The IQ Gene

06/19/2019

As a companion to my last article entitled Blue-Eyed Gods, this post concerns the genetics of the human species. Researchers have said that man is not as smart as prior generations and that this has been a continuous trend (downwards). Why?

Well, to make the picture complete, scientists also say that man has gotten physically smaller with a smaller brain size and, as a result, not as smart. There’s really only two possibilities to explain this phenomenon.  Either, man’s genes have mutated or they have been watered down.  By watered down, I mean that in the past there could have been an infusion of genes that contributed to some people becoming taller and smarter (at least in the short term).  However, that infusion might have been a one-time event and limited in scope (raw numbers).  Over time, what you might call smarter man would have inter-married with the older and not so smart man.  Since smarter man was fewer in numbers, smarter man would have gradually begun to disappear.

This trend would, of course, continue until man returns (almost) to his physical state before the infusion of genes.  In other words, we would continue to get smaller and dumber over time.  Welcome to the world of the blue-eyed gods.

Advertisements

Blue-Eyed Gods

06/17/2019

 

A little over three years ago I posted an article entitled “Does God Have Blue Eyes?” It has been one of my top read posts of all-time. The premise of the article is that we didn’t all evolve from Adam and Eve and we all didn’t come “out of Africa,” so to speak. Genetics pretty much tells the story.

Researchers/geneticists have demonstrated that people with white skin, blue eyes and blond hair first made their first appearance on this planet only 10,000 years ago, a real johnny-come-lately in evolutionary terms.  All three traits appeared suddenly and simultaneously in one area (near the Black Sea).  All three traits are “recessive” genetic traits meaning that they could not come from people with darker skin, hair or eye color. They had to have had a unique gene pool separate and apart from the other races on the planet.  Thus the question, does God have blue eyes.

While they first arose in the area around the Black Sea (the Caucasus Mountains), Caucasians have migrated all over the world. Some went east to Iran (Persians) and India (Aryans) and some even further to China, as the discovery of the Tarim mummies can attest to.  Some went south into the Middle East and then west into Africa (Berbers and Tuaregs).

Some also became pharaohs in Egypt as their mummies attest to.  Egyptologists have said that King Tut is Caucasian and is related to most of the men in England (and therefore most Europeans) and geneticists have said that they all have a common ancestor from 10,000 years ago in the Black Sea area. Of course, what they conveniently forget to mention is that King Tut had an elongated skull.  Queen Nefertiti, for example, is always pictured with a headdress which obscures her elongated skull.

As for the rest of the blue-eyed peoples, they migrated throughout Europe (Scandinavians, Germans, Anglo-Saxons, Irish, Scots, etc.) and eventually on to America where half the people in the country had blue eyes as of the turn of the twentieth century. Some, of course, stayed in the area around the Black Sea (e.g. Russians) which today boasts a very large blond, blue-eyed population despite having recessive genes (because blue-eyed people are constantly inter-marrying).

Aside: Further, all these people spoke some version of an Indo-European language which is one related family of languages.

Of course, the Mayans, the Incans, the Aztecs and the Sumerians knew about blue-eyed gods hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago. The truth is a funny thing.  That is, it can be repressed for centuries, but eventually it has to surface. Welcome to the world of the blue-eyed gods.

 

Epilogue

Some of the the aboriginals of Australia have blue eyes and blond hair.  How did that happen without blue-eyed gods?

 

With respect to my last post, Evolution of Man (and Worms), some of you asked about what happened to the worm. Is it still in the apple? Well, the answer is a little complicated but I’ll try to convey the meaning as best as I can. The story about the worm is an allegory of sorts. The worm is actually man himself. The apple is “the universe” and what’s outside of the apple is the rest of “creation.”

The story is not unlike Plato’s famous allegory The Cave, which I highly recommend that you read.  If you don’t already know, The Cave represents the matrix that man is trapped in and his ignorance about his condition and that of all mankind.

