one hundred claims in the Bible, many once seemingly preposterous and scientifically absurd, that today agree with modern science evidence.  One might fairly ask, how could the Bible possibly not be inspired by our Father in heaven?

As discussed previously, today there is a growing body of evidence that the standard Darwinian "tree" theory of evolution may be completely and entirely wrong and that so-called "natural" selection may be partially correct or entirely incorrect.  While there long has been prior to Darwin and long remains, overwhelming historical evidence that human beings have at least two primary fundamental base drives (if not one irreducibly entwined "dual" base drive); one demonstrating reproductive survival and the other clearly demonstrating deeply ingrained irrational greed and avarice.  According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, modern science doesn't know how, when, where or why life first arose on earth, nor does science know what form life was originally in.  In fact, scientists today aren't certain if life has ever "evolved" or otherwise arisen on earth or instead, if life arrived already in some living form on space rocks, having first arisen only God knows why, where, when and how.

Many scientists today, including well-known astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson, freely admit that they have no idea how, when, where or why life first arose within the larger cosmic reality.  What we don't know does not equal "random, blind, unguided, natural processes", nor will it ever equal "random, blind, unguided, natural processes".  If Charles Darwin were to rise from the dead here in the 21st Century, might his first question be, why has human 'science' and 'reason' and what poses as modern 'education' randomly devolved into such mythological horse manure?


NOTE 23 - ON RANDOMNESS, CAUSE AND EFFECT:  A “cause” for purposes of this discussion, is "why" something can be observed or otherwise detected.  An “effect” for purposes of this discussion, is what can be observed or otherwise detected.

Music heard on a car radio is a detectable auditory “effect” caused by invisible radio waves.  A baseball flying out of a modern ball park is an observable effect caused by a batter hitting a ball with his bat that was thrown by a pitcher.  Such “effects” have “causes” tracing back before either cars or radios were invented and long before the batter or the pitcher were born.  The true “cause” for these observable effects traces back prior to the birth of our sun and solar system, all the way back to whatever caused the big bang to go boom and, what existed prior to the big bang.

Today we are often very wrongly taught that belief in God is “faith based”, while what science believes is based on evidence.  This is among the greatest and most obvious of all lies, often carelessly promoted here in the 21st Century by highly educated people who should know better.  There is no evidence whatsoever that an effect can magically exist without a Primary Cause, as if music can just magically emanate from a car radio or a baseball can just magically fly out of a ball park.

Atheism and any claim of “random, blind, unguided, natural, processes", as self-described “agnostic” Neil DeGrasse Tyson just randomly pulls out of a black hole rabbit's hat on the television series “Cosmos”, are non-scientific irrational blind-faith gross superstitions, having no foundation in evidence.  ALL of the evidence known to humanity here in the 21st Century demonstrates exactly the opposite conclusion (see Is Atheism Scientific? and Bonus Chapter, "Is the Television Series "Cosmos" Remotely Honest? for more information).

There is no evidence that the observable universal “effect” could occur without a Primary Cause.  Simply saying “evolution did it”, a blind-faith position that militant atheist Richard Dawkins consistently hides behind, doesn't rationally explain anything at all.  Or, just saying that the “big bang did it” doesn't satisfactorily explain either why the big bang went boom or why a universe filled with light, motion, quad-zillions upon quad-zillions of complex integrated parts within parts, finite beings of intelligence and conscious awareness, universal laws, evolutionary or any other processes, either would or could randomly appear and magically exist unto themselves.

There is no supporting evidence for such a blind-faith position of gross superstition, while ALL of the known evidence clearly demonstrates the opposite scientific conclusion, that the universal effect could not have come into existence without a Primary Cause.  The existence of human mathematics alone overwhelmingly demonstrates design, as does the modern DNA evidence, as does the evidence of our shared human conscience, which is clearly displayed in the historical record (as previously discussed in more detail).  The truth is, there is overwhelming evidence for God, while there is zero evidence supporting a position of no God, probably no God or possibly no God.

Modern human beings can build airplanes and cars, but there is no evidence that either will go very far without fuel for the necessary energy to propel them.  Or, we can set up a long row of dominoes for children to watch and then, just sit back and wait for them to fall over.  But unfortunately, unless an external vibration or force of some sort occurs, the children will likely be long buried in their graves before the dominoes randomly fall over of their own volition.

One could fill several volumes demonstrating that the existence of energy and motion requires Primary Cause.  On the other hand, there is no evidence that energy, light or motion can randomly exist unto themselves.  Atheists can if they wish, just sit in their cars and wait for them to magically go down the road and, they can just sit and stare at rows of dominoes waiting for them to magically fall over until they die.  After all, God has given us freedom of choice.  But such foolishness neither commands nor deserves our respect.

Why would anyone claim that the universal effect occurred without any cause?  Why would anyone claim it might possibly exist without any cause?  What evidence do they have that an observable or otherwise detectable effect can occur without a Primary Cause?  Even if matter is eternal, an assumption of many scientists that can neither be proven or dis-proven, why is matter in motion and why does it otherwise do stuff?  Why wouldn't matter instead just stay in the same state and position it was originally in?

Why is there a universe, rather than nothing at all?  What evidence is there that the universal effect can occur without any Primary Cause?  If whatever human beings can observe is a result of a theoretical big bang, by definition, it is not random.  There is no evidence that big bangs can magically go boom and magically turn into flowers, birds and human beings.  Why would anyone pretend otherwise?  What are their motives and, what manner of irrational axe are they hell-bent on grinding into the impressionable minds of our children?

Even Lawrence Krauss, one of the more hardcore atheists alive today, admits science can't explain how the big bang could randomly go boom.  According to Krauss, science can explain “a millionth of a millionth of a second after the big bang”, which has no more validity than saying if someone sets up a row of dominoes and then uses their finger to set the first dominoe in motion, science can explain a millionth of a millionth of a second after they do so, how the row of dominoes could have somehow magically self-designed and then self-arranged and fallen over by it's own volition.  Such hocus-pocus tomfoolery isn't worthy of the least plausible science fiction imaginable.

Professor Krauss is credited with being one of the first scientists to postulate the existence of dark energy, which unlike invisible light, cannot be demonstrated to actually exist by any known scientific method.  The existence of dark energy, which isn't necessarily either dark or energy but merely a term invented for what remains unknown, is largely based on the implication that if dark energy doesn't exist, then current theories of energy, light, gravity and/or motion are wrong.  Several of Mr. Krauss' fellow scientists have suggested that just perhaps, current theories are wrong and, dark energy may not actually exist.  And, even if it does, current fundamental theories may still be way off the mark (in light of the known history of science).

Much of what Professor Krauss claims is predicated on the magical existence of universal "laws", even though some of his peers openly question whether or not such laws actually exist.  One might fairly ask, how would anyone living on earth know if there is any such thing as a universal law?  And one might far more fairly ask, even if such universal "laws" do exist, what evidence is there that they could magically exist unto themselves, as if a math test in a classroom at Arizona State University where Professor Krauss misguides unsuspecting students, could magically self-design and randomly appear on desks, where magically existing random appearing students sit and ponder why they indebted themselves with expensive student loans in order to be taught such non-verifiable non-scientific juvenhile deliquent quacker-jackery?

Regardless of whether or not dark energy exists, one might fairly ask, if Mr. Krauss believes in dark energy based on such shaky implied evidence, why does he openly deny the existence of our Eternal Creator, based on the overwhelmingly greater inferred evidence of energy, light, motion, integrated parts within parts, finite beings of intelligence and conscious awareness, the existence and complex dual language of DNA, the overwhelming historical evidence for our shared designed human conscience, along with the rest of the grand cosmic universal design?  How does one justify belief in dark energy, dark matter, black holes and invisible light while openly denying our Father in heaven, for which there is far more evidence than all of the rest listed combined?

It is impossible for beings trapped within three dimensions plus time in a theoretical 10-11 dimensional universal reality already in motion, to scientifically demonstrate that energy, light and/or motion can randomly appear.  ALL of the known evidence demonstrates the opposite conclusion, that the existence of energy, light and motion require Primary Cause.  There is far more evidence for God than there is for the earth going around the sun.  One is left wondering what Isaac Newton if alive today, who stated that for action there is an equal and opposite re-action, would say to Professor Krauss.  What evidence is there for a universal spawning re-action magically randomly occurring without any Primary Action somewhere up the chain?

On the infinitely more rational Isaac Newton side of the equation (Newton strongly believed in God), if there is no Eternal Creator and Primary Cause, there remains no rational explanation for either our own existence, the existence or universal or any other laws or processes or the existence of the larger universal reality.  In the Old Testament story of Moses, God defines himself as "I AM" and in the New Testament, Jesus says "before Abraham was, I AM".  This satisfies origins and rationally explains the observable universal reality.  Neither atheism or agnosticism rationally explain anything at all.  If there is no Eternal Creator, there is no science, there is no reason, there is no rhyme and, there is no purpose and no hope for a greedy, violent, mass polluting, self-contradicting living form of life called "human being".

There is no evidence that the universal effect can exist without a Primary Cause, nor is there any evidence the earth could be revolving around the sun if there is no Eternal Creator and Primary Cause for motion.  It is easy to demonstrate that an observable or otherwise detectable effect requires a cause.  While on the other hand, it remains totally impossible to demonstrate that the observable and otherwise detectable universal reality could magically exist without any cause.  Eternal Creator remains "science", based on ALL of the known modern evidence, while atheism and agnosticism remain gross superstition, having no foundation in evidence or value to the people of Planet Earth.

Some scientists contend that particles of matter can be observed to be randomly going in and out of existence in quantum fields, while other scientists say this is just an illusion caused by particles traveling in and out of dimensions that are non-detectable to human beings.  And regardless, whatever scientists can observe or otherwise detect in quantum fields or anywhere else in the modern age, is a result of a theoretical big bang and thus by definition, is not random.  Anything that has an attributable cause is by human language definition, not random and, it cannot be scientifically verified or otherwise demonstrated to be random.

It is rational and reasonable, as leading DNA and disease expert Francis Collins has pointed out, that our Creator could create a universal machine of sorts, that is designed to in turn, generate randomness and otherwise perform many functions on it's own.  We humans can create lottery machines, computers and other robotic equipment which in turn, can generate randomness and otherwise perform many functions without constant human input.  And, it is more than fair to assume our Creator can do at least as well as we can do.  However, there is no evidence that either a lottery machine or the great cosmic “machine” can magically exist unto themselves.  ALL of the known historical, scientific and other evidence contradicts any and all such grossly superstitious nonsense.

As noted, some quantum theorists have proposed that what appears to be particles going in and out of existence is an illusion created by particles traveling in and out of dimensions we cannot detect.  In other words, such particles neither randomly arise or disappear but rather, they are moving inside and outside of our observable horizon of three dimensional space plus time.  This is consistent with the majority scientific opinion today that matter can neither be created or destroyed.  If matter can neither be created or destroyed, then particles of matter cannot randomly go in and out of existence.  Atheists can't have it both ways, regardless of how often they try.

This also applies to so-called "random" mutations long assumed by the theory of evolution. Because we are relatively tiny finite beings trapped within three dimensions plus time in an unimaginably large and unfathomably complex universal fishbowl, true randomness cannot be scientifically demonstrated.  And, as far as we know, true randomness never will be.   It was recently discovered that apparent "random" mutations are at least in part, caused by micro-organisms changing their own DNA within us.

As such, what evolutionists have long assumed since Darwin is today demonstrably inaccurate.  It appears based on modern evidence, that macro forms of life adapt and change in re-action to microbes living within them changing their own DNA, knowledge totally unknown to Darwin.  Changes induced by microbes on up the macro chain of life are by definition, not random.  And thus, "natural" selection due to "random" mutations is at best, only part of a much larger explanation and, may not be accurate at all.
Evidence of Microbes Within Us Changing Their Own DNA


NOTE 24 - ON ATHEISM AND AGNOSTICISM:  In order to provide context, some of what is discussed in this note has already been addressed previously and thus, some of what follows may already seem familiar. . .

Many atheists today arbitrarily state out of very thin air that "atheism is the default position", "atheism makes no claims, it just disbelieves in God or gods" and thus, the burden of proof remains on those who believe in God.  Such claims are erroneous, containing several obvious lies:  1) To say that atheism is the default position represents a claim and a very wrong claim at that and thus, it is a lie to state atheism makes no claims; the true "default position" of science and reason, agreed to universally by scientists and other educated people, is that there is a physical reality called "universe"; the true default question then becomes, how and why is there a physical reality called "universe"; atheists and agnostics, if they wish to be taken seriously at all by the rest of us, remain just as much subject to this same two-pronged default question as the rest of us do.  2) "Atheism makes no claims" is another claim and a false claim as already noted and thus this contains two lies in and of itself;  3) God, unlike "gods", is primarily defined today as Creator of the universe and thus, to "disbelieve" in God is to claim the universe either did or could have come into existence in some way other than by deliberate design and creation, which is another claim and infinitely greater lie, because there is no known evidence to support such a position.

