Why Religion and Science Cannot Co-exist
We live in a world divided, most certainly, on so many aspects of culture. However, it’s not so much the right and the left, although it’s become a fight made by the centrists between them. This fight is a war of ideals. On one side, evidence based conclusions reign supreme, however, are under attack by the other side, where conclusion based evidence is the gold-standard.
Human progress has always and will always rely on the scientific ability to prove the laws of yesterday to be falsehoods. If it not for this rule, there would be no heliocentric universe, nor any knowledge of the laws of nature and the cosmos. It is because of this, that our future relies so heavily on the expulsion of Iron and Bronze age myths, which desire to simplify explanations through the tongue of lies, thus rendering science helpless when a scientist mutters the truth that, “We don’t know.”
Religion and science have been at odds with one another for some time, the only difference between today’s society and 17th-19th century Europe, is that religionists aren’t actually burning scientists for discovering evidence contrary to religion, although, some do threaten it. In some ways, religion and science are one in the same, however, as they do both thrive in the unexplained. The difference is this: Science sees the unexplained as a challenge, whereas religion sees it as an opportunity. We can clearly see the difference between a religionist and a scientist by making an observation regarding solitude (admittedly, reductio ad absurdum). When a religionist goes into solitude for a year, he orders planes to fly into skyscrapers; when a scientist goes into hiding for seventeen months, he discovers gravity and invents calculus. This, of course, is an extreme observation. However, one must make extreme arguments against extreme principles and ideals.
The main reason that secularism and sectarianism cannot co-exist in the same society, is because sectarians won’t allow it to. If you look at both sides, you’ll find one side that is fighting for equality between a diverse set of people, as well as autonomy, which was in itself was a remnant of the enlightenment movement.
You’ll see the same side fighting for a well informed and intelligent future for humanity. On the other side, you’ll see people (often violently) fighting for their beliefs (not facts) to be the only law and the only system of education in the country, much like the Middle East. This is what is usually called imperialism.
Take a moment to consider both sides. You certainly don’t see secularists bombing clinics that don’t practice abortion. You don’t see secularists attacking straight people and tying them to fences to die. You don’t see secularists pushing legislation to have children pray to Darwin in the class rooms. Yet, you see the opposite on the other side, as we’ve already talked about extensively. Therefore, it is not an overstatement, nor is it unfair, to say that secularism and sectarianism cannot coexist because sectarians won’t allow them to.
The Pot Calling the Kettle…a Pot
It is ever so ironic that creationists blame Darwinist, and Humanist, principles for the seemingly endless amounts of war and destruction that has happened since. It is first ironic because the terror and destruction that has happened since perils in comparison to that which came before the “evil” seculars “invaded.” It is otherwise ironic that today’s new world creationists use the same techniques as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. They use pseudoscientific jargon, complicated figures and big words to make points that are unrealistic. Hitler did the same when creating his Nazi religion, just as Stalin did the same when creating the religion of fascist communism.
You see, just like the works of Hitler and Stalin, creationism is based on unproven and untested hypotheses which have no basis in reality, only to take advantage of simple minds who want something better and are willing to stoop to any end to achieve it. In both cases, what they think is better is entirely not. Also, in both cases, if the using the technique of reductio ad absurdum to put these works in common everyday words, they all sound like the rantings of mad men. Hitler thought that the world was being taken over by some grand Jewish conspiracy to eliminate non-handicapped people; Stalin said that people should hand all control over to him, as well as their money, and everything would be okay; creationists say that a strange rib woman ate from a magical tree, via orders from talking snakes, and since then, man was doomed. Later, Jesus, the son of a virgin, carried his testimony on the back of a dinosaur to the masses to save them from Eve’s sin and allow them eternal life in an unseen paradise, under the eyes of an invisible man who is watching and listening to everything that everybody does.
You see, when written in cryptic language, it all sounds well and good, but when put into everyday language, it sounds quite absurd. This is the goal of creationists though: they want their absurdity to be accepted as fact. They want to discredit science as much as possible, although, only the aspects of science that are in conflict to the constructs of their preordained beliefs. They want science to be seen as some grand conspiracy to rid the world of religion. Well, what would the point be? Why would the powers that be, who rely so heavily on a people’s ability to follow without question, want to rid the world of the very core of that ability? These are questions that these delusional conspiracy theorists can’t seem to answer. They can’t because they haven’t quite thought of the reason yet.
What they want is for scientific discovery to be halted and not to be taught, as to accommodate for Iron Age myths. My question is this: why should we compromise the discoveries and advances of mankind to accommodate for primitive belief structures? It makes no sense on any logical level. I understand that people will always want to hold on to tradition, but I think they confuse the meaning of tradition. In Europe and Japan, tradition means honoring those strange myths of the past, in the mean time, honoring those who practiced them. In the United States and the Middle East, tradition means to fear change and evolution, as well as to arrest the advancement of human intellect, by any means necessary, even through violence. Violence, of course, is obviously the foremost tradition of religion of all kinds, Abrahamic or otherwise, theological or otherwise.
But I think what they want more than anything is children. Why do you think they always accuse others in the world of wanting their children to indoctrinate them into their secular beliefs? This is the first place they go, because it’s part of their ultimate plan. This is why all of the arguments seem to surround education; this is why all of the arguments seem to pertain to children; this is the reason for the over all attack on the public education system. They know that if they can indoctrinate children early enough, they’ll go through life believing things that any person who were to be told these things at a later age, would find as the ravings of lunatics. This comes out in the recent fight against evolution in schools, and even those who can’t seem to argue against it scientifically, do so philosophically—and not very well, I might add—pandering to an audience who may believe their jargon.
They must indoctrinate early to achieve the future they require for their mythology to live on: a future of undereducated people with no grasp on reality, science, or legitimate philosophy. A future void of cures, as they seem to desire in the banning of stem-cell research, as well as a future of intolerance, for which, they couldn’t be more obvious in their fervor.