The apple is like the cave, a place where man resides but doesn’t realize that there is more to reality. The worm that takes a bite out of the apple, which creates a hole to the outside world, represents a more enlightened version of man.  That is, without that higher level of awareness, it would not have even been able to create the hole.  Once the worm sees that there is a world beyond its own, it gains the ability to “see.” This is indicative of it becoming highly aware. As a result, it has an epiphany.  It realizes the truth about reality and that its own world is an illusion.  The real world is actually outside the apple.

As for the choice that the worm then made…well there really is no choice as a fully enlightened worm can only live in the outside world.  That is, it can only live the truth.  Of course, that’s just one worm and there are millions of others still contently munching away inside their own apple, impervious to the real world outside.

 

 “I’m trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You’re the one that has to walk through it.” – from the movie The Matrix

 

 

 

 

Nature has much to teach us about the world we live in starting with the universal laws that govern us all. Physicist James Gates Jr. says that these laws, which describe the fundamental nature of the universe, operate using computer codes. That may give us a real clue as to our origins.

However, I personally like to observe nature when trying to understand why things are the way that they are; things like bees, butterflies…and worms. Yes, worms; well, sort of. I liken man’s evolution to that of the worm who lives inside of an apple.

This particular worm lives a very cozy life. It is safe and warm inside the apple, with a seemingly endless supply of food. Life is very uncomplicated and the worm is pretty certain about its “universe.” Then, one day, the worm takes a bite out of the apple and in the process creates a hole to the world outside of the apple.

When the worm poked its head out through the hole, it received a wake-up call. Its universe had been completely transformed. There was a world outside of its world; a world totally different from the one that it lived in and thought it understood. The farther the worm crawled out of the apple, the farther it could see into this new world. It could literally see as far as the eye could see. With that, the worm suddenly realized the implications. It had a dilemma. Did it go back inside to the cozy, safe world of the apple or did it venture out into a brave new world?

Like this worm, man, and all life, does not evolve gradually but rather in sudden bursts; for example, the Cambrian Explosion. If you don’t know what that is, you should look it up. Like the worm, man can’t unlearn any new things once he discovers them.  The mind is like a rubber band. That is, once it has been stretched to a new dimension, it can never go back to its old shape.  So, even if the worm crawled back inside the apple, it would forever know that its universe extended outside of the apple.  It would not be possible to pretend that the apple was all that existed.

So, too, science is experiencing its own Cambrian Explosion. Our knowledge about the world we live in is increasing dramatically. As layman, these new scientific discoveries are well beyond our ability to comprehend them. However, like the worm, we have been exposed to the reality that our world could be vastly different than what we previously believed.

As a result, the old paradigms no longer work. That is, there is something outside of the apple (universe). We may not know what that something is but it is pretty obvious that, like the worm, our perception of the world has to be completely rethought.  We have been exposed to a new worldview based on Dr. Gates’ computer codes or the holographic universe of physicist David Bohm or the simulated reality of Nick Bostrom. The question I pose for you is this: What are you going to do with this information?  Like the worm, you have a choice. Either way, your mind has already been stretched to a new dimension.  Welcome to evolution.

 

“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe that was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life.”   – Arno Penzias, physicist and Nobel laureate

There is a question about the universe which no one seems to ask.  That is, if the universe is conscious, then which came first, the universe or the consciousness? The answer must be that the consciousness came first, but boy does that open up Pandora’s Box.

So, we have all these existing theories above the universe, from the Big Bang to black holes with talk about strange stuff like dark matter and dark energy.  Then, we have the dilemma of why these scientific theories can’t explain the universe or can’t even explain rather elementary things like, say, gravity or why some scientific theories disagree with other scientific theories. So many theories with literally no real answers.

Here’s the thing about consciousness, though.  Consciousness does not require Big Bangs or black holes or any of the other existing scientific theories for that matter. While consciousness does not explain what we are doing here, it does explain what the universe is doing here.  The universe is here because consciousness created it.

So, exactly where does that lead us?

