Posts Tagged ‘scientific’

CAN CHARLES DARWIN BE TRUSTED?

April 3, 2014

Historical people, like the rest of us, sometimes contradict themselves and often change their minds over time.  It is generally fair to conclude what scientists say in their older age represents their true lifetime professional opinion, rather than what they might have said when they were younger.

Human language definition often changes over historical time and words sometimes develop multiple meanings.  To be fair and accurate, one must consider how words were defined when they were spoken, rather than how those same words might be defined today.  Careful historians apply a discipline called “philology” to help understand human language in historical context.

For example, broad-brushing the American founders as “deists”, a consistent bad habit of modern educators, is a historical lie.  The majority ascribed to some form of Christianity and, the very few who claimed to be deists apparently believed God hears prayers and interacts with human affairs.  There is no evidence any American founder was a deist as the term is normally defined today.

Charles Darwin, in the opening sentences of his final revision of “On The Origin of Species”, is humble enough to credit our Creator for being behind whatever universal processes and reality there may be. This edition was published about five years prior to Darwin’s death and thus, it represents a lifetime conclusion.

Some ‘scholars’ today, pretending they can somehow know Darwin’s intentions, claim that he only mentioned God to make his wife and family happy and to otherwise appease the religious leaders of his day.  Because Darwin throughout his lifetime consistently openly debated with religious leaders and others concerning his ideas, such a claim has no historical merit.  One might fairly ask, if we can’t trust Darwin regarding this most fundamental of human beliefs, how can we trust anything else he said?

Perhaps Darwin made no mention of our Creator in his first edition because the overwhelming evidence for creation was agreed to by the vast majority of scholars of his time.  Maybe only after the publishing of his theories had caused considerable controversy, did Darwin then find it necessary to place our Creator where he, like Einstein and Jefferson apparently believed God belongs, far above all human science, reason and understanding.

In a letter published two years before his death, Darwin strongly denies being an atheist, saying his mind was “mainly agnostic but not entirely”.  Because agnostic at that time sometimes referred to distrust in religion and human claims about God, rather than questioning God’s existence, Darwin could attest to our Creator and still remain agnostic but not entirely without contradiction.

Is it fair to pretend one of human history’s greatest scientists can’t be trusted to be honest regarding what he fundamentally believed?  Is it fair to just arbitrarily ignore various words ascribed to Jefferson, Einstein and Darwin because modern liars don’t like what they actually said? Is it fair to speak for historical people, rather than allowing their own words to speak for them?

Can Charles Darwin be trusted?  You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article

Video for this article

Advertisements

WHY IS BILL MAHER LYING TO AMERICANS? ~ Does Belief in God Really Cause War?

October 17, 2009

Unlike in the time of Thomas Jefferson, when “Creator”, “religion” and “church” represented three distinct ideas, “religion” today is a very loaded term.  It is entirely inaccurate, as Bill Maher and other atheists often do, to lump belief in God, organized religion and the evil that adherents of a particular religion engage in, together under a common term and then, to place the blame there for humanity’s problems.

For example, Jesus is very clearly not the founder of Christianity or anything remotely like it, nor is it any more fair to blame Jesus for what people do in his name, than it is to blame Copernicus and Isaac Newton for Hiroshima.  The same applies in varying degrees to Buddha, Confucius, Zarathustra and certain other so-called “founders” of various religions.  There is no greater critic of fundamentalist religion or religious hypocrisy in history than Jesus, nor is there any greater advocate for personal, local and global peace.

Like religion, science and education are historically intimately entwined with war and human oppression on a massive scale, tracing back from ever more effective designs for ancient war chariots, DaVinci’s war-machine inventions and, on up through the Manhattan Project, the modern-day military industrial complex and ever worse weapons of mass destruction.  The American, French, Russian and several other revolutions were fomented by so-called “enlightened” intellectuals.

It is correct to say religion is a tool often used to foment war and human oppression and, it’s just as fair to point out science and education are often used for the same purpose.  However, it is not accurate to pretend either one is a root “cause” of human aggression. Believers in God and scientists both often leave a positive legacy and, many of history’s most revered individuals demonstrated a profound personal belief in God.  Jesus correctly singled out religious hypocrisy, rather than belief in God, as having a significant negative societal impact.

Since the invention of printing, which helped break the societal stranglehold of organized religion, justification for war has more and more been shifted away from religious to other excuses.  In a so-called “post-Enlightenment Age”, wars are now often fought in the name of democracy, freedom, communism, socialism, anarchism and even human rights.  Those who blame belief in God for war, rather than placing the blame for war where it squarely belongs, on individual human beings making their own poor choices, are plainly liars.

According to Jesus and some New Testament authors and, according to ALL known scientific and historical evidence, the root cause of humanity’s problems is sin, causing individual human frustration, greed and aggression, resulting in negative choices being made by individual human beings.  Families, tribes, cities, states, nations, armies, religions, political parties, corporations, unions, educational institutions, professional scientists and all other “groupings” of human beings, are made up of individual people, each making their own individual choices.

It would be refreshing if modern educators and people like Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens could grow up just a little and, begin placing the blame for humanity’s problems where it belongs, squarely on our own self-contradicting shoulders. Perhaps then, a modern species in grave peril of losing it’s own commonly shared global habitat, could begin to have a little more unbiased and accurate understanding of where Jesus and the authors of the Bible are actually coming from.