In this blog, we’re going to discuss only one of the many ways that the
religionists use lies to breed the world that they want so feverously: Young-Earth Creationism.
Young Earth Creationism, which has been repackaged as I.D., is a very new means of trying to discredit science all across the world. It uses pseudoscience to explain away the theory of evolution, namely by not realizing that evolution is called a theory not because it is just something someone dreamed up, as theory means something completely different in scientific terms—the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, in the scientific community, is still considered theory by the scientific meaning of the word. But I won’t bore you with the actual meanings of words and the ways in which creationists pervert them. I’m going to discuss the more technical aspect, which I’m sure will be far less boring to you.
Regardless of the purely scientific data, I think I feel the need to point out a couple of the fundamental flaws in creationism. The first was actually the first one I ever noticed at a very young age, while scrolling through one of my grandfather’s bibles. Genesis 1 says that God created light on the first day. Okay, well, no problem there, except he didn’t create the sun until the fourth day. Now, I’m trying to think of other light sources in the universe. There are stars, the moon, other planets shine in the night sky as well. However, all of these things shine because they are reflecting light from the sun. Therefore, what other light is there. If he created light before the sun, where is this other light source? There are two explanations to this from creationists. The first is definitely the lesser of the intellectual arguments, and that’s saying a lot. It was once argued to me that “the sun isn’t out at night, therefore, how could these other planets be reflecting the suns light at night? There must be another light source.” Now, I’m going to assume you know why that’s stupid and move on to the next. The second is an explanation from a very well known creationist “scientist” named John Whitcomb, who argued that God had “created a temporary source of light until he created the sun.” So, in other words, he created a sun to provide light until he created a sun. His reasoning is equally impressive. He explains that God only did this to “destroy the cult of the sun.” My question is this: if he made light on the first day as a temporary light source until he created sun on the fourth day, to abolish sun cults, how were there sun cults already if man wasn’t created until the sixth day?
Another initial flaw is the God created water and the earth on the same day. Now, I know creationists don’t like evidence much, but there is overwhelming evidence that the water didn’t start forming on the earth until long after the earth began to cool. But, there again, I’m using science to explain away the bible. Therefore, they are just going to say that this particular section of science is incorrect. So, I can’t really do that, now can I? You see, this is how it works. Science says, “Hey, that’s rather contradictory to our evidence.” Religion says, “Hey, that evidence is contradictory to our 2,000 year old superstition.”
Indoctrination against a Better World
It is certainly clear, as we discussed in The Evolution of the Attack on Public Education, that religion and science absolutely cannot co-exist on an intellectual level. But what I didn’t mention is how the ramifications of Political Correctness factor into this. It is not PC to criticize the way a parent raises their child these days. However, I feel that nothing of this sort should be above criticism, especially when the criticism is pertaining to matters of abuse. Richard Dawkins explored the matter of children being indoctrinated into religion at a young age, and how the kind of fear invoked by programs such as Hell Rooms, were heavily abusive to children and to their developing minds. What he didn’t explore, however, is the matter of intellectual crippling.
When a parent physically cripples a child, their rights as a parent are immediately removed. Well, what about mental abuse? After all, a husband can just as easily be taken to jail for mental and emotional abuse these days, so why can’t a parent. What I’m referring to is, as mentioned before, religious indoctrination.
When a child’s brain is developing, the child will believe anything it is told by an adult, especially in the early stages of development. What do you suppose you are doing to your child’s future when you teach him or her that someday God may ask of you to murder your parents or children, and when he does, you better do it? What do you suppose you’re doing when you teach that child that long ago, God led a tribe of people to genocide and encouraged them to slaughter all the men and rape all the women? What’s worse, however, is what you’re teaching them in the very core of the bible. The book of Genesis makes the claim that an invisible, single-father, sky-god, created the world in six short days, about 4,000 years after the agricultural revolution, and placed a man in a garden, from whose rib, he made a woman, who obeyed the orders from a talking snake to eat from a magical smart-tree, which ended all of paradise and caused the sky-ocean to fall to the earth. When you teach your child this, you are not only crippling him or her philosophically, by falsely answering the mysteries of life, but you are also intellectually crippling your child. What are you going to do when he or she fails out of school because he or she couldn’t pass a biology exam and is forced to become a construction worker? You have successfully nullified the very beauty of evolution, and you have crippled your child’s intellect forever. Is that what you want?
Children are a very complex organism, and need to be treated very gently, and it’s only when you realize this that you realize what this kind of teaching is doing to somebody. And to tell your child this, you’re creating yet another generation of people who deny science merely on principle, without evidence, and vote against stem-cell research because they believe that humans have some kind of magical soul organism inside their bodies. This is to create another generation who will sue their place of employment because they don’t have adequate prayer facilities or resources. This is to create another generation who feels that equality is only for those who follow their faith, and that secular society is the “devil,” along with foosball.
You see, somehow, we’ve carried the message to parents that their children are theirs to raise however they please. This is absolutely not true. Children are not property—they are a living breathing being who needs to develop in their own way and at their own pace, naturally. It is not a person’s right as a parent to cripple a child physically, just like it’s not a person’s right as a parent to cripple their child intellectually, emotionally, or spiritually. It is abusive and it needs to stop.
To Deny the Ape
Secular society is under attack, and it is partly because of PC (ness) but mostly because of religious power. It is because of this that evolution is still such a controversial topic. Why should evolution and natural selection be so controversial? Why must we bring truths into the light of such defaming criticism, not because of lack of evidence, but because of possible moral ramifications therein? I won’t go too into detail, as I already have done so on this subject earlier in the book. However, the sect of Christianity and Christian Science has gone too far with their feeble studies on species limitations. This is only to deny macro-evolution, while still regarding micro-evolution, which is even less refutable than macro. Richard Dawkins made a good illustration with the Chan Model. However, I feel that this one does a better job of illustrating the topic at hand. You cannot deny macro evolution, while accepting micro-evolution. You cannot argue species limitations, because there are none. You cannot use the argument of cyclic variation, because it doesn’t happen. Let’s think about this in terms of sugary goodness.
