Why Lying to Children About Evolution is Dangerous

In Russia, a super strain of Tuberculosis is slowly creeping across the world. Russian prisoners are crammed into prison cells under unsanitary conditions. When a prisoner contracts TB, he rarely completes his medication due to funding, thus the formation of a super TB strain results. And this super strain requires even more aggressive (and more expensive) treatment. This makes proper treatment of the prisoner even less likely. And sometimes, the TB strain is so highly evolved that no medication known to humankind will fight the uniquely formed strain of TB.

For some prisoners, contracting TB is a death sentence. Either the funding will not be provided to treat these prisoners, or they've contracted a terminal variant of TB. These prisoners die in their jail cells.

But sometimes a prisoner with a super TB strain completes his prison sentence and is released directly into the general population-- hacking and coughing as he walks out of the facility and into the public.

Then someone in the general population contracts the super strain of TB after unwittingly spending time in the presence of the infectious, coughing ex-convict. This poor person departs from his presence to make his or her way to the airport. This person plans to make an extended visit to New York City, for example, where he or she will eventually start hacking and coughing.

Why does this happen? Where will this stop?

Some studies have shown that a small percentage of people are immune to the HIV virus. In each person found so far, a mutation was noted. They don't have any receptors on their white blood cells like most other people. As a result, the HIV virus has no way to invade their immune system. Interestingly, this same trait is traced back genetically to survivors of the Bubonic Plague hundreds of years ago.

How can this be? Could this be a clue to a cure for AIDS? How can we better understand this?

As predators change over time, those who are most successful live to pass their traits on to their offspring. The prey who allude capture are awarded that same opportunity to pass on their genes to their offspring. Thus, you have a constant honing of predatory skills and evasive tactics between predator and prey. One sharpens the other over time. This is one of the components that drives the engine of evolution.

Real problems are happening and will need to be solved by understanding evolution.

If members of our society succeed in cranking out armies of young people who think evolution is science fiction, then we will dilute the upcoming scientific community. We will stop producing the necessary minds for solving these real, growing problems. We will produce doctors, scientists, and chemists who will fail the public when the next big biological problem come to visit humankind.

So many people hate the idea of evolution because the implications threaten their Fundamentalist beliefs in God. With clouded minds they lie to as many children as they can within our school systems for the express purpose of preserving their so called "American Values".

What good will come of preserving "American Values" if we are all wiped out by a super virus because nobody took into account the phenomena of evolution and how it drives the changes we see in biological life-- not just from millions of years ago, but for today as well?

OK, so you insist all day long that life was designed.

Fine. Sure. OK.

I don't care. Whatever.

You win.

But just know that even if you insist that life was designed by a creator, you cannot escape the fact that our world was then designed with evolution as part of the plan.

To overlook the fact of evolution is irresponsible. To ignore the fact of evolution is delusional.

And to insist that evolution is science fiction to millions of school kids across the nation is down right dangerous for our survival in the future.

And that's regardless of whether you believe in any particular god, or not.

KABOOM!!!

What happens when you mix atheism with skepticism?

Does it really go KABOOM?

Perhaps the better question to explore is why skepticism has the potential to lead someone to an atheistic posture.

Skepticism is simply shunning belief that is not accompanied by strong, supporting, verifiable evidence. You recognize that you simply cannot afford to take everyone at their word all the time. This realization even encompasses the grand authorities in one's life.

You should endeavor to think for yourself.

Nothing is wrong with consulting people smarter than you. I like to call such people "experts".

But I do not like to label anyone an "authority". The title "authority" implies that such a person not only knows the truth of reality, but dictates truth in an infallible manner.

Experts, in my view, are well skilled in their craft and their knowledge is extensive. They have honed their abilities to a level of professionalism. But they can make mistakes. You should speak up when they do or when you don't agree with their actions. Or when you want evidence to back up what they are saying.

Authorities, in my mind, dictate truth whether right or wrong. They demand you always accept what they say as truth without any proof beyond the simple fact that they said so.

So when someone says that all the nations of the world must believe in God their way and that there is no other way to know God-- a skeptical person defers to doubt towards that specific believer. And that doubt will most likely generalize to that believer's God as well.