Suffice it to say according to unbiased surveys, approximately 50% of American scientists and 40% of scientists on a global level claim to believe in God and thus, atheists and agnostics attempting to marginalize belief in God by lumping our Creator in with the various "gods" of human history, represent positions of complete and total dishonesty.
Rice University Survey
Chicago University Survey

Agnostics sometimes claim that science begins at zero and thus, ignorance of whether or not there is a God is the default position of science.  The problem with this position is, science cannot begin at zero because a) children remain victims of what they are taught by previous generations unless and until we are old enough to do our own research and derive our own conclusions; b) there is strong evidence today that children are not born “blank” as Freud assumed but rather, we are born already hardwired with a conscience of morality, right and wrong and c) the universe already exists and we human beings exist within it and thus, no scientist or other human being can either honestly or rationally begin at zero.  Rather, all human beings remain subject to the same two-pronged default question:  "How" and "Why" is there an observable physical reality called "universe"?  Human beings do not fully understand concepts of morality, beginnings, time and eternity, nor do we fully understand anything else about the physical universal reality from a true “logos” (universal and beyond) position.
Do Babies Know Right from Wrong?
The Moral Life of Babies
Disputes Among Various Scientists Regarding Infant Morality

One might fairly and reasonably ask anyone claiming to be either an agnostic or atheist why they would propose that there is no Creator, probably no Creator or might be no Creator of the universal physical reality?  How would they know and, what evidence do they have that energy, motion, light, parts within parts, intelligence, the dual language of DNA or even something as rudimentary as human mathematics, can somehow magically exist without any Primary Cause?  Can a microbe inhabiting a petri dish in a science laboratory fairly claim that there is no creator of the petri dish, there is no laboratory the dish is contained in and, there is no human scientist observing the actions of the microbe?  How would the microbe know and, what evidence does it have?  Why would anyone assume Stonehenge is a result of deliberate design and creation and not likewise, assume the same regarding the physical universal reality Stonehenge inhabits?  Does inventing language terminology like “evolution”, “Natural Selection”, “nature” and the “natural world” have any bearing on how the universal reality came into being?  How could any human being possibly know there is no God, probably no God or might be no God and, how does claiming any of this represent a reproductive or any other advantage?

The true default position of science and reason, universally agreed to by rational and reasonable people on a global level is that there is a physical reality called "universe".  And thus, the true default question of science and reason remains a two-pronged question:  "How" and "Why" is there a physical reality called "universe"?  Atheists and agnostics don't get a pass on this most fundamental of human questions any more than the rest of us do.  Even militant atheist Richard Dawkins admits that what he calls "the God question" is central to all of science.  One cannot just dismiss the question of origins and move on, as agnostics often do and, retain any hope of having a legitimate scientific or any other rational position.  Why does someone who “disbelieves” in God capitalize the term “Natural Selection” as scientists and educators often do?  Is Charles Darwin their “god” and evolution their religion?  And more importantly, how does any of this have any relevance to whether or not there is a Creator of our universal reality?  Can changing human language terminology change the reality of either how or why we exist?

Atheists like Richard Dawkins and agnostics like Neil DeGrasse Tyson often state that science requires verifiable evidence.  Quite literally, millions of experiments can be conducted demonstrating that the existence of energy and motion requires a 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 rational, reasonable 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 non-scientific and baseless such positions are, nor do they provide any hope for or add any value to either science or the human race.

While debating DNA expert Francis Collins in a video on YouTube, scientist and educator Richard Dawkins states that atheists aren't required to prove there is no God but rather, the “onus” belongs on those who claim there is a God.  This is often a position atheists and agnostics hide behind in an attempt to avoid having to provide evidence for their superstitious and absurd beliefs.  Atheists like Mr. Dawkins claim to believe in science, but is this really being fair to the rules of science and evidence which Mr. Dawkins, being a professional scientist and educator, is required to adhere to?

Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Tyson and many other atheists and agnostics are found of trotting out a so-called “God of the gaps fallacy", rather than providing any legitimate alternative than Eternal Creator for our existence.  Virtually all of modern science is based on probability rather than certainty; the constancy of the speed of light and the existence of dark energy being only two of literally millions of examples.  Another part of this so-called "God of the gaps fallacy" claims that whatever is not explainable is just answered by those who believe in God as simply "God did it".  This is not at all true as, much of what can be explained and partially explained by modern science is also evidence for deliberate design and creation, as can easily be determined by viewing these videos linked here:
The Great Math Mystery
Nature by Numbers (Fibonacci Sequence & The Golden Ratio)

Like any honest human being, those who believe in God often admit to having "gaps" in our knowledge, just as all atheists and agnostics likewise, often display "gaps" in their knowledge. Obviously, based on the known history of science and, in spite of how certain purveyors of science fiction often act, we humans don't know everything.  Mr. Dawkins when trapped in a corner in various debates, often just resorts to an "evolution did it" blind faith belief, as if he has merely replaced the real God and Creator of the universe with a lesser god.  This IS an obvious evolution of the gaps fallacy, as unlike Eternal Creator, how or why the processes of life, so-called “universal” laws or any other law or process, along with life itself and the rest of the universal reality happen to exist, is neither satisfactorily explained or rationally explainable apart from Eternal Creator as Primary Cause.

The modern big bang theory doesn't adequately account for all of the known evidence and thus, scientists who believe in the big bang theory base such belief on a high probability rather than certainty of it's accuracy.  Over 1,000 currently practicing scientists, including a top NASA scientist, do not agree with the modern big bang theory and, while they remain a decided minority, they are enough of a minority to conclude uncertainty regarding the accuracy of the current big bang theory.  Scientists on PBS can often be heard using words and phrases like “believe”, “science believes”, “appears to be true”, “as far as science knows”, “best explanation” and similar.  This is because much of what is called “science” today is based on probability, rather than absolute certainty and no doubt based on overwhelming historical probability, much of what is called “science” today will no longer be considered true and accurate in the near future.

And yet, Mr. Dawkins in this same video invoking the famous “God of the gaps” excuse, tries to pretend that probabilities have no relevance to God's existence, no matter how improbable the existence of the universe may otherwise be.  Even though the probability for the human brain alone randomly existing has been calculated, based on actual experiments conducted by British scientists, to be very far less than ten multiplied by a number very far greater than the number of estimated particles in the entire known universe.  Obviously, hiding behind a “God of the gaps” fallacy position is neither being scientific, rational, reasonable, fair or accurate.

But, even if atheists have any point at all regarding their very bad habit of trying to hide behind a so-called “God of the gaps” fallacy, this merely hides the obvious, which has little if anything to do with probability, while having a great deal to do with atheistic gaps in basic science, logic and reason.  Atheists have no legitimate explanation apart from Eternal Creator for their own existence.  Neither do they have any legitimate explanation for the existence of energy, light, motion, a structured universe containing quad-zillions upon quad-zillions of working parts within parts, finite beings of intelligence and conscious awareness, the dual language of DNA or, anything else that human beings can observe and otherwise detect.  How could “random, blind, unguided natural processes" result in a structured universe containing human mathematics with the ability to accurately predict the existence of particles before they are even detected?  What supporting evidence for such irrationality do atheists and agnostics have?

If the universe is designed, then it makes perfect rational sense why it has a structure and why human mathematics can accurately predict undetected physical realities.  But, how could “random, blind, unguided natural processes" produce a structured universe and mathematics with such precise predictive abilities?  One might fairly argue that human mathematics alone demonstrate an overwhelming probability of design, rather than random processes.  And then, there is the emphatic declaration of global DNA expert Francis Collins, who has publicly stated that “modern DNA evidence alone overwhelmingly demonstrates design and not random processes”.  Why would any scientist assume otherwise and, what evidence would such an alternative assumption be based on?

All of the known evidence today overwhelmingly demonstrates that the sun is larger and warmer than the moon.  To claim the moon is larger and warmer than the sun, would not only require supporting evidence, it would require stronger supporting evidence than currently supports the opposite conclusion.  In order to overturn previously held scientific positions, the rules of science and evidence require evidence supporting a better explanation.  For example, Einstein's theories of gravity, energy and light represent a better explanation than Newton's theories of gravity, energy and light.  If they did not, then Einstein would not likely be remembered today.  Atheists would have us believe that Einstein could just claim to “disbelieve” in Newton's theories, without bothering to provide any other legitimate explanation or supporting evidence, which is exactly the irrational position of atheists regarding the existence and origin of the universe.

To say there is no God, probably no God or might be no God, is to claim the universe is either not created, probably not created or might not have been created.  Such positions require supporting evidence, the same as any other human claim regarding what we can observe and otherwise detect.  Today there is overwhelming evidence supporting a position that the earth goes around the sun, rather than what the majority of scientists believed at the time of Copernicus.  However, it would have been a gross violation of the accepted rules of science and evidence for Copernicus to have made such a claim without providing any supporting evidence.  Yet, this is exactly what atheists do today, postulating gross superstitions having no foundation in evidence.

The term “universe” is defined by most modern scientists as whatever can be observed and/or, physically detected by human beings looking inward and outward.  As far as telescopes and other machines can see or otherwise detect looking outward and, as far as microscopes and particle accelerators can see or otherwise detect looking inward, this by scientific definition, is what is called the “universe”.  Because human technology is more advanced today than in the time of Copernicus or even Einstein, what science defines as “universe” today is considerably larger and not surprisingly, far more complex.

Modern atheists in innumerable videos on the web often rant on and on for hours about the claims of various religions and actions of religious people.  Even though perhaps most if not all of the authors of the Bible and the Greek philosophers understood that what religious or other people claim or don't claim about God, has no relevance to either the existence of or true nature of God.  Regardless of what human beings believe or fail to believe about the shape of the earth, what is true about the shape of the earth remains the same.  And likewise, regardless of what human religions claim or what religious or other human beings claim about God, what is true about God remains the same.  And thus, anyone who has paid to hear an atheist speak, who in turn wastes valuable time discussing what is wrong with religion, should demand their money back.

What human beings call “science” in the modern age, rarely if ever consists of 100% irrefutable fact.  Like the Bible says and the modern historical and scientific evidence very clearly overwhelmingly supports, for now we see “in part”.  What is called “science”, when practiced fairly and accurately, long always has been and remains, the best explanation based on the current known evidence.  This is all science ever has been or rationally, ever can or ever will be.  It was once mainstream established “science” that the sun goes around the earth and, this view remained “science” far longer than Darwin's theory of evolution has been considered to be “science”.

One of many problems of atheism is, it assumes the opposite position of what all of the known evidence demonstrates.  This in itself is the opposite of science and in complete contradiction to the known history and established rules of science and evidence, which require supporting evidence to overturn previously held positions by the majority.  Modern atheists and agnostics, rather than practicing legitimate science, instead act as if Copernicus had just stood up and claimed the earth goes around the sun and then sat down, without bothering to provide any supporting evidence to overturn what the majority of his scientific peers believed.

While their views of and ideas about God vary considerably, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, DaVinci, Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Faraday, Darwin and Einstein all credit a Creator with being behind the universal reality.  Thus, in spite of what many educators, intellectuals and others today pretend, the “onus” remains squarely on anyone concluding there is no God or might be no God.  The known history of science and established rules of science and evidence requires that anyone contradicting previously held positions of the scientific majority, provide conclusive supporting evidence scientifically demonstrating a better explanation than Eternal Creator, that better satisfies origins.

There is plenty of evidence demonstrating that the existence of energy and motion requires Primary Cause, while there is no evidence demonstrating that either energy or motion can randomly arise or otherwise exist unto itself.  There is plenty of evidence demonstrating that the existence of anything consisting of parts within parts requires intelligence, conception, design and construction.  There is no evidence demonstrating otherwise within human experience and thus, to make any claim otherwise is to grossly violate the rules of science and evidence.  If atheists want to be taken seriously at all by the rest of us, they need to either put up or shut up.

Even in the quantum reality, where motion can appear to randomly arise and particles appear to randomly go in and out of existence, many quantum theorists themselves challenge such assumptions, as well they should.  What human beings can observe or otherwise detect, including in the quantum reality, is a “result” of a theoretical big bang and thus by definition, is not random.  What may appear to be random from our view within the universal fishbowl is not necessarily random; any more than seemingly 'random' sparks and dust particles, if observed by a being the size of an atom, perched on a spark plug inside of an automobile engine as the car is being driven down the road, would in reality be an observation of true randomness.

Some quantum theorists have proposed that what appears to be “random” from our view, may instead be an illusion caused by particles traveling in and out of dimensions we cannot detect.  Scientist Francis Collins has proposed that perhaps God created a great universal machine of sorts, that is designed and programmed to produce random regeneration and to otherwise perform many functions on it's own, which may be true.  Because we cannot see God, no human being can say with any certainty how much or how little God inputs within the realm of the universal reality we can observe, nor can we conclude with any certainty anything that we can observe is in fact, random.

Perhaps a fair question that remains unanswerable today by modern science is, does our Creator "play" with his creation or otherwise communicate with creatures other than human beings?  Atheists and agnostics often pretend that science knows far more than science in fact, actually does know.  According to a fair assessment of Encyclopedia Britannica articles relating to various scientific disciplines, science seems to know far less today than previously assumed, in particular in regards to individual choice and learned behavior among God's creatures.  The past much over-used term "animal instinct" is rarely uttered today in scientific circles and, according to Britannica, science knows almost nothing about viruses compared to what there is left to learn.  As a particle physicist once stated in a science video, the only thing certain about quantum mechanics is that no two quantum physicists entirely agree.

As already discussed previously, scientists recently discovered that microbes, which apparently inhabit all macro forms of life, can and apparently routinely do harvest DNA from other organisms and incorporate it into their own genomes.  Thus, what evolutionists have long insisted are “random” mutations, may in fact not be random at all but rather, a result of larger visible macro-organisms adapting and changing in response to microbes harvesting DNA within them (“harvesting” being a term used by the scientists who discovered this, one of whom also remarked that this seems to directly contradict evolutionary theory.
Bacteria Recycle Broken DNA.

Although the term is frequently carelessly applied today, there is no evidence that there is any such thing as a “natural” world, as opposed to a created reality.  There is no reason to assume that God doesn't address the design and functionality of snowflakes, microbes and atoms with great care, any more than to pretend that a great human artist painting a large room-sized mural depicting a village scene filled with people, animals, birds, a waterfall, trees and mountains in the background, wouldn't take great care in detailing the individual eyes, hands and fingers of each child, individual leaves of trees and other tiny parts within the larger mural scene.

We humans can create computers and robotic machines that in turn, can perform many functions on their own and, we can create lottery and other types of machines with the ability to generate randomness.  And, it is a very safe bet to assume our Creator can do at least a well as we can do.  Many modern scientists are so unimaginative and narrow-minded, they can't seem to grasp the obvious, that the colorful feathers of a peacock and the rest of God's creation may just have reproductive survival and aesthetic and other purposes woven into the same grand design.  Most of what we humans create tends to have both artistic and practical function incorporated into the same design, such as an ancient clay bowl, a modern skyscraper or a hand-held phone.  Again, it is safe to assume our Creator can do at least as well as we can do.

