Radical Atheist

Did we need religion to get to where we are today? Was religious belief a primary factor in humanity being what it is today, the world being in the condition it’s in today? Wouldn’t humanity have been worse off without religion?

Humans have evolved a brain that is capable of abstract thought. Being thinking animals, we ask questions that often have no absolute answer in nature. We also evolved a need to be sure of things. We dislike uncertainty. When we have a question for which there appears to be no explanation we impatiently invent one.

Thousands of years ago people questioned their existence. They invented answers to their questions that both satisfied their curiosity and managed to avoid debunking by being posed as outside our everyday reality. In the years since the industrial revolution we’ve had more and more “free time” during which to ponder our existence. We still don’t have any absolutely sure answers for some of our thorniest questions, so there’s still room for fantastic thinking. Some people become so comfortable with their superstitious beliefs they’ll hold onto them even after a reasonably natural explanation can be provided for some “miraculous” or “foreseen” event. Hope and wishful thinking are more comforting than a seemingly sterile, materialistic, atheistic view of life.

I consider religious belief to be a form of superstition. I see no practical, core difference between believing in a god, believing a rabbit’s foot can bring luck, lucky numbers or crystal power. They are just a few of the personally significant superstitions that are accepted as valid and real despite having no credible evidence of their efficacy. We employ them to explain the unexplained. We use them as filler for the gaps in our understanding. They have, no doubt, contributed to our success as a species in some manner. But we shouldn’t get too egotistical about our place in the history of the planet. Our species hasn’t even been around as long as the dinosaurs were. Still, we can relieve our feelings of insignificance by inventing gods and fates that favor us, guide us, even love us.

I suspect it’s our ability to construct superstitions, being abstract thinkers, to explain the mysteries we encounter that has an evolutionary advantage. We aren’t stressed out by doubt. Superstitions gave us a way to avoid asking questions for which we knew there were no answers. Unfortunately it turned out that superstitious people were easy to manipulate. Many priests and con-men have lived lives of luxury and influence thanks to the human propensity to need an absolute answer for every question, the human willingness to suspend all skepticism and incredulity in the quest for assurance and certainty.

Atheists truly are ignorant. We are willing to admit that to many of the really big questions in life we have no answers. We are too young a species, we have only had the tools to examine reality at ever smaller and smaller scales for the last hundred years or so. We are at the point where most of what we’re discovering is showing us how poorly we understand reality at its core, how much there is yet to learn. We accept our ignorance, it’s what motivates us to always be pushing the limits of knowledge and always willing to learn. As we learn more and understand better, we incorporate new knowledge into our world view. Nothing is certain, nothing can yet be said to be absolutely this or that. There’s too much we just don’t know yet.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Why do we believe in strange things? (vmohanty.com)
• Reply to Nicholas Wade (samharris.org)

Print Friendly

I’m not a militant atheist, I’m certainly not a dogmatic atheist. But I am an atheist, or as I prefer, a disbeliever. I have no interest in offending the religious, it isn’t my intention to insult. But I am quite opinionated, well-read, a former believer, a spiritual non-believer. I will not back away from or disavow my opinions. If that causes someone offense, if they perceive insult, that’s their problem. They’re always free to ignore me.

I am a humanist (not an official Humanist). I share with all other humans certain traits, behaviors and aspirations. I understand the need and origin of religious belief. But I have no respect for any belief system that divides humans, any dogma that egotistically states that some humans (always humans like themselves) are better than everyone else, more deserving of an enjoyable life, more favored by some divine authority. All of us reading this are humans.