When all major religions push to make the world believe just as they do, God's followers start sounding very suspicious. They all cannot be exclusively right. And unless only one religion is right, all religions must yield a little to the others. So then, who has a right to warn others of the coming wrath of their god?

I say that mixing skepticism and atheism is at least a reasonable practice even if skepticism doesn't necessitate a turn towards atheism.

However, I think the real danger is when someone mixes radical Fundamentalism with technology. That seems to be the true formula that goes KABOOM!

Enough Is Enough

Well . . .

Lately, I've grown tired of writing about a god that I don't believe exists.

Why spend so much time talking about something or someone that I don't believe is really there?

I find that I really don't concern myself with god so much any more. Rather, my concern is more so with the actions of Fundamentalists that think I'm a fool for not worshiping him. Or the foolish actions of Fundamentalists that make news headlines.

But this sort of talk is preaching to the choir.

I'll still post things here, but probably not nearly as much as I used to-- which really wasn't all the frequent anyhow.

I'm just tired of writing about this topic. So unless something juicy comes up (which I'm sure it will from time to time), I won't post here much any more.

However . . .

While I've grown tired of writing about religion and non-religion, I have not grown tired of writing or blogging in general.

I've started a new blog spot called Uruk's Black Box.

There, I'll talk about all the other things that are on my mind when I'm trying to forget that I live in Jesusland.

Feel free to stop by if you wish. But audience or not, I gotta have an outlet and my new blog spot is (mostly) where that outlet will be.

The Poo-Poo of Our Children

The movement against homosexuals in Uganda is growing worse, despite the fact that the Uganda Parliament still has not passed that horrid anti-homosexuality bill which still remains in limbo.

I used to hear in church a lot, "Love the sinner, but hate the sin".

This is just plain hate.

I had embedded a video here at one time from the former Current TV where an evangelist stated that the homosexuals eat the "Poo-Poo of our children". I thought at the time that was such an outrageous statement and somehow embodied the ugliness of hate mindless hate that people sometimes harbor towards others for no good reason.

The Sovereign Lord over America

I ran across another one of those crazy e-mail messages that I sometimes get.

Here are some quotes from it:

Since assuming office, President Obama has consistently misrepresented this country's religious heritage and our commitment to Christianity.

On his first trip abroad, Barack Hussein Obama told the Turkish Parliament: "Although we have a large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

Who is the "we," the president refers to? According to a 2009 survey, 62% of his fellow citizens believe America is a Christian nation.

Another quote:

Look at the currency in your wallet, Mr. President. Do the bills say "In God We Trust," or "In Allah We Trust," or "In the Ideals and Values That Bind Us As a Nation We Trust"?

Listen to our national Anthem, which contains the stirring words, "Then conquer we must when our cause it is just. And this be our motto, In God Is Our Trust." (Even the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the most liberal in the land, just ruled "In God We Trust" is constitutional.)

President Obama can hardly leave the White House without tripping over monuments to our Judeo-Christian heritage.

And the quote that really caught my eye:

For the first time in our history, atheists recently met with White House officials. No one knows if the president popped in to greet the God denying atheists. It was just one more in a series of moves that are apparently designed to de-Christianize America. Frightening when you consider the list of blessings and cursing associated with whether or not our country honors God listed in Deuteronomy 28!

And the goal of the e-mail:

Please consider signing our online petition reminding our President that this IS a Christian nation and urging him to once again acknowledge that the God of the Bible is the Sovereign Lord over America.

The problems with this whole thing?

• Fundamentalist Christians don't realize the danger in making our country a theocracy. Should it become fully Christian, what sort of "Christian" will it be? Will being the wrong kind of Christian become a crime? Will non-Fundamentalist Christians lose rights because they don't deserve basic freedoms? Are non-Fundamentalists lower than other human life? But what happens when the government stops liking your kind of Christian? What happens when the face of Fundamentalism changes and leaves you behind?