A problem a lot of atheists, agnostics and people who believe in God seem to more or less share equally in common is, we fail to give God credit based on the modern evidence, for how great God truly is in comparison to us.  Scientists estimate there are a billion, billion, billion tiny organisms called Prochlorococcus inhabiting the world's oceans, a photosynthetic bacterium on which the rest of the food chain is built.  In spite of their unimaginably tiny size, they are several powers of ten larger in comparison to us, than we are in comparison to just the known universe.  And, we have no idea how big our universe may in fact be.
MIT Marine Research Information.

And yet some today who claim to be a scientist, that is, one who supposedly basis conclusions on evidence, would have us believe they are almost certain there is no God and, that the universe requires no designer, as if they somehow would know and the rest of us should just bow down and take their word for it.  Any scientist publicly using the phrase “almost certain”, is required by the established rules and practices of his or her profession, to provide overwhelming evidence in support of such a grand, inclusive statement.  Instead of providing a legitimate rational alternative based on evidence, Richard Dawkins has publicly branded every scientist who believes in God, as well as historical giants as diverse as Isaiah, Jesus, Shakespeare, Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer, Leo Tolstoy, Harriet Tubman, Helen Keller, Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., Cesar Chavez and Bob Dylan, as all being delusional.  One can make up their own mind, as to who in fact is more likely delusional.

Modern science today estimates over 100 trillion microbes inhabit the average adult human and, there are from 500 to 1000 different species in the human gut alone.  Though sizes of individual microbes and viruses vary considerably, viruses are estimated on average to be about ten times smaller than the average microbe.  And yet Richard Dawkins in the debate mentioned, claims that it is foolish to believe in the possibility of a being great enough to create the universe.  Someone should perhaps point out to Mr. Dawkins that our own science is aware of how foolish instead, it would be for a virus inhabiting a microbe inside of a human gut, to claim there is no human being, not to mention the billions of galaxies and vastness of space we humans are aware of today.

Based on our own science, relative sizes obviously have no relevance to a superstitious pretense of no God.   According to the Bible, God inhabits the entire universe and what lies beyond and, “in God we live and move and have our being”.  This is hardly a “little man in the sky” concept of God, as comedian Bill Maher, who apparently has never actually read the Bible and, many other atheists like to pretend the Bible teaches.  To criticize the Bible without bothering to actually study the Bible carefully, researching what certain mistranslated and today greatly misunderstood words actually mean in Hebrew and Greek and, without studying the surrounding historical cultures in detail, is to be a victim of modern priests, preachers, conservative fundamentalists and other obvious liars.  Perhaps if Mr. Maher actually read the Bible, he would realize that Jesus is far more in-your-face politically incorrect against conservative religious hypocrites then he ever hoped to be.

No honest human being who has actually studied the Bible carefully for themselves, would claim the Bible says God is just a little man in the sky, nor would they claim the entire earth was covered by water in the days of Noah, nor would they claim that in the beginning was “the Word”, a very poor and highly inadequate translation of the original Greek “logos”, nor would they say “for God so loved the world”, a highly impersonal and very poor translation of the literal Greek, “for God so loved the people”.  Consider if “thou shalt not” is instead translated as “you shouldn't kill”, “you shouldn't steal”, “you shouldn't lie against your neighbor”, a morality and common decency written by God on our shared human conscience, that many of the most atheistic people today routinely teach their own children.

Interestingly enough, the dimensions said in the Old Testament to be given by God himself for the construction of Noah’s ark and the “Ark of the Covenant” are in equation to what today is called “the golden ratio”. For those unfamiliar, there are several videos on YouTube discussing evidence for "the golden ratio" found in the universal reality.  There are also several NOVA and other videos on YouTube and elsewhere containing discussion by various physicists and other scientists about how the universe appears to be mathematically designed according to the theoretically eternal number of pi (links to videos discussing the "Golden Ratio" and "Great Math Mystery" discussed elsewhere).
Comparative Universal Sizes Video

Hebrew, Greek and English often contain words and phrases with multiple meanings and, translators often select one meaning over the other, based on the scientific and historical understanding of their particular historical time frame, which in the case of the King James Version, is the historical and scientific understanding of the late 16th Century.  If anyone wants to know why modern day Christian fundamentalism doesn't match 21st Century historical and scientific evidence, then do your own research and stop pretending the Bible is wrong.  How could two-thousand and more year old writings accurately predicting and describing the scientific fallout of global warming, volcanic eruption, asteroid strike and nuclear war not be inspired by God? (Various KJV mis-translations and Hebrew and Greek words with multiple meanings have already been discussed in previous notes.)

History has repeatedly proven many times, that claims found in the Bible once thought to be mythological, often seemingly preposterous exaggerations and otherwise scientifically absurd, are now here in the 21st Century considered to be historical and scientific facts or future probabilities.  Historians are well aware that the vast majority of history isn't preserved and thus, lack of historical evidence doesn't prove non-existence, nor does lack of current evidence equal mythology.  This is not just true regarding the Bible, but also true regarding Egyptian and other surrounding ancient cultures.  Archaeologists have found Egyptian granite artifacts that cannot be duplicated today using the most modern advanced electronically powered high-speed diamond-tipped hardened steel drilling equipment and yet somehow, they were carved out of solid granite more than 2,000 years before the New Testament.

Careful historians are well aware that ancient Hebrew language and culture (like all languages and cultures), often doesn't easily translate into another language and culture very clearly, which is a shared problematic reality common to all ancient sources of human civilization history.  Common phrasings in one language can easily be misinterpreted by people unfamiliar with the cultural reality.  For example, the phrase “cool dude”, commonly used in the United States today, wouldn't necessarily translate very well either literally or culturally into the minds of people living two thousand years from now in the 41st Century.

Aramaic, the assumed language spoken by Jesus, in particular doesn't always easily translate culturally across Greek and later European cultures; a camel going through the eye of a needle for example.  Sometimes the late 16th to early 17th Century KJV today just represents very bad translation, such as the famous “lilies of the field” phrase by Jesus, which is an apparent reference to a common weed flower of his time; apparently similar to a dandelion in our own modern American experience, rather than referring to a beautiful flower and thus, making this a far more powerful statement than otherwise understood today.

For Jesus to say that a common weed flower is better adorned than Solomon, represents an environmental awareness far ahead of his time and our own time and, is by far the greatest known environmental statement in human history, coming from a culture where modern cities, pollution and environmental awareness had virtually no meaning to the general population.  The teachings of Jesus are often extremely “sound bite” like and concise and yet, are far more profound than anything taught at modern universities of today.

Jesus taught the poor, unlearned and common people for free and is by far human history's greatest advocate for free public education.  Modern Western education is not at all free, is focused largely on the pursuit of money and, it typically excludes from higher education those who are poor, slow of learning or who otherwise can't pass certain contrived and poorly designed tests.  Jesus said, “you will know the truth and the truth will make you free”, providing humanity in one concise statement, both the proper goal of education, to know what is true and the proper reason for being educated, so we can be free.  Contrast this to the modern very expensive education of today focused on human greed, where reality is divided up into neat often non-connected categories and, students from day one are taught to study hard and get good grades so they can get a scholarship and a degree so they can earn more money.

Modern education provides students neither the proper goal or the proper reason for learning, being neither focused on a search for what is true, nor are students taught the reason we need to know what is true is so we can be free.  We have only ourselves to blame when in modern-day America, overt propaganda causes well-meaning but poorly educated citizens to vote for the worst kind of leaders supporting the worst kind of anti-human rights agenda. There is very little in history more true or more valuable for ourselves and our children to know, than if we don't know what is true, we have no hope of being free.

Atheists have more than a significant problem trying to explain how Jesus, born in a rural backward insignificant place and time into a largely illiterate society, could be so exactly right every time, all of the time.  Even Freud wasn't aware of what according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, modern behavioral science evidence today clearly demonstrates; that just like Jesus said, what causes murder, theft, war and other human oppression arises from what is within all human beings.  Even Richard Dawkins who specializes in human behavior, seems to grasp the supremely intelligent and highly significant teachings of Jesus, posting a photo of himself on his own website wearing a t-shirt reading “atheists for Jesus”.  It is very, very, very hard to argue with Jesus, no matter who you are or how many educational degrees you may possess.

According to the Bible, God spoke and the universe came into being, as if God conceived of an entire universal space/time continuum "in mind", most likely containing zillions upon zillions of planets and even greater gazillions of zillions of living forms of life and then, our Creator spoke and it began to unfurl into existence and continues to unfurl today.  This is a far greater concept of God than typically found anywhere in the writings of religious people, scientists or anyone else.  And, it remains the ONLY ancient concept of God that continues to match the 21st Century evidence of today.

Atheists and others who pretend that the God of the Hebrews was like the rest of the “gods” of the ancient world, remain very poorly educated at best.  Unlike their surrounding cultures and is the ongoing bad habit of Christianity and other religions of today, the Hebrews were forbidden to make any image of God and, the Bible says that God resides in a temple not made out of hands.  This makes rational sense regarding the true God and Creator of our universe, who quite rationally has no need of or respect for human religions.  And only in the Bible of all ancient sources, does God define himself as “I AM”, which remains the only ancient or current concept of God supported by the 21st Century evidence.

Unlike religious fundamentalists pretend and many on the outside swallow whole, the Bible does not say that God creates species one at a time.  Rather, according to Genesis, life arose in abundance, first in the ocean and later on land.  Which not surprisingly, is precisely what most modern scientists believe.  Long before anyone else in human history even hinted at such, more than one author of the Bible describes the universe as an expansion; the Hebrew “raki'a”, translated as “firmament” by KJV, literally means “expansion” and, this same word in reference to the heavens also appears in the Psalms.  These are just two of hundreds of so-called “coincidences” contained in the Bible that agree with modern science evidence today; “coincidences” that were completely unknown to Aristotle, DaVinci, Copernicus, Newton, Darwin and often, even Albert Einstein, who like Newton and Darwin, was a student of both the Old and New Testaments.

Although hard to imagine today, the majority of scientists not very long ago in historical terms, believed that disease spontaneously arises.  Not being content to let that being a lesson in humility learned the hard way, many today who anoint themselves as among the enlightened few and far between, would have us believe the entire universe spontaneously arose, which one would assume, includes every disease known to humanity.  Atheism at the bottom line, rather than being an improvement, represents a significant step backwards from the backward science of previous generations.  Representing blind faith belief in magic and gross superstition and, having no foundation in evidence, modern atheism offers no hope and nothing of value to an oft self-contradicting race called "human being".

Atheists and agnostics are trying to sell the rest of us the greatest of all known superstitions, that energy, motion, light, the universe, biological and other processes, finite beings of intelligence and conscious awareness and everything else we can observe and otherwise detect, including ultimately, the keyboard and computer these words are being typed on, somehow all magically appeared.  The problem with a position of no God, probably no God or might be no God is one of complete and total lack of scientific or any other credibility.  There is plenty of evidence supporting Primary Cause, while there is zero evidence supporting any of these other positions.

Modern scientists freely admit that all of human science, reason and understanding breaks down inside of a black hole, as well as it breaks down at the theoretical singularity prior to the big bang.  Some scientists have proposed there may be other universes stretching to infinity in number.  Because we are finite beings trapped within space/time, we can neither prove or disprove this, but Eternal Creator causes this to be a rational, rather than irrational assumption.  Our Eternal Creator may have always created and may continue to always create, a concept extremely difficult for we finite human beings to fully grasp.

Not only in black holes, but within our own minds there is a limit where concepts like “eternity” and “infinity” ultimately break down in our minds as finite beings trapped within three dimensional plus time space.  It is overwhelmingly hypocritical for the same scientist who assumes the possible existence of eternal matter, infinite universes and stars “beyond number” like the Bible long ago said, to pretend there is no Eternal Creator, as if eternity must be confined to a soul-less physical reality, as if a finite human being trapped within three dimensions plus time could somehow possibly know this.

Jesus said, "before Abraham was, I AM".  Eternal Creator satisfies origins and satisfactorily explains our existence and the existence of the observable universal reality.  It is possible that creation has always existed and will continue to go on forever and ever.  Because we are finite beings trapped within space/time, there is a point where all human understanding breaks down; we cannot even begin to fully comprehend or fathom eternity, which is infinity in every and all directions.  If there is no Eternal Creator, there is no rational explanation for either our own existence or the existence of the larger universal reality; there is no science, there is no reason, there is no rhyme, there is no hope and there is no purpose.

Descartes assertion of "I think, therefore I am", like all of human science on up through the present, falls “short” of explaining the observable universal reality.  For example, it is fair to say probably all scientists and most other human beings living on earth today do not believe that rocks think, yet still believe in their existence.  In the story of Moses, God explains the observable universal reality by defining himself as "I AM", while in the New Testament, Jesus clarifies and underscores this, saying “before Abraham was, I AM”.  No human being has ever provided as good of or a better explanation for the universal observable reality.  And, because we are not smarter than God, is is more than fair to assume that no human being ever will provide a better explanation.

Eternal Creator satisfies origins and rationally explains our existence.  While we are free to pretend the moon is larger and warmer than the sun, all of the known evidence demonstrates the opposite conclusion.  And likewise, while we are free to pretend there is no God, all of the known evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates the opposite conclusion.  And what atheists and agnostics ignore and otherwise never seem to grasp is, unlike Jesus, atheism has no rational explanation for why Albert Schweitzer and Adolph Hitler arose in the same modern “advanced” species, nor does atheism, unlike Jesus, offer any solution for the unrelenting, ongoing global reality of human oppression.

Atheism offers no rational explanation for why, after thousands of years of moral and ethics education to the contrary, highly educated scientists continue to work for the global war machine and create weapons of mass destruction.  Or, why highly educated Harvard and Yale graduates continue to work for Wall Street corporations of mass deception, deliberately designing complex financial schemes and scams to bilk the common people who Jesus loves out of homes, jobs and life savings.  According to the Bible, it's really about human greed and the love of wealth, which even a small child who can read and access the internet can easily grasp today.