For one thing, it would be impossible to develop a scientific theory that explains everything unless you have experienced everything (and understand it).  So, complete understanding of all that is …is an impossibility. Pure science is pretty much at a dead end anyway as John Horgan discusses in his book The End of Science.  Therefore, all the exotic theories discussed in science today are simply an attempt to stay relevant…which is pretty much impossible under the circumstances.

For another thing, it means that we are not a physical life form. There are, then, only a few possibilities of what we are. We could be part of a computer program which is simulating life or we could be the consciousness that is, in effect, creating all life (including, perhaps, a simulation) or we could be part of a unified field of consciousness which includes everything in  the universe.  If we are part of a computer simulation, there still has to be a higher level of consciousness (even, maybe ourselves in another form) that is creating the simulation.  In any event, consciousness has to be the source of reality.

Bottom line: Consciousness is the creator of all that is and therefore, all that is… is consciousness.

Of course, there is no way to exactly define what consciousness is.  Suffice it to say, though, that consciousness is the creative force in, and of, the universe.  For some, perhaps that’s enough; for others like me…..

 

“Life is the most mysterious of all the wonders of creation because atoms have been assembled in such a way so that they can ponder their own existence.” – Martin Rees, astrophysicist

P.S. “Ponder” you understand, meaning that the universe is self-aware and intelligent.

 

 

Saving The Planet

03/28/2019

 

I’m having pizza tonight at the local pizza place and exchanging pleasantries with the owner. A really nice guy.  Very engaging sort.

He’s bemoaning the fact that the world is going down the tubes, times are harder with little hope for the future. He says that he thinks that we need to have a war to save the country. Well, okay wars do sometimes solve certain problems, but for every winner there has to be at least one loser, if not more. So, on a global scale that doesn’t solve anything.  Just more endless wars.

Being the outspoken person that I am, I say that there are really only two events that can truly save the planet.  One possibility is extraterrestrials and the other would be the next step on Nature’s scale of human evolution.  Why these two? Well, extraterrestrials (e.g. a type II Kardashev civilization) if they exist and if they are friendly and if they want to help (I know, it’s a lot of ifs) by definition would have to be a more advanced civilization than the human species, so perhaps we could learn something from them.

Evolution is the wild card in all of this. We know from looking at the geology of the Earth that the planet has gone through many evolutionary cycles, some of which happened almost overnight in evolutionary terms.  Why not a move by humans out of our three-dimensional universe into something whose energy vibrates at a higher rate.  We know, for example, that the Schumann Resonance (the heartbeat of the planet) has recently been skyrocketing up out of sight.  What if the increase in the vibrational rate of the energy in the universe turns the human species into a higher life form? I said what if.

Pooh, pooh these possibilities all you want. Unless you come up with a better idea, I’m the boss.  At least, I agree with AOC on something.

 

 

You hear a lot these days about the End Times or about the precarious condition of the survival of the human species on planet Earth. Well, they are both right, but they are also both wrong.  Here’s why.

The chances of intelligent life forming in the universe is beyond comprehension.  Scientists actually have done a calculation of the chances that a single protein could form by chance.  It’s astronomical. Beyond that, the chances of highly intelligent life forming – well, forget it, it ain’t happening (randomly at least).  Further, the universe requires an incredible balance of conditions to allow for life to arise. As Stephen Hawking has said, “The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. … The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”

 It was cosmologist Max Tegmark who stated that everything in the universe, including humans, is part of a mathematical structure and physicist James Gates Jr. first pointed out that scientific theories which describe the fundamental nature of the universe contain embedded computer codes.  That’s right, as in 1s and 0s. So, Tegmark, Gates and Hawking agree that the universe has been fine-tuned. Gates goes one step further and says that it was programmed…and then there’s simulation theory which is one step beyond all of them.

One has to look no further than ice core and tree ring samples to realize that the earth goes through definitive cycles of weather and evolution.  Cycles, up and down, over and over again.  It confirms what the ancient texts of the Maya and the Hindus have said about what I would refer to as The Circle of Life. That is, civilizations have come and gone on this planet over the eons.