Were the American, French, Russian and Chinese revolutions, WWI, WWII, Vietnam and Iraq, among hundreds of other wars from the 20th Century forward, caused more by belief in God, organized religion, intellectual idealism, nationalism or just plain old common human greed, as ALL wars can invariably be traced back to?  Does belief in God really cause war?  You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for the above article

IS RICHARD DAWKINS SMARTER THAN JESUS?

October 17, 2009

Many intellectuals claim some of what Jesus taught was first said by other people and, Jesus himself might be the first to agree.  Human rights, morality and ethics are clearly based on a shared human conscience, something the authors of the Bible, Thomas Jefferson and the historical evidence all strongly agree concerning and, something the ACLU, Richard Dawkins and many other ivory tower pedagogues apparently, have entirely overlooked.

Unlike many modern educators, Jesus is not about stroking his own ego by pushing his own private vision and agenda.  Rather, Jesus is about promoting the “best” idea that will best help humanity.  Thus, if an idea was already the best, Jesus used it, if it could be improved upon, he improved on it and, if he had a better idea, he taught that instead.

This is a far more advanced and “enlightened” concept of education than we find in this so-called “post-Enlightenment” age, where various “pop” pundits are out to make it big on best seller lists by pushing “their” supposedly “new” ideas.  As the Bible says, “there is nothing new under the sun.”  Regardless of how we change and re-arrange terminology, violence, human oppression, suffering, sorrow and, the solution for alleviating and eliminating them remains the same.

We live in an age of extreme soapbox bias, an age of defending various political, intellectual, religious and other “sides”, rather than an age centered on a search for what is really true and, what actually might be the best idea.  Modern education is divided into distinct categories like “science”, “history” and, “religion”, as if we can divide up reality and expect to have any idea what is actually true.  We conveniently place Jesus in “religion” category and thus, our children entirely lose out on the best ideas in human history.

Jesus taught that treating other people like we want them to treat us is the sum of all wisdom; does Richard Dawkins have a better foundation for human rights?  Jesus implied the more we know what is true, the more free we will become; does Richard Dawkins have a better foundation for education?  According to Jesus, a common grass flower is better clothed than Solomon was; does Richard Dawkins have a better foundation for environmental awareness?

Jesus taught the way to honor God is to love our neighbor as ourselves; does Richard Dawkins have a better foundation for morality and ethics?  Jesus taught the way to achieve peace is to put away our swords and spread peace and goodwill, rather than like scientists, create more and bigger swords, which is the Greek, Roman, American and world civilization history method of “securing the peace”.  Does Richard Dawkins have a better idea?

Why do modern scientists, after 10,000 years of moral education to the contrary, continue to create weapons of mass destruction?  In a post-Enlightenment age of atheism, science and wonder, why does war and the poor still remain with us, as Jesus predicted they would?

Richard Dawkins implies Jesus was delusional.  Is he smarter than Jesus?  Is anybody smarter than Jesus?  You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for the above article

IS ATHEISM SCIENTIFIC?

October 17, 2009

No one knows for certain who designed Stonehenge or the pyramids of Egypt or, exactly how they were constructed.  Yet, no archaeologist or historian has ever proposed they appeared on their own, without input from designers or builders.

Such universal assumption is the most likely conclusion given the known evidence and, much of what science “believes” is based on similar assumptions.  Even though people can create things that can repair and even create other things by themselves, all known evidence indicates no finite living being or object can exist without a creator.

Descartes first principle of philosophy, science and reason states: “Accept nothing as true that is not self-evident”.  The history of science tracing prior to ancient Greece on into the present, is a history of the most likely conclusion based on the current known evidence.

Just as all evidence indicates for every action there is a re-action, likewise all evidence indicates nothing can be in motion by it’s own volition.  All known evidence indicates a universe filled with “zillions” of complex parts within ever greater complexity of parts and, containing intelligent finite beings of conscience and conscious awareness, requires Creative Intelligence.  Thus, the correct postulate of true science is “Eternal Creator(s)” until proven otherwise.

Pretending that “science” is somehow different than belief in God is an obvious lie. Just as scientists “believe” in black holes and invisible light based on mirrored evidence, much more so, mirrored evidence of a Creator(s) is overwhelmingly self-evident.  And, just as if someone claims the earth is cube-shaped or, A2 + B2 doesn’t equal C2, the burden of proof remains on atheists, because all known evidence indicates the opposite conclusion.

According to Jesus, as well as many historical scientists and sages of note, basic to wisdom, education and survival itself, is to attempt to sort out what’s actually true, from whatever fiction the cultures and religions we are born into claim is true.  As Jesus implied, if we don’t know what’s true, we have no hope of being free.

Believing the earth is square doesn’t change the reality of the shape of the earth.  What is true about the earth remains the same, regardless of what we believe or, fail to believe.  Whether we label it “science”, “religion” or something else, what is actually true remains the same.

Someone can’t just assume a steel ball and feather will fall at the same rate of speed and call it a “scientific theory”, without significant supporting evidence.  There is nothing more unscientific and irrational than pretending there is no God, because all known evidence indicates the opposite conclusion.

If someone says they don’t know if there’s a God, perhaps they just need to get out and smell the roses once in a while.  However, if someone says there is no Creator, they are by all scientific and other rational default, plainly a liar, because there is no evidence to support such an absurd position.

Is atheism scientific?  You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for the above article