• Fundamentalist Christians don't realize that this nation is not (and was not) meant to be a theocracy. Read a little bit of your Constitution sometime. Oh . . . I'm sorry . . . so you haven't read any of that document either, huh? (OK, OK, that's not fair-- but it's so fun to say . . .)

• Fundamentalist Christians don't realize that "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" were *not* always on our money or in our pledge. Congress didn't add these mottoes until the mid 1950s. Why didn't the Founding Fathers establish this precedent if they were so pious and religious while supposedly meaning for this to be a Christian nation?

• Fundamentalist Christians don't realize that atheists can run for office, too. Though some states may still outlaw atheists from running for public office on paper, this can be corrected with a quick visit to an appeals court. This freedom for an American citizen to run for office holds true for Muslims, Jews, Mormons, as well as all other religious groups and ethnic races who are American Citizens*. And it's not necessary to swear on the Bible to take office, either. That's just a tradition.

Say it with me: ˈsi-tə-zən

• Fundamentalist don't realize that the curses in Deuteronomy 28 do not apply to us. If you're Christian, they don't apply because that was to the people of Israel back in the bronze age or something like that. The United States is not Israel. And if you're non-Christian, then Deuteronomy 28 never mattered to anyone.

This mindless drive to Christianize our nation bothers me deeply. The drive to make everyone adhere to "Christian" values . . . to force everyone to be as religious as you are by force of law . . . such a drive is reminiscent of despotism and hate.

This kind of Fundamentalism is hate hiding under a Christian blanket.

* As for "citizens" who commit acts of terrorism against the nation in which they live-- such people don't deserve the rights of citizenship in my opinion. I feel that statement should go without saying . . . but someone might think I support the citizenship of anyone who commits a terrorist act or is involved in some plot against the United States. Well, nope, I don't. Absolutely not.

The only thing that person deserves is jail.

An Ancient Mindset

Clement of Alexandria was an early Christian who believed the Mystery Religions existed to prepare the world for the Christian faith. As many modern Christians see Judaism as a foreshadowing of Christian faith, Clement of Alexandria had a similar outlook concerning Mystery Religions.

I ran across a statement he made in one of his letters that caught my eye:

For, even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.

Now, I realize that true ideas can be misrepresented in a false sense.

And as a former Christian, I can understand imploring someone to never agree with Satan, even if he seems to be saying something true.

But this piece here caught my eye even more:

. . . . nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.

If human opinion suggests that HIV could be controlled in Africa by condom use, should the "preferred true truth" still prevail?

That was just an example.

What happens when a valid human opinion does come along that contradicts someone's "preferred true truth"?

Regardless of the ideology-- whether religious or non-religious, I think this is a mindset that hinders the progress of society at large.

And when I consider that the Mystery Religions and Christianity seemed so similar in Clements view, I wonder on what grounds or by what criteria did he judge Christianity to be the "true truth" as opposed to truth that only seems true? I figure that all he had was faith.

I will venture to say that this sort of thinking brings about the harmful aspects of fundamentalism. Not faith. But adhering to a "true truth" that ignores contradictory, verifiable facts. And I will also venture to say that fundamentalism can be found in any ideology-- whether religious or non-religious.

Everyone should endeavor to avoid this mindset, in my opinion.

Yep. that includes me, too.

Eh . . . I'm working on it.

Give Me Liberty, Give Me Death

On matters of abortion, I have mixed feelings. I get uneasy trying to say that we can draw the line between when an embryo becomes a human life as opposed to when it is not.

From a purely biological and genetic view, an embryo seems to only be a cluster of cells during the very early stages of a pregnancy.

But, for someone who believes in God, the soul, and divine purpose -- that embryo is life right then and there. Even if birth control was employed, but failed in some way.

But also consider the drive for reproduction and how it cause people to make poor choices. Some people are not ready for offspring though they engage in sexual activity. And unfortunately, many people will go to dangerous lengths to terminate a pregnancy.

But for all one's trying to avoid pregnancy, you wonder why people allow such to happen if they didn't really want a child.

So, I understand the complexity of the debate on abortion. This is very difficult to solve.


But, sometimes wanting to preserve life only for the sake of preserving life could be a mistake.

