Legends aren't always accurate

 Several years ago, I became interested in genealogy. It didn't take long to find out how quickly stories can become muddled and changed over just a few generations.

My great grandmother's father, who died when she was 1 year old, was said to have been trampled by a horse that was spooked by teenagers. I later find out through several newspaper sources that instead he had been driving a delivery for work when his wagon went off the side of a bluff, and he fell under the wagon, and it crushed him to death. This was my grandmother's grandfather, yet by the generation of my grandmother the story had already changed significantly.

My grandfather's grand aunt, his grandfather's sister, had died in childbirth, and the child died shortly after and was placed in her coffin with her afterward, or so I had been told through the family. When I saw her obituary, I found out she had actually been sick for some time before passing away; her death was not a sudden unexpected event. Again, this was only three generations later, with my grandfather knowing his grandfather very well, and my grandfather had already gotten the story wrong.

My grandfather's grandfather had accidentally shot and killed a friend of his, according to my grandfather they were climbing over a fence while hunting and his gun accidentally went off. His friend remained alive for a few days to tell the police it was an accident. Turns out, a very detailed newspaper article states my grandfather's grandfather and several other friends of his were in a hunting cabin together. My grandfather's grandfather was cleaning his gun; the gun went off and shot his friend in the face and killed him instantly. Still only three generations later but the story again changed significantly.

If it hadn't been for the Internet age I most likely would have never seen these actual obituaries and newspaper articles that reveal the accurate events. There were seeds of historical truths in these claims; my great grandmother's father was crushed to death when she was very young; my great grandfather's sister did have a baby who died a few weeks after her and the casket was opened, and the baby was buried with her; my grandfather's grandfather did shoot and kill a friend on accident and it involved hunting. Still, at least two of these stories had not only changed but changed significantly, only three generations later, and it would have always been assumed the family oral traditions were the accurate version of events.

If stories can be changed significantly after only three generations, and the accurate versions are only caught because of the modern internet age where we have access to television, pages like ancestry, newspapers.com, for historical records, etc., are we really supposed to believe that stories around 2000 years ago which weren't even starting to be written until roughly 30 years after the events they describe have to be accurate, because there were living witnesses to these events who would have "corrected" these errors? My grandparents knew individuals who were contemporaries to the stories told and they still got them wrong. These stories were also spreading far and wide, surely out of reach of the "eye witnesses" fairly quickly.

Never mind the fact the fact that these events involve something as emotionally strong as religion, these aren't just historical family facts. There is much more reason for embellishment for these stories. My grandfather and grandmother personally knew individuals who personally knew their grandparents, which would be their own parents, and they still got the stories wrong.

The moral of the story is, don't believe a story has to be 100% correct because of eyewitnesses, whether it's in favor of your religion or not. Don't assume any stories are 100% correct just because you want them to be. Give skepticism a chance.

The Miracle of Existence

 The miracle of existence.

Existence itself is a given. The fact that YOU exist is a miracle.

The ancestral species of humans, both before and after Homo Sapiens as we know them today, fought tooth and nail to survive in a brutal world. The ancestors that led to our species could have so easily died from predators, starvation, changing climates, at birth, etc. They survived all 5 mass extinctions. They escaped predators hunting them. They survived against the odds.

After surviving against these odds, they began to evolve into the species that we are today. The right climate, the right selection pressures caused them to change and become smarter and more reliant on their wittiness than brute strength or speed. Instead of having to be a strong as a guerilla, they learned if they create weapons instead, they can kill much larger and much stronger animals from a distance and lessen their chances of injury and death. Instead of relying solely on fur to stay warm and survive brutally cold climates, they can actually kill animals with fur and cover themselves with fur that keeps them much warmer and more than doubles their chances of surviving a brutally cold winter. If the right species had never been isolated in the right area that had these selection pressures, it's very likely these adaptations would never have happened and our ancestors, YOUR ancestors, would never have existed.

Even as our species became homo sapiens, death was much more easily accessible all the way up into the 1800s and 1900s than it is today. The infant mortality rate was sky high. Diseases and sicknesses that don't even exist today would be a common death sentence for individuals. Sicknesses and diseases that are STILL common today but merely annoying could be a death sentence as well. Children could hurt themselves and easily die of something that would easily be treated today at an urgent care or ER. To survive infancy itself was not a given as it nearly is today. The scores of infant headstones and headstones of young children across old cemeteries all over the nation bore witness to this fact.

After surviving these odds, your ancestors had to meet the right individuals in order for you to have a chance to exist. Think of all the choices and events that had to happen for all of your ancestors to meet each other to lead to your existence. One small, different, arbitrary choice could have led to any one of your ancestors not existing. An ancestor deciding to move somewhere, deciding to attend a certain church where they met your other ancestor, breaking a bone and meeting their spouse in a hospital like my grandparents, etc. A previous spouse dying and your ancestor remarrying to your other ancestor, like my great grandfather remarrying to my great grandmother after his first wife died. Think of how many individuals would have existed that will never get a chance to exist now because one individual died.

Once your ancestors hit the odds of meeting each other to lead to your conception, the odds are still against your existence specifically. One the male side, there are billions of sperm cells. Any one of these sperm cells with your mother's egg could conceive a completely unique individual. Your sperm won the genetic lottery out of billions of other sperm, and billions or trillions of other individuals who could have existed instead of you will now never have the chance of experiencing existence.

Now that your ancestors have hit the odds of meeting each other and conceiving you specifically, you STILL have to beat the odds to be born and live long enough to experience life. Many children are stillborn, or born with deficiencies that cause them to die shortly after birth, etc. Again, the odds of dying in childbirth or infancy up until maybe the mid 1900s was very great. Death in infancy was not seen as the exception that it is now.

So, you beat the odds and survived birth, but you still have to survive long enough to begin substantially experiencing life. Children die from illnesses, accidents, etc., which was much more common several generations ago but can still happen today. My great grandmother's brother died from cholera or scarlet fever when he was only a year old, for example. He beat all the odds we've discussed but still didn't survive long enough after birth to substantially experience life. Others live to adulthood and die just before adulthood, missing that experience of existence, or others die in their mid-adulthood and just miss out on other life experiences. My mother died just six months before my nephew was born and barely missed the experience of being a grandmother. If you are able to substantially experience any aspect of human existence, be grateful you have that opportunity.

If you exist and are able to read this and appreciate what I've written, make no mistake that your existence is a miracle. Is it a supernatural miracle? At the end of the day that is up to each individual to decide. For myself, the odds of my existence or existing long enough to experience life is itself what makes it miraculous, and it makes me want to appreciate the opportunity that I have to experience it. If a supernatural being has planned everything out including our lives, there is some "grand plan," for everyone that exists, there are no odds for or against us existing. It was meant to happen all along. That, in my opinion, is the opposite of miraculous.

The Gospels and Rejecting the Greater Miracle

The gospels must be divinely inspired. Not enough time passed between the death of Jesus and when the gospels were written for legend to creep in. Too many people were still alive that could correct the incorrect rumors, so the Gospels must be completely accurate in all the events they portray.

This argument you will often hear for the divinity of the gospels uses the length of time in-between when the events in the gospels purportedly occurred and when the gospels themselves were written. This is the essentially the "Not enough time," argument. The gospel of Mark, for example, is thought to be written from around 50-70 A.D., roughly 20-40 years after the death of Jesus. How could so much legend creep in within 20-40 years? Wouldn't too many people still be alive to correct the errors spreading?

First, this argument very much so overestimates how popular Christianity was at its inception. This argument assumes that Jesus was so popular and had so many followers during his lifetime that there would be scores and scores of people from when he was alive to correctly recall his life and correct any errors spreading in any given time and place. In reality, Jesus had twelve close followers, traveled and preached in small rural towns and not in major cities, and was wildly unpopular with the religious leaders he did come into contact with. 

Not only did Jesus only have 12 close followers, plus some women followers who may have traveled outside that circle as well, but Jesus in the gospels had also very few individuals He appeared to after his resurrection. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 claims Jesus appeared to 500 individuals, but this staggering number is not mentioned in any of the gospel accounts, which is itself a rather odd and telling omission. 

