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 Seven; RELIGION SHINES ITS LIGHT part twenty-six

Religion has truly surpassed the power of every invention that has followed it. As the Bronze Age, Iron age, middle ages, the age of enlightenment and the Modern ages have come and gone and gone, religion has been the enemy of progress every step of the way. To the faithful, things like the Hubble Space Telescope, nuclear weapons, and climate change are nothing compared to the power of a faith that believes in a god. If anything man can learn comes into conflict with the faithful, the Bible will win out. It either has to be wrong or misunderstood of the work of Satan because the Bible cannot be wrong according to the faithful. This concept is shown is several ways.One way is the refusal to accept scientific answers to the questions that it provides such as in astronomy, paleontology, biology and other disciplines that function quite well with the facts that lay outside the Bible's stories.

But not only does religion have the power to terrorize, it also the power to influence every level of behavior of the adherents and to some degree the people that live in the society of the dominate religious belief. Things such as clergy gender, celibacy, wearing of the hair or jewelry, view toward homosexuals, what type of food to eat and role of women and many more issue are all answered conclusively by the dogma of the religion. Each religion either pushes that they are divinely right or at least the best choice to please and honor their god. Even in the pluralistic beliefs such as Baha'i Faith.


It is true at the heart of Christianity and Islam that woman are to be shunned and controlled, the natural sexual desire are to be repressed and avoided at almost all costs. While in America there is a virtual smörgåsbord of religions of almost every school of thought one can think of. The reality that many woman are either forced into or brainwashed into accepting the second class status to men is intolerable in the natural order of humanity. While it has taken several centuries for this progress to happen, it is still a work in progress. I recently went to a Christian service at Willow Creek-Chicago and the video taped message was about Ester from the Old Testament. The story told how the King banished his wife for daring to respect herself enough not to parade out in front of his people. For this "crime" she was banished. [I was surprised she wasn't killed.] But to select a new wife the ordered woman to walk before in dressed in their most beautiful clothes and one thing and other Ester was selected because she was more beautiful. To me this is nothing more than pure sexism. Plus this story is being taught Today in one of the more liberal mega churches in America. Of course the person giving the message turned the story around about how "brave" Ester was but the thing is that her and all woman were viewed merely as chattel to the wishes of the King and other men.


In Christianity, the Catholic Church praises Mary the mother of Christ but vilifies Mary Magdeline the follower of Jesus. They will not let men and women clergy marry. This can be seen as a subjugation of women in that a man is afforded power and a woman is not able to share in the power as his wife. Woman are forbidden to be priest and leaders of the church outside the office set up for them which at even the highest level an ordained priest is given a higher position than the highest ranking nun. But this oppression is not unique to Catholics.


In Protestant religions the range is wide and deep. Woman can lead, or are prohibited to lead, woman can wear anything publicly acceptable or a woman must wear a full length dress with her hair uncut and covered. A woman can speak and teach in church or she much remain silent and only learn via her sexist husband. But in all of the Christian Protestant religions men come out ahead of woman. It is true that the men will say that woman are honored and respected in church and given a place of honor and respect. But this rings in my ears as the words I have heard when asking Muslims about the status of woman in their society. It is just a different tune they sing the song too. I mentioned the Shakers before, that they were a group that didn't believe in having children, so they had to adopt or recruit people in. But woman had somewhat of an equal status in the church. But the jobs for the woman and men were very stereotypical such as men worked in shops and farmed and woman worked in the home and did the domestic chores. Despite laws against it, this prejudice still exists in business and society as well.


Then we get to Islam which also has a wide range of expression as well. I lived in St. Louis and had many friends that were Bosnian Muslim and the woman and men were very western looking. I am not sure if this is from their home culture or the desire to adapt into the St. Louis culture and fit in. Even though I was usually able to pick an Bosnian man or woman out among other because of the physical appearance the woman always dressed as the American woman did. I wish all Muslims were as these people are. I believe the world would be a much better place.


