Man has always been in search of the unanswerable, in search of his origins, in search of himself.

At one time, man was believed to have originated in Africa. The “out of Africa” theory was the brainchild of Professors Alan Wilson and Rebecca Cann. Of course, even back then, they realized that their theory was only a possibility, not a fact. Subsequently, their own DNA testing indicated that Homo sapiens first developed from the Australian aborigines about 400,000 years ago (with no genetic links to Africa).

Then, the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology made a genetic discovery also dating back to about 400,000 years ago. This find was made in Spain and also has no genetic link to Africa. However, it does have a genetic link to… Australia. So, the two oldest human DNA samples yet found were from Australia and Europe, with a genetic link to each other but with no link to Africa. This literally rewrites evolutionary history.

At a meeting of the Royal Society in London, these DNA finds, among others, were discussed by some of the brightest minds in the field of genetics. Researchers had previously identified three kinds of hominids who had interbred with each other in ancient times, namely Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, and Denisovans. The talk of the conference was a study done by the Harvard Medical School on a find from Siberia. The study found that the Denisovans had sex with an unknown group in Asia more than 30,000 years ago, a group which was neither human nor Neanderthal. Mark Thomas, an evolutionary geneticist at University College London, summed it up nicely as follows: “What it begins to suggest is that we’re looking at a Lord of the Rings-type world — that there were many hominid populations.”

Note: Of course, both the Bible and ancient Sumerian texts refer to humans having sex  with a non-human species so perhaps this shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Some other interesting genetic findings are as follows:

  • Between 4000-6000 years ago, some extremely unusual DNA was first found in the people of Denmark. It’s referred to as “Haplogroup I1” and geneticists have no idea where it came from. It only appears in the Nordic races. No other group of people on the planet Earth have this DNA unless they have come in contact with Nordic people.
  • A recent story in the news concerned a young Caucasian girl who had her DNA tested and discovered that her ancestry hails from North Africa. That’s mind-blowing until one looks at the DNA testing involving North Africa. Turns out that North Africa’s gene pool is, in fact, Caucasian. Two Caucasian groups living in North Africa for at least two thousand years are the Tuaregs and the Berbers, both Caucasian people. This in turn might explain the next finding.
  • DNA testing on the Egyptian boy-pharaoh King Tut revealed that he is related to 70% of the men in England. In other words, he is Caucasian, albeit one with a severely elongated skull.
  • A study by the University of Cambridge found that the DNA of humans contains 145 ‘alien’ genes not passed on from our ancestors.

Note: Genetics aside, the different human skull types demonstrate that man evolved  from different gene pools.

However, some genetic studies have led to places that most would have never expected. For example, scientists working to map human DNA (as part of the Human Genome Project) concluded there are arithmetic patterns and symbolic language encoded within our DNA. They, therefore, believe that man’s “junk DNA” is the genetic code of extraterrestrial life forms. That theory might be referred to as Directed Panspermia. It was popularized by Francis Crick who won the Nobel Prize, along with James Watson, for their discovery of the structure of the DNA molecule. Even an ardent atheist like Richard Dawkins admitted, in an interview with Ben Stein, that man’s DNA has a designer and he mentioned extraterrestrial contact.

As for DNA itself, it has an exquisite language composed of 3 billion genetic letters. DNA is, in essence, an immensely complex instruction manual on how cells operate. As Bill Gates has himself said, DNA has an operating system that is far more advanced than any of our supercomputers. Therefore, you can only imagine the intelligence that was required to program it.

However, there is even more to the story of our origins. Oddly enough, some of us have Rh negative blood. Man alone has this trait, although Africans and Asians rarely have Rh negative blood. Some of us get diseases that the rest of us don’t (e.g. sickle cell) and we all don’t all share the same blood type or DNA haplogroup type. Obviously, there was more than one original gene pool. Obviously, we didn’t all come out of Africa.

