Another update on Josh Brecheen.

It has been good to see the mostly positive reaction to the ill-conceived comments of Oklahoma State SEN Josh Brecheen. If this man is looking to make a name for himself, he certainly is. He put an editorial in the local paper from his senate district, The Durant Daily Democrat. In addition to the uproar over several things wrong with attempting to try to have creation taught in public schools, the comments in the newspapers website have been lambasting him for his outrageous views in other subjects as well.

Being a native son of Oklahoma, it pains me when I see this sort of pubic display of foolishness. But even more so when it is done by our government officials.

Here are a couple a links to learn more about this issue and this man. 

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/when_did_oklahoma_start_electi.php

http://www.durantdemocrat.com/view/full_story/10775841/article-Reader-says-Breechen-badly-misunderstands-evolution-and-science-?

http://www.durantdemocrat.com/view/full_story/10776295/article-Brecheen-says-the-religion-of-evolution-is-plagued-with-falsehoods?

Response to Senator Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma

One of the bills I will file this year may be dismissed as inferior by “intellectuals” so I wanted to devote particular time in discussing it’s merits. [You put intellectuals in quotes so we do not know exactly what or who he is referring to here. “it's” means, “it is.” This makes no sense grammatically.]

It doesn’t address state waste, economic development, workers comp reform or lawsuit reform (although I have filed bills concerning each) but it is nonetheless worthy of consideration. [This clearly is a stated opinion.]

It is an attempt to bring parity to subject matter taught in our public schools, paid for by the taxpayers and driven by a religious ideology. I’m talking about the religion of evolution. Yes, it is a religion. [No. Evolution is a study of science. Evolution has no dogma. It has no group meetings, It has nothing such as a tax-exempt status. It is simply an area of study such as aerodynamics.]

The religion of evolution requires as much faith as the belief in a loving God, [This again is a stated opinion and is clearly an un-American statement as faith in a deity is not required in this country. Plus he makes an empirical statement comparing faith or two different items yet fails to show the relationship between these two items. This is a logical fallacy. ] when all the facts are considered (mainly the statistical impossibility of key factors).

Gasp! Someone reading this just fell out of their enlightened seat!!! [Again this is a logical fallacy, It is an ad Hominem attack.] “It’s not a religion as it’s agreed upon by the entire scientific community,” some are saying at this very moment. Are you sure? Let’s explore the facts. [This is another logical fallacy called a straw man.]

As a high school and university student forced to learn about evolution I was never told there were credible scientists who harbor significant skepticism toward Darwinian Theory. [This is a reasonable expectation as one wouldn't expect to learn about religion in a science class.]

I easily recall a full semester at SOSU where my English 1 professor forced us to write almost every paper over the “facts” of evolution. [Two issues here, One, while your English professor may indeed a great English teacher, he is not a teaching biology and may be much more interested in the ability you have to make a persuasive argument. Two, I am sure you were not forced to write anything for any class. As more than likely you were a voluntary student and could end your time in school anytime you wished. Please, try to refrain from dramatics.]

That professor had a deep appreciation for me by semester end due to our many respectful debates as I chose to not be blindly led. I specifically remember asking how in 4,000 years of recorded history how we have yet to see the ongoing evidence of evolution (i.e. a monkey jumping out of a tree and putting on a business suit). [Again, in an English course, the standards are different than in a biology class. This example really has no relevance and is a personal experience as well. Your biography states that you are a motivational speaker so it comes as no surprise that you are able to excel in an formal English class. But The example you need is one from your biology professor.]

Following a 2001 PBS television series, which stressed the “fact” of evolution, approximately 100 physicists, anthropologists, biologists, zoologists, organic chemists, geologists, astrophysicists and other scientists organized a rebuttal. So much disagreement arose from this one sided TV depiction that this group produced a 151 page rebuttal stating how the program, “failed to present accurately and fairly the scientific problems with the Darwinian evolution”. [Another logical fallacy. This is a false dichotomy . Failure of the evolution model is not confirmation of the creation model.]

These weren’t narrow minded fundamentalists, backwoods professors or rabid religious radicals; these were respected world class scientists like Nobel nominee Henry Schafer, the third most cited chemist in the world and Fred Figworth, professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale Graduate School. [Again, another logical fallacy. This is an appeal to authority.]

Ideologues teaching evolution as undisputed fact are not teaching truth. [Stated opinion.] Renowned scientists now asserting that evolution is laden with errors are being ignored. That’s where we should have problems with state dollars only depicting one side of a multifaceted issue. [Another logical fallacy. non-sequitur . You make a statement however the purpose of science is to continually search for weakness in there accepted views plus also challenge the conventional wisdom. There is nothing wrong with science concepts being challenged. Unlike with ideas that result from dogma.]

Using your tax dollars to teach the unknown, without disclosing the entire scientific findings is incomplete and unacceptable. [Stated opinion.]

For years liberals [false generalizations] have decried how they want to give students both sides of an argument so they can decide for themselves, however when it comes to evolution vs. creation in the classroom, the rules somehow change.

Their beliefs shift, may I say... evolve to suit their ideology. [These statements include several logical fallacies. One is the special pleading of “the rules changing” when they are not demonstrated to do so and the logical fallacy of ad hoc reasoning or Special pleading when you exert that a ideology is changed to suit the actions of the liberals. Plus you use the term liberals as if it is a disparagement which is also an opinion and it is a gross generalization that all of these people are liberal without proof to support your statement.]

We [Who are we? Those that understand and accept the conclusions of evolution surely cannot be included in the “we” you speak of.] must discuss the most recognizable icons of the evolution religion [Again, a stated opinion.].

Darwin sketched for The Origin of Species a visual to explain his hypothesis that all living creatures evolved from a common ancestor. The tree of life scenario, engrained upon most of our memories, depicts gue [Not sure what “gue” means.] transitioning into a hunched over monkey which then turns into a business suit. [Not sure where you get your information but that is not only an logical fallacy it is also an irrational statement. Never has a money been shown to turn into a business suit. That would be a total non-sequitur.]

[“On The Origins of Species” which was the first published work of Charles Darwin on the subject dealing with evolution never deals with the subject of human or ape evolution. If you had read the work you would have realized that. Plus this work was publish in 1859 and as in any area of study much more work has been done on it. Do we still use the same means of transportation we did when the locomotive and automobile were invented? Are we still using the same type of phone that were shown to the public in 1876? Are we still using the same telegram and telephone and radio devices that Marconi and Tesla came up with at the turn of the last century? Senator Josh Brecheen, your explanation on this subject is far from knowledgeable.]

Darwin himself knew the biggest problem with his visual (cornerstone concept of his hypothesis) was the fossil record itself. He acknowledged major groups of animals, he coined “divisions” (now called phyla) appear suddenly in the fossil record. The whole basis for evolution is gradual differences and changes to be confirmed by modified fossils (phyla cross-over). Even Christians believe in biological change from species to species (adaption) over time.[It shouldn't be any surprise that factual data is believed.]

The taxonomic hierarchy which includes species, genus, family, order and class must be visualized for understanding separation from phyla and species classifications. As an OSU Animal Science graduate I readily admit the adaption of animal species from interbreeding such as Santa Gertrudis cattle, a “weenie” dog or even a fruit fly. Even the difference among lions, tigers and cougars could be attributed to species adaption and interbreeding if one so decried. Additionally, human differences seen notable in ethnicity proves that change among species is real but this is NOT evolution, its adaption. [Natural selection is the process that is used to achieve adaption over time in nature. The process of change over time is that the adaptation leads to more and more divergent speciesazation. This was predicted in Darwin's work and has been found to be true in many examples. You clearly understand the common and divergent process that can happen in a short time. It is the same divergent process that happens over 100.000 to millions of years.]

Changes with the classification of species is DRAMATICALLY different then changes among Phyla. Phyla changes would be if an insect, with its skeleton located on the outside of soft tissue (arthropods), transformed into a mammal, with its skeleton at the core of soft tissue (chordates). Phyla changes must be verified for Darwin’s common ancestor hypothesis to be accurate. [Thanks to the genetic record, this has happened. This is why there is no doubt as to the relations between species any longer among scientists that understand these processes. Plus a general example is shown with animals such as seals, walruses, manatees, sea lions and other animals that live on both sea and land that are mammals. Since the process of natural selection takes place over many thousands of years the offspring of one seal will never produce an animal that isn't related to the parents but given the period of time the ancestors will not be the same species as their prodigy. Of course the process requires much more explanation than I can do here easily. To find out more please contact graduate researcher Abby Smith in the Endogenous Retro virus field in The University of Oklahoma. She is well known statewide and nationally for her work in genetics]

The rapid appearance of today’s known phylum-level differences, at about 540 million years ago, debunks the tree of life (common ancestor) scenario. This biological big bang of fully developed animal phyla is called the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian explosion’s phyla fossils and the phyla of today are basically one in the same. These phyla fossils of that era are fully developed, not in a transitional form. [You need to learn what a transitional species is. You do not seem to be using the terminology correct. A TS is any species that is between any other two. All plants animals and all life when they are a live are actual and transitional species. Homo sapiens are transitional species.]