Not only representing gross superstition having no foundation in evidence, atheism is likewise, devoid of any solution for humanity's most fundamental problems.  Atheism not only falls far short of the glory of God, it falls completely down even among the wisdom of our own sages, having no foundation in evidence or any value to us as human beings.  Today, long after a so-called “age of enlightenment”, which atheists often claim as their own, in spite of the fact almost every key person involved claimed to believe in God and was a student of the Bible, there is no evidence atheism can save us from our sins.

With global warming, unprecedented mass disease, famine, violent anarchy and WWIII knocking at our global door, atheism offers us no solution and far worse, teaches our children that there is no God willing to help us.  Just as all of the known evidence demonstrates the sun is larger and warmer than the moon, likewise all of the evidence demonstrates atheism is not only the greatest of all known superstitions, atheism remains totally, utterly and completely worthless to us here in a 21st Century that more and more, appears to be the unfolding fulfillment of biblical prophecies far to horrific for George Orwell to even begin to imagine in his worst nightmares.

This is a rather lengthy note, much longer than anyone would perhaps care to wade through and yet, it barely scratches the surface of what a great contradiction to the known evidence atheism and agnosticism truly are.  And what is truly sad is, it is very simple to grasp what the Bible clearly teaches, that true faith, like true science, is based on “the evidence of things not seen”.  There is no difference, except in the minds of self-contradicting human beings, in believing in black holes, invisible light or God, based on the observable evidence they create, other than that there is far more evidence for God than the other two and the rest of what modern science believes combined.

As already noted, according to some modern physicists, astronomers and other scientists, the universe appears to be designed according to Pi 1.3416. . . and according to the golden ratio, 1.6180. . ., both irrational numbers theoretically extending forever and ever.  If true, at least two things become rather obvious:  1) There is no such thing, at least from a human understanding viewpoint, as either the largest or smallest number and, the number of stars (of who knows how large or how many universes) like the Bible claims, may well be "without number".  And 2) Like the Bible also says, only God knows "the end from the beginning".  As such, human science won't likely ever have a truly accurate and complete "theory of everything", nor does any claim of "natural, blind, unguided, processes" have any remote chance in hell of being scientifically verifiable.

Today, 10 to -43 is about the limit to human understanding of the world of the very small.  If the universe is designed according to two or more irrational numbers, it makes rational sense to conclude that like the Bible long ago stated, human science will never truly know “the end from the beginning”.  Both the realm of the very small atomic and sub-atomic "quantum" reality and the very large macro reality theoretically could extend infinitely smaller and infinitely larger.  That is, as far as human science either currently knows or likely, ever will know.  Obviously because we are trapped within a universal three-dimensional plus time fishbowl, there are limits to human understanding and thus, it remains grossly arrogant and completely and entirely non-scientific and irrational, for any human being to claim there is no God, probably no God or might be no God; as if they somehow would know, as if a virus inside of a microbe trapped deep inside of an automobile carburetor, could somehow know there is no engine, driver, car, road or larger universal reality.

According to astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a single molecule of water is so incredibly small that the total number of molecules in a single cup of water is greater than the number of same-size cups of water in all of the earths oceans, lakes rivers and other surface water combined.  Meanwhile modern mathematicians, who some might suspect have a little too much time on their hands, estimate that the number of particles in the human body is 1.46 x 10 to the 29th power.  As noted previously, the number of protons, neutrons, electrons and neutrinos in the known universe is estimated to be 10 to the 80th power, while the number of photons estimated as 10 to the 89th power.  Thus, as one can see, relatively small increases in powers of 10 result in extremely incredibly larger numbers.  And yet as noted, according to mathematical calculations performed by Roger Penrose, the odds of the universe existing by non-designed random processes is at least 10 to the power of 10,123 against.

To try to even begin to illustrate how irrationally non-scientific a position of atheism truly is, a relatively extremely tiny number by comparison of 10 to the 123rd power, is a number extremely incredibly larger than all of the particles in the known universe.  But the number calculated by Penrose, being 1 followed by 10,123 zeros, is extremely incredibly far beyond all human conception, vain and other imagination, very, very, very far beyond unimaginably larger than this.  In short, it is not only non-scientific and irrational to pretend the universe is not created, it is extremely incredibly very, very, very. . . typed to a length extending very far larger than the circumference of the observable universe, far beyond the remotest, tiniest conceivable possible chance of being true.  It takes far more blind faith to embrace atheism than it does to believe in Santa Clause, the flying spaghetti monster, astrology, prime time television, the honesty of priests, preachers, self-help and other gurus, politicians, lawyers, used car salesmen and all of the religions, mythologies, science fiction and other fiction novels, children's stories and fairy tales and any and all other known tales in the history of human civilization combined.

One might fairly add, to pretend that mathematics alone could somehow randomly magically exist without any "brains" behind the universal reality, represents a complete and total fabrication of non-scientific dishonesty and complete mathematical and other self-contradiction.  It is not only true that Las Vegas would never even begin to consider covering such odds, one might also fairly and honestly conclude that again like the Bible says, our Creator isn't likely to excuse those who pretend that the universe we inhabit is a magically existing result of "random, blind, totally by chance" processes.  One could legitimately conclude that a scientist pretending the moon is somehow larger and warmer than the sun would have a very far better chance of being correct.

And one might fairly ask, how loudly, roundly and soundly would a scientist be ridiculed if, upon stumbling on some previously unknown architectural masterpiece akin to Stonehenge, just randomly invented out of a black hole rabbit's hat, that because science can't fully explain its existence, such a wondrously and carefully designed creation must have somehow magically appeared and "self-designed" from scratch due to magically appearing "blind", "natural", "unguided", "random", "totally by chance" processes?  And then again, how does our father in heaven feel when those vainly imagining themselves to be practicing 'science', impress upon our children the embracement of baseless science fiction supported by clueless gross superstition, rather than science, reason and not to mention, common horse sense; outright lying to God's children from ostensibly ultimately randomly appearing textbooks, pretending that our entire universe somehow magically self-designed all by itself, as if they somehow would know?  And speaking of horse sense, who in their right mind would bet on such an atheistic black hole dark horse winning either the Kentucky Derby or any other race?  What evidence do they have and, why should either we or any self-respecting horse believe them?

Physicist Paul Davies has stated "there is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life".  However, according to Davies, "the conclusion is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires."  When human beings decide to construct a tall commercial building, they typically first survey a potential parcel of land, carefully consider what costs, building codes and long-term stability such a skyscraper will require, draw up architectural plans, dig a deep hole, drill even deeper to secure footings and otherwise, carefully first prepare the 'environment' that the skyscraper is going to eventually occupy.  Then steel, wood, concrete and various other "building blocks" are carted in by truck and carefully positioned at the construction location.  Only later does the general public begin to see the actual high-rise tower emerging from the ground.  One might fairly ask why many scientists today refuse to consider the obvious overwhelming probability, that the reason the universe is fine-tuned for the "building blocks" and "environments" that life requires, is because our Creator first planned, prior to the universe coming into being, for the eventual emergence of life ? ? ?


NOTE 25 - NOTE ON MILITANT ATHEISM:  This note is perhaps a little meaner than it should be.  But it is done so out of fairness to the billions of people on earth today who believe in God.  Many of us are tired of militant atheists of dubious credentials and no scientific, historical or other evidence, repeatedly overtly lying to our children.  Any human being claiming that there is no God, probably no God or might be no God, if they want the rest of us to take them seriously at all, is required to provide supporting evidence to back up such positions of gross superstition.  Militant atheists often pretend they are on the side of Charles Darwin, science and reason, while everyone who believes in God is on the opposite non-scientific same 'side' as various religious quacks.  But is this really true, when modern unbiased surveys as already noted previously, indicate 40% of all modern scientists on a global level claim to believe in God?

According to Charles Darwin:  “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one” (note that unlike the modern standard "tree" theory of evolution, Darwin himself allowed for multiple origins of life).  This statement appears in every edition of Darwin's “On the Origin of Species” except for the first.  The reason it may not have appeared in the original edition, unlike many modern 'scholars' pretend, is probably not because Darwin was trying to appease religious leaders or please his wife, as several Darwin apologists who typically happen to also be atheists and agnostics, have just randomly invented out of thin air.  Rather the reason Darwin may have failed to mention this in his first edition is because at that time in history, the vast majority of scientists and other educated people believed in God and thus, the existence of God didn't apply to either Darwin's theory or his purpose for writing the book.  It is more likely Darwin included this statement in subsequent editions to clarify is own position, after his first edition had created a significant amount of public controversy and emboldened atheists formerly hiding in the closet.

Near the very end of his life, Darwin himself described his mind as “mainly agnostic, but not entirely”.  Since the term “agnostic” at that time sometimes referred to distrust in religions and human understanding of God, rather than doubt concerning the existence of God, it may be fair to conclude that while Darwin seriously doubted the religions of his society (as did Socrates, Jesus and Paul, among other historical giants), even till his dying day he still either believed in God or at least suspected there might be a Creator.  It is more fair to say that neither Darwin or any other legitimate scientist or honest human being would say there is no God or probably no God, as there is simply no known evidence supporting such an irrational, non-evidence based, non-verifiable position.  And, as anyone who is even a little bit familiar with the history of philosophy, science, reason and the known evidence is aware of, what Darwin believed or failed to believe has no relevance to the existence of God, nor does what any of the rest of us believe or fail to believe have any relevance to God's existence, any more than what humans believe about the shape of the earth would somehow change the actual shape of the earth.

Militant atheists often grossly misrepresent the generally agreed to historical and scientific facts.  Sam Harris for example, opens a video on YouTube by anointing himself as being on the “side” of science and reason, as opposed to those who believe in God supposedly all being on the opposite non-scientific “side”.  Harris completely ignores the well-established fact that many people in the modern age who believe in God also believe in evolution, including many highly respected scientists, educators and other intellectuals.  And, he ignores the fact that virtually every major scientist prior to the 20th century claimed to believe in God, as well as the vast majority of noted American, European and other intellectuals of our recent past; a very long list including Martin Luther King, Jr., who one might fairly argue is the smartest American who ever lived.  As linked in a previous note, 50% of American scientists and 40% of scientists on a global level claim to believe in God and thus, Sam Harris by default of his own words, appears to be among the most poorly informed among us.

Like many modern atheists, Mr. Harris draws an artificial line between science and everyone who believes the evidence demonstrates Supreme Intelligence, which very clearly it does, a mythical line that very clearly doesn't exist in the either the real 21st or any other century world.  Harris then goes on to prop up erroneous conclusions arising from such a fallacious platform that have no foundation in either reason, scientific evidence or, the historical or any other known reality.  Atheists like Harris would have us believe the universal reality somehow magically appeared all by itself and then, they try to marginalize anyone who disagrees by pretending anyone who disagrees with them is on the wrong side of sanity, science and reason.  This includes Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, Newton, Locke, Jefferson, Madison, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Einstein, Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Jr., Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosa Parks, Francis Collins and a very long list of notable historical and current names, including Rene Descartes, who is considered by many historians and others to be the cornerstone figure of the age of reason and enlightenment.

What is true in the real modern 21st Century world, is that many people who believe in God also believe in evolution, while many who believe in God do not believe in evolution.  What is also true is many people who believe in science, as well as those who believe in a particular religion, contribute to the global war machine and other global human oppression reality, while many use science and faith in God for more rational and constructive purposes.  There is no scientific and historical fallacy quite like the religion causing war fiction of those wielding an obvious axe of superstitious bias to grind against people who sincerely and legitimately believe in God based on the evidence.

It is common for militant atheists to pretend all people who believe in God are on a fundamentalist religious “side”, while everyone who practices legitimate science agrees with them.  Atheists often pretend “religion” in general and belief in God in particular, is the cause of war and other human oppression, completely ignoring the evidence of the American, French, Russian and Chinese revolutions, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.  They completely ignore the fact that Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ayn Rand and many of the other worst apples in the human history barrel were atheists, while often highly many of the rest at the bottom of the misguided apple cart demonstrated no regard for God or his creation.  And, they just ignore the fact that modern highly educated bankers, lawyers, political leaders and others educated on the taxpayer's dime, continue to bilk the common masses out of jobs, homes, health and life savings.  Meanwhile, many highly educated scientists, in spite of the overwhelming downside evidence, continue to create weapons of mass destruction and otherwise, pollute the fragile home of their own children's future far beyond any and all hope of human reproductive or any other survival.

These same militant atheist self-anointed gurus of pre-fabricated castles in the science fiction sand invariably fail to point out the many millions of examples in human history of God-fearing people helping other human beings in often dramatic and far reaching ways.  A great many people who openly professed to believe in God, have helped the sick, fed the poor, built hospitals, orphanages, hosted telethons and otherwise, contributed positively to human society.  Even a few atheists have tried to help other people; after all, "God is love" and we are created in his image, whether they like it or not.  And, the teachings and positive influence of Jesus alone no doubt more than offset any and all pretense of theoretical "good" contributed by all of the atheists of human history combined.

World leading DNA and human disease expert Francis Collins, one of the greatest of all modern scientists, who has publicly stated modern DNA evidence alone overwhelmingly demonstrates design and not random processes, refers to himself as a Darwinist.  And virtually all historical scientists of note believed in God based on "evidence of things not seen", the same as scientists today believe in black holes based on evidence of things not seen; the Bible agreeing that true faith, like true science, is based on evidence.  Mr. Collins alone in a couple of short sentences, clearly demonstrates what great liars militant atheists are, by the mere fact that he professes to believe in both God and evolution.

A common gross historical error among 21st Century educators and intellectuals in general, is to pretend that science is based on evidence, while belief in God represents a "blind faith" belief.  Such gross error is abundantly displayed throughout the modern world in scientific, educational and other literature and public media, though there isn't a single shred of historical evidence for drawing such a conclusion.  The Bible itself very clearly teaches that faith is based on evidence, thus anyone who pretends differently is either poorly educated, a deliberate liar, or both.