But I'm no longer talking about abortion. Now, I'm talking about euthanasia.


I distinguish euthanasia from suicide only in that one who commits euthanasia is in the painful last stages of a terminal illness or is in a vegetative state. Or, arguably, a person has requested not to be resuscitated should they lose consciousness and the capacity to breath on one's own.

Should the religious beliefs of the living block the free will of people in such circumstances?

Consider the story covered in the following article? When it comes to euthanasia, do we even have a right to be the judge?

Italy Woman Sent to Clinic to Die

Almost Went to Jail for Kissing his Wife

Yep. You read that title right.

Dude in India almost went to jail for kissing his wife in public.
And of course, his wife would be jailed, too; It takes two to tango!

Just sitting there at a subway station . . . young married couple, minding their own business.
Arranged marriage or not, they seemed to truly be in love.

No matter -- apparently the public display of affection is taboo in Delhi, India.

So that's why couples never kiss in Bollywood movies!

But this rigorous standard comes from the culture that produced the Kama Sutra!

C'mon now . . . the Kama Sutra.

Their culture seems to be in desperate need of an Enlightenment movement!


Here's the story to read for yourself: Indian Couple's kiss 'not obscene'

Hate -- the "Nondiscriminate" Killer

An unfortunate and sad event has been reported in the news recently. I alluded to this problem slightly in an earlier blog post when I said:

If my freedoms are taken away because some group doesn't like me, your freedom can just as easily be taken away, too, regardless of your skin color. Don't believe me? Learn the truth about why this country was born in the first place.

A woman contacted a Ku Klux Klan group in Louisianan and expressed interest in recruitment. Though she began initiation, she developed a change of heart for whatever reason and desired to return home.

Upon her request to leave, she was shot dead.

This was a white woman -- by the way.

Her color did not matter. They murdered her anyhow.

As I said earlier . . . the hate found by people like Klan members is generated by a desire to control and remove the rights of others. Their issue with skin color only justifies their illogical way of thinking.

Hate like that doesn't take much to generalize when it is superficial in cause.

Those Klan members killed her because they wanted to control her. At that point, she was no different from any other minority.

I bet they thought God wanted them to murder her, too.

Religion, Spirituality, and Atheism

Time for an English lesson:

Religion: noun

1. a Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

   b A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship

2. The life of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teaching of a spiritual leader

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion

Antonyms: (That means opposite, by the way . . . .)

agnosticism, atheism, disbelief

Spiritual: adjective

1. of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material

2. of, concerned with, or affecting the soul

3. of, from, or related to God; characterized by divine or godlike nature

4. of, or belonging to a church or religion; sacred

5. relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural

Now . . . . lets start our e-musings in light of these defined terms.

Religion is a set of beliefs or practices. I assure you that the beliefs and practices within the same religion don't always match. For instance . . . Resurrection Sunday doesn't always fall in the same month with Passover – which was essential to the crucification and resurrection of Christ. Tradition trumps beliefs and has caused Easter to follow it's own schedule which only matches Passover most of the time.

Spirituality deals with matters of spirit – the immaterial, metaphysical, or supernatural. But, not necessarily with any specific religious rules or dogma. Many times, yes, but sometimes, no.

Fundamentalism is considered to be strict adherence to a belief set within a religion. The belief is often taken literally and accepted unquestioningly. Usually a religious text and spiritual leader give the layout for the religious rules of the fundamentalist group. Fundamentalism usually involves spirituality.

Fundamentalist believers of religion have no room for opposing viewpoints within or from outside of their sect. As a result, such religious groups often splinter due to disagreement over doctrine. These disagreements often turn into power struggles for authority. This, in my opinion, is to be expected; Imagine the difficulty of turning metaphysical things into rigorous rules upon which everyone must agree!

Try getting a group of people to gaze at a cloud and insist they all perceive the exact same image. Everyone is entitled to an opinion – especially with finding shapes in clouds, wouldn't you say?

Spirituality minus religion allows people to acknowledge the metaphysical and experience the metaphysical without strictness of any sort. Everyone can see whatever image they desire from the cloud in the sky. Why not? After all . . . it's just a cloud. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, right?