In what I would call modern history, we have lost the Denisovans, we have lost the Neanderthals and we have lost Cro-Magnon Man.  So, when we do we lose homo sapiens, then? Consider that almost all life from 15,000 years ago has been wiped out.  Evolutionary speaking, we are working with a clean slate.  However, an eruption of one super-volcano could ruin our whole day. The cycles of a planet are such that planetary changes will inevitably upset the precarious perch on which the human species exists.  Ultimately, of course, our sun will go super nova and that will be that.

All of this certainty amongst the chaos of nature and the repeated cycles of evolutionary change indicate the universe is programmed. Who did it and why, of course, is the great mystery that will probably be forever beyond our ability to grasp.  However, there are some things that we take away that may have application in our daily lives.  Here’s a few that come immediately to mind:

  • Both evolutionary theory and religious dogma are wrong about the origins of life.
  • This is not the End of Times, though our time as a species is limited as all cycles eventually end.
  • Current phenomenon that some people are obsessed with are serious but do not signal the end of the species. For example, global warming periods will always lead to global cooling periods and then global cooling will lead back to global warming, and so on. These are natural cycles that man has very little to do with.
  • The next serious world-wide weather condition will actually be a mini ice-age (by the 2030s). The River Thames in London will freeze over again as it has done numerous times before (anywhere from the 15th to the 19th century).  Eventually, there will be another full-blown ice age no matter what we do.

While minor disasters could, and probably will, strike our planet from time to time, extinction of the human species is still a ways off. Like it or not, believe it or not, it’s been programmed that way.

 

“If inflation is the dynamite behind the Big Bang, we’re still looking for the match”  – Dr. Michael Turner, cosmologist

            P.S. Never mind that, in any event, we’ll never find the matchmaker.

 

 

Science is a mystery, even apparently to the scientists.  Who are we? Where did we come from?  So many questions, with so few answers.

Some scientists now believe that reality is an illusion.  You see, we now know that the atom which is responsible for our “solid” universe of matter is essentially empty space. The problem facing scientists is that reality not only relates to our 3D world, but includes higher dimensions as well. In other words, the effect may be in our universe but the source, as physicist David Bohm said, is beyond space and time.

Unfortunately, scientists’ exploration of the universe now utilizes the use of mathematics instead of science.  The blackboard has become the tool of choice, rather than the laboratory. While science used to be a process of measurement and observation, it has devolved into assumptions and theory. One theory is stacked on top of another theory which is stacked on top of yet another theory until, as Nikola Tesla said, “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”  As a result, we have wound up investigating things like black holes, dark matter and dark energy that probably don’t even exist.

Way back in 1927 at the Fifth Solvay International Conference in Brussels, the brightest scientific minds gathered to discuss the latest findings in physics. Present were Albert Einstein, Neils Bohr, and Werner Heisenberg, among many others. At the conference, Heisenberg presented his Uncertainty Principle which flowed from the now-famous Double Slit Experiment. The Double-Slit Experiment showed scientists for the first time that everything in the universe, including ourselves, is nothing more than probability waves that coalesce into particles only after they are observed and that the results of the experiments were affected by the minds of the researchers.  Einstein did not agree with the new theory at first but eventually even he would admit that, “Anyone who becomes seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that there is a spirit manifest in the laws of the universe, a spirit vastly superior to that of man.” The so-called spirit that Einstein was referring to was consciousness.

Today, the conversation among some scientists is that consciousness creates matter (and our reality), rather than the other way around.  However, if consciousness creates matter, then it is the evolution of consciousness that matters (no pun intended) while the physical evolution of the species is largely irrelevant. So, the final frontier may not be space after all, but rather the vast untapped potential of human consciousness.  A consciousness that interactively affects our future possibilities in a universe that itself is intelligent and alive.  As physicist John Wheeler said, “The universe does not exist ‘out there,’ independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators.”

Observers and participators in an intelligent, conscious and ever-evolving universe.