Such language quacker-jackery of militant atheists directly contradicts Charles Darwin himself, who wrote in a well-known and oft published letter, "I have never been an atheist" and "one can be an ardent Theist and evolutionist".  Darwin went on to say in the same letter that one might best describe his mind as “agnostic, but not entirely” and in his second and all subsequent editions of “On The Origin of Species”, Darwin credits our Creator with being behind the universal reality and processes of life.  Thus, whenever a militant atheist is found pretending that science and evolution are on one “side” and people who believe in God are on another “side”, we can just dismiss them as charlatans and move on.  In fairness to Darwin, “agnosticism” in the time of Charles Darwin sometimes referred to distrust in religions and other human claims about God, rather than questioning the existence of God, thus Darwin could be “agnostic but not entirely”, as he describes himself and still credit our Creator with being behind the universal reality, without self-contradiction.

Richard Dawkins, who holds degrees in science and education and a chair at Oxford University, often displays a complete lack of scientific method and otherwise, overtly promotes gross superstitions of the most egregious kind.  For example, in an article published in 2010, Mr. Dawkins states he is “almost certain” there is no God, without providing any evidence tipping the scales in such dramatic fashion, as a scientist upholding the rules of science and evidence is required to do.  Previously he wrote he is 6 of 7 certain, again without providing evidence as to why he would come up with such numbers, rather than 99 out of 100 or 2 out of 5 instead.  Later after being challenged, Dawkins has admitted he really isn't sure of the numbers, but continues to insist that there "probably" and at other times, "almost certainly" is no God, without bothering to provide any supporting evidence.

In this same 2010 article, Mr. Dawkins compares belief in God to believing in the spaghetti monster, apparently failing to consider that the spaghetti monster isn't defined as Creator of the universe and, if one eliminates the spaghetti monster, he or she isn't left having to explain how they and the rest of the universe happen to exist.  Ancient Greek philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, would no doubt have a hearty laugh over such juvenile delinquent elementary school nonsense uttered by a professional scientist, before sending him back to logic 1-A class and otherwise, banning him from the Academy for life.

Richard Dawkins has even gone so far as to say that "perhaps" aliens from a long ago galaxy far, far away may have designed life, which would help explain according to Dawkins, why life in "many ways appears to be designed".  Dawkins goes on to just kick the can down the road, stating that such aliens of course, must have come about by some type of evolutionary processes.  Obviously such non-verifiable science fiction represents nothing but blind faith belief in magically existing evolutionary processes somehow magically arising within a magically appearing universe due to magically existing universal laws, somehow magically existing prior to the universe itself.  One can begin to see why re-considering throwing away money on an Oxford University 'science' education might be a shrewd and prudent decision.

Mr. Dawkins entitled one of his books “The God Delusion”, implying such historical giants as Moses, Isaiah, Confucius Buddha, Zarathustra, Jesus, Socrates, Aristotle, DaVinci, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Descartes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Bacon, Locke, Jefferson, Paine, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Darwin, Gandhi, Tolstoy, Albert Schweitzer, Einstein, Eleanor Roosevelt, Helen Keller, Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks and Cesar Chavez, among millions more, were all delusional, as compared one would suppose, to such a great human rights luminary and beacon of hope, reason and light such as himself.  Militant atheist Sam Harris in a video on YouTube actually draws a line on a chalk board, anointing himself as being on the “side” of science and reason, while placing everyone on the above list and everyone else who believes in God, as being on the same irrational “side” as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.  It doesn't take much of a monkey's uncle or baboon's ass to determine who in fact, is more than likely, delusional.

As mentioned previously, even Lawrence Krauss, one of the more hardcore atheists alive today, admits science can't explain how the big bang could randomly go boom.  According to Krauss, science can explain “a millionth of a millionth of a second after the big bang”, which has no more validity than saying if someone sets up a row of dominoes and then uses their finger to set the first domino in motion, science can explain a millionth of a millionth of a second after they do so, how the row of dominoes could have somehow magically self-designed and then self-arranged and fallen over by it's own volition.  Such hocus-pocus tomfoolery isn't worthy of the least plausible science fiction imaginable.

Professor Krauss is credited with being one of the first scientists to postulate the existence of dark energy, which unlike invisible light, cannot be demonstrated to actually exist by any known scientific method.  The existence of dark energy, which isn't necessarily either dark or energy but merely a term invented for what remains unknown, is largely based on the implication that if dark energy doesn't exist, then current theories of energy, light, gravity and/or motion are wrong.  Several of Mr. Krauss' fellow scientists have suggested that just perhaps, current theories are wrong and, dark energy may not actually exist.  And, even if it does, current fundamental theories may still be way off the mark (in light of the known history of science).

Much of what Lawrence Krauss claims is predicated on the magical existence of universal "laws", even though some of his peers openly question whether or not such laws actually exist.  One might fairly ask, how would anyone living on earth know if there is any such thing as a universal law?  And one might far more fairly ask, even if such universal laws do exist, what evidence is there that they could magically exist unto themselves, as if a math test in a classroom at Arizona State University where Professor Krauss misguides unsuspecting students, could magically self-design and randomly appear on desks, where magically existing random appearing students sit and ponder why they indebted themselves with expensive student loans in order to be taught such non-verifiable non-scientific juvenile delinquent quacker-jackery?

A fair question to ask is, just exactly what do Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Lawrence Krauss, the late Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Bill Maher and other militant atheists bring to the human rights table, that represents a better idea than Jesus already long ago taught us for free?  Based on the evidence of who Jesus clearly was and is, this isn't really being very fair to them, but why should we be fair to those who pretend to be scientific while overtly lying to our children, openly denying the overwhelming universal evidence of deliberate design and creation and instead, choosing to embrace and promote the greatest of all known human superstitions and grandest delusion of them all?

According to Mr. Dawkins in an article published after his best-selling book of self-delusion, the universe "represents nothing but blind pitiless indifference".  Didn't Mr. Dawkins learn about Jesus, Gandhi, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. in grade school history class and, didn't his grade school science class inform him that these fine people along with the rest of those noted above, are all part of what scientists call "universe"?  One is left wondering if Mr. Dawkins has ever told his wife or children he loves them or, bothered to give his own mother a card on Mother's Day.  After all, we wouldn't want to upset the best-seller golden apple cart of "blind pitiless indifference".

As mentioned elsewhere, not very long ago in historical terms, the majority of scientists believed that the sun revolves around the earth, that disease spontaneously arises from rat excrement and as late as the 1920's, believed in a static universe containing a single Milky Way galaxy.  Such seeming ignorance astronomically pales in comparison to what militant atheists are trying to sell to the rest of us today, that the entire universe magically spontaneously appeared out of nowhere from nothing, due to so-called "universal" laws that somehow magically existed prior to the universe itself.  And even worse, if any grander delusion than this were possible to beat, without bothering to provide the general public a single shred of supporting evidence.

Apparently we are just supposed to take their word for it, as if a quark inside of an atom inside of a virus inside of a microbe, hiding underneath a spark plug inside of an automobile engine, could somehow possibly know that there is no car, there is no one driving the car, there is no road and somehow, the comparatively gargantuan automobile engine, containing complex parts within other complex working parts, somehow just magically randomly self-designed.  Such a position is far more scientifically preposterous and irrational than a position pretending the moon is larger and warmer than the sun or that our own Milky Way galaxy is larger than all of the other galaxies in the universe combined.  It might even be more absurd than Richard Dawkins' claim that aliens in a galaxy far, far away may have designed and created life, who can say for sure?

How is it a "reproductive survival advantage" for our species to teach our children there is no God who can help us and thus, they are stuck relying on the same "science and education" that apparently utterly failed Mr. Dawkins and the rest of the militant atheists noted above, the same science and education resulting in weapons of mass destruction and global mass pollution?  Who is the extremely poorly educated individual who came up with the utterly foolish notion that "God is not a question for science", as if our Creator doesn't understand how his own universe came to be and functions?  To be fair to Mr. Dawkins, he has publicly admitted that the God question is "central to all of science" and curiously enough, there was once a photo of Mr. Dawkins posted on his own website wearing a t-shirt with the words "atheists for Jesus" emblazoned on the front.

Perhaps Mr. Dawkins, who specializes in animal and human behavior, has an advantage over the rest noted, apparently recognizing that Jesus, in spite of his supposed "God delusion", to say the least was a pretty smart guy.  There are two simple tests virtually anyone with a third-grade education or higher can easily grasp the significance of: 1) If you don't believe in God, try coming up with a better explanation for how you and the universe happen to exist, than Jesus already taught us for free; "before Abraham was, I AM".  And 2) If you don't believe in sin, try doing what you think is good all of the time and, see how well you do.  One is left wondering why an expert in human behavior or why any scientist, educator or other human being would pretend that Jesus is delusional.

It is no small wonder that a so-called "Age of Enlightenment" that produced the global slave trade and greed-focused modern capitalism, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin and other well-known atheistic soldiers of human avarice, is turning towards an age of unprecedented global disaster.  An atheistic Ayn Rand worshiping age of unbridled greed, corporate globalization leading to mass human enslavement, unprecedented global violent anarchy, war and rumor of the real war to end all wars, fear of global terrorism and soon to be nano-tech mega-bombs in a briefcase.  An age of people's "hearts failing them for fear" of the looming self-evident planetary disaster Jesus long ago predicted, most assuredly lurking just around the runaway climate change corner.

And finally, why would anyone refer to themselves or otherwise be comfortable with the moniker "militant atheist"?  Why do such atheists feel it necessary to militantly come down on the rest of us, as if we have somehow sinned against them?  Who is giving them their marching orders and just exactly, whose army are they in?


NOTE 26 - OF SNOWFLAKES AND STAR SYSTEMS:  It is commonly assumed by perhaps most people here in the Twenty-First Century, that God couldn't possibly have anything to do with snowflake design, hurricanes or earthquakes, as such are all a result of so-called “natural” processes of what is arbitrarily called the “natural world”.  In true reality, it is entirely unknown and as far as we know, unknowable, how much or how little our Creator “plays” with his creation.  For all we know, God can design individual snowflakes, individual micro-organisms and super-clusters of galaxies all at the same time, just because he feels like doodling around.

Great historical artists like Michelangelo are renowned for painting very large murals and yet, spending a great deal of time on tiny details, intricate shadings and each slightest variation of hue.  Likewise, people today design both microchips and entire cities.  Thus, it is entirely rational to assume our Father in heaven can design at both the very large and the very small scales of universal reality, just as it is entirely rational that the beauty of design and color has a multiplicity of both reproductive, other functional and aesthetic purposes, as do many of our human creations.  No one really knows what God engages in behind the scenes and, anyone who pretends they know is quite obviously only fooling themselves.

According to leading DNA and human disease scientist Francis Collins, "modern DNA evidence alone overwhelmingly demonstrates design and not random processes".  It is known by science today that particles swirling around individual atoms are woven in intricate patterns, giving the various elements their distinct properties, rather than just haphazardly swirling around as random processes would suggest.  There are estimated to be over 100 trillion micro-organisms contained within an average adult human, which is 100 times the number of stars estimated to be in the great galaxy in Andromeda.

In spite of how incredibly tiny such living things are, they are much larger than most viruses, which are incredibly large compared to a strand of their DNA, which is incredibly large compared to an atom, which again is incredibly large compared to various particles traveling around it's nucleus. And yet, if a we could somehow shrink down to a tiny replication of ourselves, so that we could perch on an atom inside of a tiny scrap of DNA inside of a virus inside one of the 100 trillion micro-organisms inside of us, we would still be much larger compared to our normal size, than our normal size is in comparison to just the known universe.  And yet, we have scientists today prancing around pretending to be "almost certain their is no God" and, "God is not necessary for the universe to exist", as if they would somehow know and, we should all just bow down, kiss their Oxford ring of blind faith deception and take their word for it.

Scientists attempting to “prove” abiogenesis theories that life and everything else in the universe somehow randomly appeared all by itself, are fairly comparable to a scientist who was able to shrink into a very tiny atomic-sized version of himself or herself, crawl down inside an automobile engine and observe as the car was being driven down the road, apparent “random” sparks and dust particles flying around inside the automobile engine.  And then concluding, that since these sparks and dust particles have been declared as being “random”, there is therefore, no designer of the automobile engine, nobody is driving the car, there is no road and, no one designed anything at all.

At the bottom line, to say there is no Creator, is to say that automobiles and everything inside of them, computers and everything inside of them and, human brains that design automobiles and computers and, everyone on our planet and everything else we design on our planet and, everything else on our planet and, everything else in the universe, magically appeared all by itself.  There is no evidence universal laws or evolution or any other process can exist unto itself, while there is unfortunately, overwhelming evidence that self-contradicting people claiming to be scientists habitually violate the established rules of science and evidence.
GOD: a perspective; a video of comparative sizes

As noted previously, many atheists claim that “atheism makes no claims” and then go on to arbitrarily claim that atheism is the “default” position and then again, make an additional claim that atheism just “disbelieves” in God or gods.  Obviously, since God by common modern language definition is defined as Creator of the universe, atheists are in fact claiming that the universe is not a result of deliberate design and creation.  Atheists then go on to falsely claim, based on these several false claims of no claims, that they aren't required to provide any evidence to back up any of their subsequent claims of non-scientific non-verifiable superstition.  Based on such false claims, atheists then go on to claim that the onus belongs on those who claim to believe in God, since they, again falsely claiming, claim that “atheism makes no claims”.

If this sounds more than a little confusing, it is perhaps because atheists seem to be far more than just a little confused and, not very adept at human language deception, as if to claim to “disbelieve” in God is somehow, not in fact a claim.  The true "default position" of science and reason, agreed to universally by scientists and other educated people, is that there is a physical reality called "universe".  The true default question then becomes, how and why is there a physical universal reality.  Atheists and agnostics, if they wish to be taken seriously at all by the rest of us, remain just as much subject to this same two-pronged default question as the rest of us do.  So, the question for every atheist and agnostic on the planet to satisfactorily answer in order for any of the rest of us to believe them remains the following:

What scientifically verifiable evidence is there that energy can arise from no energy, heat from no heat, motion from no motion, light from no light, that quad-zillions of parts-within-parts can magically self-arrange, that life can arise from no life, intelligence from no intelligence, that the complex dual language of DNA can magically exist unto itself, that so-called "universal" or any other laws, evolutionary or any other laws or processes can magically exist unto themselves or, that even something as rudimentary as human mathematics can magically exist unto itself, without any Eternal Creator Primary Cause Intelligence behind the observable universal effect ? ? ? ! ! !