I’ve never been embarrassed to admit that I am a product of evolution, that I share the same origins as every other human on the planet. We should feel no pride or shame for what we are due to nature; we had no choice in our race, our sex, our hair natural hair color or lack of hair. What fairly brings us pride or shame is what we’ve made of ourselves with what nature gave us. We are judged by our attitudes, our beliefs, our statements, our behaviors. Those are what divide and unite us. It’s not our fault I’m white and you’re Black. We can’t help that you’re a woman and I’m a man. But once I’ve formed an opinion about Blacks and women I am fully responsible for those opinions. I don’t accept the excuse that “God made me this way”. You’re perception of god is not to blame for your racism, your smug superiority, your callous disregard for your fellow human. We choose our beliefs, they are our responsibility for better or worse. To own your attitudes and beliefs is to be fully human. To realize that natural handicaps come in all shapes and sizes, aren’t always obvious and say nothing of the human inside is to be fully human.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Top 5 ways to be an Angry Atheist (seantheblogonaut.com)
• Neal Jansons: The new crybaby theists (theage.com.au)
• Groundhog day – The so called “New Atheism” and framing of atheist history and heritage (seantheblogonaut.com)

Print Friendly

If I may, I’d like to introduce into evidence the following letter, written by the founder of the FSM movement. Who should know better the purpose of the concept of the FSM than the person who created it?

Open Letter To Kansas School Board

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
(graph of relationship between the number of pirates and the global average temperature and a drawing of the FSM not included in this quote)

The concept has been borrowed by atheists and applied to religious faith in general, but the original focus of the parody was the Kansas School Board fiasco over the Intellectual Design movement.

Can satire ridicule and humiliate? Sure, watch Life of Brian and Monty Python and the Holy Grail sometime (both available from Netflix-awarded five stars by this reviewer). But satire is also useful in making people think instead of presume, to look at familiar situations from a different perspective.

When it comes to granting an unwarranted exemption-from-criticism to religious belief I agree with AC Grayling when he writes,

It is time to reverse the prevailing notion that religious commitment is intrinsically deserving of respect, and that it should be handled with kid gloves and protected by custom and in some cases law against criticism and ridicule.

It is time to refuse to tip-toe around people who claim respect, consideration, special treatment, or any other kind of immunity, on the grounds that they have a religious faith, as if having faith were a privilege-endowing virtue, as if it were noble to believe in unsupported claims and ancient superstitions. It is neither. Faith is a commitment to belief contrary to evidence and reason, as between them Kierkegaard and the tale of Doubting Thomas are at pains to show; their example should lay to rest the endeavours of some (from the Pope to the Southern Baptists) who try to argue that faith is other than at least non-rational, given that for Kierkegaard its virtue precisely lies in its irrationality.

On the contrary: to believe something in the face of evidence and against reason – to believe something by faith – is ignoble, irresponsible and ignorant, and merits the opposite of respect. It is time to say so.

Those who claim to be “hurt” or “offended” by the criticisms or ridicule of people who do not share their views, yet who seek to silence others by law or by threats of violence, are trebly in the wrong: they undermine the central and fundamental value of free speech, without which no other civil liberties are possible; they claim, on no justifiable ground, a right to special status and special treatment on the sole ground that they have chosen to believe a set of propositions; and they demand that people who do not accept their beliefs and practices should treat these latter in ways that implicitly accept their holder’s evaluation of them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/oct/19/acgrayling

It’s clear that the original intent of the FSM proposal was specifically to challenge the philosophical underpinnings of the ID movement in its attempt to infiltrate the Kansas high school science curriculum. I submit it could be successfully argued that the FSM has been co-opted by atheism to illustrate how religions are formed and how difficult they are to debunk. In neither case do I believe there is evidence of intent to ridicule or humiliate believers.

However, we all know that intent does not guarantee a particular outcome. Similarly, intent does not protect against mis-perceptions. If offense is taken by satire directed against religious belief, it must be understood that this is a choice, the insulted party is responsible for their perception. No one knows another mind completely. If one chooses to take offense the intent of the “offender” matters little.

There are many people I go out of my way not to offend. I respect them and feel they deserve this from me. Some of them I know as individuals while others are members of groups that as a group earn respect.