 

Epilogue

It is said that the universe began with The Big Bang.  It is also said that the universe was created out of nothing.  The only way that could be true would be if the universe was a computer program consisting of 1s and 0s.  Yes, I’m talking about a simulation.  Yes, there would be a creator of the program.  That creator could be AI, it could be a highly intelligent race (even a future human race), it could be another simulation, or it could even be the collective consciousness of all living things.

 

“…we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.”  – Bill Hicks

How was man created? Apparently, in this country there are only two schools of thought – evolution or creation by the Christian god. However, there just might be a third way.

To start with, I disagree with Christians who say that God created the world in seven days and I disagree with atheists who say that there is no God and that we are, therefore, some random, unexplained cosmic accident. So, at the risk of alienating everybody, here’s why I disagree…with just about everybody.

Christianity is a fine religion. I should know since I was raised in a Christian family.  However, there is just one small problem with Christianity. It does not agree with the Bible. Yeah, that’s a problem, isn’t it?

The history of the Church’s teachings has all of the twists and turns of a Dan Brown novel. As Christian theologian Brian McLaren put it, “One of the problems is that the average Christian in the average church who listens to the average Christian broadcasting has such an oversimplified understanding of both the Bible and of church history – it would be deeply disturbing for them to really learn church history.”  So at the risk of oversimplifying, here’s just a few of the problems with Christianity:

  • The concept of Original Sin is disputed by the Bible itself (see John 9:2-3 and Genesis 8:21).
  • The teachings of Jesus are, for the most part, missing from the Bible.
  • The idea of a messiah was hijacked from Judaism. In the Jewish Bible (the Old Testament), Jewish holy men proclaimed the coming of a messiah but their messiah was totally different from the one that Christianity later promulgated. For example, the messiah of the Old Testament was to be a man, not a divine being, and he would come not to save the entire world but rather to reestablish the Kingdom of Israel.
  • The concept of the Trinity isn’t in the Bible at all.

The Bible, itself, isn’t even an original work in at least one important aspect. The stories about the Garden of Eden and The Flood in the Book of Genesis, which are central to Christian theology, were based on older Sumerian writings, namely the Enuma Elish and The Epic of Gilgamesh. The Enuma Elish, which is sometimes referred to as The Seven Tablets of Creation, was written on seven tablets with the seventh tablet devoted to honoring God. Thus, the origins of the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week, from the Hebrew word shabbath (that means day of rest). The use of Sumerian literature by the Hebrew scribes in penning Genesis is quite logical since the Israelites were descendants of the Sumerians through Abraham (as stated in the Bible).

What about atheism, then, and their argument that creation was accomplished through evolution? The interesting thing about the atheists’ argument is that they state that if the Christian god does not exist, then God doesn’t exist. However, they don’t make the same claim about Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or any of the other thousands of different religions. Only Christianity? Why?

The answer as Michael Ruse, an evolutionist himself, admitted, “Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality….” So, the goal of atheism is actually to replace Christianity as the preeminent religion in this country. Why? The answer is that atheism is in reality a political ideology dressed up as an argument about how we were all created.

In that ideology, God must not be allowed to be a part of people’s belief systems. The reason as geneticist Richard Lewontin, an atheist himself, explained, “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” So, there it is – atheists cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door, especially in the field of science with respect to their theory of evolution.

Therefore in this debate, Christianity must be put asunder so that another ideology can take its place, an ideology where men have no inalienable rights that come from God, only rights that are specified by the State. And who exactly would the State be in that event? Well, they would mostly be those of white privilege, some of whom who are calling for the extinction of their own white race. Call them the elite, the 1% or whatever…of course, I’m pretty sure that, although they are calling for the extinction of the white race, they are not really calling for their own personal demise. You can’t rule from the grave, now can you?

 

Epilogue

So, if Christianity has these shortcomings, where does that leave us with respect to the existence of God. Well, in this country, many atheists would argue that if Christianity is wrong about the Bible, then God doesn’t exist. That’s such a stretch of logic, or in this case lack thereof, that it doesn’t deserve a response. However, I’ll give one anyway. That is, just because Christianity is wrong about their god, it doesn’t mean that a Creator isn’t responsible for the universe. I’m simply saying that there might be a third way. Now who can argue with that? Well… apparently everyone.