Especially considering the period as well in context, no social media, no telephones, no automobiles for traveling, etc., it would have been virtually impossible for the relatively small number of individuals who witnessed or were a part of Jesus' resurrection or his ministry to be everywhere at all times to "correct," any errors spreading concerning Jesus' ministry or resurrection. This is also giving benefit of the doubt to human nature, in my opinion not a justified one, that anyone who was "corrected," would actually correct themselves and change their story. 

Are we really to believe as the game of telephone was played verbally for the decades after Jesus' death that stories were always passed on accurately? That a preacher evangelist, who converts someone who is passing them on the street and then the convert goes on their way shortly afterwards, makes sure that the convert who they likely never see again passes on information accurately to the next person they evangelize, and that person after them, etc.? The idea of this happening is absurdly impractical.

Second, the reasonable argument to reject the greater miracle completely destroys this type of argument. For the sake of making this argument simple, let's define the greater miracle as something that requires a greater suspension of disbelief to believe, or something that is least likely to happen based on known facts.

Based on empirical human nature, it's a fact of human existence that humans spread false information, whether knowingly or unknowingly, that humans exaggerate stories to fit their own personal narrative, and that humans can be almost legendarily stubborn when it comes to changing their beliefs or opinions, no matter how strong evidence can be contrary to what they believe. 

In contrast, there has been millions and millions, perhaps even billions, of deaths through the eons of time through to the present. What Christians give us out of those millions or billions of deaths is one man who died 2000 years ago and was supposedly raised from the dead three days later, who was known during his lifetime and seen during His resurrection by a very significantly small portion of the population. Christians can only tell us, out of billions and billions of deaths, only one person has died and been resurrected, 2000 years ago, and it hasn't happened since and will never happen again. Not only does this require an extreme suspension of disbelief because of the vague claim itself, but the odds Christians also themselves give us, 1 time out of billions and billions that no will ever again witness and very few supposedly witnessed when it happened, the likelihood of this happening becomes so low it should be as close as possible to the 0% mark.

Given the known facts about human nature, versus the virtually impossible odds Christians give us of someone being raised from the dead, which one would be a greater miracle? Is it more likely that people spread false information, even if it's hard to imagine because of the length of time and/or witnesses alive at the time, or that someone was raised from the dead 2000 years ago because they're god? If you know human experience you know the answer. When was the last time you saw someone die, get buried in the ground, and then rise from the dead 3 days later completely fine with the grave untouched? How many times have you seen someone embellish a story? Anyone who has had human experience knows which answer is more reasonable and likely, whether they will admit so or not.

These are what I believe are two strong arguments against the idea that the length of time between Jesus' resurrection / ministry and the gospels proves that the gospels must be divinely inspired.

Proving A Negative

A revelation I've had recently regarding substantiating or disproving claims is whether or not one can prove a negative claim or that something doesn't exist. In general, it isn't good argumentation or reasoning to try and prove a negative, or to formulate an argument that something doesn't exist and try to "prove" that it doesn't exist. This is because, for example, if one tries to argue that God doesn't exist, there could always be another god around the corner that one is unaware, or if one tries to prove that leprechauns don't exist there could always be a leprechaun, however unlikely, hiding somewhere in the corner of the universe.

What is better, and provides for better argumentation and reasoning, is to make an opposite positive claim which would necessarily entail that assumption, which can met with a burden of proof. Instead of simply making the claim that the Christian god doesn't exist, one could rightly claim that the Christian god is a mythical figure made up by men and provide evidence that supports that assertion. If this claim is justified this would obviously entail the assumption that the Christian god doesn't actually exist as an existential being in our reality. Several lines of evidence could be given to support this assertion, such as the nature of god in the Bible reflecting the nature of man, how the Bible seems to be anything but divinely inspired by an omnipotent supernatural god, the millions of unanswered prayers, etc. 

Abiogenesis, Intelligence, and DNA

The origin of the code for all living things, DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid, is a controversial mystery among inquiring minds who want to know the origin of all living things. Some say an intelligence created it because it is far too complex to have been created by accident, while others insist more naturalistic processes were the cause. Others will simply say they don't know its origin and leave the discussion at that.The controversary and positions are understandable, since DNA as those who espouse origin by intelligence like to point out, is almost unexaggeratedly unfathomably complex. This is certainly a truth that can't be denied, even by those who are not convinced its origin is by intelligent design, and anyone who would deny this would be laughed out of the discussion by parties on both sides of the debate. Regarding this discussion I believe it needs to be established that there really are only two options; either an intelligence formed DNA as it currently is or it happened by purely naturalistic (I would dare say chemical) processes. I do not believe this is a false dichotomy because based on the context this seems to be the only two logical options that could be possible. If I am wrong and someone convinces me I will glady correct myself.

The position taken by those who would claim an intelligence created DNA or formed it as it is is certainly not an unwarranted or unreasonable conclusion for someone to jump to. As already stated DNA is unfathomably complex, the result of a very very very long complex chain of chemical reactions, all orderered and structured in such a way that they result in the creation of a living breathing organism, and in the case of humans a living breathing organism that is cognizantly aware of its enivornment and existence and has feelings, emotions, aspirations, etc. From the complexity of the human brain down to the trillions of complex cells that make life possible many are awed into the belief, understandably, that DNA which is far far more complex than anything intelligent humans have created must have been created by an intelligence itself. How could DNA, which is so intricately and complexly structured and ordered for life to exist, have been created by chance? How could it work in the beginning if everything is ordered in such a way that if anything would change it would no longer work? These are the questions the intelligent design propopnents reasonably ask.

On the other side are those who propose the hypothesis of DNA occuring through naturalistic (again dare I say chemical) processes. They see no need to assume a designer intelligently designed it, even if they don't know precisely how it originated, because as DNA stands and works now it is a completely self-sustaining biochemical process that requires no intelligent intervention from an outside source. The driver of life and the thing that propels change in the genetic code of DNA, evolution, is also completely self-sustaining and does not require the outside intervention of an intelligent source to run it. True, an intelligence could have started it and then let it run on its own afterward, but to this side the assumption seems unwarranted and unnecessary because everything we know about DNA and evolution which shapes it is self-sustaining biochecmical processes that do not require and intelligence to run. It also does not appear that an intelligence created a DNA code specifically for each type of organism since every organism's genetic code will eventually change through time and eventually become a different code for a different species.

There are good points to be had by both sides, to be sure, but personally while I understand the reasoning of the intelligent design camp and I don't fault them for the conclusion they come to I believe DNA formed through naturalistic chemical processes. Notice I said I BELIEVE, not I KNOW, because there is a difference between believing something and knowing something to be an unequivocal fact. I believe something when I see enough proponderance of evidence to warrant that conclusion, but I KNOW something when it is an unequivocal fact, such as 2 + 2 equals 4 or that DNA exists for example.

Before I get to my reasons for believing DNA occurred through naturalistic chemical processes I want to explain Occam's Razor, a principle in general logic. Occam's Razor simply states that the most simple explanation for a phenomenon is the most likely to be true, simple not meaning the easiest to understand but the explanation requiring the fewest amount of assumptions, or in the way I like to put it the explanation that is most consistent with everything we already know and requires the least amount of assuming anything that we don't know.

Let's apply Occam's razor first to the intelligent design camp. True, we know intelligence exists, and that intelligence creates incredibly complex structures akin to how DNA is so unfathomably complex, and on the surface this sounds like it should be compatible with Occam's razor. 

If we know intelligence exists, and that it creates incredibly complex things, it's valid logically to assume an intelligence created the incredibly complex DNA right? Not necessarily. The issue with Occam's razor and the argument for intelligent design for DNA is that the intelligence being espoused for the creation of the complex structures akin to DNA are the results of HUMAN intelligence, who are themselves the result of DNA. The only intelligence that is unequivocally known to exist is the result of DNA itself. Sure, some might believe in a god or gods who are intelligent, but if this was an unequivocal fact like DNA itself there would be no dispute about its existence and it would be a reasonable assumption to make because we would know for a fact that it exists. We do not know for a fact that a human-like intelligence outside of DNA exists. This argument is positing intelligence which is a result of DNA as the origin of DNA itself.  