In fact we don’t have a transitional form fossil crossing phyla classification after hundreds of years of research looking at sediment beds spawning the ages. There are certainly plenty of good sedimentary rocks from before the Cambrian era to have preserved ancestors if there are any. As for pre-Cambrian fossils being too tiny or soft for secured preservation there are microfossils of bacteria in rocks dating back beyond three billion years. Absolutely ZERO phyla evidence supporting Darwin’s hypothesis has been discovered after millions of fossil discoveries. Darwin’s cornerstone hypothesis where invertebrate’s transition into vertebrates is majorly lacking and so is Darwin’s “theory”. [Again you show you lack of understanding of the topic as there is clear understanding of the transitions and you also show you lack of understanding of the scientific use of “theory.' Theory means a set of data in a discipline that supports a most likely concept. This theory is also able to predict and be used as a model for understanding new information and can be used to predict how the process operates. This applies for cell theory, theory of gravity, theory of relativity and so on. Many of the theories in science that we rely upon everyday are accepted as fact just as evolution is.]

I will be introducing legislation this session to ensure our school children have all the facts. [Please make sure you have the facts first.]

This discussion is to be continued in next week’s column..

Josh Brecheen

Letter from Oklahoma Senator Josh Brecheen concerning evolution and creation.

One of the bills I will file this year may be dismissed as inferior by “intellectuals” so I wanted to devote particular time in discussing it’s merits. It doesn’t address state waste, economic development, workers comp reform or lawsuit reform (although I have filed bills concerning each) but it is nonetheless worthy of consideration. It is an attempt to bring parity to subject matter taught in our public schools, paid for by the taxpayers and driven by a religious ideology. I’m talking about the religion of evolution. Yes, it is a religion. The religion of evolution requires as much faith as the belief in a loving God, when all the facts are considered (mainly the statistical impossibility of key factors). Gasp! Someone reading this just fell out of their enlightened seat!!! “It’s not a religion as it’s agreed upon by the entire scientific community,” some are saying at this very moment. Are you sure? Let’s explore the facts.

As a high school and university student forced to learn about evolution I was never told there were credible scientists who harbor significant skepticism toward Darwinian Theory. I easily recall a full semester at SOSU where my English 1 professor forced us to write almost every paper over the “facts” of evolution. That professor had a deep appreciation for me by semester end due to our many respectful debates as I chose to not be blindly led. I specifically remember asking how in 4,000 years of recorded history how we have yet to see the ongoing evidence of evolution (i.e. a monkey jumping out of a tree and putting on a business suit).

Following a 2001 PBS television series, which stressed the “fact” of evolution, approximately 100 physicists, anthropologists, biologists, zoologists, organic chemists, geologists, astrophysicists and other scientists organized a rebuttal. So much disagreement arose from this one sided TV depiction that this group produced a 151 page rebuttal stating how the program, “failed to present accurately and fairly the scientific problems with the Darwinian evolution”. These weren’t narrow minded fundamentalists, backwoods professors or rabid religious radicals; these were respected world class scientists like Nobel nominee Henry Schafer, the third most cited chemist in the world and Fred Figworth, professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale Graduate School.

Ideologues teaching evolution as undisputed fact are not teaching truth. Renowned scientists now asserting that evolution is laden with errors are being ignored. That’s where we should have problems with state dollars only depicting one side of a multifaceted issue. Using your tax dollars to teach the unknown, without disclosing the entire scientific findings is incomplete and unacceptable. For years liberals have decried how they want to give students both sides of an argument so they can decide for themselves, however when it comes to evolution vs. creation in the classroom, the rules somehow change. Their beliefs shift, may I say... evolve to suit their ideology.

We must discuss the most recognizable icons of the evolution religion. Darwin sketched for The Origin of Species a visual to explain his hypothesis that all living creatures evolved from a common ancestor. The tree of life scenario, engrained upon most of our memories, depicts gue transitioning into a hunched over monkey which then turns into a business suit.

Darwin himself knew the biggest problem with his visual (cornerstone concept of his hypothesis) was the fossil record itself. He acknowledged major groups of animals, he coined “divisions” (now called phyla) appear suddenly in the fossil record. The whole basis for evolution is gradual differences and changes to be confirmed by modified fossils (phyla cross-over). Even Christians believe in biological change from species to species (adaption) over time. The taxonomic hierarchy which includes species, genus, family, order and class must be visualized for understanding separation from phyla and species classifications. As an OSU Animal Science graduate I readily admit the adaption of animal species from interbreeding such as Santa Gertrudis cattle, a “weenie” dog or even a fruit fly. Even the difference among lions, tigers and cougars could be attributed to species adaption and interbreeding if one so decried. Additionally, human differences seen notable in ethnicity proves that change among species is real but this is NOT evolution, its adaption. Changes with the classification of species is DRAMATICALLY different then changes among Phyla. Phyla changes would be if an insect, with its skeleton located on the outside of soft tissue (arthropods), transformed into a mammal, with its skeleton at the core of soft tissue (chordates). Phyla changes must be verified for Darwin’s common ancestor hypothesis to be accurate.

The rapid appearance of today’s known phylum-level differences, at about 540 million years ago, debunks the tree of life (common ancestor) scenario. This biological big bang of fully developed animal phyla is called the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian explosion’s phyla fossils and the phyla of today are basically one in the same. These phyla fossils of that era are fully developed, not in a transitional form. In fact we don’t have a transitional form fossil crossing phyla classification after hundreds of years of research looking at sediment beds spawning the ages. There are certainly plenty of good sedimentary rocks from before the Cambrian era to have preserved ancestors if there are any. As for pre-Cambrian fossils being too tiny or soft for secured preservation there are microfossils of bacteria in rocks dating back beyond three billion years. Absolutely ZERO phyla evidence supporting Darwin’s hypothesis has been discovered after millions of fossil discoveries. Darwin’s cornerstone hypothesis where invertebrate’s transition into vertebrates is majorly lacking and so is Darwin’s “theory”.

I will be introducing legislation this session to ensure our school children have all the facts.

This discussion is to be continued in next week’s column..

Josh Brecheen

I have not changed any of the spelling or grammar from the source article.

http://durantdemocrat.com/pages/full_story/push?content_instance=10717736&need_to_add=true&id=10717736#cb_post_comment_10717736

Chapter Eleven; CONGRATULATIONS CHARLES DARWIN part forty

2009 was the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin birth and also the 150th anniversary of the publishing of On The Origins of Species In 1859. In The United Kingdom the Royal Mint has issued a commemorative two pound coin with the struck pose of Darwin on the right facing across from a portrayal of chimpanzee. On the front of the coin is, of course, the portrait of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The coin is issued in a limited edition and you may be able to order on from the website listed below. xxxvii

I also have a Darwin 2009 t-shirt that I wore the last time I saw Richard Dawkins at Queens College in Charlotte, North Carolina on October 14, 2009. I got the t-shirt when I first saw Dawkins at The University of Oklahoma in Norman, OK on March 6, 2009. It has been good to see so many positive commemorations of the publication of Darwin's pivotal work. I have yet to get the ￡2 coin from the UK or the ￡10 pound note. I would like to get them both and have them mounted in a display case. But I digress.

However, when I last saw Dawkins, he mentioned something about the commemoration of the 150th year of On the Origins of Species that intelligent design or creationist Ray Comfort was publishing. This seemed rather odd to me. Ray Comfort has printed the keystone work of Darwin. A person that in almost every thing I have seem him produce is in polar opposition to this work of Darwin and evolution. Not to mention the scientific method as well.

