This is kind of an old topic, but it is one that seems to never die. That is, does God exist? The debate between deists and atheists typically is centered around the Christian god with atheists rejecting God simply because they reject Christianity. To be fair, though, there are some 4,200 religions in the world and the Christian god, therefore, is just one of 4,200 gods .
So, I pose these questions: In order to be intellectually honest, do atheists need to reject all 4,200 gods before declaring themselves to be atheists? And exactly what makes Christians feel that their god, amongst all of the 4,200 gods, is the one and only?
While my interest in this debate wanes by the day, I feel that it’s still worth a mention. To begin with, religious beliefs are claims rather than the truth. Holy books, however, may be considered to be the truth by a believer, even if it’s based solely on their faith. On the other hand atheism, is a religion too. Michael Ruse, an evolutionist himself, admitted that, “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.”
Scientists of all stripes have weighed in on this debate. Here’s a few thoughts from some of the great minds of science:
“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”
– Albert Einstein
Note: According to Wikipedia, Spinoza believed that “…everything is a derivative of God, interconnected with all of existence.” Further, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that Spinoza’s God is an “infinite intellect.”
“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.”
– John Wheeler, physicist
“The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.”
– Carl Sagan, astronomer
Note: Of course, Sagan was admitting that there is super- intelligence in the cosmos, an intelligence which can think, extrapolate… and “know itself”.
“Our brains mathematically construct objective reality by interpreting frequencies that are ultimately projections from another dimension, a deeper order of existence that is beyond both space and time….”
– Michael Talbot, The Holographic Universe
“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
“The secret of DNA’s success is that it carries information like that of a computer program, but far more advanced. Since experience shows that intelligence is the only presently acting cause of information, we can infer that intelligence is the best explanation for the information in DNA.”
– Jonathan Wells, molecular biologist
“To me, it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”
– Michio Kaku, physicist
“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. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.”
– Arno Penzias, physicist
“It is easy to understand why many scientists like Sir Fred Hoyle changed their minds in the past thirty years. They now agree that the universe, as we know it, cannot reasonably be explained as a cosmic accident.”
– Frederic B. Burnham, historian of science
“Beyond all finite experiences and secondary causes, all laws, ideas and principles, there is an Intelligence or Mind, the first principle of all principles, the Supreme Idea on which all other ideas are grounded.”
“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
“Super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.”
– Antony Flew
These gentlemen hardly referred to God at all in explaining the origins of life. Therefore, I would suggest that the vast majority of concepts/perspectives about God (both pro and con) are incomplete, at best. Since the word God is generally associated with religion, I believe that it would be preferable to use the term “creator” instead.
Of course if there is a creator, he doesn’t have to be the god of any religion, now does he? So, if any of you are hung up over the illogic of religion, especially Christianity, it doesn’t necessarily mean that there is no God. It may simply mean that you have been looking for him in all the wrong places and calling him by the wrong name.
– Joseph Campbell
People have asked me if I think that man has really been getting dumber as I mentioned in my recent post Real Life, Real Evolution. Well, the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids, didn’t they? For that matter, we have pyramids dotting the landscape around the world. Somebody built them, right?
It’s really just a matter of DNA. Genetically speaking, man is the by-product of sophisticated instructions contained in our DNA. DNA has software that even Bill Gates admits is far more advanced than any supercomputer. So, tell me, who put those instructions there? If you say that the DNA just evolved then I have to ask you another question. How does DNA just magically evolve and choose, through natural selection presumably, the necessary changes for the survival of the species? Either process requires intelligence.
So, where did the intelligence come from, then? How could man have had a dramatic increase in his intelligence followed by a subsequent, steady decline? Actually, all that it would take is a one-time injection of DNA from another source, a source other than Homo sapiens. You may recall that I have previously mentioned the genetic study by the Harvard Medical School, in collaboration with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Man is said to have mated with an unknown species. Such a mating could easily have produced a spike in man’s intelligence if that unknown species were more intelligent than Homo sapiens.