Religious believers is not a group that has earned respect, and loses points of respect every time I hear them demanding it or threatening what they’ll do if they don’t get it. Atheists are expected to passively submit to frequent postings on the internet and statements by people with whom we associate that portray atheists as evil, devil worshipers, Satanists, Communists, molesters, rapists, doomed to hell to suffer eternal torment for having the audacity to question the gods and to laugh at the belief in them. And while not taking offense ourselves, we’re expected to offer respect to those who espouse and announce such judgmental ignorance. In fact, we’re further castigated for not showing respect to our overlords, just another sin added to an already long list. Sure, that sounds reasonable. Let me throw myself in the mud so that you may step on me and avoid becoming soiled, my lord.

Theism is horrified by the realization that atheism has finally developed into a formidable foe. There is a growing number of atheists who can defend their opinion with intelligence and citations. A growing number of “celebrity atheists” are emerging, outspoken and out of the closet, the beginning of a well prepared counterforce to the Jim Bakkers and Pat Robertsons we’ve had since the beginning of this nation. And the FSM is one of those celebrity atheists. Some branches of theism despise cartoons about their prophets and gods, but now atheism has its own.

The FSM is an appropriate satire on several levels. It was successful in exposing the true intentions of Dembski, Behe and their fellows. It’s equally effective when used by atheists to draw attention to the often overlooked weaknesses in the arguments supporting the notion that gods exist.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Handy Table Comparing FSM, Evo, ID, Creationism (tuibguy.com)
• Monty Python, minus Cleese, reunite for Not the Messiah in London (tvsquad.com)
• Religion and Evolution (prep4md.blogspot.com)
• Behe’s “objectionable” interview reinstated (openparachute.wordpress.com)
• Liars for Jesus (endhereditaryreligion.com)
• Meme or Gene: Is the Belief in Religion an Evolutionary Trait? (agentultra.com)

Print Friendly

I keep seeing reports from researchers in neuroscience that suggest we humans might be “hard-wired” for belief in gods. Recently another such report raised interest on the internet.

A belief in God is deeply embedded in the human brain, which is programmed for religious experiences, according to a United States study.

Scientists searching for the neural “God spot”, which is supposed to control religious belief, believe several areas of the brain form the biological foundations of religious belief.

The researchers said their findings supported the idea that the brain had evolved to be sensitive to any form of belief that improved the chances of survival, which could explain why a belief in God and the supernatural became so widespread in human evolutionary history.

“Religious belief and behaviour are a hallmark of human life, with no accepted animal equivalent, and found in all cultures,” said Professor Jordan Grafman, from the US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, near Washington.

“Our results are unique in demonstrating that specific components of religious belief are mediated by well-known brain networks and they support contemporary psychological theories that ground religious belief within evolutionary-adaptive cognitive functions.”

Scientists are divided on whether religious belief has a biological basis.Some evolutionary theorists have suggested that Darwinian natural selection may have put a premium on individuals if they were able to use religious belief to survive hardships that may have overwhelmed those with no religious convictions.

Others have suggested that religious belief is a side effect of a wider trait in the human brain to search for coherent beliefs about the outside world. Religion and belief in God, they argue, are just a manifestation of this intrinsic, biological phenomenon that makes the human brain so intelligent and adaptable. (Source-NZHerald)

I’m with the latter group, those who are willing to accept that we might be “hard-wired” for wonder and the desire to find explanations, but considering the plethora of gods worshiped throughout human history I see no reason to suppose nature imbues us with religious belief. When our attempts to understand nature and reality are thwarted by a lack of technology or an inability to comprehend natural processes, humans are quick to suppose any number of superstitious and supernatural explanations that try to account for our lack of concrete knowledge.

Science may as well search for the part of our brain that makes humans so unsatisfied with relative answers. Our desire to find absolute answers to life’s questions is as much a cause for imagining gods as any other. The belief in gods doesn’t answer any of our current answers about the origin of the universe or life on Earth, nor does it provide guidance for many of the modern issues facing society. All it does is act as a salve, a balm for the unknown. It’s a band-aid that covers over the gaps in our understanding and does nothing to actually heal those gaps.