The book has a nice cover on it and has a beautiful picture of Darwin on it. It says it is a 150th anniversary issue of the book and at the bottom it says with a special introduction by Ray Comfort. I find this odd but I have not yet read Mr. Comfort's text so I will not comment on that. But what I will say is that Comfort has took ever opportunity he possible can to try to make evolution seem less than factual. The ID advocate has failed in every example he has tried. I am not sure if Comfort is actually convince by these stories he is telling or that he doesn't understand the basic concepts of the science involved in the continual support of the Theory of Evolution or if he really is mentally sick and needs medication, what ever the reason it has clouded his ability to reason and process factual information. It is strange that the person that is one of the most opposed to the ideas and concepts of Darwin's natural selection would spend the money and time to publish the book, according to his website, word for word with only an addition to the beginning of the book.

Adding his comment to the beginning of the book may be to keep Comfort from actually reading the work Darwin put out 150 years ago. I have a feeling there are not going to be many reference such as “refer to page such and such for an example”. But I may be wrong about that. It seems a diluted mind never goes to waste. When the launch date for the book was set on April 22, 2010, I went to Washington University to try to get my hands on the free book. I figured I should be able to have one just as much as the other people around there. But after several contacts in the biological sciences I found out that the book had been distributed the day before, ahead of the announced date for the distribution to occur. Seems that Ray Comfort was willing to add his words to Darwin’s work but was not willing to keep his word to the public as to when the books would be passed out.
xxxvii http://www.royalmint.com/store/BritishBase/D09E.aspx

Coming Next Time;