NOTE 27 - SCIENCE, EDUCATION AND THE BIBLE:  What is true or false is not dependent on how ancient or recent or what kind of source the information is found in, nor does it depend on how many educational degrees or other credentials one has.  Rather, what is true or false from a human perspective, is subject to evidence.  Something claimed by modern science that is contradicted by known evidence is incorrect, the same as something contained in an ancient book or tablet that is contradicted by known evidence, is incorrect.  People for thousands of years, long prior to any concept of "science", practiced a type of science, education and technology, from shaping sticks and stones into tools for grinding and cutting food and defending themselves, learning to use fire for warmth, cooking and shaping tools, to comparatively more advanced wheels, spears, bows and arrows, bronze and later iron tools and weapons.

Long before any concept of science, it was deduced based on self-evidence, that the sun is warmer than the moon, the rain will eventually stop, warmer weather will eventually be followed by cooler weather, seeds planted in a certain manner and number will yield an approximate amount of food in a typical weather year and, much other fundamental but very important knowledge taken for granted today.  Whether information is found in a modern science textbook or an ancient text on astrology or a modern science textbook does not in itself dictate whether or not the information is either true or false.  Rather, what is true or false as far as human beings can know, is subject to evidence.  Claims and conclusions without supporting evidence represent superstition, not science.  It is superstitious to say there is a God just because the Bible says so and, it is grossly more superstitious to claim to "disbelieve" there is a Creator, without providing a better explanation supported by evidence, for how else the universe happens to exist.

According to the Bible, "God is love" and if this is true, then it logically follows we need God's help in order to care about ourselves and other people.  And, given the violence, greed, avarice and other human oppression on prime-time display around the globe today, it is inarguable that we humans need to learn how to care about each other better.  The focus of the so-called "God question" invariably becomes a debate over whether or not the universe represents design, rather than considering whether or not our Creator is willing to help us and if so, how can we actually get God to help us, which are far more important and valuable questions for humanity.  Consider for example, that our Creator just might be able to help us achieve more love, justice, peace and freedom on earth and, help us clean up the mass pollution left in the wake of our education, science, technology, greed and avarice.

Although often not treated as science in the same breath as physics and biology, human behavior and in particular, how human beings act in the historical record, are very much a significant important part of science.  According to modern behavioral science evidence, which very much agrees with what Jesus and later Paul taught, greed, hatred, irrational fear, prejudice, envy, stress, tension, murder, rape, theft, false witness, inequality of wealth, slavery, war and other human oppression, arises from what is within all people (source; Encyclopedia Britannica; "Human Sexuality" and related).  What Jesus calls "sin", what the Britannica calls the "seething mass within" and what today is sometimes called "anti-human rights actions", "human nature", "aberration of the norm", "social maladjustment" and other often deceptive terminology, hasn't changed since prior to the dawn of civilization.  Language terminology does not dictate reality, nor does calling sin "social maladjustment", "human nature" or any of the other terminology listed change the reality of human oppression, sorrow, suffering and death.

In the New Testament, Jesus doesn't even bother to address the question of God's existence, nor is there any theology found in the teachings of Jesus, other than simple concepts like unseen "kingdom of heaven", "father" and "friend".  Jesus made much use of what was for most of human history called "creation" and today is arbitrarily called "the natural world", as well as use of simple stories of human interactions, to help illustrate what according to Jesus is true.  Rather than religion, the focus of Jesus is centered on human behavior, on how people should treat each other, if we want to live in a more just, peaceful and less oppressive planetary reality.  It was Jesus who insisted on teaching the poor and common people for free.  Unlike some pretend, there is no one else in history remotely like Jesus, who rises head and shoulders above us all.

Jesus very deliberately associates with common average people, "sinners", those considered less moral than others and tax collectors, the sick and poor and those who are most shunned, trampled and stepped on by society in general; the short of stature Zacchaeus, the blind, the lame and the Samaritans, similar to those branded "illegal aliens" in modern American society.  The pacifist Jesus went out of his way to treat soldiers with dignity and respect and he lifted women up, accepting them into his inner circle, unheard of in his place and time in history.  The story of Jesus is not a story of twelve male disciples following an isolated religious cult leader but rather, the story of Jesus is of thousands of men and women leaving their normal jobs and tasks behind, often dragging their children along with them, flocking to hear a poor unheralded common man speak, who without benefit of modern theaters, microphones or entertainment, could hold thousands of tired, thirsty and hungry people in awe for several days at a stretch.

Unlike the Greek philosophers and many others in human history, who focused on teaching a select few, Jesus is perhaps the first prominent person of note to teach the common people, sinners and poor for free.  Jesus is a true advocate for free public education if there ever was one.  Compare modern United States society, which extracts huge sums from taxpayers to support public education and requires students to pass difficult entrance exams and spend vast amounts to attend modern universities, while they and/or their parents often remain indebted for many years.  The concept that we can know the truth and the truth will make us free is only one of a long list of profound teaching "sound-bite" sayings of Jesus, providing us both the correct goal and correct purpose of education in one short simple sentence; the goal to know what is true and the purpose, so we can be free.

Compare this to modern education, which divides reality up into non-connected and often non-correlated categories, pretending that God is not a question for science.  Thus, implying there is no God and otherwise, insinuating to a student that God doesn't know how his own universe works and what God knows is unimportant to learning, as if our teachers are somehow wiser than our Creator.  In the United States, typically the motivation provided for learning is focused on money; students are taught to study hard so they can earn a scholarship, so they can afford to go to college, so they can earn a better income.  Meanwhile, it is forbidden by law for a public school teacher to teach students we should love our neighbors as ourselves and to teach the other concepts and ideas of who historian Will Durant called by far, the greatest mind in human history.  Quite obviously, given the growing poverty and widening gap between the wealthy and poor, what is called "education" in the United States today isn't working very well.

The message of Jesus is that the common people, the average people of human society, are individually of extreme value to God and, each one of us has the potential to significantly help humanity and leave a lasting, positive footprint.  It is not that the wealthy, powerful, educated and elite of society aren't valuable but rather, that we are all of great value and, God can use the "least" of us to help humanity in profound and positive ways.  Rather than conservative or liberal, Jesus and the New Testament Paul focus on freedom verses non-freedom, truth verses falsehood and, love and humility verses hatred, selfishness and self-importance at the expense of others.  Freedom is a much better idea than either liberal or conservative; someone who is free can be as liberal or conservative as they choose on any issue and in any given situation.  Love and freedom go hand in glove and, there is far more to freedom than meets the casual eye.  Freedom is understood and learned through experience in the reality of our daily lives, like Jesus taught us, one day at a time.

Jesus seems to condemn no one other than conservative religious leaders, who he repeatedly roundly and soundly condemns openly to their face, even while eating in a certain religious leader's own home.  Jesus very much seems to think the famous, powerful, well-heeled, well-educated and self righteous religious elite of society are no better than the rest of us.  Not only did no one every speak like Jesus, no one ever remotely acted like Jesus either, nor did anyone remotely share the same "common people and sinners" vision and focus clearly demonstrated in his life and teachings.  Jesus insists we all need God's help in order to "overcome" evil with good and have love, justice and peace on earth.  It is fair to say that it would be easier to make the sun disappear from a cloudless summer Texas sky, than to win an argument with Jesus.

Some people have been heard to ask, "what kind of God would sacrifice his own son?" and, "how could a God who cares sacrifice his own son?".  Such questions fail to consider a well-known fact many who work in hospitals can readily confirm.  Human parents of a child who is suffering badly from disease or has been severely injured in an accident, have been heard to cry, "I would gladly take the place of my child if I could", "only if it could be me instead of my child" and similar expressions of deep sorrow, when witnessing their child severely suffering.

Thus, the story of the cross becomes the story of the greatest expression of love known in the history of humanity, the story of a God who cares so much about us, that he is willing to endure the immense agony of his only son in order to help us.  Based on how human parents are known to react when seeing their own son or daughter badly suffering, it is fair to say that our Father in heaven sacrificing his only son for us, represents a far greater sacrifice than if he had sacrificed himself instead.  It is fair to say those who fail to understand why, have no idea what love is or what is meant by, "for God so loved the people".


NOTE 28 - THE STRANGE BEHAVIOR OF WATER AND LIGHT:  Many astrobiologists and other scientists freely admit the entire universe appears to have been uniquely fine-tuned for the emergence and ongoing continuing survival and existence of life; a highly precise fine-tuning very far beyond all random chance mathematical possibility.  As previously noted above, one might fairly add that the existence of mathematics itself also overwhelmingly demonstrates deliberate design, rather than random occurring processes.  How for example, could a randomly occurring human brain conceive of or develop mathematics that can accurately predict various particles and properties of matter before they are even discovered?

What is often less discussed in various public videos and forums is something arguably even more improbable from a random-chance evolutionary perspective.  As far as science knows, water in some form is essential for the existence of all living things.  Yet even today here in the 21st Century, unlike one might fairly assume given our supposed grand "random unguided" evolutionary understanding, the strange behavior and properties of water remain shrouded in scientific mystery.  According to some scientists with no creationist, intelligent design or other particular axe to grind, the unique behavior of water is "of fundamental importance in countless natural and technological processes" (climate, for example), as if "the water molecule was fine-tuned to have such unique properties."  Based on scientific experiments and similar to individual snowflakes, drops of water are also individually unique and, water seems to have a "memory" of it's own.  Water behaves in many strange and exotic ways that defy conventional physics and challenge our basic understanding of life, reality and the universe itself:  The Mystery of Water; What We Know is a Drop.

Light also remains one of the least understood universal realities.  Today, light photons and every other particle of matter are said to behave both as a particle and a wave.  According to quantum theory, light consists of "packets" of energy called "photons".  But, neither classical physics wave or particle models can describe light accurately.  According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "The interpretation of this seemingly paradoxical behavior (shared by light and matter), which is in fact predicted by the laws of quantum mechanics, has been debated by the scientific community since its discovery more than 100 years ago."  Britannica quotes physicist Richard Feynman as summarizing:  "We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics."

The Britannica goes on to state"  "In a wholly unexpected fashion, quantum mechanics resolved the long wave-particle debate over the nature of light by rejecting both models.  The behavior of light cannot be fully accounted for by a classical wave model or by a classical particle model.  These pictures are useful in their respective regimes, but ultimately they are approximate, complementary descriptions of an underlying reality that is described quantum mechanically."  But, since the quantum world remains "mysterious" and "counter-intuitive" to say the least and is not at all well understood and, since there is significant and substantial disagreement among quantum theorists themselves, it is fair to say that science doesn't really know very much from root levels on up about how either life or the larger universal reality either came into existence or ultimately functions, from a true and complete "logos" (God's universal and beyond view) understanding.
Article Detailing Just a Little of the Difficulty in Understanding the Quantum Reality

Some scientists believe long-held postulates of the constancy of the speed of light and the speed of light itself being the maximum universal speed might not be correct.  Due to the ever increasing speed of universal expansion, a being similar to ourselves living on a similar world 2 billion years into the future might calculate the universe at more than 2.4 billion years older than we currently calculate the age of the universe today.  Such a being might also believe in somewhat different "universal laws" than human scientists believe in here on earth today.  Most astrophysicists today buy into the theory of accelerated cosmic expansion (inflation), postulating speeds much faster than the speed of light.  However, some physicists have proposed a radically different idea known as "Variable Speed of Light Theory" (VSL) that if correct, would mean Einstein's general theory of relativity might not be.
Varying Speed Of Light Cosmology

Some say there is no such thing as the speed of light other than as calculated by our own observations and, it is the "speed of causality" we reference rather than light itself.  Because there is significant disagreement among quantum scientists regarding almost everything in the quantum reality, it is fair to say that modern science not only doesn't understand light or water very well, science doesn't really understand gravity, electro-magnetism, the strong force, the weak force or much of anything else very well and perhaps, a true and accurate grand "theory of everything" will long remain far above the collective heads of humanity.

If the universe is designed according to Pi and the Golden Ratio, for which there is considerable evidence for as discussed in more detail previously, the fact that these are irrational numbers might in itself be enough to preclude human beings trapped in three dimensions plus time here on earth from ever knowing "the end from the beginning".  As also noted previously according to the Britannica, science knows almost nothing about viruses compared to what there is yet to learn and, scientists don't know how, where, why, when or what form life originally arose from here on earth, let alone in the larger universal cosmic reality.  If life has existed elsewhere prior to our own sun and solar system, it is fair to say that science will most likely never know either how, where, when or why life first arose.

It is interesting that both water and light are very important in biblical language, Jesus himself defined as the "light" of the people, the "light of life" and "living water".  Some might claim this to be coincidental but few can deny that both water and light are the two most important and least understood universal necessities for life itself.  What is surprising is not how wrong and non-scientific the Bible is but rather, as the pages of human civilization history and scientific discovery turn, how much more accurate the Bible appears today than it did in the past.  Who would have thought for example, in the days of Copernicus, Newton, Darwin and even as recently as Carl Sagan, that the same predictions climate scientists are making today would be correctly detailed in proper order, in the same 2000 year old book as the phrase "water of life" appears?  It makes perfect sense that our Creator knows about the special and unique nature and importance of water and light to all of life as we know it.  Many modern people mistake lack of evidence for non-existence or factual error, a common fallacy of human history often coming back to hit oneself in the proverbial backside, in the light of future revelation.