Man is supposedly the most highly developed species on the planet. Surprisingly, however, we are ill-equipped for Earth’s environment. We come to this world with certain disadvantages that animals don’t have. For example, we can’t cope with sunlight, we have a strong dislike for certain natural foods, we have chronic back problems and we have very high rates of disease. These are things which should not happen if we evolved naturally on this planet. Man, in effect, is alien to this world.

The human race has been searching for answers for its existence from the beginning. Accordingly, man often posited that there was a creator of one sort or another. Some gave that creator the designation of God and recently some scientists have said that man’s creator was of extraterrestrial origin (aliens, in other words). The funny thing is that in our search for aliens, man just may have found himself as it seems that man, himself, is an alien.

 

Epilogue

In the view of cosmologist Max Tegmark, everything in the universe, including humans, is part of a mathematical structure. According to Tegmark, everything in nature is full of patterns such as the Fibonacci sequence, which is mathematically based. Tegmark contends, though, that math was not invented by man, but simply discovered by man. So, then, who did invent mathematics?

 

“The spiral in a snail’s shell is the same mathematically as the spiral in the Milky Way galaxy, and it’s also the same mathematically as the spirals in our DNA. It’s the same ratio that you’ll find in very basic music that transcends cultures all over the world.”           – Joseph Gordon-Levitt

 

 

 

Advertisements

 

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

The truth is a funny thing. Everybody has a different take on it and everybody is convinced that they are right. So, here’s one version of the truth.

The truth is… that we are not physical beings, per se. All life forms in the universe are composed of energy which are vibrating at such a low level that they condense, so to speak, into matter.

The truth is… that our universe is mathematical in nature. For example, cosmologist Max Tegmark has stated that our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. Further, physicist James Gates says that his research shows that certain theories which describe the fundamental nature of the universe contain embedded computer codes (that’s ones and zeros, and nothing else).

The truth is… that your reality is simply what you perceive it to be. Perception is everything, as the mind can’t tell the difference between what is “real” and what is vividly imagined. In that regard, philosopher Immanuel Kant reasoned that time and space are not inherent qualities of the physical world but rather a reflection of the way the mind operates; that is, the entire universe exists within the mind, not the other way around.

The truth is… the world is holographic and we exist in a virtual reality matrix. Our perception of reality is what Einstein has referred to as an “optical illusion of consciousness.” This issue was brilliantly explained in the movie The Matrix where Morpheus tells Neo, “If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by the brain.”

The truth is… that our universe is, in actuality, a simulation. By that, I mean that we exist in a reality that has been artificially constructed, as evidenced by James Gates’ computer codes.  Even our DNA is like a computer program, as Bill Gates has attested to.  Further, the new scientific field of DNA Wave Genetics postulates that our DNA is a bio-computer.  Of course, it was none other than Albert Einstein who said that space/time was a construct.

The truth is… that there is an intelligence in the universe (and/or beyond it) that is responsible for the existence of our reality.  Great minds like Plato, Einstein, Planck, Michio Kaku, Arno Penzias and Francis Crick, among many others, have said as much. Even ardent evolutionists like George Wald and Antony Flew have admitted that intelligence is the most likely cause of life in the universe.

The truth is… that there really is no such thing as the truth. All things are allowed and there is an infinite number of possibilities for us to choose from. When you grapple with a major decision in your life, your choice has already been made. All other possible choices have also already been made (and chosen in some alternative universe).  You are simply attracting into your life, and into this universe, that specific decision that harmonizes with your own dominant thoughts.

So if there actually is such a thing as an answer to your questions, the answer… is you. As physicist John Wheeler put it, “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.” If that doesn’t work for you, simply take the blue pill and go back to sleep.

 

Epilogue

You may recall that I have previously discussed what I refer to as “the video game effect.” That is, we are all participants in a virtual reality matrix where all the characters are holographic (remember Tron). That doesn’t make us any less real, but it certainly does change our view of the world.

And that’s the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

and philosophers:

 

“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.”

– Plato

 

and atheists:

 

“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.

 

 

God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought.”