The predisposition that gods exist lead researchers to conclude we are “hard-wired” for supernatural belief. Looking at the evidence without that precondition in place allows us to see this human characteristic in more general terms which I consider closer to reality. If we are “hard-wired” as they suggest, it’s a propensity for questioning and wonder. That propensity can be beneficial when it motivates us to study nature and reality and draw conclusions from the evidence. It can be abused when it’s perverted into accepting the unproven and untestable as a reasonable answer to our questions about the universe and life.

Are we “hard-wired” for god? No, I see no research that substantiates that presumption. Are we coded by evolution and genetics to question and wonder about what lies beyond our current body of knowledge? I see no reason to suppose we aren’t. The gods is an inadequate answer to the questions we have regarding reality and the physical universe, answers we may indeed be “programmed” by nature and evolution to seek.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Evolving Beliefs (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• Leaving Religion Behind: A Portrait of Nonreligious America (usnews.com)
• Religion and nanotechnology (boingboing.net)

Print Friendly

If you think the title is an oxymoron, keep reading:

Fascination with animals permeates childhood. Yet, with biology books oozing evolutionary propaganda and conjecture, an animal enthusiast’s faith in the Bible is in danger of erosion. So how can a Christian child maintain and grow their faith if they want to study animals? The answer is the latest book in Jeannie Fulbright’s creation science series, Exploring Creation with Zoology III, which covers the land animals created on the sixth day.

Released in March 2008, Christian book stores are already selling out of this well researched, scientifically profound book, which is the fifth book in Fulbright’s creation science sequence. Covering all the land creatures from parasites to primates, Exploring Creation with Zoology III presents scientifically sound teaching, along with evidence for deliberate design, a biblical model for origins and explanations that expose the absurdity of evolutionary leaps of logic. All this is accessible to a child, with Fulbright’s engaging writing style, full color photos and entertaining experiments and projects. Many children and parents alike will appreciate the chapter dedicated to dinosaurs. Not only will they learn the scientific classifications of the dinosaur kinds and become virtual experts in the field, families will discover data that supports the dinosaurs’ recent history on planet earth.

“The animals God created are beyond fascinating. Children need a resource with which they can study them in-depth, one which does not compromise their faith or sow seeds of doubt,” Fulbright communicated at a recent conference in Georgia. (Source)

It’s hard to know where to start dissecting this example of horrid ignorance.

“Yet, with biology books oozing evolutionary propaganda and conjecture, an animal enthusiast’s faith in the Bible is in danger of erosion.” Nice use of terms that make an emotional rather than intellectual objection to evolution, but unfortunately it lays bare the lack your lack of understanding about the theory. If children’s faith is in jeopardy from being exposed to knowledge rather than mythology, good. Blind faith can only fill the gaps in our knowledge. Gawd forbid any child should be allowed to think for themselves.

“So how can a Christian child maintain and grow their faith if they want to study animals?” So how can we be sure our brainwashing isn’t undone by exposure to real scientific research?

“The answer is the latest book in Jeannie Fulbright’s creation science series, Exploring Creation with Zoology III, which covers the land animals created on the sixth day.” The answer is compelling children to read baseless speculation disguised as fact.

“…this well researched, scientifically profound book…” What can I say but, bullshit. The only reference book used by this author was the Bible.

“Covering all the land creatures from parasites to primates” Not humans, though, because we all know humans aren’t animals, they’re god’s favorite little playthings.

“…Exploring Creation with Zoology III presents scientifically sound teaching, along with evidence for deliberate design, a biblical model for origins and explanations that expose the absurdity of evolutionary leaps of logic.” Of course we can’t explain design, since there’s no absolute standard for what compromises design. And just trust us that evolutionary theory is absurd. Don’t risk your faith by trying to actually study it yourself.