MORALITY AND MANKIND part forty-one

Chapter Nine; THE INTELEGENT DESIGN VIEW OF EVOLUTION part thirty-eight

When addressing some of the issues of the fundamentalist view of evolution it is important to identify some key words that they use to try to vilify reasonable scientists and educated people that understand the concepts of evolution and natural selection. From the way the word is used by the intelligent design side it seems that the word “Darwinism” is meant to describe the “believers” in the Theory of Evolution to make it seem more like a radical belief such as astrology or paganism. It is clearly viewed as a philosophical belief instead of an area of fact such as electric theory and thermodynamics. To the Intelligent Design camp, believing in Darwinism is presented as a de facto religious belief. However they would not, for the most part, say that people that believe in the ideas and principles of plumbing to be “Plumbists.”
Words such as Darwinism, Darwinist, Evolutionism, and Evolutionists are used as hot button words to vilify the above groups. Not so much to the groups they are trying to attack but to their base supporters. Such as, These are not scientists, they are Darwinists. The truth of the matter is these are the types of general and specific attacks that the Intelligent design people use in order to motivate their base.
I will be the first to say that many of these people are indeed well educated and speak well about what they present. But unlike myself another reasonable people they are not prepared to have the basis of their views challenged. I have attended and watched several of the debates between Evolution and Intelligent Design. The strength of their attacks is usually in areas where science is not complete or the rehashing of previously discredited models and theories. Just as in any area of discipline there are those that either through poor methods or personal glory will use their position to advance their career. This is the same with those that have been involved in evolutionary research. Rightly so these persons should be exposed for the results they produce. By the same turn the methods of the Intelligent Design camp must be equally willing to lay behind the failed ideas of their ideas when a more sound set of scientific data comes around. The ID adherents will fight tooth and nail to keep their core ideas when the credible scientific facts are placed in front of the ID points. When this happens in the scientific community the result is not a failure of the model just a failure of procedure or ethics. Evolutionary researchers are often the most vocal and first ones to point out faulty research.
This is one reason that ID supporters are able to use the names of prominent evolutionary biologist in trying to support their ID case. They will take the quotes of scientists in the field and use them to show why sample or example XY or Z is not right. The reasonable point of this is to show weakness in the scientific processes and highlighting other discredited scientific mistakes then move on to other models that follow the predictive nature of the existing data. But by failing to offer reasonable models for the existing datum ID supporters only hope to show that the scientific community is trying to use fraud and subterfuge to support otherwise sound scientific methods. Also, many of the attacks on Evolution are not on the science itself but how supporters of ID and creationism have been treated by the legal and scientific community. Failure to offer both “sides” in the public classroom, referring to polls that show many Americans think that a “balanced” presentation of the two sides is fair. But I am sure if you asked the same Americans if Astrology should be given equal time as Astronomy or Alchemy should be given equal time in Chemistry class they would say it has no place in a classroom of science. Do you teach the “Flintstone” method of auto mechanics or the Icarus method of flight design in aerodynamics classes? Of course not and you don't teach the six day creation of Earth in the Biology class.
To the Intelligent Design supporters the debate between the two areas of thought is a chess game. The one that has the points wins. They will site public opinion polls and statements from scientist taken out of context and quotes from prominent persons that are not scientists. Other is trying to use “common sense” allegories to support their ideas such as the “irreducibly complex eye” and the bacterium flagellum, the “irreducibly complex wing and so on and so forth. Just a few highlights on the points I brought up are the eye at 95% productivity is much better then an eye at 50% productivity but both are useful to the animal that has them. Because both are better then 0% productivity of an eye. Concerning the wing. There are many aves that are flightless. I think that is all that needs to be said about that. Their argument implies a purpose of the wing. Humans are the ones that assign purpose not natural selection.
But science doesn't operate that way. Public opinion polls do not produce scientific results and should never be used to determine scientific procedures or results. If all the people on Earth still believed that the Sun rotated around the Earth it still wouldn't make it so. If every scientist was to support the ideas of ID, as some do, it still wouldn't change the facts of evolution. These are truly two different playing fields. Surely they wouldn't have the same views for the efficacy of immunizations and advancements in treatments for disease and and other accepted medical areas. Nor would they question the concepts of computing and electronics that make their life what it is Today. Surely they wouldn't argue against the use of engines and motors for transportation. For the most part these things do not conflict with their world view through their belief system. But when it comes to the evidence of Evolutionary Biology they feel threatened because their view of what life means and why we are here is called into question. They look at it this way, “if the Theory of Evolution is true then my belief system is flawed or even none existence.” But the same scientific principles that the ID supporters accept lead to the answers that Biology and Astronomy, Geology, and other areas of science use to come up with the answers that the ID people use to attack in their challenges.
For the most part the ID supporters do not want answers to these questions. There really is no need for them. They find their answers in their scared book. To the ID supporters, the Bible is a book of science as well as a book of religion. While ID supporters will work hard to find areas of weakness of Evolution they will exercise no effort show how a supernatural action is possible. The will use public opinion and try to use the political process to get their points of view in place in the public schools. Then when scientific discoveries are found that have a vague reference to support their religious view they will use these to shore up their sinking claims of a supernatural creation. Scientific ideas such as Quantum Physics and “the god gene” are a few of the areas that ID supporters will try to twist into their world view.
ID supporters will freely set aside the laws of Physics and other natural laws in which all nature have been shown to follow and conclude that the answers that fall outside the area of acceptable answers, such as the Earth being more than 6000+ years old are not in violation of the laws of nature since a creator is free to operate in any way it sees fit. So what they are saying is that if there is a creator or intelligence behind The Universe that this creator is free to deceive the entire Universe for his own purpose, however they offer no sound natural evidence of this ever happening or how it could happen. Basically they will examine the light from a star or galaxy and the spectrum will show a predictable redshift which the distance can be calculated using a standard formula. When the answer is 7000 light years or greater the ID believer must say from that point and older that the creator is just messing with us but everything up to that point is alright. This is a principle I would love to apply to my financial situation. “I am sorry, Sir you don't have anymore money left.” “No I am not broke I actually have millions of dollars but you just can't see them. But I sure do have them. I just imagine them like I do and they are there ready to spend.”
Recently I saw a set of questions that are suppose to support a creator. It dealt with DNA and the coded sequence. The point asserts that a DNA sequence is a “code” and that a code must be created for it to be a code. This is a misnomer as a definition. It is indeed a code as defined but a code is also the sequence that a snow flake is formed and crystals are formed. Other areas in Physics and chemistry follow similar patterns and codes.
Just because the DNA sequence is an advance molecule and behaves according to an predetermined pattern doesn't mean that the code is anything but a naturally occurring phenomenon. ID supporters look at a naturally occurring pattern and say this must have been created just like a computer code or music written for a song. But they misunderstand the idea of patterns and repetition in nature. One of the most clear examples is that of gravity. In nature, gravity works to hold matter together as it accumulate more matter together. One of the results of this is that celestial bodies gain and spherical form as they gain mass. That is why as a planet or start gains mass we see it as round. Of course even with gravity it takes a certain amount of mass to produce the spherical appearance that we are most familiar with. Objects such as asteroids may not have sufficient mass to have gravity form them into a sphere or other forces may have been at work on them such as collisions with other bodies. This is just one area where natural forces act according to a predictive set of laws discovered by man. The predictive nature of science is the key to which science subscribe and is a bedrock of the experimentation and discoveries that scientists from all over the world depend to make their work possible.
If we lived in a dynamic universe that the rules of Chemistry and Physics were ever changing it would be impossible to operate any equipment or depend on the purpose of medication with any known reliability. But we are able to make predictions of how things work and with this we can work to figure out how things operate in the natural world.
ID supporters will look at the way the universe is and say this is why things are this way because God made them like that. Douglas Adams addressed this many years ago with the water puddle story.i This puddle looks at its world and see how well this hole fits it. It says to itself, Wow, this is a really perfect world look how well this how fits me. It is almost as if the hole was made just for me. As a matter of fact it fits me so well the only way I could fit in it is if it was made for me. As the day goes on the Sun looms higher in the sky and the water evaporates and the holes shrinks. But even as this happens the puddle thinks I know I am special because I have been designed and this hole was made just for me. Surely my creator will save me.
But surely as the day continues, with the Sun shining brightly, the puddle dries up and the puddles last “thought” was, “Oops.”
What I am getting to with this is that the ID people look at how the balance of the orbit of the planet and the ratio of biological chemistry makes this the “perfect” place for life to be on.
To this I have little to say but, “No shit Sherlock.”
You know you go out to the mountains you will see up on the hillside homes made of logs with stilts and other material around the area that makes it work. If you go to the desert you will see building made of concrete, rocks or even adobe bricks. Guess what? These materials are abundant there. Same goes for the Caribbean Sea you will see homes made of palm trees and palm leaves. If life was not possible on Earth I wouldn't be writing this and you wouldn't be reading it. We know that life is possible on Earth because we are proof of it. Not because we are a special creation of a supernatural carpenter. We happen to fit in the right spot at the right time. What this means is, as rare as life may or may not be, Earth was in the right spot at the right time.
If someone wins the lottery it isn't because of all the other times they played that they won it was the time they played that their numbers came up. Though some winners might disagree. Random chance, physical and chemical forces are the “creator” of life on Earth. In a very real sense, Being alive is one of the Universes greatest payoffs. Without us to see the magnificent Universe around us how would we know about the wonders of the world or the amazing worlds in out solar system. We are the only ones to know about the black holes, nebula clouds, quasars and the cosmic dust of the stellar nurseries.
To me this is an amazing thing to know. Of course, it would be nice to live forever and have peace and harmony among all peoples but if you can't get that at least the real world is pretty wonderful to the point of far overshadowing the make believe worlds of man. When it comes to the promises of God and the promise of tomorrow in the Universe, I take the Universe anytime. Yet as much as 45% or Americans still believe in the literal story from the Bible of how life began in the Universe. When you consider the other portion that feel a supernatural entity had some bearing on the way things are in the Universe the numbers that hold to a totally natural method of universal existence are anywhere from eight to fourteen percent. The concept of a outside influence seems to strong yet is so lacking in fact that anyone that would take the time to look at the cause and effects reason for evolutionary biologist to reach their conclusions would be force to abandon all or at least most ideas of anything supernatural influence on the natural universe.
A point of order I would like to bring to the front now. It is not that the people that understand biological evolution have all the answers, just as the studies of cosmological astronomy have found areas of correction over the decades. Things can change and discoveries can be made. Remember, Pluto is no longer a planet anymore, its a dwarf planet. But the most reasonable conclusions are not found in a ancient book of epic stories and drama, but in the halls of science. It can and has been said that it is much more easy to follow an unchallenged and simplistic dogma where one can feel a part of a bigger picture AND feel to possess a unique knowledge that others lack than to bother with the laborious idea of learning. This leads to the view that, “Everyone is wrong but us.” perspective. I have seen people say this over and over again. When I talk to adherents and they bring up a certain point of view special to their faith I will question them with, “You know the Baptists believe this,” or “The Methodists think this,” or the Anglicans believe this.”
The answer is always the same, “Yes, but were are right and they are wrong.” The person may have a Bible verse quote to add, maybe not. They may add a allegoric story. It may just be they feel “we are right” and “they are wrong” and that is it. Even after pointing out a clear example of how their “exception” to the rule is no different that the other adherents “exception” they hold to their unique special knowledge.
Of my more favorite examples of this is concerning baptism. When it comes to Christianity, this is one issue that seems to run through almost all the different denominations. But how it is done is greatly varied. For instance, some of the “older” Christian faiths such as Catholic and Episcopalian, Lutheran and several others say that a baby or child may be baptized even if they are too young to know what is happening to them and what is means. Other Christian faiths say that a person must make a decision to accept Jesus and that getting baptized is something they do after they decide to become a adherent. These are clearly two different perspectives of the same supposed issue. Yet they are still both very different from each other. One a person is not aware of what is happening to them, or really needs to know, the other the person decides when the event will happen to them with their full knowledge of the event.
This is just one part of this crazy act. The second part is how much water is to be used. Again, some feel just getting a persons head wet is enough to make it right and other adherents say you must be submerged totally underwater to be baptized. Again, both quite different actions about an event of the same name coming from the same religion and basically from the same book.
It is not as if, with scientists a person can come to a church that has a certain dogma and say, hey wait a minute we are suppose to be eating whole wheat bread for communion not unleavened bread, or what ever may be served. And show why and then everyone learns that is the correct way. Not at all, many times in history one that would say a thing such as that would end up being arrested, beaten, tortured or murdered. If one was lucky enough to escape such reception to resistance established dogma, they may find themselves founding a denomination of the same religion.
Today, for the most part there is are a few Christian religions that are generally viewed as cults. The best I have been able to find the only two things that makes a cult a cult is a strong central figure to gather around and the number of people that believe in the ideas of the said cult. One exception could be a command from the despotic ruler such as Constantine. Prior to that, Christians were considered a cult by the Romans and Jewish people. Organizations such as Campus Crusade and The Navigators have behavior that can be called cult like. But since they usually adhere to a somewhat generic dogma, it is not viewed with the eyes of suspicion like Jehovah's Witness is or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and other smaller and less well known factions of Christianity. A person never thinks they are in a cult but that tag is usually placed upon them by outside groups. I would guess that a person in a cult for the most part thinks they are doing something really special. With that they might either feel that everyone needs to k now or they have to learn more to become more “spiritual” in their adherence.
Here is an example, Let's say that I have a feeling that the property that others have is not theirs but either mine or “ours” and need a way to convince the others to accept your 'inspired' idea. With the current “respect” or “hands off” treatment religious beliefs have, it would be easy to convince a person that the giving of their property to the group is one good way to show how much God loves you and you love God. Throw in a few Bible verses or even better yet make up a few new ones of your own and soon your be laying in the lap of luxury with hundred or thousands of faithful followers.
Imagine if any one a several prominent atheists or agnostic persons of the recent years were to have a supernatural conversion and leave reason behind. Take Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Denett, Rebecca Watson, Penn Jillette, Matthew Dillahunty, Annie Laurie Gaylor, Bill Mayer, P. Z. Meyers and so on. There is many more to name but here is a short list of persons that if they were to allow ill intent to be there motivation they could make more than likely a much better living spouting religious dogma after having a “conversion” experience of some sort that they could tell people about over and over again punctuated with a call for a move of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the people listening to them.
However, I feel rather confident that none of the for mentioned persons or the many persons I have met like them would be able to, in good conscience, to undertake such an endeavor. But believe me, I am sure there are famous person out in the realm of Christian fundamentalism that know the words they speak have no meaning whatsoever other than how often and how loudly they speak them. But their secrets are so closely guarded that even their spouse or friends may not know. It may be a secret that they are unable to share. Even when the reasonable adherents put out books or other media it is almost impossible to overcome the build in bias toward bullshit in the bookstores.
When I purchased Richard Dawkins' book “The Greatest Show on Earth” on September 23, I had to have the person from Hastings bookstore help me locate it. However, if one wanted to find the idiotic books from Glen Beck, Joyce Meyer, Bill O'Reiley or Joel Olsten they were easy to find. They were proudly and prominently displayed in the front of the store or on there own special bookshelf.
As is well documented, James Randi exposed the malicious actions of Peter Popoff in his ministry back in the 1970s and with the help of his friend, Johnny Carson, exposed the charlatan psychic spoon bender Uri Geller. A short search for either one of these persons should reveal the disgraceful way they use people to their own personal benefit, These are just two of the more successful examples of how when a persons actions are held up in the public they loose face and go away forever. But sadly that was not the result of either of those two or ones such as Jimmy Swaggart, Tammy Faye, Robert Tilton, Terry Hornbuckle and countless others that have been disgraced in their ministries only to come back with the same show to get the faithful to hand over their time and money. I look forward to what new ministry Ted Haggard gets into eventually, now that he is cured of homosexuality. But even after these failure of personal conduct that must of their followers and non-believers will never approach the supporters of men and woman like these will say,
Of course, there are those who see all of this upheaval as the work of the enemy. According to Bishop Larry D. McGriff of the Church of the Living God, Pillard Ground and Truth in Dallas, 'The devil doesn't want to see God's work done, so of course he's going to attack the head.'”
It just makes me hit my head when I see comments like that. Which got me to think about why are people so resistant to facts about the failure of people in their religion and the failure of the religion itself. The only answer I could come up with is, education, or the lack there of.
If you ask the typical person what is the value of an education they will say it is priceless or the value cannot be measured. I would disagree with this idea. I would say that education should be free or as cheap as possible. What I mean by this is that a person shouldn't be restricted by the economic factors to educate them since this is one of the most important factors that determine a active civil population. It is a true statement that the basis of understanding of all disciplines have had a erosion of what makes up them different and what applies to which discipline.
The concepts of accounting, language, history, mathematics, grammar, art and science all have reasons that they have certain rules, concepts and procedures based upon facts of logic and reason. Maybe not grammar and art so much but the other disciplines, for the most part you have standard concepts that help the typical student understand what is happening in the subject. The issue with educating the average student is the students think that l earning is hard. The fact is learning is difficult for most students. So the teacher, principal, administrators, school boards continue to make the subjects more easy to pass instead of more east to learn. If one was to take an eight grade math book from the 1930 and compare it to a math book of 2010 it would have many more mathematical concepts with fewer drawings and pictures. Mathematics needs no pictures except for the actual concepts of what is being talked about. It is the place of the book author to give the examples of mathematics or it is it the purpose of the teacher.
I feel the teacher has the primary responsibility for this. But the teachers are a product of a failed system as well. They have been diverted from creative and student based education to having to cram in so much testing material because of “Leave no Child Behind.” From almost every teacher I have talked to about this the LNCB pressure makes the curriculum so rigid that they cannot use the creative models like used to be used only a few years ago. So students are pressured to produce the right answers instead of understanding the disciplines concepts. While getting answers are good, if one understand concepts they can gain the knowledge with continued work.
So we are getting a generation that just wants the answer. Getting things done in a day or hour or half-hour is the time table that most of us are becoming accustomed to. So why should a student spend anything to learn the process of how language and grammar can affect meaning and context of stories. Without knowing that there is a reliable process of determining the distance of an object in the sky by the light that is reflected from it, how can they understand that processes on Earth can occur within that same time frame. Of course, education cannot be done for free and the job that teachers do is important for us all. It is when outside agents such as government and union pressures try to gain control of the students and teachers it is only a lose-lose situation.
The result is higher costs and lower knowledge gained. To be honest I would rather have a student that understands the concepts and principles of a subjects but has trouble with the details over someone that is able to determine the right answers without knowing why the answers are what they are. Without this understanding, the students are graduated to the population reading and willing to accept answers that the “authorities” or “professionals” provide them. Another generation ready to be consumers and accept the cause de jour.

