Why the Bible Ain't Tellin' Me So

The other day I read what I consider to be the best deconstruction of the entire foundation of Christian Faith by hard and fast science I have ever read.


The article, entitled "Evolution threatens Christianity", by Paula Kirby appeared in the Washington Post on Aug 24, 2011. In it, she pointed out several reasons why Christians are afraid of evolution in a no-nonsense, dispassionate, straight-forward and iron-clad manner. Like a round-world advocate in a flat-earth society, she proved beyond any doubt that the entire foundation of Christianity was not just flawed, but outright impossible.


She pointed out that science has these things called facts and that facts, no matter how hard they are to ignore (and no matter how many people choose to ignore them) can not be disproved. She even went into why a theory to a scientist (which is what a scientist would correctly call Darwinism, Mutation and other proven - but not all encompassing in and of themselves - forces influencing Evolution) is not something that is "theoretical". A layman may look at a theory as something which is untested and unexamined, like a plan yet to be implemented. To a scientist, that's called a hypothesis. When a scientist talks about a theory, that's something which is proven, has observable, repeatable data and has been subjected to intensive peer review for flaws, errors or inconsistencies. It doesn't have to be all encompassing, however. It only has to describe one aspect of a known fact in such a way that the aspect is described scientifically and is not refutable or able to be disproved.


To describe a scientific theory versus a layman's concept of a theory, Ms. Kirby used her own methods, which, I feel were a touch high-brow. So I'll provide my own way of explaining the difference.


We all know bridges exist. We see them every day. We cross over them. We go under them. They are a fact. A Bridge is defined as a structure creating a span between two or more points across which travel between those two or more points is comfortably possible. This way we all know what a bridge is defined as.


A theory of a bridge isn't so much what the bridge is made of, but the design of the bridge itself - why the bridge stays standing. In some cases it's a suspension bridge - the weight of the bridge being redirected by cables or ropes to a strong supporting area. In other cases it's a rope bridge, either planked or unplanked, which is little more than a couple of ropes stretched over a chasm, river or other obstruction. There are truss bridges, and flat bridges and arch bridges. All of them are bridges, as described, but each stays standing by a different Theory - or reason it's stays standing instead of collapsing. No single Theory describes every bridge - every reason that bridge stays standing. But each one can describe an aspect of what we have defined as a "Bridge".


The same goes for Evolution. We know it happens. We see it in the fossil record. We even see it happening in real time We have reasons explaining why it happens. Scientists call these reasons "Theories". No single theory explains everything we see happening in Evolution, but like with bridges and the reason they stay standing, it takes a number of theories (or reasons) to explain every reason evolution happens. Like trusses, suspension, arch and other theories explaining the ways bridges stand, Darwinism (Survival of the fittest or natural selection), mutation (random changes in genetic code to create a new attribute - whether advantageous or not) and other lesser-known theories all explain a part of why evolution happens. Using the term "theory" is scientifically correct, but to the layman makes it sound like there is some uncertainty about it. There isn't.


Getting back to the article, Ms. Kirby points all of this out in a more high-brow manner, but makes the same case. But she leaves out some background about Christianity which, I think, would have made a more eye-popping, "Holy crap!" case for most people.


First of all, there are those who take the Bible literally. That is, they say it explains and describes everything exactly as it happened. Then there are those who say it's apocryphal. It's a collection of parables intending us to lead a better life provided you follow the teachings of Jesus. But no matter how you slice it, there is one point of convergence for Christians and Christians in particular.


It's pretty clear, whether you believe in the literal interpretation or are a member of of the apocryphal crowd that the only reason the Old Testament exists is to set up the coming of the Christ - the Redeemer. But there's something else that's glossed over: The reason we need a redeemer in the first place. That reason is Original Sin.