But it is not, When I was in Saudi Arabia I was treated to experience the discrimination of woman in the total culture. Sure they view it as protecting them or honoring them but who says they need any protection or even wish to have your honor if given the freewill and other options to choose from? On the public transportation buses in Saudi Arabia the front door had a picture of a woman in a burka holding a child's hand with the prohibited sign going across them. Then on the back door, the same sign without the prohibited sign. I hear of the huge mall that was built in Saudi Arabia that actually had two levels one for woman and children and one for men. I only got to talk to one woman while I was over there and she was with her brother. [I actually had to have him talk to her.] They were very polite and she seemed quite content with the idea of being under the burka and the restrictions that are placed upon her. She even reflected the views of the Saudi Cultural Information tents that were present at our location at the Khobar Towers when I was there during the Gulf War.


Oddly enough, a Saudi citizen could drive across the King Faud Causeway to Bahrain and not have near the restrictions of the home country of Islam.


I did enjoy my experience with the Saudi people and for the most part are very polite and friendly to us as we were guests in their country. Even though I was serving in the Army in the time I found it an honor to be in their country. I just had a different view than they do. It was during my talks in the white Saudi Culture tents that I got to talk to several Imams and other Muslims about their religion. They told me that Islam accepts both Judaism and Christianity. However one cannot practice them openly. But as long as they practice privately only in their home then they are not going to be persecuted. Also that if a person moved to Saudi Arabia and they were a different religion, they would not be forced to change. They may be educated about Islam to avoid making mistake or violating the laws but they could convert of their own freewill. What a tolerant place!


I did, of course, find this quite confusing but I was a devout Christian at the time myself. So who was I to say. Here I was a Christian fighting on behalf of a Muslim country, Kuwiat. King Richard would have had my head.

Coming next time:

DOES ALLAH REALLY CARE? REALLY? part twenty-seven

Chapter Seven; HUMANS IN THE MIST part twenty-five

When paleontologists, archaeologists, anthropologist and other professionals who research the history of Earth through geology, fossils, and ancient sites of man and animals, a picture begins to develop. Like all primates, humans are very social and territorial animals. Similar characteristics are common to the varieties of primate species. But when the dawn of man came, modern man arrived on the planet pretty much the same as we are now but the Earth was a much different place than it is now. There were many other animals that have long since been extinct. While there are several ideas as to what lead to Homo sapiens to become what they are now. Several are worth touching on.

The consensus is that humans first appeared in the sub-Saharan Africa. From this rise, mankind quickly migrates to the Middle East, Europe, Asia, across the land bridge to the Americas and across the seas and oceans to Australia and other islands of human civilization. One idea to keep in mind is that over the 200,000 years of human existence the access to parts of the planet have came and gone with successive warming and cooling periods of the planet. Based upon archeology, human tools found indicate the level of technology that we had at different parts of the planet, so an idea of the paths and times we migrated and advanced around the globe can be made. Of course Homo sapiens are not the only species to use tools. The use of tools by man's ancestors has been around since at least Homo erectus, about 1.4 to 1.7 million years ago. So the advancement in tool development can not only indicate a time period but also a species of humans.

Some of these artifacts include the presence of animals hides, sticks and stones, and pottery and stone items used for holding water or food. The presence of domesticated animals, namely dog's bones present in close proximity to human artifacts and remains are indication of the progression of of the evolution of the human species. Also domesticated animals such as horses, bovine, swine and other modern domesticated animals are indicators of the advancement of mankind's dominance over his environment. These reflect a early time of human history and development of basic tools. The details of this period of time is almost completely unknown. [That's why we call it prehistoric.] But most of mankind's history is spent during this prehistoric era. Depending on the view of when mankind came into its own that period began about 200,000 years ago.

While prehistoric man would be not much different from us Today, except for his height, he really didn't begin to develop his intellectual skills until he was much further along the path. I have heard that if you were able to take a prehistoric man and raise him in Today's world that he would fit in perfectly. This is of course in sharp contrast to a recent video I saw on You Tube by "Ozmoroid" creationist geometry lesson.xxxiv It talks about how the height of mankind has gotten shorter since the time of Adam.