This argument is also assuming some sort of intelligent being and/or deity existed who was intelligent enough to create something as complex as DNA, a being whom we know nothing about nor how that being itself even came into existence, or how that being took all of the molecules and somehow formed them into DNA as if it were in a modern day laboratory setting and playing with molecules and their reactions with one another like a high school chemistry classroom. 

This argument also uses the false equivocation fallacy of comparing human-made static structures with self-replicating biological organisms that have a built-in system that can gradually change them over time through purely naturalitstic processes, or how those structures are made from a top-down design rather than a bottom-up design which is how evolution could very well have occurred because it is self-replicating and can change over time through biochemical processes.

For these reasons, even with how incredibly complex DNA is, I believe the intelligent design hypothesis fails Occam's Razor. 

Regarding the naturalistic hypothesis, there are many more consistencies with things we know and fewer assumptions regarding things we don't know. 

First of all, due to the very virtue of DNA and even life existing we know it's possible for molecules to replicate themselves. We don't know if the first self-replicating molecules would have started with a more primitive form of DNA, or RNA, or some other system but the fact that we know that molecules do this means it is not far-fetched to imagine that the first organisms were self-replicating molecules and this is consistent with what we know at the current time. 

Furthermore, there are two facts that are consistent with what we know that can explain how molecules transitioned from simpler to more complex and led to DNA as we know it today - Natural selection and that the environment of the earth was very different billions of years ago. We know how natural selection works due to its role in evolutionary change, and that it can take things from simpler to more complex, and that natural selection in combination with the changing atmospheres and conditions of the early earth could have easily caused these self-replicating molecules to change and become more complex over time as the population of molecules adapted to the new conditions. This could also explain how eventually the self-replicating molecules developed a system complex enough to not work if any of it was change, since it gradually changed over time and gradually became more complex. 

This theory invokes more things that are already known, such as natural selection, self-replicating molecules, and that the atmosphere and conditions of the early earth were changing, versus assuming an unknown intelligence outside of DNA that may or may not exist created it through unknown means or with unknown mechanisms.

Whack A Hovind

 Lately I've been watching videos on "Dr. Dino" Kent Hovind, including his "Whack and Atheist Wednesday" videos. Kent Hovind is a Fundamentalist, Bible-believing creationist who believes the earth was created in 6000 years and that dinosuars lived with men. He believes Noah's flood, which version I'm not sure of, literally happened. He also believes evolution is the "dumbest and most dangerous" thing taught today and that it is a religion and not science. He has debated over 250 evolutionists and from what I have gathered he uses the same lines over and over again when debating them, ignoring their clear explanations and continuing with his polished script that keeps him on track. The goal of this post is to go through that script and show how Kent Hovind lies about evolution and how wrong his arguments are, despite his claim that he can't find one atheist with more than one functioning brain cell and that atheists won't be clear and honest on their position.

1) Hovind creates made-up terms so he can group abiogenesis (origin of life) and physical cosmology (origin of the universe) with evolution to create a strawman argument to more easily attack evolution. He calls abiogenesis chemical evolution and physical cosmology cosmic evolution. Throwing the word evolution in these made-up scientific terms allows him to group all three together when evolution means something completely different in all three scenarios, one discussing how the universe started as well as how planets and stars formed, another discussing how the first forms of life appeared through chemical processes, and the third discussing how speciation occurs through natural selection. While debaters are wanting to debate on how evolution is an adequate explanation for how new species form Hovind is attacking abiogenesis and physical cosmology, completely different subjects, and then refuses to discuss the Bible because that is "off topic". He says he did this because evolution is a "slippery term" and it needs to be more rigidly defined, despite the fact that it is simply discussing how speciation occurs through natural selection. Instead he made it a slippery term by making evolution refer to three completely different subjects.

2) He says evolutionists believe we came from a rock. There are a few different problems with this scenario. At times Hovind says the puddle that "sprang to life" was composed of minerals from dissolved rocks, at other times he says that the puddle was the result of rain coming down on the rocks for millions of years and then the puddle comes to life.  Going by the second explanation even "if" a puddle "came to life" on a rock that doesn't mean it came from a rock. If my mother and father had sex on a bed that doesn't mean I came from a bed. Another problem with this argument is that it again has absolutely nothing do with evolution but rather he is attacking abiogenesis. Even if evolutionists believe we "came from a rock" that has zero bearing on whether or not evolutionary theory is an adequate explanation for how speciation occurs. Really this point is just going deeper on his strawman argument from point one.

3) He says the geological column does not exist and that bones in the ground (fossils) can only tell you that something died. No, Kent, a fossil in the ground tells you that a species was alive at a certain point in time based on the age of the strata it was found in. That animal had to be a member of a species after all. It may not tell you it had offspring, as Kent claims a fossil cannot do, but it does tell you that it had to have parents, and those parents had to have parents, etc., and no a fossil won't tell you that it gave birth to something completely different than it because that isn't how evolution works, which leads into the next point. As far as the geological column not existing, well, I will leave that to common sense since it would involve getting into lots more fine detail about how the layers are formed and dated and I don't want to make this blog post so long no one wants to read all of it, but judge for yourself; Kent Hovind who has been using these false arguments already or thousands of professional paleontologists?

4) He uses the same worn argument that you never see dogs produce anything but dogs or humans anything but humans ad nauseum, and completely ignores explanations that this is not how evolution works. A species always gives birth to the same species and this does not contradict evolution through natural selection at all. Small minor variations or changes occur in individuals in a population that are advantageous for their survival. As a result these changes spread through the population until the entire population has the minor variation or change. This process happens over and over for millions of years and the changes gradually accumulate every generation until the descendant species is so different from the ancestral species that they would no longer be able to interbreed. This is when speciation occurs. Hovind is actually ironically agreeing with evolutionary biologists when he makes this worn out argument, no one has ever seen dogs produce anything but dogs. He just pretends it is debunking evolution when he is only attacking his own warped version of it. He also ridicules the idea that this process takes millions of years, as if making fun of it somehow makes it any less true.

4) Hovind uses a misrepresentation of punctuated equilibrium to claim that evolutionary biologists believe one "kind" of animal will give birth to a completely different "Kind". In a video I watched Hovind began by describing punctuated equilibrium as evolution happening very fast, which is a surprisingly accurate and honest description of punctuated equilibrium, but then proceeded to show a picture of a bird hatching from a reptilian egg. Punctuated equilibrium is NOT a different version of evolution, is still the process of evolution as described in point 4, it's just evolution happening at a faster pace, meaning the changes are spreading more rapidly through the populations and creating new species at a faster rate, and then this is followed by long periods of statis in which very few if any changes occur in the population of a species.

5) Hovind claims evolution is a religion. I don't really have to get into very much detail about why this is stupid, other than the fact that evolution is a scientific theory that is observed and discussed and experimented on professionally versus a relgion where adherents gather together in groups and worship a higher power or have some sort of creeds and doctrines that they believe and follow without the using the scientific method to test or falsify them, typically from a book like the Bible or the Quaran. This is just a weak attempt of Hovind's to discredit evolutionary theory by making up something completely untrue and then talking as if it is.

6) Kent Hovind uses faulty reasoning to discredit homology as evidence for evolution. The thinking behind homology is that if two species evolved from a common ancestor relatively recent you should expect to find the same or similar bone structures adapted for different purposes in each species, since they inherited this bone structure from their common ancestor. This is indeed the case, as birds, humans, whales, and dogs for example all have the same forearm structure with the same five digits (some of them are fused together in birds admittedly) at the end of it. The five digits are fingers for humans to grasp things, toes for dogs to walk, bone structure for whale flippers for swimming, and are a part of the wing structure for birds to fly. Hovind says common sense says common design proves a common designer. If there is a common designer however there is no adquate explanation for why the common designer would give the same forearm humans have for grasping things and birds use for flying to whales who live in the ocean, instead of giving whales the same skeletal structure as the fish that live in the ocean. There is also no adequate explanation for why birds would have the same forearm as humans since their limbs have a completely different purpose than human limbs do. The theory of evolution has adequate explanatory power for why this is while the argument of a common designer simply begs unanswerable questions, but Kent would never admit to this because it would put a hole in his narcissistic ego.