Thus, my prior reference to ancient, advanced civilizations, civilizations who seemed to have since vanished off the face of the Earth. Many ancient cultures have stories of intelligent beings who appeared bringing with them the seeds of civilization. For example, the Incas were visited by Viracocha, the Mayas by Kukulkan, the Aztecs by Quetzalcoatl and the Dogon by the Nommos. Most of the “gods” said that they would return, but of course they never did.
The getting dumber part is actually easier to explain, if you assume the scenario I just presented is correct. That is, there would have been far, far more pure Homo sapiens running around than the smarter version. Over time, man’s intelligence would have been diluted, genetically speaking…and it will continue to be diluted in the future until we return to our original intelligence level!
So, there you have it. You probably won’t agree with my explanation but I think that you will find it hard to completely ignore. As Arthur Schopenhauer said, the truth usually works that way.
Science says that man evolves by natural selection, although it’s never been shown exactly how that works. Along comes molecular evolutionary biologist Masatoshi Nei who says that mutation, not natural selection, drives evolution. Whether its natural selection or mutation, or a combination of both (or neither), it has never been enough to sustain a species since 99% of all species that ever lived, including every one of man’s hominid ancestors, have become extinct. As the fossil record demonstrates, extinction is a perfectly natural response to changing environmental conditions. So, is man next?
We have been taught to believe that man is constantly, yet ever so slowly, evolving in an upward direction over thousands, if not millions of years. At least, that’s what we have been taught to believe. At the end of the last ice age, man was barely eking out an existence, all the while living in caves. Suddenly, in the 4th millennia B.C., man overnight (in evolutionary terms) started doing miraculous things, like building fantastic pyramids. This process occurred supposedly over a period of two thousand years, give or take. Again, that’s what we’ve been taught.
There is a certain amount known about the two great civilizations that developed after the last ice age – ancient Egypt and Sumer (Mesopotamia). Strangely enough, though, both of those civilizations arose abruptly and disappeared almost as abruptly. So, the question is this: Where did the knowledge and advanced technology come from to build these civilizations and why did their knowledge simply vanish? Great pyramids were built in China, Egypt, Eastern Europe, South and Central America, among other places. The thing is: Has anyone built a great pyramid lately? Why not? From the end of the Indus Valley civilization in 1300 B.C. to the nineteenth century, a period of over 3,000 years, man actually accomplished precious little. Having built the pyramids, among other great archaeological works, man was still driving around in a horse and buggy (chariots having been first invented around 2500 B.C.). That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Here’s how it’s possible, though. You see, underwater ruins from around the world are an indication that an advanced civilization existed on this planet prior to the end of the last ice age. The rise in the world’s oceans that accompanied the end of that ice age, sent monolithic structures, and even whole cities, to the bottom of the sea where they remain today. The world is just now rediscovering such sites – from India to the Black Sea to the North Sea to the Caribbean to the South Pacific, among others. This radically changes the evolutionary timeline for modern man, pushing it back by thousands of years, assuming, that is, that modern man even built these sites. Perhaps, there were even two different civilizations living side-by-side with one another. After all, a recent genetic study shows that in ancient times modern man had sex with an unknown species.
Unbeknownst to many, de-evolution has already been observed in nature. For example, recent genetic research has shown that the worm has evolved to be less sophisticated than its ancestors. The implications of this discovery are quite profound in that it shows that a species can de-evolve to a more primitive form. That really shouldn’t come as a big surprise because man used to have a much bigger brain as revealed by scientists’ discovery of the remains of a 28,000 year-old Cro-Magnon man. Further, the results from recent scientific studies show a decline in man’s intelligence. Exactly in what direction, then, is the species really headed? It might just be possible that man has actually been de-evolving.
Some geneticists claim that man’s DNA is currently in the process of evolving from a 2-strand double helix to a 12-strand helix. So, possibly we could see yet another dramatic spike in evolution, not unlike the Cambrian Explosion which was biology’s equivalent of the Big Bang whereby a vast number of life forms came into existence in a blink of an eye, so to speak. Either way, de-evolution or evolutionary spikes, evolutionary theory will need a major rewrite.