Archeology and physical evidence doesn't support this assertion. We have clothing and outfits that were worn by person more than 3500 years ago and these show that people were actually a bit shorter instead of taller. Structures built in those ancient times often have smaller door openings and ceilings when they are intact or reassembled. These are just a few inches not the drastic increase that Ozmorid put forth in his video but it does show the point that humans in general are more likely to get taller than shorter.xxxv I found it humorous that the idea postulates that Adam lived 6000 years ago and that due the the rate of decreasing height, humans should simply disappear in about another 4000 years. [I'll keep that day open on my calender.] While the future of humanity is uncertain for sure, it is uncertain because we simply cannot see into the future not because a silly hypothesis is laden with misinformation and ignorance. But the prediction of the end of the world is the specialty of the devout of many faiths and views.

As man advanced with simple tools and observations of the natural world. He began to form a cause and effect view of the world. Things like the weather patterns, seasons, migrations, stars, planting seeds, accidents, communication, and mutual protection become more clear. So man begins to work on using this knowledge to his benefit and the benefit for the clan or tribe. So begins the basis of science, deduction and observation. Not all these cause and effect relationships are accurate in the view of modern man. Just because the last time a meteorite was in the sky a king died or a enemy was defeated doesn't mean that every time a meteorite appears in the sky the same event will happen again. The failure of mankind to recognize that the same celestial event that they see is the same that there enemies or other nations or kingdoms would see seems to be like a foreign concepts to the writings of most ancient texts. After all there is only one sky, in spite of how often the broadcasts meteorologist insist on calling the space above us the “skies.” The ancients didn't understand as we do Today the concept of a shared experience.

The very idea that the sun comes up in East and sets in the West day after day is something that was important to ancient man to know. The knowledge of the progression of the sun in the sky over the year was important for crop management, animal tracking and hunting, when to travel to avoid coming cold weather, how to manage the domesticated animals for breeding. These are all ideas that took many generation to discover, yet are essential to how mankind lives in the world Today.

To have a festival for a better harvest as a cause and effect relationship Today seems archaic but that is how people lived in the past. A “meaningful” sacrifice had to be made according to the rules of the society.

The one or ones with the knowledge of the the seasons had the power to command respect. In a way they almost would seem like gods or at least demi-gods to the common uneducated person. So with basic knowledge of time a person could again be empowered to force their will upon their own people. If a violent storm came it was because the people sinned. If the crops failed it was a sin and a sacrifice had to be made. If the livestock got sick it was because evil was in the tribe and the evil had to be purged. So with the knowledge of time, a whole system of society could be created and called religion.

As man learned to master fire the use of this gave man the power to light the night and use it to keep away predators from his home. Oral language soon included its visual counter part in writing. Now a person could get the words of a person not even with them. They could even have words from people that had died. A great advancement to mankind. The idea of carrying knowledge forward help mankind avoid having to “reinvent the wheel” over and over again. During this period man was able to make more advance tools of stone and use the knowledge of those not with them in writing to help advance their tribes and clans.

However with the advent of written language, what can only be hypothesis at this point as the tribal stories began to take on the written form and past on from generation to generation. While the idea of a way to move a block of stone more easy is a very useful piece of information for stone age man to have. The story that this was handed down by the great stone god of the East is not really a helpful concept. But man was making more time available for himself so instead of following our naturally evolved natural to be nomadic, man began to build town and settlements. The best places were near were there was water for crops, drinking and so on.

I know most of this is a rehash of the stories told for the past few decades but sometime it is good to restate it to remind us of were we came from and where we are now. So please bear with me as I finish with the section.

So now man has a few cities and the populations grow as the ease to have the necessities of life begins to make living in larger groups more desirable. Cities in the Mid-East grow as do cities in Asia and Europe. One wonders at this point if trade for mutual benefit was the next step in human development of was the advent of war? Or was it something different all together?

Was it the idea that you have what I want so I am going to take it from you? Or was it the idea that your stories are different than ours so we must kill you and your ideas? Or was it simply a matter of a misunderstanding of whose animals got to the watering hole first that started the first war? Regardless the first war did begin and sadly we have not found a solution to that yet. But a more effective way to conduct those wars has never been a problem for mankind.