If I were to debate Kent Hovind these would be my terms for the debate: 1) We are discussing evolution not abiogensis or physical cosmology. The debate is whether or not evolutionary theory is an adequate explanation for how new species form. Any attempt to discuss the origin of the universe or the origin of life will be off topic. 2) Kent MUST answer my questions before we move onto another topic. Any attempt to change the topic will be cause for disqualification. 3) When I bring up a rebuttal point Kent MUST give a rebuttal to my point with no exceptions. Once we have both done our rebuttals we will move onto the next point and stay on topic.

It is my conclusion after watching debates between Hovind and listening to several of his "whack an atheist" vidoes that he is not misinformed nor willfully ignorant, he is a conman and a liar. He did go to prison for ten years for tax evasion and was arrestd for domestic abuse. I believe however that even moreso than the money he is feeding his narcissistic ego. He has his own "Dinosaur Adventure Land" park where his volunteers practically worship him and watch and cheer him on as he spouts lies about evolution during his "whack an atheist" videos, and you can see the smug look on his face before he even watches these videos as he's about to feed his ego and make his audience worship him even more. He has his minion volunteers that live at DAL and worship him. His entire ministry for the past 30+ years has clearly been built around feeding his narcissistic ego and nothing will get in his way, including the truth.

Thoughts on Abortion

    One of the most controversial issues that has been raging for decades and is still raging is abortion. Most anti-abortion or "pro-life" advocates claim it is heinous and murderous, that innocent babies and children are being murdered. Abortion advocates or "pro-choice" advocates argue that it is a matter of personal privacy and that women should not be told what they can or cannot do with their bodies by the government, especially with something as personal as a woman putting her body through a pregnancy. With this issue constantly raging and seemingly not going away anytime soon, I decided I would offer my own two cents on the issue.

    First, like any other issue I do believe there are extremes on both ends. Many pro-choice abortion advocates believe pro-life advocates are out to blatantly destroy women's rights, when what the (hopefully most but at least some) pro-life advocates are really doing is acting on a genuine conviction that abortion is morally or sinfully wrong. Likewise, many pro-life advocates will have an attitude that pro-choice individuals are out to kill as many babies as they can and that every woman that gets an abortion is an immoral murderer who for whatever reason is absolutely into killing babies. While I don't know how there could ever really be a compromise between both extreme parties, I do believe it would do everyone a lot of good if there could be more understanding from both sides as to why both sides believe what they believe so strongly instead of immediately making the opposition an enemy.

    As for my two cents, however, practicality and common sense steer me where it must and I can say strongly that I am with the pro-choice party on this issue. Here are the following reasons why:

1) The claim that abortion is murder has no actual basis to support it. It's easy to have an emotional reaction and immediately claim something is murder, but it's another thing to actually know what murder is and what causes something to be considered murder. Murder is, according to criminal law, the unjustified killing of one person by another (https://www.britannica.com/topic/murder-crime). It is also an unlawful killing of one person by another. This accords with common sense and everyday experience; we don't consider someone killing another person murder if it is in self-defense or for the defense of another person's life. Both the situation and overall context determine whether killing is murder or not, and the context is whether the killing was lawful and justifiable. One person killing another is not in and of itself automatically murder.

Generally you will find that killing is not murder when killing is the inherent consequence of another individual exercising their rights, for example when one individual kills another in self-defense because they are exercising their right to protect their life. Any rights the perpetrator would have had to live their life become irrelevant compared to another individual's right to protect theirs. It's the old adage "Your rights end where mine begins". The bottom line though is that we know for a fact there are times when one human killing another one is not considered murder because it is both lawful and because there is a justifiable reason for doing so. In regards to abortion it is both lawful and justifiable; lawful because, well, it's lawful, and justifiable because the woman is exercising her constitutional right to not be forced to do things with her body against her will. Simply killing the fetus does not automatically make abortion murder., the context must dictate it. Just like it is not murder if any individual is exercising their right to protect their life, it is not murder if a woman is exercising her right to not have another human body inside of her using her resources, potentially causing her medical problems, changing the physical state of her body, etc. Just like a grown man is not lawfully allowed to force a woman to do things with her body against her will, a fetus does not have the right to do things with the mother's body without her consent, and according to the constitution neither does the government. If the fetus dies as an inherent consequence of the mother exercising this right then it is not murder.

2) No matter how you cut it, someone's right are getting trumped. Due to the inherent nature of abortion, even if the fetus has any rights including a right to life these rights are in direct conflict with the rights of the mother. Whichever individual you pick, the fetus or the mother, someone's rights will be violated. It is my personal belief that it is ludicrous that a fetus who hasn't even had any life experience and will suffer no inconvenience from an abortion should have rights that trump a fully grown autonomous individual who is actively living in the world and can suffer permanent psychological or even physical damage or have the rest of their life negatively affected otherwise if they are forced to go through with the pregnancy. Since it has to be either the fetus's rights or the mother's, I am siding with the mother's rights out of common sense and respect for the dignity of the mother.

3) Abortion is a private medical decision. Pregnancy is something that drastically alters the composition of a woman's body. She has another individual in her using her resources, causing her pain and discomfort, etc. Abortion as a result is a medical decision and as such a woman has the right to do what she believes is medically best for her body. Not all reasons for abortion are inherently a medical reason, but nonetheless abortion is certainly a private medical issue because of how pregnancy affects a woman's body, and a woman should not be forced to make a private medical decision that so greatly affects her body.

These are my thoughts on abortion. 

Reflections on the inauguration

     After experiencing the politically charged arena for the last four years I thought it would be refreshing to watch the inauguration of our next president, something I hadn't done before. As it happened I turned on Youtube just as Kamala Harris was finishing her oath to office. What happened was interesting to say the least, and it underscores what I believe is the root of a lot of problems in our country today, as I will explain further in this post.

    First, for what I have been told is supposed to be a "secular" nation there were things that to me seemed like they should have no place in a political ceremony for the swearing in of the leaders of our country. From presidents and vice-presidents swearing in on a Bible or Bibles to Garth Brooks singing Amazing Grace and a reverend performing a lengthy, clearly Christian prayer, there was a very strong religious tone for the ceremony. To be clear, I believe individuals should absolutely have the right to practice whatever religion they want to practice, because trying to force individuals to practice a certain religion or only practice approved religions or no religions at all would lead to a kind of tyranny that would be bad for everyone. I just simply believe that given how our country is supposed to be a secular country this overtone is not appropriate for a political ceremony. Religion is not supposed to drive our government, hence what I mean by a secular nation, but clearly it has an undue influence simply by watching the inauguration alone. Christianity should not be shown favoritism in the inauguration ceremony for that reason alone. Some might argue that the president should have the right to swear in on a Bible if he chooses to, and fair enough I could grant that, but even that could be done without inculcating the entire ceremony with a religious overtone.

   I do find it ironic however that given the history of violence and racism in our country our leaders have traditionally sword in on a book that is full of racism and violence. What I suppose though bothers me about the religious overtone, and overlapping with the fact that religion is not supposed to have undue influence our government, is that it would clear make it extremely difficult for someone that is not a Christian, be it a Muslim, Jew or atheist, to ever become president because that it would cut against the grain of the favoritism that is shown to the Christian religion. Further, if a Muslim ever did get elected and wanted to swear in on a Quran and sing a song of praise to Allah and have a Muslim prayer toward Mecca Christians would be besides themselves, which actually leads to my next reflection from the inauguration.