All Christians believe that no man born of woman is sin-free. They are conceived in original sin, and are tainted with the sins of their fathers and their father's father and their father's father's father ad infinitum. In short, we're all born sinners. Why's that? Because of the fall of Adam and Eve - who both lived in "innocence" until the infamous Apple incident (which makes me wonder about Steve Jobs, the snake and Jobs' choice of logo, but that's another blog), after which they realized they were naked, and got busy. That was Original Sin. We needed the Redeemer to redeem Mankind from the taint of Original Sin arising from the Fall of Man. That Redeemer was Christ, and that is why Christians are called Christians: "Followers of Christ".


This is the foundation upon which ALL versions of Christianity stand. It is the bedrock upon which all Christian faith is built.


So we have the fact of evolution. It's undeniable. It's proven. Like gravity, you may want to ignore it, but like gravity, it's going to affect you even if you try to ignore it or deny it. And we have Christian faith built entirely on the foundation of Original Sin and the need for a Redeemer from that Sin.


Now, to quote Ms. Kirby's article:

"Evolution poses a further threat to Christianity, though, a threat that goes to the very heart of Christian teaching. Evolution means that the creation accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis are wrong. That's not how humans came into being, nor the cattle, nor the creeping things, nor the beasts of the earth, nor the fowl of the air. Evolution could not have produced a single mother and father of all future humans, so there was no Adam and no Eve. No Adam and Eve: no fall. No fall: no need for redemption. No need for redemption: no need for a redeemer. No need for a redeemer: no need for the crucifixion or the resurrection, and no need to believe in that redeemer in order to gain eternal life. And not the slightest reason to believe in eternal life in the first place. "

Thus falls Christianity.


Way back when, my first blog post was "The Simple Truth". It tried to explain the reason we have a spiritual side, the need for expressing spirituality, and a "better" way of addressing that need. Christianity is merely one way of addressing the need to express spirituality.


Christianity has taken on the aura of sacred over the years simply because it's been around for so long, but the fact is, it hasn't. It's changed many times, often radically. The First Church was Catholicism, and even that has changed quite a bit since the time of the founding of the papacy in Rome. (At first, priests were allowed to marry, and they had female priests - both allowances abolished by later popes). The schism that broke the Catholics was Martin Luther, creating the Protestant Church (The Lutheran Church was the first Protestant Church), which itself underwent multiple schisms as each society tried to reconcile the word of the Bible with the way they expressed their spirituality. But no matter how different their rituals were, or their administrative practices, or their costumes or their songs, they all had one thing in common: Belief in Christ as the Redeemer of Man for Original Sin.


The bottom line is Christianity can be disproved. The need to address one's spiritual side (assuming, of course, there IS a spiritual side - or any sort of afterlife) remains. Evolution isn't going to do it, nor will Christianity (and, by inference, all of the major religions since all major religions rely on biblical accounts of creation as part of the foundation of their mythology, though not to the extent Christians do). But with yet another major religion destroyed at the very root of its dogma, how many more will we have to go through before we stop putting our faith in gods and devils and start doing the work necessary to make our lives, and the lives of our kids and their kids and their kid's kids ad infinitum better?


The time will come when the Bible, the Torah and the Koran will be seen as nothing more than a mash-up of impossibilities, thoroughly discredited as paths of any kind of "enlightenment" and spiritual dead ends simply because they rely on invisible sky friends, and a strong, powerful central religious "government" which control their believers very thoughts. Science will prove them wrong about everything. When you have proof, faith is the casualty, and faith in impossible, disproved things will no longer be acceptable.


But with the utterly factual deconstruction of the foundation of Christianity, it's obvious that people will have to find better reasons to be nice to one another than because it's "What Jesus Would Do".

The Existence, and Absence, of God

I debated writing this post for a long time. My faith (Neo-Paganism as influenced by Wicca traditions) forbids doing harm. Interfering with the spiritual paths of others is, indeed, harm. Therefore it's vital that I add this warning:

IF YOU ARE CLOSE-MINDED IN YOUR FAITH - DO NOT READ!