xxxvi http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/

Coming Next Time;

ALL NATURAL INGREDIENTS part thirty-nine

Chapter Five; HOW DOES THIS GOD THING WORK? part fourteen

It is typical for many Christians to use common key verses from the Bible to support their view of the world. Many verses are heard regularly in their church. Some key verses are repeated to enhance the adherence of those that follow the denomination. Depending on the focus of the church, different verses are emphasized. My experience has shown that many adherents do not read their Bible or study their religion, more than the hour per week they are in the church building. They do not realize, step by step, their defense is shored up by their lack of knowledge in the faith they adhere to and their failure to investigate their own religion and dogma. In a way, this is useful. If an adherent is presented factual information about the Bible or other religious books, (s)he may be more likely to come out of that faith and into the rational world. [I wouldn't hold my breath on that , though.] When I was a child and looked at older people, I thought they must be smart. The older people around me seemed smart. The truth is most older people just get older and rarely gain in intelligence. Quite the opposite happens to be honest. Seniors begin to view knowledge with contempt and suspicion. This is how most older people in the church behave. They view the youth with contempt, unless they adhere to preconceived views. This is one of the main motivations for getting the Hell scared out of children and having them convert at a young age. If you can get the kids to believe the impossible then they will have a better chance to believe the total package of dogma that goes along with it.
Most followers would not even know what book in the Bible verses were from or the context they are written in. I contend that facing a believer on their home turf is not for every skeptic. Not that I am advocating that , but, we do live in a nation and world full of adherents. In my experience, all non-believers I have met or heard study the Bible and know the Bible better than most devout adherents. Not only is it a difficult task to take on, it is much harder than one would think. It would seem, the adherents would be hell bent to tell non-believers all about the advantages of their belief. Many of the beliefs that I have accepted, would not let a person stand down from one that was asking about the lessons of the others faith. It was a requirement of my religion.
It is easy enough to use god for any answer that you don't have an solution for. But, as a god is made, the answer to questions become increasingly more complex. You can rely upon scared text, but the support the text has in itself need to have evidence to prove it’s sacred text or it is only self affirming. If it is self affirming, then it relies upon a closed system of faith.
I have been face to face with pastors that told me I am free to visit their church , but not to disrupt their class, because I wouldn't accept their text. They either didn't know their own religion well enough or didn't trust that their adherents, [income source], could not defend what they believe.

The sign of the cross of The First Baptist Church of Moore was destroyed from a category five tornado that hit Moore, OK, on May 3, 2000. Many homes, businesses, and lives were destroyed from the massive winds that swept through the southern and eastern part of The Oklahoma City metro area. Prayers were offered by survivors in the resulting news coverage that resulted. Many people thanked God for saving their life even though the homes were destroyed. Not a single believer in God, on the news coverage, said that God should have stopped the tornado or put it in an area that wouldn't have caused so much destruction. This metal sign became a symbol of that particular disaster.