“Trying to read our DNA is like trying to understand software code – with only 90% of the code riddled with errors. It’s very difficult in that case to understand and predict what that software code is going to do.”
– Elon Musk
The origins of the Jewish people are a real mystery. That is, there is little to no evidence of exactly who they were, not even in the Old Testament (which is essentially a history of the Jewish race).
The Jewish people believe that their roots go back to the Old Testament (the Jewish Bible). For example, in the Old Testament, the Jewish people are called Israelites and prior to that Hebrews. However, these designations only appear in the Bible and they have never been placed in the context of ancient history. So, let’s explore who the Jewish people really were.
Biblically speaking, the origins of man, and by definition the Jewish people, goes back to the Garden of Eden. Now, the Garden of Eden is generally considered by biblical scholars to have been in the Middle East. Where, exactly, has been somewhat difficult to pin down, however. The Bible does say, though, that Abraham and his family came from the city of Ur and since Ur was located in the ancient Mesopotamian kingdom of Sumer, Abraham was by definition a Sumerian. Since Abraham was a Sumerian, so too were the Jewish people since they were Abraham’s descendants.
Family trees aside, there is virtually no real history in the Bible prior to Abraham. For a period covering over one thousand years, all that we have is two stories, the Creation Story and the Flood Story. The elephant in the room is this. Why is there no real family history of the Jewish people prior to Abraham? Why?
Since Abraham and his family were Sumerians, let’s start by examining Sumerian history. Now, the Sumerians were perhaps the greatest civilization that ever existed on the planet up until the 20th century, far beyond that of the vaunted Greek civilization that came over 1,000 years later. What’s important to realize is that the origins of Western Civilization go back much farther than Greece. Their origins actually go all the way back to Sumer, as the Sumerians almost single-handedly invented civilization.
Samuel Kramer, in his book History Begins at Sumer, lists 39 “firsts in history” which began in Sumer, including the first written language. The Sumerians wrote the first Great Flood and Creation stories, long before Genesis was penned by Jewish scribes. Not surprisingly, many historians and scholars have concluded that the Bible’s own creation and flood stories are actually of Sumerian origin, drawn from more ancient Sumerian texts. When you think about it, why shouldn’t the Jewish scribes have patterned their creation and flood stories after Sumerian writings. The Jewish people were Sumerians, after all. The Sumerian writings were their legacy.
The Jewish people wandered around the Middle East for the better part of two thousand years – from Sumer to Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) to Egypt to Judea and Samaria (modern-day Israel) and then on to captivity in Babylon in the 6th century B.C. When they wound up in Babylon, their journey had come full circle back to ancient Sumer, as Babylon would have been part of Sumer if it had existed back then. When the Jewish people were in captivity in Babylon, the Persians ruled over most of the Middle East, the Achaemenid Empire it was called with Babylon as its capitol. The Jewish people thus became a very tiny minority within that empire.
Up until that time, no civilization on Earth had a monotheistic religion except one, the Persians. The Persians’ religion is called Zoroastrianism. Their God is named Ahura Mazda and he was considered to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. Creation was accomplished in six days and began with a single couple. Just like Moses, the Persian prophet Zoroaster received God’s commandments on the top of a holy mountain. Perhaps, you can already see where I am going with this.
Now, here’s where it gets interesting. Up until this point, the Israelites were basically polytheistic. However, their beliefs were about to get a face-lift as Israelite culture would collide head-on with the religion (Zoroastrianism) of the ruling Persians. Furthermore, in Babylon, they came face-to-face with their forgotten past as the ancient Sumerian texts had been preserved and were available for the Jewish scribes to read.
The mixture of these elements was tantamount to cultural dynamite and the result was the Old Testament and a new radical worldview – monotheism. Over time, monotheism would spread around the world through Christianity and then Islam. As for the Sumerians, they have been all but forgotten… although, today, some of them constitute what is commonly referred to as the Jewish people.