“All this is accessible to a child, with Fulbright’s engaging writing style, full color photos and entertaining experiments and projects.” Because even creationists realize that propaganda works best if it’s presented in a friendly, entertaining fashion. The pretty pictures distract a child from asking uncomfortable questions.

“Many children and parents alike will appreciate the chapter dedicated to dinosaurs. Not only will they learn the scientific classifications of the dinosaur kinds and become virtual experts in the field, families will discover data that supports the dinosaurs’ recent history on planet earth.” I sure hope she explains that god buried all those fossils where he did just to fool the paleontologists because that god, he’s got a real sense of humor.

“Children need a resource with which they can study them in-depth, one which does not compromise their faith or sow seeds of doubt” We sure hope you’re home schooling your kids as well, because every Christian knows that education is like loamy soil and water to those seeds of doubt.

This book and the review are both so transparently ignorant. They reflect the fear creationists feel of the future, of our increasing knowledge about the workings and processes of nature. They know as well as we do that for every little bit of verifiable knowledge mankind uncovers, the need to invent gods to explain those things we don’t understand (or want to admit to ourselves because reality is so uncertain) is reduced.

Eventually there will be so little left to credit to the gods that all religious belief will become no more important to us than any other outdated superstition. Raise your hand if you still avoid stepping on sidewalk cracks, or worry about spilled salt. Every day another old, tired superstition falls by the wayside, usually without ever being well understood. Most superstitions began as a means of protecting oneself from the revenge of angry gods. Some had more mundane origins. But very few people have ever studied the origins of superstitions, fables and myths. Most of us quit believing in the efficacy of tossing the salt over our shoulder or avoiding the cracks because we understood, at a nearly unconscious level, that there was no cause-and-effect at play here. How in the world could stepping on a crack cause your mother to break her back? It’s patently nonsensical. A creationist would be hard-pressed to find causality where there so evidently is none.

In a world dedicated to sanity and reasonableness any parent who either allowed, encouraged or required their child to read and believe that book would be…wait, it isn’t necessary to even conjecture. In that kind of world, that book would be perceived rightly as satire.

Print Friendly

The North has its share of numbskulls, too. And just like we’ve seen in so many other cases, too many of them gravitate toward positions of power, however petty. Like local school boards.

SAD 59 debates teaching of evolution

The state Department of Education disagrees with an Athens School Board director who wants School Administrative District 59 to drop evolution from its high school science curricula.

Director Matthew Linkletter claims evolution is an unprovable theory and shouldn’t be taught as fact. He’s urged the SAD 59 Board of Directors to consider his view during its May 19 meeting in Madison, with a goal of removing evolution from science classrooms.

But David Connerty-Marin of the Department of Education says evolution must be taught because, in the state’s view, it’s a proven science.

“For our students to be prepared for college work and life in the 21st century, it’s necessary,” said Connerty-Marin.

Connerty-Marin said the Maine Learning Results program mandates the study of evolution in public science classes.

“Evolution is not just a belief, or based on faith, it’s based on scientific evaluation,” he said. “The worldwide science community supports it.”

Linkletter believes that neither evolution nor creationism belong in a high school science curriculum, because they cannot be proven.

“You can’t show, observe or prove (evolution),” he said.

School Administrative District 59 includes the towns of Madison, Athens, Brighton Plantation and Starks.

Chosen at random, two parents of Madison Area Memorial High School students expressed some support for Linkletter’s position.

“I think that’s a very valid point, to tell you the truth, because evolution is only a theory, not a hard fact,” said Nancy Martin, an educational technician at Athens Elementary School.