In the ancient times and even up into the Enlightenment, people often used God as the answer for what they didn't understand about the natural world. The “hand of God” was often assigned to such phenomena as storms, earthquakes, plagues, sickness, volcanic eruptions and other natural occurrences. As man discovered more about the world we live in and the Universe around us, he learned that a giant turtle doesn't hold the Earth. He learned that the Sun doesn't rotate around the Earth. He learned that a great god out at sea does not cause the tides to surge forth on the shores.
We have learned that the stars are not placed upon crystal spheres in the sky. On and on, at the time “God” was given as an explanation, rather than cause and effect. The universe grew, God shrank, and God became more ambiguous.
As man found answers to some of these questions, the power of God as the answer, lost merit, even stories based in “sacred” writings. As man discovers more about the natural world, believers are forced to make God even more abstract and unknowable than their predecessors. Some adherents to the young Earth concept, say, the naturally occurring phenomenon, like fossils, erosion, corrosion spectrometry, glacial movements, plate tectonics and other natural time indicators, are placed in a state that indicates a “false” long history. Furthermore, the methods used to determine the ages are either misinterpreted or bias toward old ages.
Some intelligent design answers , to fossil placement, are that God put them in place. Another is that the processes used to determine the ages is inconclusive or wrong. I have heard both. It is interesting that they will use one or the other, depending on what the particular ID supporter is talking about. It is amazing that experimentation and the scientific method must hold up to scrutiny and testing, by other scientist in the field, to be accepted. However, with ID there is no such method to verify concepts. Almost no original research is done in the ID community. It is speculated that they read the work of researchers, searching for holes or ways to support their point of view of a short age Earth.
On March 26, 2009 , I went to a Evolution vs. Creationism debate in Yukon, Oklahoma with Dr. Charles Jackson, Creation Truth and Abbie Smith, Researcher at Oklahoma University, HIV research.
Miss Smith asked Dr. Jackson if he had first hand or original research. After several stammering and stops, he admitted that he didn't. Miss Smith confirmed, she does first hand research , with her results checked by other scientists, for validity. This shows direct contrast of actual science versus the ID supporters.
I admit , that people who study ID know the scientific terminology and jargon. This certainly helps to sound more reasonable to a layman adherent. I have reviewed Michael Behe's books and find them quite impressive. He is very detailed in his presentation of inconceivable ideas. However, when addressing the scientific community, the weakness in their arguments is evident. To be honest, it is not much different than a pastor using the Bible to develop a sermon. All a pastor needs to do to improve his sermon, is to add a few key verses, i.e. “ No weapon formed against us will proper” or “If God is for us who can be against us”. He need not bother to follow any theology or internal logic. He can yell or speak loudly, and for good measure, provide an alter call.
Even with a god that is all powerful , all knowing and all loving, there must be mechanisms in place for the actions of that god to manifest themselves in reality. Doing something in an immaterial world has no effect in the natural world without a means to use natural reason to bring it into being. After all, the immaterial world doesn't exist. I would say that our imagination is more real than the things of the supernatural world. At least the things I imagine can to some degree become real. There are ways to to do that. However, to do this feat from the immaterial world, I need an amazing device; I call it The Supernatural to Natural Matter Transfer Device. [All the cool gods are getting them. Check your local supernatural electronics store.] What most adherents want to say is, my imaginary friend can do anything he or she wants, and it will become real in our world. If this isn't an example of a person suffering from a delusion, I don't know what is. It is like a small child. “ I want it. I want it. I want it.” It is a temper tantrum of supernatural proportions.
Maybe a device similar to a Supernatural to Natural Matter Transference Device [patent pending] is what these gods use to make their miracles. Instead of walking on water, as we would see in the real world, this god is walking on a bridge, that we cannot see. It was built with the SNMTD [now available at Radio Shack] and then disassembled the same way. Making up stories about reality is fun. You don't have to bother with reality at all, just like with religion. As it is supernatural, who needs to see it. There is no need to prove form or function or adhere to the Laws of Nature. Cause and effect is so silly a notion that one need not even address it. If something doesn't make sense, make up something else to be more confusing and inexplicable.
Still, for a person of faith, there must come a point when the view of the world comes in contrast with the alleged nature of a god. I would say that when addressing the physical existence of a divine, most believers have to admit they’ve not seen such a thing. At best, they will say they have felt “His” presence or provide some other ethereal explanation that seems totally understandable. But, if someone were to say the same of other gods, they would assume that person had been standing too close to the paint mixer. Not only would they admit it, but they would go so far as to say they don't need proof; they have faith. “And faith is all I need to know God is real.” Many very devout adherents have said this.

I have to admit, a statement like that is good enough for an almost non-fiction God.

Chapter Three; EVOLUTION AND RELIGION part ten

While many reasonable adherents do , to one level or another, believe in evolution. Why should evolution have any bearing on religion one way or the other? Some of these levels of belief range from belief in “micro-evolution” to accepting most of the concepts and ideas of cosmological and biological evolution, in view of an absent watchmaker. So, what scientific reason can evolution have with such a seemingly strong opposing view against it? After all, in March 2009, a Pontifical University on science recently said that evolution is compatible with the beliefs of The Catholic Church. [It only took them 150 years to believe this premise of biological science. Galileo Galilei had to wait 400 years for his statement that the Sun was at the center of the solar system to be accepted as fact.] The Catholic Church still has some issue with the point in evolution where God inserted the human soul. [How many problems are there with that statement?] I guess at that point we became people and prior to that we were just, well, humans without a soul.
The basic view is that with religion being a reality in life on Earth, it must be viewed through what purpose it serves evolutionarily. Since evolution is the basis of how life came to be , as we know it. I am not referring to abiogenesis. That is a different subject all together. I am referring to after life began, evolutionary processes through natural selection. So religion must fill a natural biological reason evolutionarily. The amino acids and RNA and DNA sequences duplicating themselves came through time and after billions of years, invented religion for some reason.
According to Darwin, natural selection drives species to adapt to best fit into their environments , according to natural factors that govern the needs of the species to reproduce, have food and water, and to avoid being a meal for other forms of life. These basic life needs drive the natural tendency to adapt. If a mammal needs to develop better hearing and flight in order to be able to meet their need to catch abundant amounts of flying incests. The process of natural selection will allow the best fit variations in the species in with this adaptation to survive and reproduce. The result with natural selection was to adapt the species to best fulfill it's biological needs. Eventually, bats came about.
Some Christians see this in what is called “micro-evolution” , as dogs and cats are bred into different breeds. Peppered moths and birds develop different adaptations as they live in areas where the environment puts pressure on the species to adapt. These changes can been seen in just a few decades. So, the concept of evolution is not a foreign one for religious adherents to a young Earth. Typically they say, “evolution is going on now that God has set up the Earth, but it is not how life became so diverse. There was a designer.” This statement is like getting all numbers of the lottery, but on the wrong date. Close, but no cigar. I would encourage the young Earthers, or as Richard Dawkins calls them, the history deniers, from appendix of Dawkins' book The Greatest Show on Earth The Evidence for Evolution.
With that said, what does evolution have to do with religion? Nothing. That is exactly the point. How can natural selection, the driving force of how living organisms behave and adapt let something as seemingly bizarre as religion occur? There has to be a biological answer. Religion is a result of natural selection. As much as I hate to admit it, religion must have filled a biological need in Homo sapians.
After all, the dance and song of particular birds and behavior of herds of all types of mammals serve a purpose all the way from bees and penguins and all sorts of animal and plants. Plus, the adaptation of plants serve a purpose biologically in their native environments. So what is the purpose of the naturally occurring concept of religion? One simple answer is that natural selection has no will. It doesn't act to reach a certain goal. There is no finished product that is produced with natural selection. There are just results of the process. Human beings are one of the millions of results of the process. It would be valid to say that the presence of religion in humans is a genetic mutation. Not a mutation of individual species but of the societal behavior of Homo sapians. Is religion a disease then? I guess no more than any other group behavior of other animals. The migration patterns of birds the unexplained and intentional beaching of whales and other bizarre behavior that goes on in nature.

The Eastern New Mexico University has a museum with this diorama of the strata where different human artifacts and ancient North American megafauna once lived and were hunted by the Clovis, Folsom and other Paleo-American people as far as 13,500 years ago. If man is looking for a purpose for life, he has been looking for a great deal of time indeed. Animals painted on the wall are not to scale as the cut out of the paleo-American human. [This is a composite photo.]

As a person that has spent much time and money in religion, I have some answers that fall in line with ideas from other skeptics, sociologists and scientists on this topic. I have heard many lecturers and read many articles on these topics over the years.

1. Humans, like other primates, are social animals and coordination of activities help the group overall to form bonds for safety, food and desirable pools for reproduction. Persons that are able to lead, influence or mobilize a group are able to exert their will and power over the desires of the sub-members of the group.
2. Organizing and mobilizing a group can help all members reach goals that advance the scope and influence of the member group with non-member groups. EX: Just being an American has certain meaning to people around the world regardless of the actions you personally have taken.
3. A group in control of a sub-group can provide support or subjugate that group according to the will of the controlling group. (Or if they have institutionalized their will in a dogma or laws, they can act upon that will. EX: Puerto Ricans benefit from their relationship with the United States though they are not in a state itself.

If a group can control the natural human desires for sex, food, clothing and socialization, the followers will adhere to the group's will in order to get their natural biological needs fulfilled or, at least, to have some social standing within the mores of the group.
What do the followers of this system of action get for their willing or unwillingness of adherence? After all, they must be getting something in return.

1. People following the will of the leader or the institutionalized will of the group will have a social organization to accommodate their need for sex and food. (Not so much in modern developed areas, but in the smaller ancient populations, having access to food and water was vitally important.)
2. Sharing a set of beliefs can aid in the cohesiveness and uniformity of a given societal group. [Group one is better than group two.]
3. The group can be mobilized to work on projects that benefit the common good. [Group one is going to build a wall for protection.]
4. The group can also be used to aid in defense and war of the said group. [Group two is going to attack group one for building a wall.]
5. Can provide for members of the sub group to move up in the society. [John Doe in group two has a way to tear down walls really fast. He is rewarded.]