    After seeing how much favoritism is shown to Christianity in the inauguration it's not surprising why Christians have such an entitlement attitude in our country. It's actually understandable why they think they can dictate things like same-sex marriage and abortion, that everyone should be forced to operate according to their personal convictions, and why they threw a fit when the Ten Commandments were taken down from public court houses. This is why if most Christians got what they really wanted their religion would be running the country and everyone would have to live according to their religious values, hence the swath of support from Christians to Donald Trump because he seemed to them like the person that would make that happen. Their religion HAS been shown favoritism and so now they are upset when the playing field is being evened out, and like a child that has been spoiled rotten and is throwing a tantrum when the parent finally puts their foot down, you actually want to blame the parents more than the child. 

    On a more refreshing reflection, however, it was refreshing to see Trump's successor swearing in and the last of Trump's circus officially coming to a close. Some vindication was felt in the fact that Trump's manipulation did not work and this country can get a fresh start for at least the next four years. Unfortunately it seems inevitable that at some point in the future the same situation will happen again since people are people, but we can all breathe for at least the next four years. I WANT to think better of humanity, but unfortunately I am too unrealistic for such an endeavor, and people will always be easily manipulated by political leaders. As I said, however, at least we can breathe for the next four yeas and get a break from the Trump circus.

Of Course It's In The Bible...Or Not

     One might be surprised to find out how many moral issues are not actually addressed directly or even indirectly in the Bible, given how it is touted as such a moral standard that individuals should live by. Many hot top issues today are not even mentioned, or passages are misused / taken out of context in an attempt to control peoples' behavior when Christians don't approve of what they are doing, or the references used to show something is a sin are vague and not nearly as clear as one would expect given how fervent Christians are on certain moral issues. Or an issue is prevalent throughout the Bible but it is never condemned as evil as Christians say it is.

    Sex before marriage. I found this out personally as a believer when I questioned where in the Bible it actually the issue of having sex before marriage. It was such a given in our culture and was so heavily taught to be a sin to have sex before one is officially "married" to another that it seemed like a given that it would be very clearly wrong in the Bible. I was surprised to find that there was no specific proscription given regarding this issue for Christians in the New Testament, with the only references I could find upon an internet search being whenever the New Testament epistles condemn "sexual immorality". While this certainly could possibly include sex before marriage, it seems odd the issue is never directly addressed at all and it has to be inferred from a word that it may or may not apply to. One single sentence making it clear that having sex before a man and woman are joined together as one would have sufficed. The only time the issue of having sex before marriage is directly addressed is in the Old Testament Law, one law being that a woman that is betrothed is to be stoned to death if she has sex with another man, and another being that if a virgin (that is a woman that has not been promised to another man) has sex the man who has sex with her must marry her and cannot divorce her. It's also implied this man has raped the virgin as well. One is referring to a woman that is already promised to another man, and the other forces the man and woman who have sex to stay married the rest of their lives. Regardless, these rules were rules for Israel in the Old Testament and do not apply to Christians in any case. Lastly, it was also interesting when I found out there were people that didn't even believe in the sin of having sex before marriage; rather, there are Christians that believe sex is what actually marries two people  by making them one flesh and if two people have sex and stay together and committed to one another they are not sinning because they are faithfully married to one another. At the end of the day the Bible seems much more concerned about people who are already married having sex outside of marriage rather than people who are not married having sex with other unmarried people, and the Bible does not give any specific directions for what even makes two people married, let alone if two people who are committed to one another are sinning by having sex, or if they are technically married by the act of having sex with one another.

 Pedophalia. The Bible does not mention sexual molestation of children. Not even one time, not even in the the laws of the Old Testament. I can't even cite any verse that are misused or taken out of context because there aren't any. This seems like a very important moral law to forget, especially in the Old Testament when God is giving His people Israel His rules for holy living and for how the Israelites are to treat one another. Gathering sticks on the Sabbath can get you stoned to death in a hot minute, committing adultery can get you stoned to death in a hot minute, but there is absolutely no punishment for raping or molesting a child. A child however can be stoned to death for being unruly toward his parents. Personally it seems like the God of the Old Testament's moral priorities are a bit skewed. There isn't much else to say because the Bible, well, doesn't say anything.

Living together before marriage. A certain hot topic of the day that Christians love to try and apply to the Bible even though the Bible never addresses the issue, likely because the issue wasn't an issue during the time the Bible was written. It's not addressed, not hinted at, and is never treated as an issue in any way shape or form. Only one verse is typically taken out of context and misused to try and apply to this issue (1 Thessalonians 5:22), and the idea of the interpretation, "Avoid all appearance of evil" is so vague and impractical one couldn't even live by it because just about anything could appear evil to anyone. "Avoid every form of evil" is a much more likely correct interpretation. Again, there isn't much else to say on this issue because, well, the Bible doesn't say anything.

Abortion. Another hot topic of the day that is not mentioned in the Bible, and for how big of an issue this is among the Christian community one would have thought there would have been enough foresight to specifically address it for Christians in the Bible. Oddly enough, throughout the Old Testament God Himself does not seem to particularly care about the life that is developing in the womb. He blesses a man for running a spear through a woman who just had sex and could very well have conceived, and He does not even give any laws in the Old Testament for Israel that condemns abortion. The closest thing to abortion is a law where if two men are fighting and one man strikes a pregnant woman in the stomach and she gives birth prematurely and injury occurs (either to the woman only or either her or the child depending on the interpretation) the man must pay according to the seriousness of the injury (Exodus 21:22-25). Even if this is referring to the idea of the man paying for causing a fatal premature birth, it may simply be because the man caused it to happen which was a violation of the husband's property (hence he could be fined the amount the husband determines). If God was actually concerned with fetal life He would have created a specific law for Israel banning abortions under any circumstance, not just one law covering one specific situation that wasn't even likely to happen. There's not much else to say on this topic because the Bible doesn't say anything else.

Slavery. Although slavery is of course mentioned repeatedly throughout the Bible, even with rules governing how it is to work in the Old Testament, slavery as an institution is never condemned in the entire Bible. In fact, not only is it not condemned in the New Testament but slaves are told how to act toward their masters. Perhaps that was because slaves couldn't change their status so they were told how to act under a situation they couldn't change? That would actually be a very plausible and sensible explanation, however Christian "Masters" are also taught how to treat their slaves (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1)! In the book of Philemon the Apostle Paul is sending back a runaway slave that has converted to Christianity, and when he writes to the slave's Christian master he does not write to educate the master that owning slaves is an immoral things for a Christian to do. Don't let Christians fool you, the Bible does not condemn slavery; Christians that fought to end slavery did so in spite of what their book actually teaches not because of what it teaches, whether they realized that or not. If they had been consistent with their holy book they could not have justified fighting to end slavery.

Although I'm sure there are many more, these were just a few of the issues that are either not mentioned in the Bible or are not condemned in the Bible explicitly. The next time a Christian attempts to correct your morality in any of these issues simply ask them where in the Bible it actually says that behavior is wrong. The answer may be interesting...

Critical Thinking In A Busy World

     We live in a world where things are always pulling us in one direction or another, telling us to believe one thing or not believe another. Whether it's politics, religion, tradition, or just our brains contemplating the truth of something, it can seem overwhelming and burdensome to come to the correct conclusion about many claims when there are so many around us vying for our belief, and this isn't even taking into consideration the hectic and busy lives many individuals live as is. In such a hectic and already busy world where we have so many different things pulling us in so many directions, how do we practically have the time to know everything that is true, or everything that is false that we are told to believe? 

    I believe people can generally go in one of two opposite extremes with the previous question; they can either throw their hands in the air and not bother to care about most of the things they are told to believe, or they can believe everything they are told. The first extreme is unsatisfactory because people could be missing out on vital information that could improve their lives, or they could be setting themselves up to believe something dangerously false at a later point because they are never trained to think rationally and critically. The other extreme is unsatisfactory because someone who believes nearly everything they are told is like a boat being tossed to and fro by the waves with no direction whatsoever. My goal in this post is to give people some helpful guidelines for making rational conclusions toward subjects in their midst of their hectic and busy lives, so they can neither fall into serious and dangerous error in belief nor feel they have to be complacent and never know what they even truly believe about different important topics. The following are general guidelines and principals to help with rational thinking in the midst of a busy and hectic life.