Human beings have for thousands of years correctly deduced that the sun is larger and warmer than the moon, not through any kind of advanced scientific method but rather, simply because it is self-evident that the sun is larger and warmer than the moon.  And likewise, just perhaps billions of people today continue to believe in God, not because their society or religious leaders or parents claim there is a God but rather, simply because all of the evidence obviously points in the direction of Primary Source Eternal Creator, arguably far more so, than the long-held belief of the sun being larger and warmer than the moon.  Based on personal experience, most construction workers and truck drivers don't particular care for those who deliberately lie or otherwise misrepresent known evidence to them and, having spent quite some time in both professions, quite frankly neither do I.
Understanding the Strange Properties of Water
Unusual Properties of Water Molecules
Chemistry and Unique Properties of Water


NOTE 29 - UPSIDE, DOWNSIDE AND UPSIDE DOWN:  In various discussions on science found in popular media and elsewhere, one often hears about the "wonders" and significant upsides of modern science.  Things like advances in medicine, agriculture and other population sustaining techniques and other advances in modern technology are often described with awe and reverence.  Meanwhile, the significant 'downsides' of human research and growing problems of technology are typically ignored within the same discussion.  Only rarely do we hear educators of science for example, bother to mention that advances in human science have resulted in global mass pollution, ever-worse horrific weapons and modern technology isolating people within our own virtual worlds, rather than encouraging face-to-face communication and peer to peer inter-action.

Today, no one knows what long term effects that so-called "social media" will have on the global population.  But we do know that today social and other media is filled with both deliberate and unintentional falsehoods and, many millions of people are addicted to whatever they can do with communication devices, often at the expense of reality, human relations, steady employment, quality family time and other things longed deemed important to the survival of human civilization.

Physicians sometimes grudgingly admit that medicines they suggest for their patients may have significant negative side effects and likewise, it would seem that whatever human beings touch in any way, including in regards to anything scientific in nature, often results in both intentional and unintentional negative consequences.  Today, scientific researchers spend trillions of taxpayer dollars on space exploration, telescopes and particle accelerators and, spend countless research hours attempting to understand things of curiosity having little if anything to do with either the reproductive, economic or actual survival of our species.  One might assume that if scientists really believe that human caused pollution is leading to eventual catastrophic planetary-wide destruction or, even if such pollution is just harmful for human health, even if it isn't otherwise harming our planet in the least, that scientists would devote virtually all of their funding dollars and research hours into finding a fix for our environmental mess as quickly and fast as humanly possible.

While some scientists turned into modern-day prophets are crying woe unto political, religious and other quacks pretending we aren't slowly but surely destroying our one and only planetary habitat, why do the rest so often arguably have their priorities mis-directed elsewhere?  It is true that many scientists are working hard to clean up global pollution and many devote their skills and knowledge to curing various diseases and helping our growing global population eat and otherwise survive.  But, given modern awareness of a changing global climate, cancer and other devastating diseases and looming global revolution and WWIII, why are so many scientists spending so much money and time trying to convince us the universe somehow magically appeared?  And otherwise, trying to figure out what happened a millionth of a millionth of a second after the big bang or, whether or not the Higgs Boson is the smallest building block particle of the universe?

Even if they do figure it out, why would any of us much beleaguered taxpayers really give a damn?  Given the known historical track record of human civilization, isn't it pretty much a sure bet that whatever knowledge is gained from particle accelerator, fusion and other research will eventually be used to create weapons so destructive we will be pining for the mere nuclear bombs of the past?  Perhaps like the rest of us, priorities of the highly educated are also often irrational to any notion of reproductive or other survival, openly displayed for all the world to see as rather sinful, backasswards and upside down, to say the least.


NOTE 30 - MYSTERIOUS COMPLEXITY OF THE HUMAN MIND:  Astrophysicists say that all human understanding breaks down inside of a black hole at what is called a “singularity”, where neither human mathematical understanding, classical physics or quantum mechanics can adequately explain the origin of or true nature and reality of the universe.  Although this is true, it remains somewhat misleading, implying to the poorly educated that up to that point, science pretty much has it figured out.  The truth is, human beings know very little about what is actually true compared to what we have yet to learn, regarding virtually everything about life and the universal reality we inhabit, including the human “mind”, which some researchers differentiate from our brains; our brain from such a view being only part of a larger inner self and conscious awareness whole.  While some may scoff at this, neuroscientists and other researchers continue to strongly disagree among themselves.

As noted elsewhere, even though there are believed to be more viruses than all other forms of life on earth combined, science today admits we know almost nothing about them compared to what we do not know.  In fact, it is currently believed we have accounted for only a small percentage of the total number of living forms of life that we continue to discover on the land, underground, upon and within other life forms, in the air and on and beneath the water.  As already discussed, things as common and basic to our survival as water and light remain poorly understood at best.  While some scientists say that “nothing is one hundred percent certain” in science, it remains a very safe bet that there remains an astronomical amount of unknown knowledge yet to learn, just about our own mind and inner being.

Some educators such as the late popular 20th Century historian Will Durant, decry what may fairly be called our “very bad habit” of dividing reality up into neat often non-intersecting categories like history, science, religion, philosophy, mathematics, politics, literature and so on.  Continuing to educate our offspring in such a divisional often non-connected manner, tends to create a tremendous amount of bias and confusion, clearly revealed in modern voting booths where well-meaning fathers and mothers often vote against the best interests of their own offspring.  In reality, it isn't possible to separate a scientist's or historian's philosophical, religious, political and moral opinions and culturally-induced bias from his or her historical and scientific analysis and conclusions, any more than we can separate water from what we need to survive.  It is fair to say for example, that Albert Einstein's scientific and other research eventually turned him into a pacifist and strong advocate for human rights and global peace.

Unlike most ancient and most modern writings, several authors of the Bible attempt to address our human limitations and lack of understanding as best they can with human language.  Within it's pages, we find a profound description of our Creator's love, a description often quoted by authors and other intellectuals and even admired and revered by many atheists and agnostics.  We also find in the Old Testament Isaiah and New Testament Jesus, the foundation for modern human rights, also admired and revered by the same.  Many people in the modern age seem to have a difficult time grasping one of the more obvious lessons of history, which is like Jesus and the authors of the Bible teach us, as men and women think and intend inside, so are we.

According to the Bible, we are “fearfully and wonderfully made” and, we know nothing compared to what we ought to know and have yet to learn, not only about God, but about good and evil, human behavior and life itself.  Unlike modern authors often deceiving themselves in their own pride and arrogance, the biblical authors dare to write that our Creator's intelligence, love and peace (and presumably everything else), are beyond all understanding.  This is not as some might have us believe, an example of poor understanding due to the comparatively limited scientific and other knowledge of their time.  Rather, it is very plainly the truth, today attested to by 21st Century scientists themselves.

A few decades ago and still wrongly assumed by many today, the consensus was that we humans use less than ten percent of our brain.  This myth has been traced back to people as diverse as Einstein (1879-1955) and psychologist William James (1842-1910).  Suffice it to say, simplistic neatly compartmentalized human brain charts of the recent past are arguably no more valid than ancient world maps and the now completely outdated cosmological charts of pre-Copernican Europe.  And knowledge of the human brain continues to grow exponentially here in the 21st Century.  It is believed today that no two humans think exactly alike and, that much like snowflakes, each individual human brain is unique.

Interestingly enough, according to an Old Testament psalm, God creates each one of us with an individual heart.  We can see this displayed all over the historical record, where individual people aspire to many unique and different methods of survival, entertainment and pursuit of happiness, purpose and fulfillment.  Not all of us strive to be authors, educators, musicians, political leaders, athletes, business entrepreneurs or brain surgeons, nor do we all prefer the same foods, colors, songs and a very long list of other individual traits not necessarily shared by everyone even within the same cultural reality.  While some in the modern age seem to require massive amounts of artificial external stimuli to achieve what they perceive as having "a good time", others enjoy the "simple things" of life, like working with their hands, rocking on a porch or slowly devouring a plate of carefully selected food.
Psalm 33, "He fashions their hearts individually"

Today science believes we use most if not all (at least 98%) of our brain and, while different regions of the brain seem to be specific to various kinds of activities, many different parts of the human brain outside of these areas are used in tandem with such specific regions, demonstrating that how our brain actually functions is far more complex than previously assumed.  And according to many diverse scientists and experiments, it appears that conceptions of "mind", "self", "soul" and "conscious awareness" may not be limited to the brain itself, as long previously assumed.  It has been discovered that individual neurons carry multiple signals at the same time and, the human brain is not only incredibly different than a computer in how it operates, it remains virtually astronomically more complex.
Brain Neurons Carry More Than One Signal

According to a 2017 CBS News report, a large-scale global study of human consciousness at death indicates that conscious awareness sometimes if not always extends beyond clinical death.  Rather than providing any good or conclusive answers, the video linked here perhaps more than anything, demonstrates how little modern scientists really know about the human mind, which is apparently far more complex than previously assumed even less than a generation ago.  Rather than conclusively proving much of anything, this study instead muddies the waters even more for an already significantly confusing global body of evidence:
Research Into Near-death Experiences Creates More Questions Than Answers

Especially in regards to conscious awareness and the ability to self-examine within our own beings, it is believed by some scientists today that the human “soul” and seat of self-awareness is not isolated to the brain itself but rather, is part of a larger networked reality including our spine, nerves and various other body parts working somehow in incredible complexity tandem together, that eventually produces our perceptions of both our inner selves and the world around us.  Conceptions of "soul" and "self" for example, appear to somehow "sit" nestled within a general region of our upper body including our brain, spine, heart, nerves, vessels and upper torso.  Perhaps most people today think more centrally of "mind" in terms of being located solely within our brain, only because this is what we have been taught from birth.  This appears to be largely untrue of generations prior to the 18th-19th Century.  What we are taught, however correct or wrong it may be, very much influences our subsequent perceptions, understanding, biases and conclusions.
Human Mind Not Confined to Brain

Various tests demonstrate that what we are taught very much creates bias and clouds and distorts the judgment of even the brightest human minds and today, scientific research indicates there is far more to conscious awareness, perception, feelings, intuition, moral and other beliefs and the human "mind" than meets the casual eye.  As already stated within previous notes addressing human behavior, studies today indicate that what many consider to be socially counter-productive or “evil” human traits like egoism, Machiavellianism, moral disengagement, narcissism, entitlement, psychopathy, sadism, selfishness, spitefulness and other non-caring and non-empathetic traits, stem from a common “dark core” within us, which the Encyclopedia Britannica refers to as "the seething mass within".
The Dark Core of Human Personality

According to Veljko Dubljevic, an assistant professor of philosophy at North Carolina State who specializes in research on the ethics of neuroscience and technology, teaching rote intellectual acceptance and non-critical thinking in regards to neuroscience “in science courses is both unscientific and socially dangerous."  To which one might fairly add, teaching such in regards to evolutionary theory or anything else very much likewise, remains non-scientific and dangerous to our entire planet and every living thing on it.  According to a 2013 science article published in The Guardian:  “More complex than any structure in the known cosmos, the brain is a masterwork of nature endowed with cognitive powers that far outstrip the capacity of any silicon machine built to emulate it.  Containing roughly 80bn brain cells, or neurons, each of which communicates with thousands of other neurons, the 3lb universe cradled between our ears has more connections than there are stars in the Milky Way.  How this enormous neural edifice gives rise to subjective feelings is one of the greatest mysteries of science and philosophy.”
Human Behavior: Is it All in the Brain?

Rather than go into more specific detail here, this final note is deliberately shortened to reflect the fact that like the lowly virus, modern science knows virtually nothing about the human brain, soul, conscious awareness, subjective feelings and perceptions of “self” and true origins of disease, conflict, competition and evil, compared to what there is yet to learn.  Why anyone in their right mind would pretend that something as overwhelmingly complex as a human mind could somehow magically arise out of nowhere from nothing, magically self-designing without any creator or “brains” behind the grand design universal reality, remains perhaps the greatest mystery of all.

Why have so many scientists and educators evolved a very bad and misleading habit of claiming that a certain bird "evolved" a certain type of beak, as if the bird somehow changed by it's own volition, rather than stating the obvious, that both the bird and rest of us inhabit an every-changing grand design universal reality, exquisitely crafted and carefully "fine-tuned" very, very, very far beyond any remote possibility of random chance, for the emergence and ongoing necessary adaptability of life?  Even a small child can grasp the obvious, that if life wasn't created with the ability to adapt and change, it couldn't possibly survive within an ever-changing universal environment.  Who decided that "nature" is somehow different than "creation" and, why would anyone of even rudimentary education conclude that brainless, ambiguous human language inventions like "natural processes", are somehow responsible for the observable grand design universal reality?  Or even worse, that such unsupported baseless inventions, randomly pulled out of a black hole rabbit's hat, somehow represent a better scientific explanation than deliberate design and creation?

With historical hindsight that not long ago, the majority of scientists believed disease spontaneously arises from rat excrement, why would anyone fancying themselves a 'scientist' today say there is no God, probably no God or might be no God?  What evidence do such immature historically oblivious self-contradicting minds somehow magically possess and, why should we believe them?  We must each ponder within our own heart, soul and mind whether or not we want our children to be 'educated' in such an "unscientific and socially dangerous" grossly superstitious juvenile delinquent manner.
Human Dendrites Very Different Than Other Species
Processing Power of Brain Much Greater Than Originally Thought
Two Scientists Discuss Brain Vs. More Than Brain
How the Brain Makes Even Simple Decisions Remains a Mystery
Modern Neuroscience Claims of No Free Will Non-Conclusive
Human Brain Sorting Through the “Noise”
Do Babies Know Right from Wrong?
The Moral Life of Babies
Disputes Among Various Scientists Regarding Infant Morality


MIND-BENDING CLAIMS OF MODERN SCIENCE

1) There are estimated to be as many tiny particles in one grain of sand, as there is sand in all of the Sahara Desert to an average depth of ten feet.  And yet, the vast majority of what makes up a grain of sand appears to be empty space.

2) A recent theory suggests that matter might not really be mostly empty space but rather, what appears to be empty space might in fact be filled with unimaginably tiny bits of energy much smaller than a neutrino.  However, matter from our view today appears to be mostly empty space, so much so, that all of the particles of matter that make up all of the people on earth would fit in an area about the size of a cube of sugar, if all of what appears to be empty space was removed.