With my above points, it can be said that the evolutionary purpose of religion can be derived from humans being social animals, working together for a mutual benefit. From there, it all breaks down. Oddly enough, one of the results of natural selection is to actually reject natural selection as a reality and put a supernatural story in its place. After we have spent millions of years through hardships and catastrophe, we reach a point of sentience and decide that it was all so easy and give something else all the credit. It is much easier to make up a story that fits the facts than actually discover what the cause of the event really was. It seems like most answers, though, are ones where the deity was angry. Earthquakes, tsunami, tornado, hurricane, floods, drought, sickness, snowstorms, accidents and other naturally occurring themes leave mankind wanting answers. Religions create answers that seem to fit these events, to give the follows peace and trust in a divine order. A created story, that fits the events, seems to offer more comfort to adherents than the idea of, “We don't know.” The placement of certainty where doubt once was is one of the strongest motivations for a religion to form and for followers to believe in it. Not knowing tends to bring fear and misguided actions. But when you can have a story that answers the questions of “why” then you can dispel fear and take actions based upon your beliefs of how the world is.
These stories surely were around well before any religion came into a structure. At least religion in any sense of how we view it Today. Bu just as a child learns stories as it grows, it can be hard for a child to know if what stories adults say are true or false. Stories about the world around us surely came about early after humans began using language. Children are naturally designed to accept what they are told so stories are not questioned. There is the story the the day fire was discovered that night was the first bar-b-que. I would say that after the bar-b-que was the first tale tale. Of course this is just a funny analogy and not anything factual but it does point out that when people get together stories will be told and talking over meals is a natural as any behavior humans seem to display.
Here is Homo sapien with this big brain, really getting along nicely in this world they are living in. “Suddenly” you have more time than needed to keep your basic needs. While sitting at the fire, near the back of the hut or cave, a man or woman that is good at imagining things that have not occurred, tells a fantastic story. The thrilled listeners are amazed by the images this person can create with mere words. The story teller acquires an honored place in the group. The stories are passed down and build over time. One group has an identity that other groups do not and soon tribal bonds are made and divisions are formed based upon group identification.
This story telling leads to the ability of a person to lie, but it also allows the seemingly less dubious ability of creating stories. Telling stories leads people to believe the stories are true. Step by step, a religion is created, all based upon a seemingly innocent activity of an imaginative story teller.

ne of the more recent imaginative stories I heard recently was at a debate between a creationist, Dr. Charles Jackson and Abby Smith, a Phd candidate researcher at The University of Oklahoma, in Yukon, OK. The creationist, Dr. Charles Jackson, was giving evidence for a worldwide deluge.

. He showed a power point slide that had a picture of continental North America with four arrows drawn across the continent from northeast to southwest. This was the visual example, to indicate his statement that the flood of the Bible was the force that created the Grand Canyon in just a few days, but let's give him several months, as it all happened about 4,000 years ago. Even giving the creationist the latitude, that there was a worldwide flood, there is no evidence that it formed the Grand Canyon or any other geological structure. The geology of the United States wouldn't allow for accumulation and diversion of so much water across the continental United States. Several “minor” inhibitors to the idea include the presence of the Appalachian Mountains, which run north to south along the eastern part of the United States. There is the massive Ohio, Missouri and Mississippi river valleys that make up a huge obstacle for water to flow East to West across the United States. Then, there is the problem of the Rocky Mountains. They clearly extend hundreds of miles east of the Grand Canyon, and include major geological area, such as: The Great Sand Dunes in San Luis Valley in Colorado and The White Sands National Monument in Southern New Mexico. These geological anomalies have been in place for hundreds of thousands of years, well in advance of the time tables set forth by the Diluvian adherents. Not to mention artifacts found in the Blackwater Draw archaeological site near Portales, New Mexico, that date back from 9,000 to 13,500 years ago. Then, after having to deal with all those natural geological formations continent-wide, no amount of water would be able to be diverted in the Colorado River Valley, that could cause the creation of the Grand Canyon in just a few months. The geologic strata shows the levels of erosion and the path of the river can be traced just like following a maze backward, from end to beginning. The conclusion is this, the natural geologic answers that are present in the Earth answer the questions about the formation of The Grand Canyon without the need to place a worldwide flood somewhere in the recent past. There are clear and discernible geologic clues as to what cased many of the features on the planet and not one is dependent on a supernatural intervention.
According to the book Evolution and Creationism, author Ben Sonder cites a paper printed in the creationist "peer" reviewed "science" journal Creation Research Society Quarterly, which spends most of it's space rehashing why evolution doesn't work, according to many disproved creationist's techniques than actually producing original first hand research based upon any models of their creation science. Sonder referred to a paper by Glen W. Wolfrom titled, “The 1993 Midwest Floods.” During this time, I was attending Kansas State University. Needless to say, I found this flooding event to be quite interesting and spent much time before, during and after the flooding, in the area. While the man-made dams and spillways did hold back much energy in the water, it was not an event of great geologic significance. But, Sonder vis-a-vis Wolfrom says: [xv]

“The Midwest flood proved that erosion of the earth and rock can occur very rapidly. He cited several locations where large quantities of rushing water from Midwest floods had carved deep ruts in the Earth in a matter of days and deposited several layers of mud and silt.”

While Wolform is correct about the fast formation of the canyon,ii which I called Wildcat Canyon in honor of my University's mascot, his conclusion of this flood and geological event pointing to the cause of formation of the Grand Canyon , misses the scale and scope of the 288 mile Grand Canyon. The area effected by the most dramatic release of water was just about a mile in total. This dramatic damage did not take the few days as Wolform says but it took more than 40 years of work from the Corps of Engineers. The Corps began constructing the dam in the 1950s after periodic floods stuck Manhattan, Kansas and other downstream areas about every 20 years, or so. To help protect property downstream, the Corps created Tuttle Creek Lake and let the area behind the dam be flooded as a flood control lake. The first time the spillway gate had water reach them was in the 1970s. But the Corps didn't have to open the spillway to release the water. It went down naturally.
In 1993, Iowa was getting flooded . As the winter and spring rains continued, flooding occurred further upstream. Finally, the Army Corps of Engineers had the gates shut to help with the land downstream of Tuttle Creek Lake. The other upstream lakes filled up as well. Milford Lake, which is mentioned in the paper by Wolford, reached its spillway. It broke open, as it was designed to do. Milford Lake doesn't have a spillway with a gate. Then when Tuttle Creek Dam held back enough water for some levels to go down, the floodgates were opened and the water flowed out as it had been designed to do by the Army Corp of Engineers, about 40 years earlier. This was not a several day design to remove the geological structures in Tuttle Creek spillway. It had been designed more than 40 years earlier to do exactly what it did. It just took 40 plus years for the water to get that high. After it did, the water flowed into a river and lake area downstream, with the force of the water dissipating greatly in an area that became flooded downstream.
I am not familiar with Wolform's area of study as far as how he obtained his degree , but mine was in journalism. I am more of an observer of what is happening around me. So, when I drive around the country and see that the Continental Divide separates the water shed of the American continent between the Pacific and the Atlantic, I tend to look for clues of that.
One of the most obvious clues are prior to reaching that point. For the most part, I was going higher in elevation. After that, I was going down. Also, to the east in Great Plains, the drainage of the soil indicates a consistent erosion in the direction of the Mississippi. The Ozark, Wichita and Arbuckle Mountains That are running mostly east and west along the southern part of The United States are in conformity with the continual predictable erosion of the Rocky and Appalachian Mountains. Not to mention the numerous other geological features to bountiful to mention.
The southern half of Texas is a low lying plain that flows into the Gulf of Mexico. That plain is made of the continual drainage of dirt, rocks and soil from the higher elevations. If there were a great deluge that cause total global upheaval , then once it began to subside and cause the water to drain trans-continentally, the result could only be the Gulf of California would be much larger and the Gulf of Mexico would be much smaller. The Rocky Mountains would have to be a lower elevation than the Appalachian Mountains and the great plains should be evenly covered in a geologic depression, with the drainage ending in the Gulf of California. We see no evidence of this claim as Jackson presented.
With Dr. Charles Jackson's assertion that the Grand Canyon was formed after a 40 day planet wide deluge, the evidence from continental geology and personally observed flooding do not bear out his statement. Observation and inquiry can be a good guide to figure out the many things in nature. Often young “earthers” will try to use the similar stories of ancient floods in cultures all over the world to support the idea of the world wide deluge.
The train of thought seems to go this way. Look at the [insert remote ancient culture here] and in their history it talks about the world being destroyed in a flood and only a few people survived to start the whole world afterward. Oddly enough, all places on Earth with land are subjected to floods. Periodically, these places experience great floods. In addition, most of the time in human habitation, people would set up encampments and towns and villages in lower ares due to the presence of water and better hunting. Plus, it is much easier to walk on level areas than rocky and hilly areas. The river beds formed natural “roads” that are often still used to this day.
There are academic investigations on this subject and they deal more in depth with the processes over the period of geologic time and how flood control dams work. Again, I am touching on the application of the information I have learned and observed first hand. But I can say from personal investigation, that rocks are, for the most part, hardened sand and dirt. I’ve been to areas such as the Great Sand Dunes, White Sands National Monument and the Blackwater Draw National Archaeological Site, to the rock strata in the Lincoln National Forest to The Flint Hills, and many other mountains, valleys, caves, deserts, jungles, forest, plains, oceans, lakes and rivers I have seen over the years. It seems as simple as step one, two, three. The processes of rock formation take a lot of time and luck to happen. Not counting the formation of volcanic rock and glass, most rock takes thousands of years to form. For the evidence of this to be “in reality” only 6000 to 10,000 years old as the 'history deniers' would contend, would mean that the nature of the Universe we live in is totally a lie, and nothing that we encounter can be reliability tested. If you find a rock, well the same indescribable powers that formed the rock in 6,000 years should be able to turn it into a diamond or something else more valuable, assuming you can just tap into the “intelligence” that designed the apparent fraud of a World we must live in. Just pray for that supernatural fraudster to grant your wish. While you're at it, have that supernatural force turn your feces into gold with a prayer or two as well. Both ideas are equally valid.
[xv] Evolution and Creationism ©1999 Grolier Press p. 56
[xvi] http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_2b/31_2b.htm