A genetic study of Ashkenazi Jews traced the roots of many Jewish people to just four women whose genetic origins come from an unknown source. It appears that their unknown genetic origins may have been confirmed by a DNA study done by the Harvard Medical School, in collaboration with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. That study found that ancient man had sex with an unknown species. Yes, the Ashkenazi Jews and ancient man both received DNA from an unknown species – unknown to everyone, except for the Sumerians who wrote about it in their ancient texts. They referred to this DNA as the DNA of the gods. This, then, was the legacy of the Sumerians – a bloodline that reached back to the gods, a bloodline which, by virtue of its genetics, gave them and their descendants a divine right to rule.
“With stunning abruptness… there appears in this little Sumerian mud garden… the whole cultural syndrome that has since constituted the germinal unit of all the high civilizations of the world.”
– Joseph Campbell, The Masks of God
Legends from around the world tell of blue-eyed gods. For example, the god of the Incas was called Viracocha, the Mayas had their Kukulkan and for the Aztecs it was Quetzalcoatl. These gods were all described as having blue eyes. Likewise, the ancient Sumerians and Egyptians thought that blue eyes were a sign of the gods (and royalty), as many of their statues show. Even statues of Buddha show him with blue eyes, as traditionally Buddha was regarded as having the Thirty-two Characteristics of a Great Man (one of which characteristics was blue eyes). It makes one wonder if God could have possibly had blue eyes.
Science says that in the beginning man had dark eyes. Life began in Africa, right? However, a funny thing happened on man’s sojourn out of Africa. A recent genetic study at the University of Copenhagen says that 6,000 to 10,000 years ago a person was suddenly born with blue eyes, for the very first time. Before that, we supposedly all had brown eyes.
Today, the catch phrase in science is that blue eyes were caused by a mutation, which of course means that scientists don’t really know how it first occurred. Supposedly, one person was born with a mutation in the gene that controls eye color which resulted in blue eyes. This was followed by identical second and third mutations, and so on until finally the mutated gene became so prevalent that blue eyes occurred naturally in child births. I said, supposedly.
Certainly, there were changes in the DNA but the real question is where did these changes actually come from? That is, either DNA has the innate ability to change on its own or it can be altered by outside forces, or perhaps even both. However, science seems unsure which it is. All they say is that blue eyes were caused by a mutation. The scientists at the University of Copenhagen who did the genetic research say that this particular mutation was “neutral” in terms of whether it improved the chances of the species survival. Neutral is, I believe, a first for science. That’s because either scientists believe in natural selection (a positive change) or conversely believe that mutations have always been shown to be the result of defects in genes (a negative change). In any case, if a mutation was not due to a defect, it would certainly imply some sort of intelligent design of DNA which allows the DNA to adapt on its own to its environment.
According to the University of Copenhagen study, blue-eyed people migrated from the Black Sea area to various parts of the world – east to China, south and east to India, west to North Africa and Europe (and eventually North America) and south to Egypt and the rest of the Middle East. Linguistics has also traced these very same people through the progression of languages of what’s referred to as the Indo-European family of languages. In essence, it’s one family and one bloodline and it now stretches virtually around the world. By some estimates, there are 300 million people today with blue eyes. Despite historical migration, the highest percentage of people with blue eyes in any one country still live fairly close to the epicenter (the Black Sea). For example, in Estonia, a vast majority of people still have blue eyes.
However, what very few people are talking about is that fair skin and blond hair also mutated in the same timeframe as the mutation associated with blue eyes. A case-in-point is the recent scientific study by an international team of researchers headed by Harvard University which says that Caucasians first arose some 8,000 years ago. In addition, the scientific consensus is that Caucasians also came from the Black Sea area. So, both blue eyes and fair skin arose in the very same timeframe and in the same geographic area, the Black Sea.