    The first guideline is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you are faced with a claim that is extraordinary in nature, if it defies everything we know about how the world and the universe works, for example the claim that a man walked on water or the claim that a man rose from the dead after being dead for three days, this claim should be held with extreme critical scrutiny because of the unlikelihood of it being true. The more far-fetched a claim is the more skeptical you should be of its truth, and the stronger evidence you should require for believing it.

    KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid. Otherwise known as Occom's razor, this principal states that when choosing between multiple explanations for an event the most rational choice is the explanation that requires the fewest amount of assumptions. In other words, keep things simple and stick with the explanation that is most consistent with the known and proven data and requires the least amount of assumption in things that aren't proven or verifiable. An example would be the current debate about whether or not the election was rigged - it is a much simpler explanation that a wealthy multi-millionaire who has always gotten what he wants and has made clear he doesn't like losing is simply trying to do whatever he can to win the election or make himself and his supporters believe he did, versus having to assume somehow a person or a group of persons was able to pull of a widespread massive conspiracy theory which there is no evidence for, and that spanned multiple states and was so well performed that it fooled even Republican judges, the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and even some of the most staunch Trump supporters. When in doubt, go with the simples explanation.

    You do not always have to have an answer. It is ok to sometimes say you simply don't know an explanation for something, or whether or not something is true. Sometimes the only option you may have is to simply withhold belief in a claim or explanation even if you don't know what the actual truth is. It is better to withhold belief than to believe something that is false. In this regard strive to be informed, not perfect in knowledge; perfect knowledge is impossible, no one can know everything that is everywhere 100% of the time. Even if you can't be everywhere all the time to know 100% that ghosts don't exist, you are still rationally justified in withholding belief in the claim that ghosts exist until you would be given convincing evidence that they do. Be ok with simply saying you don't hold to the belief in a claim even if you can't prove that the claim is false.

    Pick your battles wisely. Some issues and claims just aren't worth fussing over. They are time wasters and they aren't issues that are going to have any kind of impact on your day to day living or even your long-term living. Knowing and understanding this can help keep you from getting caught up in these unnecessary webs that could stress you out mentally and/or emotionally.

   

What Is A Worldview?

    Several years ago when I attended a Christian internship as a believer I was introduced to the concept of having worldview. What a worldview was and how to develop a proper worldview was discussed, howbeit with the obvious assumption that the Christian worldview was the correct worldview, but nonetheless this is an important concept to grasp as having a worldview is extremely important to how individuals are going to live their lives and to how they are going to view the reality within which they live. Differences in worldviews can hurt or hinder individuals, cause them to live lies of fulfillment or lives that are miserable. This begs the question though, if a worldview is so important, what is it and what does it mean to have one?

    

    What a worldview is. At its simplest level a worldview is the framework or lens through which an individual sees the reality they live in. A Christian worldview, for example, would be the belief that all of creation was created by the Christian god, and humans then fell into sin (which then required Christ's sacrifice for sin, etc.), and this has caused the reality we live in now to be the way it is. A naturalistic worldview would be the belief that everything that exists including humans is composed of nothing more than naturalistic chemical processes, which occur when molecules are brought together through the known laws of physics. The belief that individuals have souls that are punished or rewarded by being reborn into new lives after an individual dies is another worldview called reincarnation or karma. 

    How to establish a worldview. There are many ways an individual can establish a worldview. They can establish a worldview through religion, or through science, or through personal experiences, or a combination of these three, or through other means. This is when understanding how to think critically or knowing how to use reason and logic to arrive at rational conclusions is so important, as this is important to be able to come to logical and rational conclusions concerning matters that will impact the worldview an individual has. An individual's worldview is going to comprise of all the different beliefs they have concerning the reality they live in, and they will only arrive at a rational worldview if it is the culmination of several well thought, well studied, and well reasoned beliefs concerning matters within the reality they live in. 

    A worldview should be supported by a stable planet of belief. Just as the earth is formed by gravity bringing together all kinds of different materials, a stable planet of belief is formed by an individual having multiple different lines of belief that are coherent with another (Sean Carroll, The Big Picture). Since logic by its very nature is not contradictory, a new belief brought into a stable planet of belief will jettison an old belief that is not coherent with it and the stable planet of belief will be slightly altered. An individual's worldview should be validated by and consistent with their stable planet of belief. 

    It's important to understand as well that a stable planet of belief needs to be valid as well as stable, meaning not only do all of the separate individual beliefs cohere with another but they also accurately reflect the reality an individual lives in. Much like one can arrive at a necessary logical conclusion from following premises that aren't actually based on true facts, one can have a stable planet of belief where all of the separate beliefs are coherent with one another and paint a consistent picture of reality, but in actuality none of the separate beliefs accurately represent the reality we really live in. This is again why it is so important to for someone to do their best to arrive at rational and logical conclusions concerning matters with the reality they live in.

Jesus the Great Moral Teacher

       Having recently read through the four gospels in the Bible, this time as an atheist rather than as a Christian, I could easily see how Jesus was neither a great teacher nor a moral teacher, in fact many of his teachings are immoral. Sure, there may have been a few good things he taught, but first of all not all his "good" teachings were actually his own teachings, and second of all any of those "good" teachings are in the middle of a whole bunch of immoral horrible teachings. Saying we should listen to Jesus just because of a few good teachings and ignore his bad ones is like throwing high-end dessert into a pile of dog shit and saying we should still eat the dessert and just ignore the dog shit. Sorry, not happening.

     In this blog post I want to discuss some of the teachings of this teacher that has been hailed by western civilization as one of the greatest teachers that have ever lived. My hope is that you will easily see how Jesus is not only not a great moral teacher but in fact one could make a case that he was an extremely immoral one. Without further ado, here are the teachings of this great moral teacher:

    Jesus taught that if you do not forgive people their trespasses God will send you to hell for your trespasses. Jesus makes this clear as He teaches in the Lord's prayer to ask God to forgive us as we forgive others their trespasses, and then follows this by teaching that if we don't forgive others their trespasses neither will God forgive our trespasses (Matthew 6:9-15). If there is any ambiguity with this passage, as some attempt to create ambiguity by saying God simply doesn't have fellowship with believers who won't forgive others (even though that would be the same thing as going to hell after you die), Jesus even more strongly affirms this teaching in His parable of the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:21-35). This means no matter how badly someone has hurt you, even if someone has brutally tortured and murdered a loved one, or set your house on fire with everything in it, or burned your entire family alive in a gas chamber in Auschwitz, if you do not forgive them you will go to hell, and it doesn't matter how good of a life you have lived either, or how good you have been to other people, because somehow anything you have done that has not been up to God's standard has offended God just as much as you have been offended by somebody brutally murdering and torturing a loved one or gassing your entire family at Auschwitz. To have a standard this high for salvation, to require somebody to forgive after events as extreme as I just described to enter the Kingdom of God, and to completely ignore if they are actually good people living good lives, is clearly extremely unjust and cruel.

    Jesus followed the extremely unethical and immoral Old Testament Law and told others they must do the same to enter the Kingdom of God. Jesus makes it abundantly clear that He came to keep the Old Testament Law, that the Old Testament Law will never go away, and that those who want to enter the Kingdom of God must obey the Law as well if they want to enter the Kingdom of God (Matthew 5:17-20). Jesus even criticizes the Pharisees, the religious teachers of the day, for not enforcing the Old Testament Law that a child that is rebellious and disrespectful toward their parents are to be stoned to death (Matthew 15:1-6). Keep in mind this is the same Law that states if a woman is defending her husband and grabs another man by the genitals her hand is to be cut off and she's to be shown no pity or mercy (Deuteronomy 25:11-12). This is the same Law that allows a man to force a woman to marry him after his army just slaughtered her entire family and country (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). It's also the same law that forces a woman to marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). I imagine by now you get the point. Anyone that follows a Law like this and then teaches others they must follow this law as well is not a great moral teacher.