15,211,111,028,888,889. Wow! Big number, right? Do you know what that number is? That number represents how many genetic variations we would have from our original common ancestor who lived 3.7 billion years ago. And, only if each offspring had only one child at age thirty, with only one genetic difference from each of its parents.
If you haven’t guessed by now, yes, this is an argument regarding small changes (micro-evolution) over time, becoming very large changes (macro-evolution). Now, I’m being very generous to the intelligent design crowd with this analogy, and here’s how: the average person today has 2.5 children; teen pregnancy is at an alarming high in this country; in former ages of human existence, it was nothing to have three or four children by age twenty; the spawning age of chimps and apes (our ancestors) is around ten years-old; the spawning age, as well as numbers reproduced of smaller mammals (another ancestor) is far greater than that; the spawning age and amounts of fish is almost comparable to bacteria; and the generational time period for many forms of bacteria is around forty minutes or so.
Even after all that, let’s just say that a person started putting one M&M into a jar for every generation for 3.7 billion years (keeping in mind the thirty year rule), representing only one genetic change from the original parent species, which is pretty preposterous, you would need a candy jar large enough for 123,333,334 M&Ms today. However, one must factor the genes of both parents, therefore, placing our candy jar on an exponential table, in relation to the original parent species. Then you would need a candy jar large enough for 15,211,111,028,888,889 M&Ms, and I don’t care how much Martha Stewart you watch, nobody is creating a jar that large. I’m willing to guess the Grand Canyon to be far too small for that many tasty candy-coated delectables. This is how many genetic differences we could have from our parent species 3.7 billion years ago. The fact of the matter is that we actually share 98% of our DNA with even the lowest fungus—meaning we’re only 2% different from it. That’s not very much, and I’m willing to bet that it’s far under 15 quadrillion. What this means is that to say that over time, small changes in the genetic makeup of offspring could very easily make a completely different species of life. Each and every M&M you put into that jar represents a slight difference, and when we’re talking about billions of years, those differences add up, don’t they?
A simple way that one must look at DNA is like a sentence. As Daniel Dennett illustrated in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, one can easily change the entire meaning of a sentence simply by altering one word, or even just by moving a comma from one place to another. These changes can not only alter the meaning of words or sentences, but they can also destroy them by making them incoherent. DNA is like that too. While many of the proteins in our DNA are small minute factors like what your hair pattern will be or how big your toenails are going to be, others are quite large, such as how fast your metabolism will work or how resilient your heart will be. Others are even more complex, and these are genes that are usually the first to be either turned on or off. These are genes regarding gills, scales, feathers and other such things. Remember, again, that we share 98% of our DNA with every other life form on the planet, so we have genes for such things as well. All it would take is one little gene not turning on or off properly, and your average woman could give birth to Lucy, or even Ida.
Given these truths, it is absurd for anyone who has put even the smallest bit of thought into evolution and the origin of life to deny that evolution happened. Given what you’ve just read, it is nearly impossible to say it didn’t or couldn’t. Many call it improbable. Some of those even compare it to a blind watchmaker making a watch. Well, I assure you, if you give that watch maker about 3.7 billion years, he’ll make you something pretty amazing.
6,000 Years of Life on Earth?
Yet another way that science and religion cannot coexist with one another is through the basic study of archaeology. You know, if the bible were to be true, that would mean that everything that we know of human history, the history of the universe, genetic history as well as the history of all life on the planet would all be wrong? It’s true, and it all relates to this one factor of all three Abrahamic religions. The genealogy between Adam and Noah, and then onto David and Jesus, makes the clear claim that the world is 6,000 years old, and despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, this is believed. This is not only an over simplification of the history of the world, but it is a primitive Bronze Age myth that, for whatever reason, is impeding on scientific progress as well as the education of our children.
This belief is as foolish as the religious lack of thinking can truly get. One must realize that the agricultural revolution began about 10,000 years ago. This was the era when man stopped hunting as much and learned to tame the earth for food. This is the era when man first started to herd, and even domesticate, animals. This is the era in which man discovered he could harvest vegetation. Well, according to the bible, this never happened. According to the bible, man just always knew how to do these things, and man never lived as a hunter gatherer. According to the bible, man walked with dinosaurs as well, because they were still very much alive for more than just one day. Now, there are some who believe that dinosaur fossils were planted by the devil or by Jews, or even by crazy space overlords to fool us, but could we just keep the conspiracy theories out of this for a while?
The religionists claim that creation and the 6,000 year timeline are both impossible to deny. Well, why? Is it because of fossil record? Well, no, as the fossil record is an unwavering source of transitional fossils, thus making the argument for evolution. Is it because of some kind of celestial proof? Well, no, in fact, the universe stands as a melting pot of evidence for the big bang happening about 14 billion years ago. Well, what then? The “proof” is in the Chinese Astrology chart. That’s right—religion is trying to religiously prove something regarding religion with religion. Hmm.
The Chinese Astrology chart contains many animals including the cock, which I am, rats, snakes, pigs, cows, rabbits, horses, rams, monkeys. dogs, and tigers. The twelfth is the disturbing one: the dragon. That’s right, the dragon is the twelfth symbol of Chinese Astrology, and, according to Christian Science, the first evidence that man walked with dinosaurs.