What this really amounts to is a “poof” moment. Some people just suddenly (poof) got blue eyes instead of brown, blond hair instead of dark hair and fair skin instead of dark skin. One could even go so far as to say that the very first blue-eyed person also had fair skin and blond hair. Those three physical traits are genetically linked in ways that science does not yet fully understand. After all, almost all people who are blond with blue eyes have fair skin.
After leaving Africa, other unexplainable changes took place in man, especially in Europe. About 40,000 years ago, Neanderthals were replaced in Europe by Cro-Magnon man. Some mutation; we literally got a whole new species, with Cro-Magnon being considerably larger than Neanderthal. Since Cro-Magnon man was also larger than Sub-Saharan Africans, their geographic origins are in doubt. However, the bigger question is how did they evolve, since they were a mutation that was so great and so sudden that they don’t fit in the context of evolutionary theory. Then, Cro-Magnon man disappeared some 12,000 years ago and was replaced by modern man who is smaller than Cro-Magnon (including having a smaller brain size). Somewhere along the way, modern man wound up with three different skull types, only one of which is obviously of African origin. Confusing, right? Try fitting evolutionary theory into that scenario.
Then there is the curious case of Rh negative blood. It’s a real can of worms. Science is stumped as to how man originally came out of Africa with Rh positive blood and then developed Rh negative blood, especially since Rh positive blood is incompatible with Rh negative blood. The mystery only deepens when you realize that almost no Africans or Asians have Rh negative blood. It’s basically a European (Caucasian) thing.
In the final analysis, we have fallen back on the concept of mutation because we don’t have a plausible explanation for how man evolved. Like I said earlier, either DNA can evolve on its own (with all the implications of intelligent design that this would entail) or there were outside influences which would explain the sudden and significant evolutionary changes in man.
The elephant in the room is that blue eyes, blond hair and fair skin may be linked to one ancient gene pool that carried all three of those genetic traits. That is, we all didn’t evolve from just one gene pool. Religiously speaking, we didn’t exclusively evolve genetically from Adam and Eve. For example, in the Bible there were the Sons of God who mated with the daughters of ancient man. You may not buy into that story, however, a new DNA study from the Harvard Medical School in collaboration with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, found that ancient man had sex with a still unknown species.
No doubt, this relates to the results of a genetic study of Ashkenazi Jews which traced the Ashkenazi origins back to just four women carrying distinctive mtDNAs that showed that they were not related to each other and that their genetic origins are unknown. The same could be said for man in general. His true origins are simply unknown. God may have had blue eyes, after all.
Interestingly enough, this might lead to what some would consider to be a politically incorrect worldview. That is, the difference in races is caused by man’s evolution from more than one gene pool. In other words, not all of our genes came “out of Africa.” Now, you may be wondering why you haven’t heard about this before. Like I said, it’s politically incorrect – a dirty little secret that has been intentionally suppressed from the history books…but, of course, now you know.
“The falsification of history has done more to mislead humans than any single thing known to mankind.”
– Jean-Jacques Rousseau
The New Scientist cover story (from 2009) on why Darwin was wrong about the Tree of Life produced a firestorm of controversy, with arguments on both sides. I’m not a scientist so I have only one criteria to evaluate such scientific theories: Does it pass the smell test? So, let’s try and break it down.
According to a BBC website, Charles Darwin showed how all life is connected with his publication of Origin of the Species. That connection is generally referred to as the Tree of Life. The Tree of Life (from that same website) shows that early animal life started with insects and worms and evolved to sea life, with the earliest forms being jellyfish and starfish. Then the fishes crawled out of the sea and became amphibians (i.e. frogs and toads). The amphibians gave birth to mammals, everything from the hippo to the giraffe to lions…and eventually humans who for the most part came near the end of the evolutionary chain.
So, humans, as well as nearly every other animal life form, evolved indirectly from worms and insects. Well, for me, that doesn’t pass the smell test right there. Besides, how did this all happen? That is, how did the worms and insects become fish and how did the amphibians give rise to mammals?