I mean it. This post is an addendum, of sorts, to The Simple Truth, which I wrote before finding the belief system that best fits my world view which placed that caveat on me to "harm none". In The Simple Truth, I said why we have religions and my opinion of that is not much different. But while The Simple Truth invests much in mankind's inherent nature, there still exists in most people a desire to address spiritual concerns. Leaving behind, for the moment, the whole question of the existence of the soul and fully acknowledging the fact these are generally rationalizations based on certain scientific theories, I believe I can explain a simple, moral way of expressing one's spirituality without having to resort to science-bashing, denial or any other of the dogmatic traits infesting most mainstream religions.

Before we get started, I want to go over some scientific understandings. Basically, these are findings and theories which explain creation. Not so much why as how. The why could be simple random chance. Mankind is NOT all he thinks he is. But in the interest of fairness, let's argue the why is religious, the how is physical and this is where we are today.

So, on to the science:

There is something called the Grand Unified Theory, or the Theory of Everything. There is also something called Quantum Mechanics. There is finally the conservation theories. All of these actually play into the belief system I follow. Note I call it a belief system. I consider a religion to be a predefined set of dogmatic rules to which all must abide. I also note again that they have nothing to do with faith or beliefs. One can believe anything, but if they follow the predefined, dogmatic behaviors, to all outside appearances, they are a follower and practitioner of whatever faith the dogma applies. I believe in certain things and have faith that they are true. I follow no pre-set rules or dogmatic behaviors. Therefore I have no religion, but I do have a faith.

I hope that clears things up a bit.

Back to science.

First of all, the Grand Unified Theory or the Theory of Everything is a way of explaining existence. It shows how the four primary forces in the universe are related and are actually different physical manifestations of the same thing. Without going into too much scientific mumbo-jumbo (because this is supposed to enlighten, not necessarily educate), we'll focus on one aspect of it. The GUT or ToE (whichever you understand better) requires, among a great many things, an infinite number of dimensions in order to work.

People say "infinite" without really grasping what that means. For the sake of clarity (explanation-wise if not scientific-wise), let us assume that every dimension is exactly like ours, with only one difference. That difference can be as small as whether we sneezed at a particular time, woke up a fraction of a second later or earlier. That small difference had an impact on that dimension. Now, multiply that single difference by the number of possible events that happen which can cause a difference in one life alone, and you begin to get the idea of what "infinite" means. Toss in that number multiplied by the number of people (or event-causing things) in the universe, and we're talking a number beyond the scope of human understanding.

So the long and short of it is everything we do splits off a new dimension. We don't notice because our minds are part of the quantum flux and don't know about the other dimensions. We don't see or sense the dimensional splitting.

Which brings us to the next part of science - quantum mechanics. This is pretty highbrow stuff, but the essence of it is that everything effects everything else ON SOME LEVEL. This is proven, scientific fact based on small scale testing with large-scale ramifications. (As an aside, this is how faster-than-light communications may be possible by something called "quantum entanglement" - look it up if you want to go "wow..."). Further studies have proven that thought has an effect on objects outside of the brain. Not exactly telekinesis, but an effect.

Adding quantum mechanics to the notion of infinite dimensions and you have thought actually creating new dimensions. The changes are so minute, we can't even notice them, but even if we did, we'd probably not realize we were the ones creating it.

So, taking the infinite to a logical conclusion, it's logical to assume that if all things are possible, and have happened (somewhere in the dimensions) we have learned a great deal, created a great deal and can access this information/wisdom/stuff just by thinking about it. This leads to the last part of our scientific trinity: Conservation laws.

It's been proven that energy can not be created or destroyed. It simply takes on a different state. Energy can be turned to matter and, sadly, vice versa (the whole idea behind a nuclear bomb is mass to energy conversion). So we are a bundle of potential energy walking around ready to effect our world, our universe and every dimension in it. We each are "god".

Sort of...

More on that and how it relates to conservation laws in a bit.

What we lack in the dimension we're currently inhabiting is the wisdom of the ages. What we have to help us with that wisdom are all of the gods we've created over the years.

