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.