There is nothing on the Tree of Life to explain the transition from one species to another seemingly unrelated species (e.g. going from a frog to a giraffe and/or a lion). The Tree of Life just assumes that it happened. It’s what I call a “poof” moment (see my last post). That is, the frog just goes poof, and becomes a lion. I don’t know about you, but I can’t stand those poof moments. Creationists will no doubt say that it was God and evolutionists will no doubt say that it was just some random cosmic accident (mutation).
As you may know, I’m quite happy being a consensus of one. Interestingly enough, though, I seem to have a lot of company with my take on this one. The real surprise is that one of the criticisms of the Tree of Life comes from someone who was an evolutionist himself. I’m talking about Stephen Jay Gould, the world-renown paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science. Gould said that, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”
Therein, lies the problem – fossils, or transitional fossils to be more precise. If evolutionary theory is correct, there had to have been a whole series of species which existed that got us all the way from the frog to the lion, especially since evolution is supposed to have happened gradually over a long period of time. However, after 150 years of intensive searching, there’s hardly any transitional fossils that have been found, as Gould has admitted.
In the end, all I can do is scratch my head at the Tree of Life drawing. It sort of reminds me of the food pyramid chart and how “milk does a body good.” I’d be a monkey’s uncle if I knew why milk should have gotten such great press. However, according to the Tree of Life, I have it backwards, as the monkey should (poof) be my uncle instead. Just poof.
Darwin’s drawing of the Tree of Life (from Origin of the Species) says very clearly at the top “I think”. So, Darwin merely hypothesized that his Tree of Life was possible… but only if his theory of evolution was correct.
“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.”
– Dr Eric Bapteste, evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University
One of the recurring themes in society today is the ongoing debate between creationists (with Christianity as their advocate) and evolutionists (with atheists as their advocate). The problem is that ideology, on both sides, is driving the discussion. As physicist David Bohm succinctly put it, “A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.” As a result, the diatribe rages on with no realistic chance of ever ending. I, myself, fall somewhere in the middle since I believe that they are both wrong.
Interestingly enough, both sides do agree on one thing. They both believe that the universe was created out of nothing, and from nowhere! Christianity believes that God created the heavens and earth (in six days no less) because a holy book said so and the atheists believe that we all evolved from a bunch of dead chemicals. So this, then, is the ultimate question of creation. That is, exactly how do you create something out of nothing? For me, it just doesn’t pass the smell test. That is, the only thing that can be made out of nothing…is nothing. The fact that both sides use the very same absurd argument is an indication that there is no proof. Therefore, we’re dealing with blind ideology. In fact, we not only have one religion, we have two – belief in God and the belief in materialism.
The God Delusion
Religious texts are not truths. They are simply claims, the word of man about God if you will. After all, how could man possibly understand the Infinite with his finite mind? As the Pascal Wager states, “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible.”
Religious texts only become “the truth” when a believer takes a leap of faith and adopts such a belief system. Then, and only then, texts are referred to (by the believer) as the Word of God. That’s not to say that God doesn’t exist, only that man’s idea of God is faith-based.
With respect to the Bible’s creation story, there is no evidence that the Garden of Eden was a real place, complete with talking snakes. The story was written by Jewish holy men who considered Genesis to be allegorical; even Origen, a prominent early Christian theologian, believed that to be the case. So, why then does Christianity insist on their Creation story being the Word of God? I hate being redundant and, since I’ve covered this topic in great detail in prior posts, I won’t burden you with having to read it again here as the explanation is quite lengthy.
So, let’s just say that Christianity has deluded itself with respect to its God. They worship an angry, vengeful and violent God (of the Old Testament). And why? Well, because they are joined at the hip with the Old Testament since they adopted it and its creation story. Is there really even one Christian out there who really wants to worship an angry, vengeful and violent God? Probably not, especially since almost all Christians consider God to be all-loving and good.
Bottom line: If there is a God and he created the universe (out of something), then Christianity doesn’t understand their own Creator. As Voltaire said, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.” And so they did – invent him, that is.