Martin, who has a son at the high school, said that she believes in creationism, as outlined in the Old Testament Book of Genesis. She said SAD 59 should pull evolution from the science curriculum unless creationism is afforded equal footing. (Source)

It’s highly ironic that the very people who exhibit such ignorance of evolution, those who are in the greatest need of an education in the biological sciences, are the same folks who oppose it for no good reason. That becomes obvious when the god folks of Maine don’t offer a single alternative explanation that accounts for the evidence observed in nature, evidence that can be subjected to the scientific method (since that’s what qualifies something as scientific as opposed to a philosophy, which science isn’t nearly as competent to examine). All they can do is claim “god did it” and shake their heads in either amazement or confusion. It’s hard to discern the difference.

And these people get to decide what little Jimmy gets to learn, little Mohammad, little Tzao, any other child who might not be a Christian? It’s nothing less than a travesty of the educational system. Special interest groups, and I don’t care which faction of the population they represent even if I might be sympathetic any other time, should be allowed to influence education. No kid should be taught what to think. Every child ought to be taught how to think.

The 21st century is the Data Age. We are consuming and producing data on a previously unimaginable scale. What children will need to learn to cope with this never-ending data stream is how to access the information they need. They need to develop discernment, so they can determine the validity of the ideas they encounter. No one with computer access and the knowledge of how to search needs to memorize the order of the presidents or the state capitals.

To allow the further perversion of a system already ineffective is nonsensical. Education needs to progress, not regress into the 1st century. Education, if it’s to remain relevant, has to adapt to the computer age. No amount of praying or Bible reading is going to accomplish that.

Maine may have a more extensive problem with their educational system. Presumably all these board members attended schools where evolution was taught as a biological science. Yet they managed to grasp nothing at all of the theory. They didn’t even learn what a scientific theory is. Since when is it every parent’s wish that their children graduate from school even more ignorant than themselves?

Print Friendly

Christians cannot make up their minds. One day they insist that their god is beyond the reach of modern science and all one needs is faith to understand. The next they’re attempting to meld their creation story with science, which only produces a bastardized version of both that appeals to no one.

“The Quest for Right” is another attempt to sneak religious nonsense into the classroom disguised as serious science.

From the site:

THERE IS A NEW DISCIPLINE:

The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.

The backbone of Darwinism is not biological evolution per se, but electronic interpretation, the tenet that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. A few of the supporting theories are: degrading stars, neutron stars, black holes, extraterrestrial water, antimatter, the absolute dating systems, and the big bang, the explosion of a singularity infinitely smaller than the dot of an “i” from which space, time, and the massive stellar bodies supposedly sprang into being.

The philosophy rejects any divine intervention. Therefore, let the philosophy of Darwinism be judged on these specifics: electron interpretation and quantum mechanics. Conversely, the view that God is both responsible for and rules all the phenomena of the universe will stand or fall when the facts are applied. The view will not hinge on faith alone, but will be tested by the weightier principle of verifiable truths – the new discipline.

The Quest for Right is not only better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing. As a consequence, the material in the several volumes will not violate the so-called constitutional separation of church and state. Physical science, the old science of cause and effect, will have a long-term sustainability, replacing irresponsible doctrines based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline.

The Quest for Right is not only an academic resource designed for the public schools, but also contains a wealth of information on pertinent subjects that seminarians need to know to be effective: geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and in-depth Biblical studies. The nuggets from the pages of Biblical history alone will give seminarians literally hundreds of fresh ideas for sermons and teachings. The ministry resources contained in The Quest for Right serve as invaluable aids that will enrich graduates beyond their highest expectations.

You will not want to miss the adventure of a lifetime which awaits you in Volume 1 of The Quest for Right.

Visit the official website for additional information and to purchase a copy: http://questforright.com/

“A book that will change the world.” – Wayne Lin, Editor, Tate Publishing LLC

As usual, creationists cannot grasp the very simple fact that evolution does not address the development of the universe. Cosmology and physics, being poorly understood by them, get all muddled together with biological evolution. They don’t really care. It’s all science, and all the sciences are a big scary evil. If you believe all the evidence that nature provides, you’re left with little reason to shoehorn a god into the process.