    Jesus says it is necessary to be as gullible as a child to enter the Kingdom of God (Mark 10:15; Luke 18:17). When any teacher tells you that you have to be as gullible as a child to join their cult you should run the other direction as fast as you can.

    Jesus taught that those who abandon their families will be blessed (Mark 10:29-30; Luke 14:26-35). Yep, completely abandoning your families is totally fine if you are doing it to follow Jesus. He also explicitly tells others they must be so committed they don't even look back to make sure their families will be at least be taken care of before they leave (Luke 9:59-62). I think this one speaks for itself.

    Jesus taught that those who believe without actual evidence are more blessed than those that do (John 20:29). When Thomas the Apostle demanded to see Jesus in the flesh and actually touch Him to know for sure He was raised from the dead and finally does so, Jesus tells him those who don't see are more blessed than those who see. When a teacher tells you it is better to believe something on hearsay rather than on actual evidence it's time to walk the other direction, not to become more committed.

    Jesus taught that it's foolish to plan for the future (Luke 12:16-32). According to Jesus it's foolish to plan for the future, even to plan for things that are essential for living. Instead we should completely ignore these things and seek God and His Kingdom and trust God to provide for us. This is clearly one teaching the rich televangelists ignore.

    Jesus taught that if a man can't stop lusting after a woman with his eye or masturbating to the fantasy of being with her he should gouge out his right eye and cut off his right hand (Matthew 5:28-30). Since God created men typically with an incredibly strong, naturally built in sex drive He's going to judge men even for having the desire to have sex with a woman he is not married to, and hell is so bad you are better off cutting off your hand and gouging out your eye now to avoid hell. This is some pretty intense shit and unless Jesus was a eunuch I highly doubt He followed His own advice. 

    Jesus taught if a man divorces his wife the man forces HER to commit adultery (Matthew 5:32). Not exactly sure what the logic is behind the woman being guilty of adultery because of her husband's action, but given the misogyny found throughout the entire Bible I suppose it does make sense that it would blamed on the woman.

    There are other things, such as Jesus refusing to heal anyone that wasn't Jewish (Matthew 15:21-28; Matthew 10:5-6), or the fact He Himself was a liar (John 7:10, 18:20), or that infirmity was the result of sin (John 5:14), the fact the He came to bring division not peace, especially in families (Luke 12:53), or the fact that He was such a great teacher that He spoke in parables so people wouldn't understand Him (Luke 8:10-18). I trust by now you get the point. Anybody who teaches this much immorality and follows a law as immoral as the Old Testament is not a great moral teacher and is not someone that should be followed by anyone.

What Is Evolution?

    Evolution is a scientific theory often attacked by religious groups because it contradicts their belief that all animals and humans were created separately by God, and that humans are a special creation of God that are the prime focus of His creation. He created man to have a special relationship with them, and He values humans more than any other creation and has given humans rule over the earth. Because of religious beliefs there are lots of misunderstandings about evolution, both intentional and unintentional, and in this blog post I would like to make what evolution is easily understood for the layperson.

    

    So what is evolution? Simply put, evolution is the scientific theory that all living organisms (which are all organisms that share the self-replicating system of DNA) descended from a common ancestor. The original or universal common ancestor began reproducing through the self-replicating system of DNA, and over millions of years it has filled the earth with its wide variety of different offspring. This offspring includes things as different as humans, dogs, crocodiles, bananas, peas, etc. Yes, we share a common ancestor with bananas and peas, which have the same self-replicating system of DNA we have.

    How has a universal common ancestor led to such a wide variety of different living organisms? The original or universal common ancestor has led to such a wide variety of living organisms through an accumulation of genetic variations over millions of years. Genetic variation is simply changes in things such as bone mass, height, size, intelligence, strength, speed, etc. Generic variations happen when there are slight differences in the genetic codes of one organism compared to another one, or there is a mutation in a gene during reproduction. It is an accumulation of these genetic variations over many many many generations or over the course of millions of years that lead to the wide diversity of living organisms we have on our planet.

 

    What are ways genetic variations accumulate? So genetic variations are slight differences or mutations in the genetic code of one organism compared to another, and result in differences such as size, strength, speed, intelligence, etc., between individuals, but how do these genetic differences continue to accumulate through many generations and lead to a new species forming? There are four main ways evolution creates genetic variations that are then accumulated: natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow. 

    Natural selection - Traits or features that allow an organism to survive longer than its peers and/or to reproduce more offspring than its peers continue getting passed on through many generations of offspring until it dominates the population of that organism. Many traits or features can be beneficial for passing on genes and over many many generations these traits or features can accumulate and form an entirely new species.

    Mutation - Errors can occur when an organism's genetic code is being copied during reproduction, and on rare occasions this can result in new beneficial features or traits that give an organism a survival advantage when then leads to natural selection taking its course.

    Genetic Drift - Certain traits or features come to dominate a population (typically a small population) sheerly by chance events, which could be due to natural disasters, things such as hungers, etc. (https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/natural-selection/population-genetics/a/genetic-drift-founder-bottleneck). If the traits or features that come to dominate a population through chance events prove beneficial, this could lead to an accumulation of genetic variations as the population increases and natural selection takes over.

    Gene Flow - When one population of a species migrates from one area to another and begins interbreeding with another population of the same species genetic variations are created. A practical example of gene flow would be if when European settlers arrived in the Americas they began interbreeding with the Native Americans. The Native Americans are now having the genetics of European settlers introduced into their gene pool and new possibilities for genetic variations are created, for example it may now be possible for there to be blonde hair and blue eyes in the Native American population where there wasn't a gene for that trait being passed through the population previously. (https://www.britannica.com/science/gene-flow)

    How do we know evolution is a fact? Evolution is bedrock scientific theory (theory meaning it has been observed and tested repeatedly and confirmed more strongly every time), and due to the nature of the evidence supporting evolution it would be nearly impossible for the entire theory to be overturned. Four lines of evidence that could have easily been the death knell for the theory of common ancestry but have instead strengthened the theory are homology, genetic evidence, the fossil record, and geographical distribution. (https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution)

    Homology - If certain species have evolved from a common ancestor one would expect to find similar features or bone structures that are clearly the same but have been adapted and changed for different purposes. This is clearly seen in that humans, whales, bats, and dogs all have the same forelimb that has been adapted and changed for different purposes, such as walking (dogs), swimming (whales), holding things (humans) and flying (bats). The forelimb of all of these species has the same bone structure and five digits at the end of the forelimb, despite how widely different these forelimbs are used. 

    Genetic Evidence - First, all living organisms share the same self-replicating system of DNA, something that would be necessary in order for common ancestry to be viable and so would be expected under the theory of evolution. This one simple piece of evidence could have completely eradicated the idea of common ancestry among all living organisms once and for all if every species or most species had a unique form of self-replicating genetics that were incompatible with the self-replicating genetics of other organisms.

    Second, the more recently organisms have split from a common ancestor the more similar genes in their gene pool will be, and the more distantly organisms have split from a common ancestor the more differences there will be in the genes of each organism's gene pool, due to there being more time for mutations and genetic variations to occur in each organism's gene pool. How closely related organisms are can be traced through the similarities and differences in the genes of two organisms' gene pools. If two species inherited the same gene from a common ancestor, for example, the more similar that gene is in each species' DNA the more closely those species are related. Genetics can then reflect and more strongly affirm the evolutionary paths one would expect to see among different living organisms if they evolved from a common ancestor. 

    The Fossil Record - Organisms die and become fossilized in rocks, and over time those rocks become covered with other rocks above them that later animals are then fossilized in, and this continues on for millions and millions of years and creates the geological layers we have today. The order and change of species from the oldest rocks on the bottom to the newest rocks on the higher layers reflects the evolutionary path of common ancestry one would expect to see if evolution were true. One can see the path of organisms evolving into other organisms over time through the different layers of rocks. This could easily have dismissed evolutionary theory as well had the rocks had no special order of fossils from the oldest to the newest, and all living organisms (including some that are alive today) are spread out haphazardly together among all the layers.