Joseph Campbell

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Imagine

09/29/2016

“There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.”  – Bill Hicks

Imagine that you are a TV monitor looking at another TV monitor. That’s exactly how one’s eyesight works. Of course, you have other senses and they all send messages to the brain where they are interpreted and communicated (fed) to your consciousness. Collectively, then, your perception of reality is defined as the sum total of all these electrical signals which have been transmitted to your brain and, then, subsequently interpreted by it.

Scientists say that our decisions are made in the brain (mind) before we are actually  consciously aware of them. So, it seems that we need to reassess who and what we really are. Consider this – are we more than just our physical bodies, more than just our conscious minds?

Science is continually breaking new ground in their quest to define creation. For example, MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark believes the universe is a mathematical structure. Of course, mathematics, by definition, is information. More to the point, a mathematical structure implies intelligence. Then, there is a new scientific field of inquiry called DNA Wave Genetics which postulates that the genome of the highest organisms is considered to be a bio-computer which forms the space-time grid framework of a bio-system. The logical extension of that theory is that we exist in a bio-system created by a bio-computer which is none other than our own DNA. But, then, who created our DNA?

If you are religious, you no doubt believe that you have a “soul.” However, what then is a soul if not another layer of information which defines who or what we are? Indeed, that information/soul might even come from a higher dimension than the three-dimensional universe that we “exist” in. After all, some cosmologists and physicists believe that there are more than three dimensions in the universe (four counting space/time).

Since science has theorized that there are such things as parallel universes, perhaps we exist in more than one universe at the same time. However, if we are multi-dimensional beings, what then is creation? Well, no less than Carl Jung offered up that all of creation is subjective, a dream…and we are the dreamers. Maybe, Bill Hicks was on to something.

 

 

The Mind Of God

03/14/2016

Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku says that he understands the mind of God! In an interview, he said that, “The mind of God that Einstein eloquently wrote about…would be cosmic music resonating through eleven dimensional hyperspace.” So, the question is this: Exactly what kind of a god would that be?

Without really defining God, Kaku said that the laws of physics can give us an idea about what God is like. That is, God would not be a personal god or a god of intervention, a god who parts the waters.  However, a universe created by God would be a universe of order, beauty, harmony and simplicity.  In short, Kaku believes in the god of Einstein and Spinoza. No doubt, Kaku’s perspective won’t make either religious leaders or atheists very happy.

So, let’s take a look at the beliefs of Einstein and Spinoza.  Einstein said that, “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.” While most people are familiar with Einstein, not too many people know about Spinoza. Baruch Spinoza was a famous 17th century Dutch philosopher.  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.”

While some might disagree, it appears that both Einstein and Spinoza believed in Intelligent Design. However, there’s not much doubt that neither Einstein nor Spinoza believed in the god of the Bible, the god of intervention. So, who exactly, then, was the god of the Bible?  Well, let’s just say that the god of Genesis was an interloper of sorts. He definitely had a big ego since he told man that there were no other gods besides him, even though the Bible says that he was not the god Most High.  In any event, he certainly would not qualify as the god of either Einstein or Spinoza, that’s for sure.

“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.”

    – Plato

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.

 

Epilogue

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

 

 

In his book The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking said that, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.” The first question that comes to mind is how can something be created out of nothing? However, in addition, this statement raises other questions while providing no real answers. Let’s break it down.

How can you create something out of nothing (and from nowhere)?

In science, it’s impossible to create something out of nothing. Mathematically speaking, 0+0 will always equal zero.

The universe can and will create

So, exactly what kind of life force is this, anyway, that can create? After all, creation implies intelligence.

How is it that a Natural Law allows the universe to create?

Natural laws determine the process. They are predictive (only), but they do not create anything themselves. Besides, as Einstein said, “If there is a law there is a lawgiver.” Interestingly enough, theoretical physicist S. James Gates, Jr. says that his research indicates that the Natural Laws of the Universe contain embedded computer codes. If not a lawgiver, then, there must have been a super-intelligent computer programmer instead.