Of the three great religions – Judaism, Islam, and Christianity – fundamentalist belief is most exuberant and (I dare say) most dangerous. All three fundamentalist variations of these faiths lean towards the expectation of a cataclysmic series of events. These events will herald the act of God taking back control of the earth (Taking back? What happened to his omnipotence?) War and conflicts are almost welcomed – at the very least, expected. Thus, invasions, suicide bombings, terrorism, and military retaliation are viewed as necessary to fervent, radical fundamentalist believers. Some even think that these events can accelerate the advent of the Apocalypse.

Am I saying that the world would enjoy total peace if all the Jews, Muslims, and Christians disappeared?

No, absolutely not. I am saying, however, that fundamentalism needs to largely disappear. Spirituality is welcomed to stay – regardless of the religious faith.

Oh, and as final note – I really wish people would stop buying into the idea that atheism is a religion. Atheism can only be considered a religion to the degree that someone is devout or zealous over a concept or idea. Concerning the true definition of the word “religion”, atheism is no more a religion that my devotion to keeping myself caffeinated with fresh brewed, organic, 100% Arabica coffee made from fresh ground whole beans.

No instant, pre-ground, or stale coffee – please.

Religious? YES!

A religion?

NO!

Religion requires a deity as the object of worship and often has a leader who is the object of leadership towards the rules and acts of worship and adoration to the deity in question.

Atheism is the opposite of religion. A-theism. No belief in a deity or god. No object to worship or adore or serve. No religion to follow, as a result.

If you are one that says atheism is a religion, then what is the opposite of religion?

Agnosticism?

Spirituality?

Science?

Reason?

The Proof of the pudding . . .

For the fundamentalist Christian, the inerrancy and infallibility of the scriptures is a given.

No debate about it.

The Bible contains no errors and is completely factual– to be taken literally and is the chief authority over Christian doctrine. The Bible is God's Word handed down by Him through inspired men who would never dare alter His message. God protected His Word miraculously as people copied and translated it throughout the ages.

That's the heart of Christian fundamentalism. And if you don't agree with my description, then you're not a fundamentalist.

What would disqualify the Bible from living up to the expectations of fundamentalists? A mistake? An unclear passage or interpretation? Contradictions found within the text?

A fundamentalist won't consider the possibility of a mistake or contradiction within the Biblical text. This is an impossibility to the fundamentalist. Even if you presented hard proof, the mind of the fundamentalist will reject it. For in their world, such proof cannot exist in the first place.

But, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Or, in the modern shortened version, the proof is in the pudding.

A contradiction is at best a conflict of ideas. Two concepts that cannot happen at the same time and both remain true simultaneously. At the worst, a contradiction means that one or more sources are totally wrong. Maybe even one source has embellished or lied about it's information altogether. Maybe all sources involved are wrong. People contradict themselves and each other all the time. Can God be afforded this characteristic of human behavior?

How many times does the Bible need to contradict itself before it becomes fallible?

Twice? Three times? Four or more?

Once?


If the Bible has contradictory material, then at least one of the two passages involved must be uninspired and totally man made. Otherwise, God inspired flesh and blood to write contradictory material to be added into his prefect Word. For a fundamentalist, this cannot be so. The only other option is that the scriptures have been tampered with.

Imagine that.

For the Christian who is liberal, or non-fundamentalist, the Bible does not need to achieve infallibility in order to remain “reliable”. The Christian liberal will acknowledge the contradictory elements in the Bible and accept them – even embrace them.

Yet, liberals feel the Bible still has enough weight to validate Christianity as God's way. So to the liberal, it is left up to us to review tradition, history, culture, and our own conscience to decide what parts of the Bible are reliable for doctrine – as opposed to what parts are ancient myth and legend, cultural leftovers, and just plain hogwash.

I have a problem with both fundamentalism and liberalism.

With liberalism, one ultimately determines for himself what is right or wrong within the Bible.

Christianity gets just like Burger King – have it your way.