    Geographical Distribution - If common ancestry were true one would expect to see unique species on isolated islands or continents because their ancestral species became isolated on that island or continent and evolved uniquely to survive in that specific environment. For example, with common ancestry one would only expect to see Marsupials in Australia and nowhere else in the world because the common ancestor of Marsupials became isolated on that continent by water and led to the all the Marsupials that live in Australia today.  One would not expect to see Marsupials all over the world because their common ancestral species was isolated to Australia and the common ancestor of Marsupials evolved uniquely in response to that environment it was isolated to.

I hope this helps those who read it better understand evolution and why it is a scientific fact. Understanding evolution is important because it helps give us an objective way to look at the relationship of our species to all other species and to have an accurate view of the reality in which our species lives. We cannot have a fully formed and healthy worldview without being fully informed of how the reality within which we live works.

My Time with Teen Mania

     Having once been an extremely zealous believer who was part of an even more zealous Christian ministry group and now being an unbeliever in the existence of the Christian god, I decided it would be fitting to describe my time spent in this extreme right Christian organization, particularly as a part of their program known as the Honor Academy. I'm also hoping it helps bring things from that time period back to my memory so I can take things from my past and reflect on them and become a better person today because of things I have gone through.

    This Christian organization was called Teen Mania, which no longer exists as an organization as of 2015, and essentially Teen Mania existed to prompt and/or convert youth and young adults and use them to spread the message of the Gospel all over the world. This was done primarily through Acquire the Fire, which was basically a rock concert for teens as well as some sort of skit each year, and after all the music and skit would rile their emotions they would be given the gospel and would make a commitment to be faithful to God and to spread His word. They would also do Global Expeditions, which were missions trips teens and young adults would go on to spread the gospel in other countries. Their other program was the Honor Academy,  which is what I was a part of for two years.

TL ; DR if you don't want to read through my descriptions of Honor Academy life I've attached a few videos describing it. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTK0ettqEEY ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7qpSMOD4nM

    I heard about Teen Mania's Honor Academy at Acquire the Fire around maybe 2005 or 2006. It was basically a place young Christians would go to for a year to grow in their faith and hopefully find their calling for their lives. Being an extremely naive and zealous Christian, I thought it was the perfect place to go to grow in my faith and that God would use it to further the rest of my life. I used the majority of my trust fund money from my deceased mother to pay for the first year I was there, and I graduated from high school a year early to attend sooner. 

    During our internship with the Honor Academy I stayed in a dorm with five other guys and we were called a core, and we had a core advisor who was around our age that would hold us accountable for following the rules and would be in charge of leading our core during the year. Every week I would meet with this core advisor who would ask me how I'm doing like if I've been struggling with masturbation, viewing porn, etc.

    Everyone had something called a "ministry placement," which was basically a job each intern would perform to help the campus run. I was a part of running breakfast for the next year and then I would volunteer to do so as well for the following year. Being as breakfast crew had to get up at around 4 am for work this caused myself and the others I worked with to be constantly tired and underslept during the year, because most of the events would go late into the night, causing us to get three or four or even two hours of sleep at times. Most of the good friends I made at the Honor Academy were from this ministry placement. One thing that would always irk me and still does is when we would be told we could not question anyone placed in authority because we are then ultimately questioning God who put the people in their place that put those people in their place.

    In the morning everyone would participate in corporate exercise, which was just exercising that the entire internship would have to do together. On a certain day of the week we would have Chapel where a speaker would typically visit and do a speech, and on Monday nights there would be worship and either on Monday nights as well or on another night Ron Luce would do a speech. The worship was extremely intense with people dancing and running around, etc.

    We would hold big events every so often called LTEs or Life Transforming Events. We did quite a few of these throughout the year. We did the UPG or Unreached People Group LTE which was probably the most fun, where certain interns would live like tribal groups and missionaries would have to convert them, and a fasting retreat where interns fasted for three days and they were not allowed to talk to each other and could only pray and focus on God. I did enjoy the hiking trip in Big Bend Texas which I did for both the years I was there.

    The most contentious LTE was ESOAL, or Emotionally Stretching Opportunity of A Lifetime. It was bootcamp for around 78 hours straight, with drill instructors that would verbally and physically abuse you and push you to your physical limits, and I've attached a video to show what it was like. I did this for two years. It was basically just a physical challenge for me because I'm crazy like that. Oh and because of the nature of it I ended up with staph infection in my leg and I finished it with an extreme open sore on the front of my toe and I could barely walk :/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOunedJ9OK4 ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWhUL7-0wDo 

    My first reflection on the Honor Academy is that it was an extremely legalistic / strict culture. Making a commitment was taken very seriously at the Honor Academy, and at the beginning of the year everyone wanting to stay for the program made a commitment to stay for a year and follow the rules established. There were lots of rules at the Honor Academy, such as no dating (we were only to focus on God for that year), no listening to secular music, no viewing of pornography, no masturbation, no swearing, etc. If we were to violate any of these rules we were to "confess" to a leader and we would then go before an "honor council" that would decide what the consequences should be. If we did not "confess" in a timely manner we would be "dismissed" or kicked out of the program.There were lots of dismissals for untimely confessions during my time at the Honor Academy. I do recall the director David Hasz stating he believed God would pour His wrath out on you if you broke your commitment. This emphasis on keeping commitments as well as the emphasis on integrity often caused interns to either intentionally or unintentionally say hurtful things to one another when they were holding each other accountable. I myself became very legalistic and would treat others in ways I shouldn't have because I was trying to have integrity and I thought it was the right thing to do.

    Ron Luce who was a type A Personality and clearly had something psychologically wrong with him would typically do sermons on how we as believers should be changing the world. He would tell us not to be typical wimpy believers who aren't doing anything but to be world changers, and would give a story about comparing himself to a friend of his who didn't do what he did and that we shouldn't be like him. This was definitely a part of what would lead to losing my faith as it created a false illusion in me of me doing all these great things for God and then I became disillusioned when it wasn't happening. He would be constantly attacking the culture and talking about how evil it is and how we need to stand up and fight against it.

     I do recall there was a speaker one time who either was or knew someone that had previously lived a homosexual lifestyle and was now married and had nine kids, implying it is possible to no longer be gay, etc. Another speaker was giving stories of how he was extremely aggressive with teachers at a school he attended and at one point made a comment that you get peace by crushing your enemies. There was also a counselor at our campus who made suggestions like snapping yourself with a rubber band when you have a lustful thought and like the rest of the ministry believed being a homosexual was a sin. Another girl told me a that an older adult told her she was into witchcraft because she was disrespectful to her mother and the Bible says witchcraft is as idolatry. I myself was "disciplined" by the Honor Council for not rebuffing something a girl said to me that had feelings at the time.

    I spent a lot of this time very zealously seeking after God by reading the Bible and praying. The strict and legalistic culture definitely created an insecurity or stirred up an extreme insecurity in me of being afraid of doing something wrong and being dismissed which caused me a lot of anxiety during the two years I was there. The extreme atmosphere helped make me so extreme it was the last nail in the coffin for a ruptured friendship that never did heal, and it caused me to really hurt a girl that cared a lot about me. I made a lot of good friends in this place but I also hurt a lot of the ones outside of it.

    I made a lot of good friends and lot of memories but I can't help but wonder what direction my life would have gone in had I not made the decision to attend this place / never became fanatically religious. I gave up my last year of high school to attend there and even after leaving my second year I spent half of my twenties living in its shadow and feeling disillusioned by the hope it created in me of having an exciting life for God. I missed out on most of the things young adults should experience during my formative years due to both attending this place and the zealousness of my faith as a result and it definitely stunted my growth in a lot of ways that still negatively affect me. 

    I can't change the past or decisions I've made in the past, but I do wonder how I can take the experiences I have been through and use them to make myself a better person with who I am now.