 

 

“When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance.“

– George Wald, scientist and Nobel laureate

 

P.S. Wald said there are only two ways, but he didn’t say anything about a Christian god – only supernatural (divine) creation or evolution. He must be in agreement, then, that you can have divine creation without having a Christian god. It’s what I refer to as a “third way” – an explanation for creation that has nothing to do with evolution or original sin.

 

 

 

This is kind of a tired, old discussion, however, people keep posting about it so I guess I have to put in my own two cents (once again).  That is, which is better…science or faith.

Although, both have their place, I would say neither.  While I don’t accept the biblical explanation of creation, I don’t accept the atheists’ version of it either.  That was the essence of my prior post Dueling Delusions.

So, here’s some people, obviously atheists, who commented on a recent post on this subject:

Quote #1:

“Neither our observable universe, nor possibly a larger cosmos, require some intelligence or higher power for their ‘creation.’ Such rationalizations simply reflect ignorance or are designed to support some preconceived notion in lieu of factual evidence.”

My comment:

That’s true, but incomplete. In fact, it’s totally one-sided. As physicist David Bohm succinctly put it, “A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.”  Bohm was talking about everyone but in this case I would especially apply his quote to the person who made the above comment where they said that “…such rationalizations simply…are designed to support some preconceived notion.” For example, this person believes that the unobservable cosmos does not require a higher power for its creation. Obviously, that’s a preconceived idea since there is no scientific evidence to support it.

Geneticist Richard Lewontin, an atheist himself, explained just how the preconceived thought process works with respect to science vs. faith: “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

 

Quote #2:

“Evolution is fact as the evidence tells us.”

Perhaps, this person should read up on evolutionist Steven Jay Gould who said:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history; yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.”

Or maybe scientist and Nobel laureate George Wald who said:

When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance.

Or maybe agnostic scientist Michael Denton who said:

“Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.”

Or maybe Dr Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, who said:

“For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.”

Or maybe evolutionist Michael Ruse, who said:

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality… Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”

 

Quote#3:

… “I see no reason for a deity or god. Everything has a scientific explanation or a set of working hypothesis good enough for me.”

My comment:

As to this person’s opinion that…”everything has a scientific explanation”, I would simply say that science doesn’t hold the key to creation.  Some scientists even freely admit it. For example:

Life is the most mysterious of all the wonders of creation because atoms have been assembled in such a way so that they can ponder their own existence.” – Astrophysicist Martin Rees

“If inflation is the dynamite behind the Big Bang, we’re still looking for the match”  – Dr. Michael Turner, cosmologist at the University of Chicago

“The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe.”  – Albert Einstein

“What a life in science really teaches you is the vastness of our ignorance.” – David Eagleman

“Science has proof without certainty” – Ashley Montagu

“We have failed to protect science against speculative extensions of nature, continuing to assign physical and mathematical properties to hypothetical entities beyond what is observable in nature.”  – Robert Lanza

“A singularity is when we don’t know what to do. What’s so embarrassing about singularities is that we can’t predict what’s going to come out of it.”  – Prof. Andrew Strominger, Harvard University

 

So, the science that the above people are no doubt referring to as the same one that Paul Feyerabend commented on when he said, “Thus science is much closer to myth than scientific philosophy is prepared to admit… it is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, or who have accepted it without having ever examined its advantages and its limits.”  The ideology in question is materialism as Richard Lewontin stated (see above).  It’s no accident that atheism, evolution and materialism go hand-in-hand.  That’s because, they are all part of the same ideology.

So, yes, it’s a tired debate between two camps (atheists and deists) who both have a preconceived notion that they are right. As Stuart Chase said, “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.”  Perhaps, however, the debate continues on (and on) because both sides are, in reality, trying to convince themselves that they are right.

 

“A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses. It is an idea that possesses the mind.”  – Robert Oxton Bolt