 

Theories, fossils and reverse engineering

So, what we really have here is an attempt to provide a quasi-scientific explanation for an ideology. How did we ever get to this point?  Well, to begin with, some scientific theories have been reverse engineered, so to speak. That is, scientists first started with a theory and then the framework for scientific enquiry was constructed on top of that, in order to hopefully provide the necessary observations to prove the theory; such was Darwin’s Theory of Evolution for example. Darwin realized that the fossil record did not, at that time, support evolution but he assumed that future examination of the fossil record would eventually produce the necessary observations of transitional fossil forms required to prove his theory. However, it was none other than Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionist himself, who later admitted that those fossils couldn’t be found.

Aside: Of course, Darwin didn’t know anything about DNA (how could he have known?) and, if he had, I seriously doubt that he would have ever promulgated such a theory in the first place.

 

Where did time, space and matter come from?

Here’s the problem facing scientists on the issue of the origins of life in the universe. According to scientific theory, time, space and matter were all created simultaneously out of nothing (and from nowhere). The universe (poof) just popped into existence. Just poof.

Of course, science now admits that the universe had a beginning (The Big Bang). It was Michael Turner, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago, who observed, “If inflation is the dynamite behind the Big Bang, we’re still looking for the match.” It follows, then, that since the Big Bang had a match there must also have been a match lighter (i.e. a cause). In this case, the cause could only have come from beyond space and time.

As for “creation out of nothing,” it’s just a euphemism for the unknown, a way for science to claim that it understands something that can’t really be understood scientifically.  As the ancient Greek philosophers noted, the only thing that can be created from nothing is nothing.

 

Epilogue

In his book The End of Science, John Horgan raised the issue that there is a limit to knowledge as science attempts to push beyond what’s observable, since it is not possible to observe what exists beyond space and time simply by observing Nature. Yet, scientists do it everyday, with no thought about using the scientific method. Robert Lanza explained it thusly, “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.” Stephen Hawking, of all people, should know better.

 

“Reality is not confined to space and time. The psyche is not under obligation to space and time alone.”

     – Carl Jung

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One thing that distinguishes man from other life forms is his ability to ponder his own existence. More fascinating perhaps even than that is man’s innate ability to evolve. A little thing called DNA is the reason.

DNA is a miracle of life. Yes, a miracle. Of course, evolutionists will say that it is the by-product of some random cosmic accident and deists will say that it is proof of God. So, who is right?  In any event, one thing that I’m pretty sure of is that with respect to our view of creation… DNA is a real game changer. Let’s check it out.

What makes DNA so unique is that without it life as we know it would not exist. It’s capabilities are otherworldly, beyond anything that science fiction could have ever imagined. One way to think of DNA is that it is a digital communication and storage system which incorporates language. However, even that grossly over-simplifies its capabilities.

Think of it – sitting in the nucleus of every cell is an extremely sophisticated and high-powered software program which contains a unique set of instructions for how the human genome works. It provides for billions of those instructions per second in the process of directing the body’s 100 trillion cells. The topper is that DNA is self-organizing, self-directing and self-replicating. Yes, all by itself. Only something that is very intelligent can do that.

How intelligent? Well, consider that DNA’s information systems is more complex than anything ever devised by man, using algorithms far beyond anything in a supercomputer. Even Bill Gates can attest to that. In addition, the language of DNA, which is in the form of a four-character code, is composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. Yes, a language with three billion letters. That’s what makes it possible for DNA to determine all life on earth. Now, that’s real intelligence for you.

Science has recently discovered that the human genome contains genes that do not have the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree. That is, DNA can be changed through what geneticists call horizontal gene transfer; no natural selection is required. Of course, I can already hear the deists congratulating themselves and the atheists asserting that this doesn’t prove that God exists. However, I wonder… what if they are both wrong?