Every culture in the world has had dragon legends. Now that may seem strange to some people, and maybe a little too coincidental. However, why wouldn’t all of the world have similar stories and fables? It’s not just dragons, it’s also vampires, werewolves and even ultrafast rabbits and gnomes. All of the world’s cultural legends are similar because all of the world’s cultures were stolen from one another. It’s the same reason that Christianity is about the 200th religion to come along regarding a man who was born of a virgin on December 25th, performed miracles, was martyred and then rose from the dead three days later on Easter. There is a simple explanation for this as well.
The legends of the messiahs come from the sun, actually. You see, there are so many other tales with the same basic story. The story of Horus is identical. He was born of a virgin on December 25th and his birth was marked by a large star appearing in the east and was adorned by three kings. He was a prodigal teacher at twelve and was baptized at the age of thirty, thus starting his ministry on earth. That’s not all though—he had twelve disciples who walked the country side with him as he performed miracles. These miracles also included walking on water and heeling the blind and def. After being betrayed by one of his disciples, Horus was crucified and then buried. Three days after his death, he was resurrected.
While that may sound incredibly familiar, it’s not the only one. There are hundreds. Why is this? It, like I said before, is about the sun. The sun is the basis of all of these messiah and god legends and is the oldest and most worshipped body in history, either worldly or celestial.
Let’s start with the birth sequence, as this is the most common of all the sun god stories. Sirius is the brightest star in the night sky, especially on December 24th, when it aligns with the three stars of Orion’s belt. The star in the east is Sirius, and when it aligns with the belt, once known as the three kings, the kings appear to follow the Eastern star (Sirius) especially on the morning of December 25th, when all four starts are in alignment with the sun. Hence, the birth of God’s SUN on the morning of the 25th, adorned by three kings who followed the brightest star in the sky to the place of birth. You see, on December 25th, the sun ceases to decline south, and the shortest day of the year is over. On the morning of December 22nd, the sun is directly aligned with the Southern Cross constellation, hence the SUN dying on the cross. It is, at this point, as far south as it will go and it remains there for three days. On the third day, December 25th, the sun moves one degree north, which is the forerunner of longer days. You see, the SUN is born again.
It is always said that the SUN is born of a virgin, this being the celestial constellation, Virgo, which in Latin means virgin. In the Christian faith, the virgin’s name is Mary, much like in the other stories of sun-gods, the mother’s name begins with the letter M. Maya was the mother of Buddha, who followed the same story, as well as another named Myrra (Mother Myrra), who was Adonis’ mother, also born of a virgin. The reason for the letter M in all of the stories is because of the ancient glyph for the astrological sign of Virgo, which is an M with a slightly curved tail on it. The origin of the name of Bethlehem is in the Virgo body as well, as Virgo is drawn as a woman holding a cart of wheat, hence the name, House of Bread. House of Bread is the literal translation of Bethlehem, thus making the birthplace in the stars, not on earth as many believe.
It is all a celestial story that was truly never meant to be anything other. Primitive people didn’t know why this stuff happened, they just knew it did every year, therefore, their “scientists” or “priests” had to explain it somehow. This headed us into the second stage of explanation.
So, now that we know why the world seems to have similar legends regarding Christ, let’s take another look at the dragons. The first problem that I have regarding this is that dragons in all myths breathe fire. This is a pretty big inconsistency, as we’ve not yet found a single dinosaur fossil that has been capable of breathing fire. This is only the first problem though. They also seem to fly in all myths. Well, yes there are flying dinosaurs, but they looked nothing like any of the illustrations of dragons. In fact, most of them had feathers in the later years.
One of the allegedly greatest finds came from a temple in Cambodia. What was found was a carving of a Stegosaurus on a far corner of the temple wall. A laymen might actually think this to be good evidence, however, it is anything but. The first inconsistency is this: the carving looks nothing like a Stegosaurus, in fact, it more resembles a hippopotamus standing in front of a large bush. The second inconsistency is this: Stegosauruses have never been exhumed in that part of the world. In fact, they’ve only been found in the NW United States. The third is this: the temple was built just over 800 years ago. This means that if this is proof of man walking with dinosaurs, then the Stegosaurus must have been walking the earth near Ta Prohm at the same time that the temple was being built. It must have been wandering around eating trees with its giant spiky tale around the same time the Ghaznavids dynasty was falling and Calabria was the victim of one of the worst earthquakes on record. It was the time of Henry the 8th. Funny, he never mentions dinosaurs in his writings. Unless they were just that normal, I would think they would be everywhere. At least a slight mention of, “Well, wrestled the king of France today just before decapitating my wife, and wouldn’t you know, on the way home, a giant lizard bit my leg off.”
You see, this carving is nothing more than an animal that was seen in those parts then and still is today: the hippo. And even if this were a dinosaur, one must ask how that proves they’ve seen one. The artist could have been copying someone else’s work, or maybe he was just making something up. You know, like we do in cartoons and drawings all the time. It’s funny that directly below the hippo carving is a man with a hairy and seemingly fiery head, who has large fangs and crazy large eyes. Does that mean they saw those too?
Look, religionists are a group of people who reject every aspect of science. They believe in God because their book tells them to. What’s their proof that the book is authentic and that it’s telling the truth? Well, it says so. These are not reasonable people. This again is what separates science and religion. Scientists research and then come to the conclusion. Religious science reaches conclusions, then, tries to prove it, and even though it fails, it won’t admit it. Let’s remember that religionists only don’t like the parts of science that impede on their parade of mythology and legend. They certainly like science quite a bit before getting on an airplane, or whenever receiving medical treatment, or even whenever eating dinner or drinking water. But when it comes to evolution and the 14 billion year universe, no, no, no, we can’t accept that. That means we would have to reevaluate our primitive myths.
Look, however life got here is not something that we can say for sure. And what makes science great is that it doesn’t claim to have all the answers. Anything that does is lying. We don’t know where life came from in the first place. A true scientist can’t rule out any reasonable explanation, whether it’s the lightning muck pool, or even Panspermia. These are both reasonable theories and have been seen to have evidence to support them both. And while scientists may be a bit divided on the issue of the exact origins, nobody on either side is giving up with the lazy answer, “Magic Man did it!”