Have any of you ever wondered about our deities? I mean, all of them are very "human-like", be it "good" or "bad". There's a simple reason we did this: We created deities to which we could relate. All of them have their own unique "personalities" and few of those personalities are really much different from people we probably already know. Don't tell me that the God of the Bible, Torah or Koran are that different in behavior, or attitude - all of which have easy-to-spot counterparts in human behavior. Our gods ARE us. At the same time, they aren't. We created ways and means of relating to the infinite universe; to all of those dimensions, all of those possibilities, all of that knowledge, wisdom and insight that is out there. We call them "gods". They're really personifications of perspective who, by the quirks of quantum mechanics by which thoughts can effect things, are real - at least to those who 'believe' in them. It is how we can touch the infinite in a way that doesn't make our heads ache trying to keep it all in perspective.

Now, the explanation for gods is covered by the first two of the trinities of scientific theory. Our gods are a reflection of our own selves because we created them, and find ways to relate to them to grasp the infinite that is the universe. This is how we see spirituality. But WHY do we seek the spiritual at all if it's all made-up-stuff?

The answer Conservation laws.

Energy can not be destroyed. That is a fundamental law of science. We are all "potential energy" just by existing. Our thoughts are electro-chemical reactions which produce energy. None of that can be destroyed. It can, however, change into something else. Call it a soul if you will, call it decomposing into the earth to become something new. I don't necessarily believe that consciousness continues since that is energy and that can change, but it changes. It isn't destroyed.

Whether by the inability to conceive of our own non-existence or the firm belief that we go on after death, the fact is we do go on after death. The question, is in what form? The answer is "energy".

The details are a bit skimpy and left up to the imagination or desires of the individual. But here's the really interesting part. In an infinite universe, with all things being possible, then heaven, hell, limbo, reincarnation, nonexistence and all other guesses as to what happens to life after death are equally possible. With quantum mechanics forming our realities as we go, it's possible (though I'd hate to do the math to figure the odds) that whatever we believe will happen to us after death WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN to us.

But the ultimate question is: To what end?

Based on the above-mentioned rationalizations, that entirely depends on the individual's belief system. In my belief system (which is why I put up the warning, your belief system may vary), mankind's individual energy has increased as our ability to think has increased. This energy is what I think of as the "soul" and it evolves as we do. (I believe in reincarnation, but not always or necessarily as distinct individuals) . The more we live and learn, the more we evolve. That's the good news. The better news is because the universe is infinite, there is no game end point. We keep learning. We keep growing. We keep evolving. There is always something exciting and new ahead to peer into, to explore, to understand.

Now whether we retain consciousness as individuals after death or not isn't really the point. The point here is that, and with physics backing this up, we are all connected to each other and to everything around us. The fact is while mankind is egocentric by nature, nature isn't. But if we recognize that connectedness to everything, then we have a reason to improve ourselves. Energy that is positive, improving all of us, increases our potential. Energy that harms, diminishes us all, decreasing our potential. In short, if we do good for everyone else, we do good for ourselves as much as them. If we do harm to others, we harm ourselves as well.

All we need to do is to live by the simple rule: Harming none, do as you will.

There are energy penalties for doing things that are counter to the evolution of the soul. Call it a loss of lessons, or failing a test for lack of a better term. These push the individual (or mankind's overall energy) back. I call this Karma. Bolstering the energy by promoting a lack of harm pushes the energy forward, to a higher level thus benefiting either the individual or the whole (depending on one's point of view). This is also Karma. It doesn't require doing anything more than not doing harm.

It's a pretty simple philosophy that encourages thought, education, science and discovery. The difference is, my belief system has far more science behind it than most. I believe it best - at least for me and in my mind for everyone else. But as I said, it's not a good thing to interfere with the spiritual path of another. Thoughts can create reality, though. And I do think about this a lot...

These are just the basics of my belief system. The scientific framework upon which I hang the rest of it: the rituals, the ideology, the rationale for doing what I do. I'm not perfect, I make mistakes. I get rewarded for doing good. I get "punished" for doing bad. It's a rather esoteric reward and punishment system, but this is taking the very long view of things.

Mankind has a very large amount of potential energy. How that energy is used is up to us. I'd like to think we will go far and do great things. So far, I don't see a lot of good coming out of our existence. With any luck, should we prove to be more than the universe can handle, we won't take the rest of existence with us when we go.