Coming next time GOD IN CHAOS: Chapter Four SOME THOUGHTS FROM THE GOD DELUSION part eleven

Chapter One; THE NATURAL WORLD part one

The purpose of this book is to examine and understand the purpose of religion in the view of the Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection. It is hoped that you and I will work to explore some of the ideas of God, Religion, and the supernatural in America and the world. I am not going to take the time to explain the detailed biological aspect of Natural Selection. To be quite honest the nuts and bolts of the process from the lab and such are beyond my current knowledge. One thing that makes this book so great is that I use interpretive analysis of the evidence to explain the concepts. There are a great many books and videos available at your local library or bookstore that can give you the background you need on the subject.12 For one of many Internet resources the University of California at Berkley provides a nice primer to begin with.3 One of my favorite, as you will learn in section three, is Cosmos: A Personal Journey.4 Just as with the probability of life must be common enough for it to occur at least one place in the Galaxy or universe, because we are here and alive. Likewise, there must be a reason for religion in human evolution because it is also here in every culture known on Earth.
It may seem like a strange idea for me as an atheist to to try to explain and even justify a reason for religion. I am not sure I will be able to go as far as to justify it but I will try to take a even handed look at its aspects and influences on modern life. I assure you I am far from the first one to do this and I may not be the best one to attempt this subject. I do, however, feel I have a somewhat a unique perspective on this subject as my background has been deeply involved in both science and religion. Without a doubt much more so in religion than science but both still very much self researched and pursued. My purpose in writing this is to help explain in more common terms how and why religion is used and some would say even needed at times by mankind.
Concerning science, I always had a curious nature of how things work. I remember as a young boy of eight or nine years old getting tools and taking apart things like radios, furniture, turntables to see how they worked then putting them back together. I was lucky that even at that age I knew it was a good idea to have the electric cord unplugged or I may not have had the chance to write this Today. I was glad when after putting the item back together it worked as it should. When I was not successful at reassembling something it would cause my mother no end of distress. The question usually was, “Thomas why on Earth would you take [insert item here] apart?” To which my answer would be, “ I wouldn't to see how it worked.”
Part of this curious nature came from my older brothers and I making plastic models as kids. We would go to the local T.G. & Y. discount store and buy all types of models they had, from cars to planes and ships of all sorts. Plus I learned to use the detailing tools with paint and sanding to make the models look their best. Then after spending hours upon hours making the cars look great we would have a “crash and burn” day. That is when we would take the cars and at different levels of destruction watch them come apart. Finally the result would be a glue enhanced fiery crash of two or more cars.
What this means to me is that a lot of attention to detail was a big part of my youth just to have it all go up in smoke for my own enjoyment. Even the smoke held fascination for me. As the plastic burnt it had a black smoke which was different than the smoke of grass burning or cigarettes or other things I had seen burn prior to that. Plus it was easy to capture by simply putting another piece of plastic above the flame and letting the black smoke gather on it. All this lead me to understand that there was a very specific process to be able to make models and to disassemble and reassemble household items.
I also spent hours walking all over the small town of Durant, Oklahoma to see what was around town. I was like a tourist and wanted to see everything that was around me. It was a curious world with the trees, rocks, streets, cars, homes and people all around me at different levels of condition all on the same street and city I was in.
As I remember, some of my most favorite things to do as a young boy was to watch the construction workers on the streets or on a housing site. I would stand by a backhoe and watch them dig deeper or longer and move the dirt out of the hole to the truck or to the side of the hole as it went along. Also I would watch as these men built homes putting up the frames and even walking around inside the wall less house. It is there when I notice that the plumbing fixtures came up through the concrete and the plumbers really didn't spend that much time at the work site. Only in the begging and the end. But it seemed the rest of the workers were there all the construction. So watching these men work provided me an early experience of how cause and effect was in reality. You raise a board, nail it to another board, continue the process soon your have a frame for a wall.
One of the other places that I would find myself at many times is when I heard a fire truck near by I would try to find it to see what was going on. If there was a fire I would watch the fire fighters working. It always fascinated me that they worked so fast but the fire would still destroy the building anyway. The town I lived in was very small so a fire anywhere in town wouldn't take that long to find anyway.
While on one of my walks I came upon a mimosa tree with leaves that were very small and would pull off easily into my hands. The result left the leaves in my thumb and forefinger a conical appearance to them. After pealing off several layers of these leaves I went to wash off the green from the leaves and to my amazement there was a soapy lather as I rub my hands together. I am not sure if this is a natural soap or just a normal reaction to that particular plants being rubbed underwater. I did take it to mean that if I ever needed to wash my hands and there was no soap but one of the mimosa trees I would use that. And I did use that information many times while I was a young boy. Another plant I gained knowledge from was the magnolia tree. They had these trees all over the town and they had peculiar flowers and buds. I found that is I picked the flower and rubbed it with my finger or tore it, very quickly it would turn from the white color to a dark brown. One thing for sure I learned about the magnolia tree id there flowers are very sent filled. I didn't mind playing with the buds of the tree but I didn't so much like the smell afterward, another lesson in cause and effect.
Walking around town looking at the creeks and streams, following them to see where they went and what was in and around them was also a past time I enjoyed. One time with some from friends from my neighborhood, we were at a nearby creek and found a huge turtle. We had found many other smaller ones in the past but this one had to be 14 to 16 inches, head to tail. It wasn't like the little snapper turtles that we normally found. We decided that turtle had to gotten there from a recent rain the day before. That was the only way we could figure out that the huge turtle could make it all the way down to that part of the creek. There very well may have been other ways but this was the conclusion we reached. Even at the age of eight my mind was piecing together cause and effects of the natural world. I know that things had to make sense naturally.




This small creek, a clear running stream in Durant, OK, is the same location where I spent time as a child with friends gathering crawdads, other small animals and exploring the natural world.

At this age most little boys want to have a place for themselves, a “fort, tree house” or “club” if you will. But what does a little boy know about construction? I knew that the walls had to be strong enough to support the roof. I had observed a lot of construction but doing is quite another thing. I also knew that if you didn't have enough wood to make it high enough to stand up in you can dig down into the ground to give yourself more headroom. Kevin Winguard, a friend of mine and I built a clubhouse secure enough to stand on its own and walk inside upright. We made the walls, roof and floor ourselves. We even ran a power cord out to it so we could have light and play music on my record player. Not only would it hold us, but my two brothers were actually was surprised how deep it was inside when they came in.



When I was eight or nine years old I lived at this house in Durant, OK. This backyard is where I built one of my many “forts” with my friend Kevin Winguard.

What Kevin and I had done was to put posts or boards into holes we dug into the ground to make sure it was high enough for us to stand in, yet deep enough to hold the weight. The walls were stepped and arranged in a circle and the opening was stepped down into the ground to get in and out easier. This clubhouse last for about six months.
What I have learned from this and other experiences like this is that when I see artifacts of man from the past. I see not only the history of man but my own history as a youth. When I used the tools and items around me to make something greater then what was there to begin with. Each step man has taken in progress is still with us today because we are the same men and woman of that time. We have just learned to build upon the work of other great inventors and ingenious people from before.

1 http://richarddawkins.net/
2 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
3 http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
4 http://www.carlsagan.com/