The Hawking Delusion
Stephen Hawking says that, “One can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, but science makes God unnecessary.” The reverse, of course, is also true. That is if there is a God, then he would make science unnecessary. Since science can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, then science may (unbeknownst to everyone) already be somewhat irrelevant. After all, science wants us to believe that somehow the cosmos, with no intelligence behind it whatsoever, was able to (poof) materialize out of mindless nothingness. Just poof.
Atheists do not believe in God so they need an explanation as to how, and why, man came into existence without the help of a Creator. Thus, a belief in materialism. Geneticist Richard Lewontin, an atheist himself, explained just how that thought process works: “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.” As a result, ideology, not science, rules the day.
As Lewontin said, materialism is absolute. So, the atheist having accepted materialism, will embrace evolution. The attraction of evolution, according to neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky, an atheist himself, is that since evolution doesn’t require a blue print, it doesn’t require a blue print maker either. The end result is a worldview that life began, as physicist and Nobel laureate Arno Penzias noted, as the result of an absurdly improbable cosmic accident.
Bottom line: Science has deluded itself that it understands the cosmos, in direct opposition to what Einstein said that the human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. However, who needs proof when you have Stephen Hawking?
“The difference between science and philosophy is that the scientist learns more and more about less and less until she knows everything about nothing, whereas a philosopher learns less and less about more and more until he knows nothing about everything.”
– Dorion Sagan
According to the Bible, “The sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves… when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them….”(Genesis 6: 2-4). In addition, ancient works such as the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees and Ugaritic texts also recorded somewhat similar stories. However, no one has ever explained who exactly these Sons of God (bene haʼelohim) were. Although unknown to Anthropology, the Sons of God had to have had a genetic impact on human evolution.
Some researchers have done a wonderful job showing that the construction of the Great Pyramid utilized technology superior to what exists today, and incredible underwater discoveries speak to a lost civilization in the very distant past. However, no one has ever addressed the issue of how it was possible for mankind to have evolved on this planet so as to produce such a civilization (for further discussion you can go to my article “The Lost Civilization” which was posted 10/26/12). The implications of this missing civilization are rather staggering because it implies that man has in some respects de-evolved since that time. After all, how do you lose the knowledge that came with such technology? Further, where did the super-advanced people go and why did civilization regress?
Genetic testing is certainly in the forefront these days. A current study relates to the ancestry of people with blue eyes. Researchers now claim to have traced the blue-eyed gene back to one person in the Caucasus Mountains area near the Black Sea some 10,000 years ago. However, where did that one person get their blue eyes from? No one really seems to know.
It’s been suggested that perhaps the blue-eyed gene is a genetic defect, a mutation in effect, but there’s no explanation for how that could have happened. It’s problematic as to just how the blue-eyed gene could have spread throughout a significant portion of the world’s population. This enigma is complicated by the fact that the blue-eyed gene is recessive, which requires that both parents have a blue-eyed gene. This means that blue eyes could only have originated in a group of people that had only blue eyes.
According to current evolutionary theory, that is not even considered to be a possibility. All blue-eyed people supposedly evolved from dark-eyed people and all light-haired people (the light hair gene also being recessive) supposedly evolved from dark-haired people. We all came “out of Africa”, right? As for skull types, forget it. Despite the fact that it would have taken millions of years for a separate skull type to evolve, the human species nonetheless has three very distinct skull types. The only possible explanation for this is that either there were multiple Adam and Eves and/or that there was off-planet interference with man’s natural evolution, such as the Sons of God or genetic manipulation. Either of these scenarios could explain the recent results of genetic research into the origins of Ashkenazi Jews. That research demonstrated that 40% of the Ashkenazi population are descended from just four women; further, that those four women are not genetically related to one another nor to any current Middle Eastern ethnic group. So their civilization apparently materialized out of thin air.