What criteria do you use to decide the reliable aspects of scripture from the less reliable parts? And why bother at all if the tenets of your religion are left up to you?

In that case, it's now against my religion to get up early on Sundays for church services. Oh, and I'm keeping that ten percent of my income for myself now. I've found that my rent is more important than the mega-church building fund project we pledged ourselves to. Oh – and I'll start keeping my freewill offerings, too. I've grown tired of contributing to the pastor's new mega-house mortgage equipped with an elevator and a closet full of custom made suits.

And that new luxury car he now drives.

Wish I could have a Jaguar.

Ah, the fun of growing up fundamentalist! See what happens when you believe the Bible is inerrant? You tend to believe your clergy is inerrant, too. Then, you mindlessly do everything they tell you to do and make them rich in the name of God.

So now, you can see that I no longer accept fundamentalism. For me, some major contradictions have finally come to light concerning the Bible.

One contradiction is enough to soil the Bible's infallible image. Oh, but don't worry – the Bible seems to have a few really good ones.

But for now, I'll share only one with you.

I was hoping to bolster my faith in my search for Biblical infallibility.

No dice.

One contradiction hang in the back of my mind for years -- long before I could have ever thought my faith would be in danger. I dealt with this contradiction by just telling myself, “I don't understand enough about God's word to figure out why this looks like a contradiction. One day . . . God will show me.”

Boy, were my eyes opened, alright.

In most Bibles, the word “lord” is rendered in mainly two ways: Lord and LORD.

And?

Every time we see LORD in all small caps – we are seeing the divine name of God rendered in English. God's divine name was represented in Hebrew with the letters: YHWH. Of course, here, I'm still using the English equivalents for these letters. But to protect themselves from defaming the name of God, the Hebrews printed the name of God without the vowels. His name was actually spelled and pronounced: Yahweh. But, that's not how your Bible does it. Your Bible uses LORD, instead of YHWH.

Also, keep this point in mind – most translators transliterated Yahweh into Jehovah. So, those two spellings are interchangeable. So, when you see “Jehovah” – substitute “Yahweh”. When you see LORD, substitute YHWH.

Don't believe me? Read the preface and translation notes in your Bible's introduction (before Genesis). If your Bible doesn't have one, find a Bible that does. You'll see that most Bibles use this translation convention.

And? So, what?

Well, all throughout Genesis, you see LORD – or better stated, you see YHWH. So, substitute LORD with YHWH and count how many times you see it.

Ok, don't really try to count how many times. You'll be counting for days.

Think about how Abraham, the friend of God, names a place Jehovah-jireh (Yahweh-yireh), which means YHWH will provide (Gen. 22:14). Think about how the Bible says men called on the name of the LORD (not Lord). They called on the name of YHWH. Abraham's son even evoked the name of YHWH (Gen.26:22).

Then . . . look at Exodus 6:2 and 3.

Ok, ok, I'll quote it:

And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH (YAHWEH) was I not known to them.

How can generations from the beginning of time evoke the name YHWH but not know it?

Exodus just claims that Moses was the first to know the name Yahweh / YHWH. But Abraham knew it according to Genesis. Many other people seemed to know that name all through the days of the patriarchs.

That contradiction alone was enough for me. People had a hand in writing scripture. People have political agendas. People lie. People can be misinformed. People just repeat what they hear without finding out for themselves. People make up folk tales.

Want some more proof for a few other contradictions?

I'll give you a resource – Darrel G. Henschell's book The Perfect Mirror: The Question of Bible Perfection.

I admit that I don't agree with each and every single contradiction he cites. But, again – how many contradictions does it take? Because, for any single “false” contradiction one could discover, two other undeniable contradictions can be found -- contradictions that carry serious implications.

To me, this problem with infallibility and inerrancy proves the Bible's origin is from mankind alone.

A fascinating book to follow up with after checking out Henschell's The Perfect Mirror, would be Richard Elliott Friedman's The Hidden Book in the Bible. If you want even more after that, you can also read his title The Bible with Sources Revealed.

With no Bible to stand on and a faith system that I have to determine for myself, I simply decided to do away with my Christian practices altogether.