Irreducible complexity is a term that is used in the creationist circles to describe the theory that everything must have had a designer as it is so complex. What I don’t understand is how the complexity of all life on earth is somehow proof of creationism. To me, it seems like a pretty undeniable argument for evolution.
Science, by means of complex study and complex experimentation, has shown us how small, less complex organisms, throughout the course of 3.7 billion years, evolved into the beautiful, undeniably complex organisms that we see today. Religion, on the other hand, reduces the complexity of every life-form on the planet by either saying, “It just always was,” or by saying, “Magic Man did it.” Religionists reduce the complexity of thousands of transitional fossils by saying, “They’re not transitional, they’re just extinct.” In fact, if you were to make a query to a religionist regarding the reasoning behind the color of leaves or water, I’m sure your answer would be, “Because God made it that way.” Now, let’s compare that answer to one given by a scientist.
Why is water blue? Water owes its intrinsic blueness to selective absorption in the red part of its visible spectrum. The absorbed photons promote transitions to high overtone and combination states of the nuclear motions of the molecule, i.e. to highly excited vibrations. To our knowledge the intrinsic blueness of water is the only example from nature in which color originates from vibrational transitions. Other materials owe their colors to the interaction of visible light with the electrons of the substances. Their colors may originate from resonant interactions between photons and matter such as absorption, emission, and selective reflection or from non-resonant processes such as Rayleigh scattering, interference, diffraction, or refraction, but in each case, the photons interact primarily or exclusively with electrons. The details of the mechanism by which water is vibrationally colored will be discussed in the paragraphs which follow.
Now let’s remember what the religious explanation for the color of water. I’m sure that you can see a difference.
Water is not the only factor of nature that religionists try to use in their favor to prove something absurd though. There is also a very old argument regarding the color green. “Was it not great of the lord to make all of our surroundings green? Green is the most appeasing color to the human eye!” Well, you see, that last part is right, but I think they’re confusing exactly what is the cause and what is the effect here. Could it be that green is the most appeasing color to our eyes for the same reason it is to an ape’s eye? And, for that matter, wouldn’t it be consistent? Wouldn’t green be the most appeasing color to a dog’s eye as well? But dogs don’t see colors, and neither do most insects. And to many insects who can and other creatures that can, green isn’t the most appeasing color to their eyes, the colors of their food and environment are.
Just like us, the ape’s eye is pleased by green. Just like us, a shark’s eye can see red from longer distances than other colors. That’s why stop signs and lights are red (just a little fun trivia for the folks out there). It’s also why red cars tend to get more tickets. You see, we’re omnivores. This means that we eat both vegetation and meat. Of course, some humans choose to be purely carnivores and others choose to be herbivores, but no matter the label on themselves, they will yearn for whatever is lacking, as they need it to properly survive. Therefore, we are all omnivores, and most of our food would be either red, or would be like other plants and vegetables and be green mixed with many vibrant colors. This is another reason we see colors more vibrantly than carnivores. Do you see the chain forming here? Green is the most appeasing color to man because we come from it. We were once a nature dwelling species. Green always surrounded us and our eyes merely adapted, and even though we’re no longer woods dwellers (except for some people in Georgia) there’s no real reason for the eye to change, as it doesn’t hinder us in any way to cause those with the mutation to die off in lieu of those without it.
We see red from farthest away partly because of our need to scavenge. We see vibrant colors partly because of our need to eat wild fruits and berries which were essential to our evolutionary survival. Our eyes like green because we lived in green. This is a very old trick of the religionists: twisting the cause and the effect around to prove a point based on misinterpretation.
This is yet another reason why can’t fathom why religion is deemed to be more spiritual than science. I would like to let it be known that the greatest argument, philosophically, against religion is that—as Nietzsche elaborated in Ecce Homo—it reduces the history of man, nullifies the meaning and essence of the history of the earth as well as the universe, and nullifies all that we, as humans, ought to be proud of in regards to our own species as well as the world in which we live.
A great example of this is comparing the history of the universe scientifically to the history of the earth biblically. I’ve broken the steps down on both sides, let’s compare:
1. About 14 billion years ago: The Big Bang.
2. About 13.2 billion years ago: The formation of the Milky Way Galaxy.
3. About 8 billion years ago: The formation of the Solar System.
4. About 4.57 billion years ago: The formation of the Earth.
5. About 3.7 billion years ago: The origin of life on Earth.
6. The formation of the oldest known fossils on Earth.
7. About 3.4 billion years ago, dates the oldest fossils (blue-green algae and bacteria).
8. The invention of sex by microorganisms.
9. The oldest known fossil of photosynthetic plants.
10. Eukaryotes flourish.
11. Significant oxygen atmosphere begins to develop on Earth.
12. Extensive volcanism and channel formation on Mars
13. Formation of the first worms.
14. About 542 million years ago, the Precambrian Era ends. Paleozoic Era and Cambrian Period begin, and Invertebrates flourish.
15. The first oceanic Plankton. Trilobites flourish.
16. About 492 million years ago, the Ordovician Period begins. We see the first fish and first vertebrates appear.
17. About 416 million years ago, the Silurian Period begins. The first vascular plants appear and plants begin colonizing the land.
18. About 397 million years ago, the Devonian Period begins. We see the first insects appear, and animals begin colonizing the land.
19. First winged insects and amphibians.
20. About 290 million years ago, the Permian Period begins. It is in this period that we see the first dinosaurs.
21. About 245 million years ago, the Paleozoic Era ends, and the Mesozoic Era begins.
22. About 245 million years ago, the Triassic Period begins. The first mammals and birds appear about 180 million years ago.