DNA testing has also been done on the mummy of King Tut (who ruled Egypt circa 1300 BC ). The conclusion of the testing was that half of the men in Europe (and 70% of men in England) are direct descendants of King Tut! This demonstrates that the ancient migration of Indo-Europeans is far more complicated than ever imagined. The DNA testing also disclosed that both King Tut and Europeans have a common ancestor, the very same blue-eyed ancestor (see above) who once lived in the Caucasus almost ten thousand years ago!
Although Indo-Europeans today include a wide range of skin color, hair color and eye color, this group was originally known for a Nordic skull, blue (or green eyes) and blond (or red) hair. In America, for example, over half of the population at the turn of the 20th century still had blond hair. Excluding the Americas, Indo-Europeans geographically have ranged from the Guanches of the Canary Islands (off the west coast of Africa) to the Uyghurs of Western China, as well as the Tarim mummies of China. In between, there are the Tuareg/Berbers (of North Africa), the Aryans (of the Indus Valley civilization/modern day Pakistan) and the Persians (of Iran). Of course, Europeans, Russians, Turks and Semites generally have Indo-European ancestry as well. It should be noted that despite all of the cross-breeding over thousands of years, one can go to Iran today and see any number of blond hair and/or blue-eyed children.
Of all the recessive gene traits, including white skin color, blond hair and blue eyes, Rh negative blood may be the most interesting because it does not share an evolutionary background with the ape family. Rh blood acts as a universal donor since people with Rh negative blood can give their blood to a Rh positive person, but not the other way around. Rh negative blood is therefore pure, the blood of the gods.
With respect to biblical civilizations, the Kolbrin Bible says that the red-headed Scots have their ancient roots in Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) while some of the Egyptian pharaohs were also Indo-European as can be witnessed by the Nordic skull and light-colored hair of their mummies, and by their DNA as is the case with King Tut. Further, the Bible mentions that Esau and King David had red hair.
The Panspermia Hypothesis originated with the Greek Civilization. It holds that the seeds of life have an extraterrestrial origin. In that vein, world-famous biologist Louis Pasteur is well-known for demonstrating that life has to come from life, and not from a spontaneous generation of life from some primordial soup of molecules. Panspermia became popularized in the 19th century by physicist Lord Kelvin and in the 20th century by astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle, among others. Francis Crick, a theoretical molecular biologist who was the co-winner of the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the molecular structure of nucleic acids, took this theory to a whole new level by suggesting that Earth was intentionally seeded by an extraterrestrial race. Genetic research supports Crick’s theory in that it has identified 223 genes in our DNA that have no predecessor(s) on the genetic evolutionary tree. Scientists have reported that these genes have an extraterrestrial origin.
With respect to the out of Africa theory, there is another way, genetically speaking, for Indo-Europeans and “first man” to have had the same genetic marker. It’s really quite simple. They both could have evolved separately from a common gene pool! It is this gene pool then that is actually the real missing link in evolution, which explains all of the pervading problems with evolutionary theory. One thing is for sure. Each of these recessive traits came from an original donor(s) who had that trait and that that trait has an extraterrestrial origin, be it the Sons of God or whoever. Francis Crick was spot on when he said that humans were an extraterrestrial race.
The origins of man have been forever shrouded in mystery. Some people would like to keep it that way. That’s why they will never tell you that the three races were seeded separately and that’s why they will never tell you about extraterrestrial involvement in the creation of homo sapiens sapiens. You’ll never hear about the true origins of the white race because it’s supposedly not politically correct. You’ll never hear that in the ancient cultures of Egypt, the Middle East and the Indus Civilization a white race was in every case the ruling elite. All that they’ll ever tell you is that they mysteriously appeared in the Caucasus about 10,000 years ago. They won’t even tell you where they migrated to; that they were known as Anglo-Saxons, Celts, Germans, Vikings, the Irish and Scots, among other names in other places at other times, and they definitely won’t tell you that this group included the Lost Tribes of Israel!
The information presented above is to demonstrate that there’s always another perspective to any issue, another path to the truth. Science and religion are not absolutes, far from it. Information is power and there will always be people who seek to control it (and you).
“What luck for rulers that men do not think.”
– Adolf Hitler