Please note, Christians: disguising your ideas so as to make them resemble real science isn’t going to work. It’s too obvious. We’re aware of your tricks and will expose them for what they are at every opportunity. Stick to your faith. At least no atheist is going to challenge your right to believe anything you wish, no matter how ignorant of science it may be. But we will object to your frequent attempts to inject your 2000 year old mythology into school science classes.

And a geek-ish note to the author, C. David Parsons:  no serious author has an AOL email address.  That’s just another sign of your lack of credibility.  You have a domain, use an email address attached to it.  At least try to appear like you know what you’re doing.

Print Friendly

I suggest if anyone wants to disprove evolution they use as an example the members of Florida school boards.

 Board Opposes Evolution Being Taught As Fact

Four of five members of the School Board of Highlands County oppose the proposed change in the state’s science standards that would present evolution as fact to students.

Some school board members across the state have opposed the proposed revisions to the science curriculum that specifies that evolution be taught as “fact” as opposed to a “theory,” School Board Attorney John McClure said at a recent school board meeting. School Board Chairman J. Ned Hancock said Thursday he would support the resolution to encourage the state not to approve the science standard of evolution as fact.

School Board Vice Chairman Andy Tuck said Thursday, “as a person of faith, I strongly oppose any study of evolution as fact at all. I’m purely in favor of it staying a theory and only a theory. “I won’t support any evolution being taught as fact at all in any of our schools.”(Source)

North Florida weighing in against evolution

A growing number of North Florida superintendents and school boards are objecting to the state’s proposed new science standards, saying the standards give too much credence to evolution and leave no room for alternative theories.

Evolution is “going to be taught as fact, and everyone knows it’s not fact,” said Dennis Bennett, the superintendent in Dixie County, west of Gainesville. “There’s holes in it you can drive a truck through.”

At least seven of Florida’s 67 school boards – all north of Ocala – have passed opposition resolutions, according to the Florida Citizens for Science, a group that supports the standards and has been methodically searching board minutes.

That number could double by the time the state Board of Education votes on the standards Feb. 19, said Wayne Blanton, executive director of the Florida School Boards Association.

Dominated by Baptist churches and dotted with military bases, most of North Florida makes no bones about its political and cultural conservatism. Throw an election year into the mix, Blanton said, and it’s no surprise that school officials in places like Bonifay and Macclenny are “going to try to do some things their constituents want.”

“We just wanted to get it on the record that we’re a Judeo-Christian community, and we believe in academic freedom,” Bennett said.

“I’m a Christian. And I believe I was created by God, and that I didn’t come from an amoeba or a monkey,” said Ken Hall, a School Board member in Madison County, east of Tallahassee.

The St. John’s resolution says the standards should “allow for balanced, objective and intellectually open instruction” that doesn’t treat evolution as “dogmatic fact.”

“Anybody with half a brain can see that natural selection takes place,” said Beverly Slough, a St. John’s board member who is president-elect of the Florida School Boards Association. “But to make great leaps from a fish to a man … the fossil record doesn’t support all that.”(Source)

Half-a-brain indeed. That seems to be the only requirement to be a Florida Board of Education member.

A lonely voice of reason:

 Schools Should Teach Evolution

Florida children may soon be the laughingstock of the nation, especially if they have a public school education.

There’s a move afoot to include the Bible story of creation as part of our science classes — you know the one: God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh?

Instead, Florida children should be learning about evolution in science class. The theory of evolution is just that, a scientific theory, with facts and fossils and proven timelines and carbon dating.

I’m sorry. The Bible story, the fable of creationism, has no place in official science class. No place in public school altogether, unless you’re taking some sort of comparative religion class. What’s next? Jonah and the whale instead of marine biology?

Teaching fables as real science does our children a disservice when they get out in the real world. Save the religious stories for Sunday school and let our Florida science teachers use real science to educate our students. (Source)

Print Friendly