Man develops a more advance way of making items. These are made from bronze and have a much higher degree of strength then the stone tools of the past. Plus bronze was much lighter and could be used for many purposes. A leader of a city could adorn his soldiers in it to make them harder to kill and injure in a battle. Plus the spears with bronzed tips surely gave the army an advantage of a stone equipped enemy. So the armies advance and the victor has his will pushed upon the defeated. So their stories of history and the world are the ones that are passed down. So science and technology builds its tenuous relationship with warfare.

So, not only are the stories of the victory passed down the stories of power and glory grow as victories grow. Sometimes parts of the lore of the vanquish would be integrated or accepted into the prevailing mores some of these would benefit the society some would benefit the ruling class. One such idea is men are given the power to have women subjected to them. Maybe a conquering army might give the woman of that nation to the men as a “prize” and then the children born would be raised in that society increasing the city and country and society even more.

Once religion was created by man the power to motivate and control the population could be done with little intimidation as long as there were enough regular examples used to serve to keep the people suitably terrorized. Killing all the people in a conquered city or making an fatal example of a sexual deviant in the view of their gods. 

xxxiv http://www.youtube.com/user/ozmoroid#p/u/12/rOV9lI_yNyk

xxxv http://www.macleans.ca/science/technology/article.jsp?content=20050404_103140_103140 

Coming Next time: 

RELIGION SHINES ITS LIGHT part twenty-six

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 Two: ASSURANCE OF SALVATION? part four

To this statement, [Assurance of Salvation] I can already hear the devout and the faithful saying that I must not have been truly saved or filled with the spirit. First, one cannot say that according their own belief system. They cannot know my sincerity and willingness to know more of God. Also, I was one of the most devout and on fire believers that one would come across. But it will be said, never the less.
One of the main reasons that I went through the process of covering my background was to answer what many believers say to me, “If you only really experienced the Power of God you would know He is real. Just open up your heart and let God speak to you.”
During this time of my more profound adherence, I wouldn't have thought the ideas of science and faith were in conflict. I did start to see some incompatible ideas with the literal translation of the Bible verses and science. But the idea was more one of understanding the Bible. I used to actually think that all the answers of The Universe could be found in the Bible. It was just a matter of study to find them compatible with science.
For instance, I knew that the Earth was not six thousand years old. But, I found a verse in II Peter 3:8 that said, “Nevertheless, do not let this one fact escape you, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.” With this verse I was able to either literally expand the “six” day creation of the Earth or add an indefinite period of time, even billions of years. So, still there was not a conflict with science and faith. But there started to be some things like the idea of water to wine. I knew there had to be an actual reason for these miracle. Even God had to obey the law of nature that he established.
We are not talking about a movie or comic book, but the physical Universe. Every miracle had to have a physical reason, even the “five fish and three loaves of bread.” To me, the only way this “fish story” was true was if fish were really much bigger than the story would lead us to believe. Let's say, for instance, five full sized tuna fish. That would have been a lot of food to spread among the people. Then feeding 5,000 plus people would have been easy. I was one of those that accepted the miracles of Christ, but didn't know how He did them, yet.
There was a reasonable answer; I just had to find it. I really didn't accept the idea of ghosts or other ideas like that. Angels were a tolerable idea to me, but not one that I felt that comfortable with. To me the main objects of religion were the God team of the trinity and Satan in his disguises. Maybe a few more spirits were out there, now and then.
Why on Earth would I not want to know God? If there was a god it just made the most complete sense to me to learn all I could about him. This is the heart of the matter, isn't it? If there is a God, one would have to be delusional not to believe in it. I would whole-heartedly agree. Plus, the more you knew Him, the better you could serve His purpose. One would have to be insane, not wanting to follow God. The truth of the matter is, each person has his or her own reasons for the level of enthusiasm they follow or don't follow a god. Many feel their level of commitment is just enough to live a good and productive life in society. “Go along, to get along” would be that perspective. Each person has their own reasons how, where and why they follow the religion that they believe.
While this is testimonial, I can say with much certainty that there were few that were on fire for God the way I was. There is little that any follower of Jesus can say to me, that I have not read or studied concerning faith and dogma of the Christian faith. With my level of study, I am sure I could have been ordained as a pastor in some churches. This was never the path I sought, though.