23. About 208 million years ago, the Jurassic Period begins. The first mammals and birds appear about 180 million years ago.
24. About 140 million years ago, the Cretaceous Period begins. The first flowers form and dinosaurs become extinct.
25. About 65 million years ago, the Mesozoic Era ends, and the Cenozoic Era and Tertiary Period begin. First cetaceans and primates appear.
26. Early evolution of frontal lobes in brains of primates. First humanoids appear. Giant mammals flourish.
27. End of the Pliocene Period. About 1.64 million years ago, the Quaternary (Pleistocene and Holocene epochs) Period begins. The first humans appear.
Let’s now compare this to how all of this is explained in the Holy Bible:
1. About 6,000 years ago, BAM! Magic guy in the sky did it!
I’m sure I don’t have to tell you which way is more complex, let alone more accurate and believable, or even spiritual. This is the first of many cases in which religion invalidates our universe, world and all of the plants, animals and organisms within it.
Creationists like to use bad mathematics to prove bad science. What they did was calculate back about 6,000 years (imagine that) to “calculate” the likelihood that, through natural progression, we would have ended up how we are now. In other words, evolved. The number they came up with was a .0411091% chance of this happening naturally and without a “designer,” therefore, it is impossible. The problem is this: you cannot reverse calculate any event. It’s nothing more than bad science, as any calculation, when done in reverse, is going to produce an extremely low likelihood of happening. This is why this is not used in actual science. I passed a bus on my way to Byerly’s the other day. However, if a person were to use reverse calculation as a means of calculating the likelihood of this happening, they could easily formulate an argument that I was lying.
The average school bus is roughly 36 feet by 8.5 feet. This makes it about 47,264 inches squared. Now, lest’ take a look at the size of the earth. In feet, the world is about 5,490,383,247,360,000 square feet, therefore, it is about 65,884,598,968,320,000 square inches. Through very laymen mathematics, we can come to the calculation that the odds of ever being in the same vicinity as this particular bus at anytime during my life is exactly one in 1,393,970,018,794. Looking at those odds, it would be quite right to say it’s pretty damn unlikely that I would ever see that bus in my entire life. Now, let’s look at the odds that I would have come across that bus in that particular minute of my life. Since I’m almost 28 I’ll round to give it a one in 14,676,480 chance that I would even be there at that particular moment. However to calculate that the bus would be there too, we need to calculate the odds of both the bus and myself being that that particular spot that that particular minute. Again, through pretty simple mathematics, we come to a one in 642,839,756,014,296. To convert into a percentage, it’s actually .0000000000000155559% chance of this happening. You see, I’ve just convinced myself of two things: 1. I didn’t pass a school bus and there must be something wrong with my memory, and 2. I had some pretty good math teachers in my “crappy public education system.”
I’m sure you see my point though. Reverse calculation is inaccurate and is horribly bad science. It makes ANY action incredibly improbable. However, I just proved that evolution through natural selection is almost 97 times more likely than my passing a school bus on my way to the grocery store.
There is also a very traditional obstacle that Intelligent Design inflicts upon itself. Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that irreducible complexity were a viable scientific theory instead of nothing more than a scientific front for creationism and other ancient myths. The advocates of the Christian God find themselves in a very familiar, pseudo-scientific version of a very old religious argument: How do you know, with all of the options out there, that you’re praying to the right one?
Religion has been in this predicament for some time, in fact, since it’s inception. Every religion on the planet and throughout history claims to be the only real path to the only real deity. Therefore, how can you honestly discern your own god from the rest? What if you pick the wrong one? Do you go to hell? Is hell real? Many faiths don’t think so. How do you know, for instance, the Zeus isn’t the right one, and you won’t be punished for believing in the wrong one. You know, there is no more evidence of the Abrahamic God than there is for Zeus or Marduk. The problem, again, with ID is that it puts itself in this position. After all, proving that there is a “creator” doesn’t answer the question as to his identity. It could very well be any of the other millions of mythological beings that have been a part of superstition and religion throughout history. Proving that any given part of a flagellum is worthless by itself (which is a lie, by the way), only proves a designer, not God himself.
This could be proof of a supernatural creator. However, if nothing so complex as us could exist without a creator, then what or whom created the creator? After all, if we’re so complex and God designed us, then God must be complex. And if nothing complex can exist without a creator, as the ID people would like us all to think, then something must have created God, right? It can’t just stop somewhere at some ultimate beginning. And if it can, then that refutes their whole argument that complexity requires a designer, doesn’t it? It seems that Intelligent Design only acts as scientific proof that Intelligent Design is BS. It could have been anything, if you believe in an ultimate beginning, but it doesn’t have to be God. Maybe it’s Goddess, or even aliens.
Yes, that’s right. If you buy into ID, you have to, scientifically, allow for the possibility that aliens seeded us here, or even panspermia could be a possible origin. Now, those of us in the secular scientific community laugh at such claims, but if ID only proves a designer, it can’t only look for supernatural explanations, it must revert to natural explanations as well. And to be objective, you CANNOT rule out seeding. So, ID stands just as much as a basis for proving Scientology as it does any other religion, including Christianity. If could even stand to prove the Raelians correct, you know, that crazy cult in New Hampshire, I think it is. So, when you put your faith into ID (and it does require faith as it’s clearly not science), you better be sure you’re promoting the right designer!
It seems that irreducible complexity has many flaws, but one fundamental flaw haunts its very foundation: when reduced, species function just fine. You see, Irreducible Complexity’s entire foundation rests with a theory that since organisms are so complex, even the slightest part out of shape would render the entire organism incompetent, therefore, it could not have evolved and must have been that way all along. There are so many problems with this that I don’t know where to start. The first is with a complete misunderstanding of evolution. You see, evolution happens with small, very small, gradual changes happening over a period of time. We’ve watched species evolve since the 1800s when Darwin first sailed the Beagle. So, to say that a lesser evolved form of a species would have something “out of place” shows a blatant misunderstanding of evolution in general. It’s up there with, “Why are there still monkeys?” to which I respond, “Why are there still European?” But I’d rather talk about a more scientific flaw. Let’s go with bacteria.