3) The Great Galaxy in Andromeda, also known as M-31, contains an estimated 1 trillion stars and is estimated to be 2 to 5 times as large as our own Milky Way Galaxy.  Yet there are an estimated over 100 trillion microbes that inhabit an average adult human being, one hundred times the number of estimated stars in Galaxy M-31.  And still, most viruses are about ten times smaller than most microbes and, it is believed there are more viruses inhabiting the earth than all microbes and other forms of life combined.  According to the Britannica, science knows almost nothing about viruses compared to what there is yet to learn.

4) It is estimated there are over eight times as many molecules in a cup of water (8.36 x 10 to the 24th power) as there are estimated stars in the known universe (1 x 10 to the 24th power), although some scientists believe there may be many more stars than current estimates assume.  Some scientists believe the “known” universe is only a small fraction of the size of the total universe and, that the universe has 6-11 or more dimensions, of which we can detect only 3 plus time.  It has been proposed that there may be as many universes as there are stars in our own and, some scientists now refer to the "eternal multi-verse", a growing quantity of universes stretching to infinity, a concept essentially far beyond the grasp of the human brain to even remotely comprehend.  Some quantum physicists have proposed that the reason the sub-atomic world seems to act strangely to us, in comparison to the macro-world, is because particles of matter might be traveling in and out of dimensions that we cannot detect.  Thus, bits of matter may only appear from our 3-dimensional perspective (plus time) to “randomly” appear and disappear.

5) According to modern science research, the Sahara Desert, which is about the same size as the entire United States, was covered by a large ocean about 3 million years ago.  Since then, every 20,000 years or so, the Sahara changes from being a large desert into a vast green vegetation region containing fresh water lakes, some larger than the Great Lakes in the United States.  This drastic change is caused by a wobble in the earth’s orbit, changing weather patterns over Africa and causing vast quantities of rain to fall on what is currently the largest desert on earth.  The last such change occurred about 5,500 years ago.  Currently, there is a vast amount of fresh water located underneath the Sahara that has been trapped there for about 3 million years, creating the occasional oasis when this water breaches the surface.  Scientists and engineers are already tapping this giant underground reservoir for oil exploration and are attempting to use it to create viable farmland.  It is estimated there is only enough water to last for about 100 years of oil exploration and farming and then, it will be gone until the next Sahara greening cycle occurs about 14,500 years from now.

6) According to recent studies, a single sand grain is home to from 10,000 to 100,000 microorganisms representing thousands of species.  Marine scientists estimate there are a billion, billion, billion tiny organisms called Prochlorococcus inhabiting the world's oceans, a photosynthetic bacterium on which the rest of the food chain is built.  Hundreds of distinct genetic subpopulations have been found in less than a quarter teaspoon of seawater.  Science has discovered trees and small plants including grasses are apparently able to communicate with each other regarding approaching predators and various other issues.  Knowledge of humans and other forms of life and the larger universal reality, has grown significantly in just a single generation, yet like the Encyclopedia Britannica says regarding viruses, which is also true regarding the rest of the universal reality and life contained therein, modern science knows virtually nothing compared to what there is yet to learn.

7) What scientists today call "nature" and what scientists used to call "creation", often perceived as two different things by the deceptively educated, are in fact merely two different words used for describing the exact same reality.  Calling creation "nature" or calling nature "creation" does not in fact have any bearing on how either the universal reality came into existence or functions.  The reality of how life came to be and changes and adapts appears to be highly dependent on and controlled at the quantum level, a level of reality only barely understood by modern science.  The Encyclopedia Britannica concludes in an article on viruses, that modern science knows virtually nothing about life at the virus level compared to what is yet to be learned.  And, although viruses are the smallest known living things, they are very, very incredibly large in comparison to bits and pieces of atoms at the quantum level of reality, where nothing behaves as we would expect based on our own reality level of experience.  Reality as we know and define it becomes a rather perilous proposition at the quantum level.

If we could turn on all of the universal "lights" and see everything in every dimension all at once, what we perceive of as being mostly "empty" space might appear to be more crowded than a large city on earth.  Given the known historical track record of science, it is very likely that modern humans know virtually nothing about what is really true about our universe or about life, from a true universal and beyond (logos) perspective.  What is proudly viewed as "science" today only a century or two from now, may appear as rudimentary and backward as the 'science' of the pre-Neolithic Era appears to us here in the 21st Century.  Those who say there is no Creator, probably no Creator or might be no Creator, should perhaps consider the astronomically incredible arrogance and ignorance of such positions, as if human beings having virtually no understanding of either life or the larger cosmic reality compared to what we have yet to learn, would or could somehow know that what we perceive as a universal reality either would or could have somehow magically appeared.

8) As far as science knows, calculations for pi extend forever and ever without any discernible repeating pattern.  Yet, fairly recent evidence suggests that the entire universe may not only be designed mathematically but also, it may be designed according to pi and also to a second irrational number known as the "Golden Ratio" (and perhaps one or more other irrational numbers as well).  Some scientists are now saying that it isn't accurate to claim that math helps explain the universe but rather, that the universe itself at it's most basic level "is" mathematics.  And, rather than math being a human invention, the history of mathematics represents merely a growing understanding that will likely continue to grow indefinitely into the future.  Rather than discovering math, human beings are merely uncovering what has existed long before humanity and perhaps existed even prior to the universe itself (evidence with links discussed in more detail in the previous notes).

9) Very recent discoveries demonstrate that life emerged on earth at least 3.7 billion years ago and a Canadian fossil has been dated at 4.2 billion years (links provided in notes above), much earlier than believed possible at the dawn of the 21st Century.  Such findings strongly indicate that life may have arisen from all over the earth, rather than from a singular extremely rare coincidental chance occurrence, as many biologists have attempted to fabricate out of evidence-less air for over 100 years.  Rather than understanding how life came into being, scientists continue to discover how little humanity actually knows concerning the true origins of life, some today postulating the existence of life probably predates the existence of our own solar system.  For all we know, the existence of life predates our current universe and, life will continue on forever and ever, long after our universe fades away.  As such, it is honest, fair and rational to conclude that human science may never know how, where, when or why life first came to be or if indeed, life ever had a beginning.

As discussed within the notes above, researchers have discovered that microbes living within us are able to incorporate outside DNA into their own DNA, directly contradicting modern evolutionary theory, which primary validity rests on long assumed so-called "random" changes within DNA, changes which may in fact not be random at all.  Rather, changes in visible macro-organisms as carefully detailed by Darwin and subsequent scientists for generations, may simply be reactions to changes caused by the actions of trillions of non-visible to the human eye micro-organisms living within them, changes which by definition, are not "random".

To be fair, Darwin knew nothing about modern genetics and had no way of knowing this, but modern scientists should know better than to unlike Darwin, who credited our Creator with being behind the reality of life, pretend that something as complex as the universal grand design came about by invented-out-of-thin-air random blind unguided natural processes, as if something as awe-inspiring containing zillions of parts-within-parts beyond comprehension complexity as the universe and the life contained therein, somehow just magically appeared (as if they somehow, would know).  We may have obvious liars today posing as political representatives of the people, but their deceptive ways pale in comparison to some of the overt liars lurking within ivory towers and otherwise, polluting our public science airwaves.

10) Scientists have recently discovered that infants as young as three months old have a sense of morality, right and wrong (younger infants are too difficult to test), strongly indicating that like the Bible says and Thomas Jefferson echoes, we are born with an innate sense of right and wrong.  Scientists have also discovered, like the Bible says, that "sins of the fathers" are passed down to the 3rd and 4th generation and thus, what we eat and how we otherwise behave has significant implications not only for our own health and welfare, but for future generations and the survival of humanity itself (not to mention the ongoing destruction of our own environment as if there is no tomorrow).  Evidence for this is discussed and linked in various notes above.

11) The Bible in several distinct places apparently claims that our universe is surrounded by water.  While it is not possible so far here in the 21st Century to prove this is true, it also remains impossible to prove it is not true.  Interestingly enough, according to the late Carl Sagan, at least two scientists in the recent past have proposed that the universe might be surrounded by water, which would help explain the abundance of hydrogen in it's current state.  Perhaps even more interesting, a 21st Century scientist recently proposed that rather than springing from a 'big bang', the universe we see today resulted from "cracks" and "fissures" in a giant ocean of unknown liquid-like substance.  The unusual properties of water, which is necessary for all of life as far as we know and, which has different properties than any other known liquid, are discussed Here at This Link.

12) According to NASA, scientists "suspect" that every star in the universe has at least one planet orbiting it.  There is at least one other star that has at least as many planets as our own sun.  It is likely that many stars have less planets than our own, while other stars probably have far more.  There are an estimated 2 trillion galaxies in the known universe, with an average of about 100 million stars per galaxy.  Though most scientists believe our own universe is finite, some suspect that the actual size may be comparatively extremely larger than the known universe we can detect from our position and time in space.  Some scientists believe there may be as many universes as there are stars in our own.  Incredibly like our Creator and Father in heaven, creation itself may have always been and may long always will be, stretching backwards and forwards on forever and ever, inside and outside of and far above, below and beyond what we perceive as “time”, having no beginning and no ending, a concept far beyond the grasp of the human mind to even begin to comprehend.


CONCLUSION:  Anything contained within the body of this work, when not specified otherwise, represents the opinions and conclusions of the author.  The author makes no claims to infallibility, nor is it possible for anyone either inside or outside of the scientific community to keep up with the exponentially evolving global library of collective human historical, scientific and other knowledge.  This work has been revised several times with various additions, subtractions and corrections and, it remains impossible for a human being to adequately cover everything relating to the various topics addressed.

As such, this work represents a partial overview of modern science intended for both students of history and science and a general reader audience.  Anyone is welcome to email the author in regards to suggestions, comments, errors and/or corrections.  Please do not email simply stating you disagree without providing evidence as to why you disagree.  A human being telling another human being they are wrong, without providing an evidence-based explanation as to why they are in error, does nothing to help either them, one's own self or anyone else: Author's Email

As noted previously, it requires far more blind faith to embrace atheism than it does to believe in Santa Clause, the flying spaghetti monster, astrology, prime time television, the honesty of priests, preachers, self-help and other gurus, politicians, lawyers, used car salesmen and all of the religions, mythologies, science fiction and other fiction novels, children's stories and fairy tales and any and all other known tales in the history of human civilization combined.  One might fairly ask, if there is no God, why is there any such concept found on Planet Earth?  What reproductive or other advantage is there for a species to deliberately lie to itself and it's own offspring?  Why are scientists and other human beings so engaged in searching for what is true?  Who lied to us and, why?

Suppose an anthropologist weary of a long days work, enters her tent and takes out a box of dominoes included in her belongings for relaxation.  Suppose she then carefully arranges the contents on a table located in the tent, uses her finger to topple the first domino and then leaves the tent.  Then suppose a few minutes later, a man enters the tent and observes the row of dominoes all neatly fallen over, apparently one after the other in synchronized succession.  Now, suppose this man is a member of a small isolated tribe in the Amazon jungle where the female anthropologist has been diligently working and thus, the man has never before either seen a domino or witnessed a row of dominoes being first arranged and then one-by-one in succession, toppling over.

Is it being remotely honest, rational or reasonable for this man to then propose that no one set the first domino in motion, no one first arranged the dominoes carefully, no one made the dominoes, no one created the various types of stuff the dominoes were made from, no one created the jungle this man inhabits or the planet, solar system, sun, galaxy or the universal environment the dominoes, this man, his jungle home, the female anthropologist and the rest of us all somehow magically "evolved" in.  And, on back through the big bang and beyond and back again now on up to the present, this row of dominoes somehow magically exists unto itself and, over a long period of time, somehow magically self-designed, self-arranged into a carefully placed row and eventually, magically fell over by it's own volition, all without any Primary Cause somewhere up the chain of events?  Is it being unfair to use the word "magically" when referring to modern non-scientific self-delusion or, is it far more unfair to the general public that manufacturers and purveyors of such primeval superstition would dare charge the poor man living at least somewhat peaceably in the jungle, to openly lie to him, his children and the rest of his unsuspecting tribe, not to mention using our hard-earned tax dollars to overtly deceive ourselves and our own children?

As reasonable and honest human beings we must ask ourselves, why would a scientist or other human being claim to be either agnostic or an atheist and, not learning from a 'science' not so long ago claiming that disease spontaneously arises from rat excrement, would today have us blind faith believe, that not only disease but the entire observable universal reality somehow randomly spontaneously appeared?  What manner of arrogance and self-delusion would lead someone into endorsing either position?  What rational explanation do they have for our own existence and our ability to observe universal phenomena without any Eternal Designer, Creator and Primary Causation?  What do they stand to gain from book sales, paid appearances or otherwise, from teaching our children that there is no Creator, probably no Creator or might be no Creator?  What is their purpose for doing so and what value do such positions hold towards improving our negative behavior or otherwise, leading human society towards love, hope, peace, freedom, mutual understanding and cooperation and, protection and sharing of global resources?  How is deliberately lying to our children either a reproductive or any other advantage for either ourselves or any any other form of life or, for our fragile planetary home?

In perhaps one of the strangest and most bizarre twists of historical fate, modern scientists have become de facto prophets of the 21st Century, echoing Jesus and the prophets of old with dire warnings of looming global climate disaster, resulting massive disease, plague and starvation, revolution and global war and, growing fraud, avarice, deception, world-wide unrest, disillusion, xenophobia, nationalism, hatred, fear and unparalleled human pain, suffering and death.  We must ask ourselves, who is going to save Planet Earth and our own offspring from our sins?  It must be hard to be a kid today, to believe by pure accident we ride the Milky Way.  And be taught there's no God who hears us when we pray.  Sure must be hard to be a kid today. . .




Click Here to Go Back to Contents

Click Here to eMail the Author

Copyright © August 20th, 2003 by Richard Aberdeen.
Copyright © January 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.