 

Epilogue

In the late twentieth century, Antony Flew was one of the world’s most renowned atheists.  He was originally a proponent of the theory of evolution, but he eventually changed his views  stating that, “Super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.” Now, that’s what I call an intelligent view of creation.

 

 

 

 

In a recent post, I mentioned that Richard Dawkins freely discussed the possibility that evolution may have been the result of an “intelligent designer.” I got some flak, understandably so perhaps, because Dawkins has repeatedly said that he doesn’t believe in Intelligent Design. Of course, what he discussed with Ben Stein calls into question how strongly be believes in that belief system.  What follows is a transcript of the interview that he did with Ben Stein. So, you decide.

 

The interview

Stein: How did it (the universe) get created?

Dawkins: By a very slow process. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.

Stein: What was that?

Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.

Stein: How did it happen?

Dawkins: I told you. We don’t know.

Stein: So, you don’t have any idea how it started.

Dawkins: Nor does anyone.

Stein: What do think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in evolution?

Dawkins: It could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe some civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology and designed the form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility. I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence of that when you look at the details of our chemistry or molecular biology of some sort of designer. That designer could well be a higher intelligence than elsewhere in the universe. That higher intelligence would itself had to have come about by some inexplicable process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously.

 

The remainder of the interview dealt with questions about things like the existence of the gods of religion so I did not bother to detail it here, although you can watch the entire interview on YouTube if you so desire.

So let’s recap, what Dawkins said.

Dawkins on the origin of life: It comes from a self-replicating molecule. However, no one knows how it happened.

Comment: Nor can science even trace life back to a self-replicating molecule. So, if no one knows how it happened, then you can’t say with any confidence what the origin was. Ergo, the concept of a self-replicating molecule is based on an ideology. That is, as Dawkins said, “We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.” To be more precise, Dawkins knows the kind of event which is consistent with his own ideology. As Paul Feyerabend, a well-known philosopher of science, once said,Thus science is much closer to myth than a 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.”

Dawkins on an “intelligent designer”: An intriguing possibility.

Comment: So intriguing, in fact, that he laid out a whole scenario of how it could have happened.

The Dawkins scenario: Possibly due to a highly advanced extraterrestrial civilization which seeded life onto this planet.

Comment: Sound familiar? It should because it’s the Directed Panspermia Theory of Francis Crick.

Dawkins: “That designer could well be a higher intelligence than elsewhere in the universe.”

Comment: Dawkins admits that the origins of life (the first self-replicating molecule) are unknown but that it might have been caused by an extraterrestrial civilization. Bottom line – Dawkins admits that evolution is not a fact.

Dawkins: “…it’s possible that you might find evidence of that when you look at the details of our chemistry or molecular biology of some sort of designer.”

Comment: Yes, Dawkins used the dreaded “d” word (again).

So, perhaps there is a disconnect on what Dawkins has said and how it has been interpreted.  After all, it was Dawkins who said at a recent TED conference that now he has proof that evolutionary theory is correct. The implication is that he must not have been certain in the past even though he said that he was. Based on the Stein interview, Dawkins may not “believe” in Intelligent Design but he certainly acknowledged the possibility of it, even referring to it as intriguing. After all, we’re talking about theories as to the origin of life.  You may believe in one theory and yet acknowledge the possibility of other theories.  The point is that, in this case, none of these theories have yet to be proven.

So, evolution is still just a theory, not a fact. Does that sway anyone to change their support of evolution? Probably not. After all, ideology is virtually unassailable.  Interestingly enough, though, atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel, in his book Mind and Cosmos, does argue that the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false. Disclosures can sometimes come from the most unexpected places.  Just ask Richard Dawkins.

 

Epilogue

Jim Gates, a theoretical physicist and a pioneer of supersymmetry, has found that scientific equations which describe the fundamental nature of the universe contain embedded computer codes. The same thing could be said for DNA, as Bill Gates readily admits.  So, if DNA and the laws of nature contain computer codes, where’s the programmer?

 

 

“A scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.”

   – H. P. Yockey, physicist and information theorist