Bacteria is a much lesser complex organism that we, but it is still quite complex none the less. It is, after all, a distant relative of ours. Just like us, there are many different breeds of bacteria, and each one functions just fine. But what of antibiotic resistant strains? Bodies with infections are commonly prescribed antibiotics, and it’s not rare for the bacteria in their body to develop a resistance to the antibiotic. This happens through natural evolution as the offspring strains with the resistance survive over the parent species which lacks the gene. Some offspring have it and some don’t, needless to say, those who don’t do not survive. Therefore, the duplicates or offspring of the resistant strain will carry the gene of resistance. The offspring with the resistance is slightly more complex than the offspring without it, but yet the parent species functioned just fine until a new factor was introduced into its environment. This is exactly how evolution happens, but again, the parent (slightly less complex species) survived just fine before the introduction of the new element. This is how complex species gradually come from less complex ones, thus disproving the entirety of the ID argument. As, according to Irreducible Complexity, this could not happen because complexity cannot be reduced. I’m rambling a bit, but you get the point.
Complexities are gradually adopted over generations, thus creating a more complex creature. Now, imagine this happening over about 5 billion years. I bet you’d have something that doesn’t even resemble the original concestor, wouldn’t you? Ooops, that’s evolution.
To put it bluntly, IR and ID are anti-scientific. They don’t account for the obviously transitional fossil record. Most often, those who profess to have all the answers answer nothing. Science doesn’t profess to know the absolute origins of life, we just know how we got from point A to point Z. Obviously, anyone can just make something up, but that is not science, that is religion. And Intelligent Design is only religion with a publicly scientific face. Science is a study of observation and theories are put through rigorous tests and ideas change all the time as old theories become obsolete. However, Darwin’s theory of evolution stands alone and fossil record clearly supports it. It also supports a 5 billion year old earth and a 14 billion year old universe, not a 6,000 year old both that was made in a week. The Discovery institute is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific church and it’s premise and result answers nothing as to the origins of life. It is only speculation and doesn’t have an observational backbone or leg to stand on.
The end, believe in God if you must, but don’t expect the real world to compromise scientific accomplishments to accommodate for a book written thousands of years ago. It is just that: a book, and that’s all. It’s a book of spirituality, and not science. Children should not be taught the biblical creation story along side evolution as though there are actually two sides to the argument, because there aren’t two sides. There’s one side that is knowledge based on evidence and experimentation, and another side that is based on nothing but speculation and bad science. And if we start teaching the Christian version of creation in the science classrooms, we should probably teach the other million creation stories as well. I’m sure the Hindus would like children to be taught that the world doesn’t orbit the sun, but instead, the world sits on the back of an elephant who stands on the back of a tortoise. I’m not kidding, it’s in their theology.
Good Day, Sunshine
I mentioned earlier that somehow in the bible, there is another light source in the universe other than the sun and the stars. What I don’t understand is what it is. It is written clearly in the Holy bible that God created light on the first day, and the sun and the stars on the second. Well, does this mean that children in sectarian schools are learning that there is another light source in the universe? If so, what is it? I think we all have the right to know. The explanation, as I said, is that God created a first light source to act against sun worship. The obvious problem, of course, is that people hadn’t been created yet, therefore, how could there have been sun worshipers to protect against? I won’t be redundant, but I thought this deserved an honorable mention in this chapter.
Education, Sexual Education That Is
If I can think of one particular act of war, declared by the Catholic church, it would have been the act of telling poorly educated, and AIDS plagued, South African people that condoms cause AIDS. In 2003, a senior Vatican official said that condoms had tiny holes in them, through which HIV and AIDS could easily travel through. While this is simply not true, this came from the same Vatican church that claimed that condoms would only exasperate the problem, as the “lord” looked discouragingly upon birth control, and would punish them for the usage. Remember, this is from the same church, as well, which told us all that AIDS was a cure from God to exterminate homosexuals (this quote was cited earlier).
The lies continued from the Vatican Council, when Cardinal Alfonzo Trujillo claimed to an open audience, “The AIDS virus is roughly 450 times smaller than a spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the net that is formed by the condom. There are two statements here that are completely untrue, and this acts as a great example of how the Vatican will lie, using pseudo-science, even at the risk of human life, to force people to into a Catholic mindset. It is in this way that a life or death medical issue is being hijacked to push a “moral” agenda.
A sperm is about one micron across, whereas an 130 nm (nanometers) or 0.000130 mm. Therefore, yes, an AIDS cell is much smaller than a sperm. Certainly not as much as the good Cardinal quoted, but it is smaller. Now, the basis of the argument is that occasionally people get pregnant even with the use of condoms, therefore, why couldn’t AIDS pass through. Well, if the woman is getting pregnant after intercourse, when a condom is involved, obviously, the condom was misused. 99% of the time, a broken condom is the fault of the misuse thereof. This is less an argument for moral imperialism, and more an argument for proper and extensive sexual education. What the Cardinal claimed was that sperm just merely passes through the net of the condom, which it does not. Again, if a condom fails, it is usually because of misuse, not because the condom was faulty. Hold one in your hand once and try to rip it. Eventually, you will, however, one must remember the type of motion that is going on through intercourse. You cannot say that glass won’t withstand light winds just because you can punch a hole in it if you try enough times. Logic.
If the church is so willing to compromise human life for the benefit of their moral crusade (a point which has been proven time and again before as well), to what other depths will they stoop for their imperialist victory. If there’s one thing for certain, it’s that there is no science involved in a claim that AIDS is caused by condoms.