But it's possible...

She blinded me with pseudoscience... - 09/03/2007

Study: Men men go for good looks

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer (AP 9/3/07 - posted 5:30 PM PDT)

WASHINGTON - Science is confirming what most women know: When given the choice for a mate, men go for good looks.

And guys won't be surprised to learn that women are much choosier about partners than they are.

"Just because people say they're looking for a particular set of characteristics in a mate, someone like themselves, doesn't mean that is what they'll end up choosing," Peter M. Todd, of the cognitive science program at Indiana University, Bloomington, said in a telephone interview.

Researchers led by Todd report in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that their study found humans were similar to most other mammals, "following Darwin's principle of choosy females and competitive males, even if humans say something different."

Their study involved 26 men and 20 women in Munich, Germany.

Participants ranged in age from 26 to their early 40s and took part in "speed dating," short meetings of three to seven minutes in which people chat, then move on to meet another dater. Afterward, participants check off the people they'd like to meet again, and dates can be arranged between pairs who select one another.

Speed dating let researchers look at a lot of mate choices in a short time, Todd said.

In the study, participants were asked before the session to fill out a questionnaire about what they were looking for in a mate, listing such categories as wealth and status, family commitment, physical appearance, healthiness and attractiveness.

After the session, the researchers compared what the participants said they were looking for with the people they actually chose to ask for another date.

Men's choices did not reflect their stated preferences, the researchers concluded. Instead, men appeared to base their decisions mostly on the women's physical attractiveness.

The men also appeared to be much less choosy. Men tended to select nearly every woman above a certain minimum attractiveness threshold, Todd said.

Women's actual choices, like men's, did not reflect their stated preferences, but they made more discriminating choices, the researchers found.

The scientists said women were aware of the importance of their own attractiveness to men, and adjusted their expectations to select the more desirable guys.

"Women made offers to men who had overall qualities that were on a par with the women's self-rated attractiveness. They didn't greatly overshoot their attractiveness," Todd said, "because part of the goal for women is to choose men who would stay with them"

But, he added, "they didn't go lower. They knew what they could get and aimed for that level."

So, it turns out, the women's attractiveness influenced the choices of the men and the women.

Okay, I had to say something about this snippet of information: For those of you who are rushed, the conclusion is: This story is complete and utter bullshit.

Let's look at the 'facts'.

1. The number of participants was 46 - 26 men and 20 women.

2. It was conducted once, in Munich, Germany.

3. It made an appalling number of all-encompassing pseudo-scientific conclusions.

The writer, Randolph Schmid is a science writer for the associated press (according to the by-line) and should have known better than to have touched this mess with a ten foot alien probe. I'm not sure what qualifications it takes to be an AP Science Writer, but a knowledge of statistical analysis and any amount of common sense obviously aren't among them.

The sampling is flawed in several ways. It consists of an extremely small number of participants - 46 people to speak for the general tendencies of over 6 billion. The age of the participants covered only about 15 years - a pretty narrow demographic. It was conducted in a large European city (Germany) with, presumably, German participants. German culture predominated in their choices. It also consisted of individuals who were drawn to the idea of 'speed dating'. They were also most likely in the socioeconomic class who can afford such an activity. There was no outside sampling of other cultures, levels of education, levels of income, etc. to even out the results.

This isn't science, it's a college freshman's sociology class project - at BEST. That a science writer of ANY kind would pick it up and report it - ESPECIALLY with the facts of the study there for anyone to read - and draw any conclusions from it, let alone conclusions that generalize for the whole human race is mind boggling. I mean, if you work for the National Inquirer, whose relationship with facts tends to be cold, distant and unfriendly, then, yeah, fine. But for this to appear in the Associated Press speaks volumes against the level of education and deductive reasoning abilities - not to mention the judgment - of the writer who wrote it and the editor who allowed this piece of pseudo scientific tripe to be published.

People are screwed up enough to have something like this glorified one-time exit poll to be passed off as anything more than a predictible sampling of some speed daters in Munich Germany one night, let alone as 'real science'.