Well, we can look at what has been done in our own country. While we’ve seen crime rates steadily decrease since the ruling of Roe VS Wade, we’ve also seen a recent decline in sexual education as well as an increase in teen pregnancy. One would have to deny the obvious in order to fail to link the raise in teen pregnancy to Catholic Church’s antithetic views on both abortion and birth control.
The Great Divide
We’ve established earlier in the book the dangers of organized religion. However, we didn’t really establish why the danger is present. The answer is quite simple: religion is the most divisive force that has ever shown its face in this planet.
Of course, like with any other argument, there are those who would think antithetically to this claim. However, how can they with all of the evidence that supports it? I suppose in the same way they so fervently deny evolution and the big bang. Religion has proven itself to be a very divisive tool in many ways. Many would argue that politics is far more divisive. However, politics in the United States are divided down two party lines, causing a schism of two groups, with a very small remainder. Religion, on the other hand, divides people into a far greater number of groups. And politics is far less divisive in the sense that inter-religious marriages are adamantly frowned upon by the clergy in most religions, whereas, as far as politics goes, if Anne Coulter can share her home with a democrat, I think that speaks volumes.
Were American politics so divided fifty years ago? Of course not. The great divide in American politics didn’t come about until the 1990s when the fundamentalists transformed their group from mere psychotics in the fringe, into the mainstream of American politics. Therefore, there was a new argument to distract from policy, something that’s a matter of opinion most of the time, and to heed more attention to religious beliefs, which are just that, beliefs. And improvable beliefs as well. I don’t think I need to reiterate that superstition should not be the standard by which policies are decided upon. But it wasn’t so much about policy anymore, it was solely about religion, and the fundamentalists, who had just taken Washington by storm by electing one of their own, put down their guns momentarily and flocked to the voting polls again and again, voting perfectly down party lines now that the right had gotten the church on their side.
This marked the beginning of the great divide in America and it is still moving strong today. In fact, it’s my firm belief that had it not been for the democratic candidate being a minority, this would not have changed. Policy didn’t matter anymore. As I discussed earlier, a pretty great percentage of those who voted for Bush in 2000 were doing so based only on his faith, and this number only increased in 2004. Should whether or not a person believes in zombies and talking snakes stand as the basis of whether or not their fit to run the country? Of course not. This shouldn’t even be considered, let alone be the only basis of a person’s vote. It’s completely absurd. A person’s ability to run a country should be based on their experience and their policies, and not based on their supernatural or superstitious (one in the same really) beliefs.
But that’s just the problem. It is all about beliefs. The most divisive force in our world is a matter of belief that requires a leap of faith in something that cannot be proven or observed. This is the 21st century—there is no reason in this day and age for something as ridiculous as the matter of which invisible man a person believes in to stand is a driving force of discrimination or prejudice. Real life issues have taken a back seat to superstitious beliefs, and it is then no wonder that real life issues are not being solved. The radical right doesn’t honestly care what happens on this planet now, as they think they’re going to another one soon anyway, either through death or the rapture and over 70% of Americans believe will happen in their lifetimes. Is it any wonder that global warming has taken a back seat? No, the religious right believes God gave us this planet and that we’re too small to possibly affect it. Well, tell that to cancer cells, I’m sure they would be amused to hear that. But nothing is being done about global warming, nothing is being done to get stem-cell research legalized in our country, and furthermore, nothing is being done on a federal level to legalize gay marriage. It seems that policy and real life problems take a back seat to religion until the policy conflicts with books that were written 2,000 years ago, then they need to be acted upon immediately, which gay marriage certainly was.
Superstitious beliefs cannot be the basis of policy. Scientific studies and scientific resolutions are the only way to solve real life problems, as science is real life and superstition is not. But what of the rampant discrimination in our world today? Should religion be the source of that too? Should anything really be the source of discrimination or prejudice? I happen to believe that prejudice and discrimination on any level are negative, especially when the discrimination is over which invisible man a person believes in or doesn’t believe in. After all, when you were a child, did you discriminate against people who thought Mother Goose was better than Dr. Seuss? I’m sure you probably had a couple of arguments over it that went a little something like, “Goose is better!” “No, Seuss is better!” “Oh yeah, well I’m taking my ball home and I’m telling my mom on you!” But did you ever tell someone that they couldn’t play in your park over it? Did you ever tell anyone that they couldn’t be your neighbors over it? Did you ever kill another person over it? I’m guessing no. This is definitive proof that children are far more mature than religionists. Whether you like Seuss, Goose or God, it doesn’t actually matter in real life, as it is a matter of opinion, and it most certainly shouldn’t be the basis of judging somebody.
Let’s all do a little experiment. Talk to a Rabbi, priest, bishop, pasture or, for that matter, anyone from the Middle East and ask them what they would do if their son or daughter decided to marry a person of another religion. The response that I received was far more alarming than I thought it would be. Not a single one of them said they would approve. However, the response from the five Somalians that I talked to said they would disown their son or daughter for dating someone of another religion. Three of them said that they would disown their children for even having non-Muslim friends. Is it any wonder why all of the Muslims in any given city live in their own segregated areas? Is it a wonder that so many states are divided by religious majorities, and often people move to other states to be with their own? Their own what? They will actually move states to be around other people who believe it’s important to dance around a fire naked at night or else the rain won’t come? Is that anymore absurd than a separation between people who think a woman of the past, who may have never existed at all, was worthy of being tagged with the meaningless label of sainthood? It’s just a title. Nothing changes in your life from it. Nothing changes in a dead person’s life either. Is that really something you want to choose your friends based upon? Rather, is that something you would kill another person about? If your answer is no, then you really ought to talk to your fellow Catholics and non-Catholics in the Middle East, because they certainly think it’s perfectly alright, and even encouraged.