Creationism vs. Evolution by Gene Zimmer

Creationism vs. Evolution

by Gene Zimmer

There has been and continues to be a battle over the beliefs involving "how everything came to be". These, briefly stated, are:

1) Creationism - the notion that a Supreme Deity, or God, through an act of Divine Will, simply intended the Earth and entire universe into existence. And so it has been ever since. Some also believe that while God is responsible for originally "putting it all here" that God "used" physical and biological evolution as the mechanical means of bringing into existence the wide and varied forms of life. From this view both the Creation and the Evolution theory are claimed to be true.

2) Theory of Evolution - evolution actually involves what happens "after" the world and universe is here, but the term is used in this battle. From the viewpoint of "modern science", as held, supported, and promoted by atheists, materialists, and secular humanists, the universe started with the "Big Bang" (or some other reasonable facsimile thereof) or simply is self-existing (whatever that means). Once the universe was "started" it "evolved" due to a never-ending series of accidents which somehow spontaneously brought into existence molecules, chemicals, light, energy, cells, biological organs, animals, plants, planets, stars, and all forms of life. The development of life, and even consciousness itself, is viewed as the end result of long series of "natural" processes which do not occur as a result of any intention or cause outside of accidental forces. "Natural" implies a strict demand that no God, being, consciousness or external intelligent agent of any sort had anything to do with the entire chain of events over millions, billions and even trillions of years.

It is absurd to engage in such a battle of ideologically driven notions. It is equally absurd, and wrong, that the government has been duped into supporting the beliefs of one group (evolution, humanism, the materialistic interpretation of the social sciences) while refusing to support and even attacking the beliefs of the other group (creationism - religion). Why?

In both cases what is actually involved here, at the most basic level, is beliefs. The proponents of evolution and the Big Bang Theory would each like to think what they say is "true", "scientific" and "factual", but the real bottom line truth is that, when it comes right down to it, they "believe" in it just as much as the religious folks "believe" in theirs. Neither belief corresponds to any actual perceivable, observable, or verifiable tangible thing or occurrence(s).

I am not arguing for one or the other. Personally I think they are both incorrect, at least from the viewpoint of verifiable events, reason, honest intelligence, and tangible experience. But, also, who knows? And in the end it’s fundamentally only a matter of personal opinion and what anyone chooses to believe.

From the viewpoint of a 100% application of REASON, logic and "science", how can anyone seriously consider the notion that the entire universe spontaneously, for no reason at all (because there was no previous cause or force existing), suddenly appeared? This idea is so completely contradictory to everything else modern science has discovered and established.

The law of the conservation of energy implies that the "amount" of energy-matter is fixed, and unable to be added to or subtracted from. It can change "form", but the net "amount" cannot change. Most everyone agrees to that, yet, the same people have no trouble accepting the idea that the entirety of the universe, involving almost infinite amounts of matter, energy, particles, electrons, protons, neutrons, and so on, appeared out of nothing. Bang! At one moment there is nothingness, a Void, total emptiness (this sounds strangely like Vedic "religious" descriptions of the beginning of the universe….), and then, wham!, suddenly there is this immense spinning mass of nuclear gas and incredible spontaneous explosions from which everything else originated.

What sort of faith does believing this depend on? The concept of something, and this being a pretty immense and substantial "something", spontaneously appearing out of a previous complete absence of anything is nothing short of miraculous, magical, and even strangely reminiscent of the statement in Genesis where God proclaimed, "Let there be Light and there was Light". Whether one attributes the action to a God or to an accident, either way there was spontaneous creation or the "bringing into existence" of the universe. Whatever concept one accepts, whether the "religious" or the "scientific", requires a belief in things and events which are quite incapable of verification, proof or the slightest evidence. Additionally, none of us have any experience, not anywhere, not ever, of something happening or coming into existence without an earlier cause. Physical events and conditions do not happen without something first acting upon it to make it happen. This notion is a basic concept of all legitimate science, yet when it comes to the beginning of the universe (and the evolution of all things and life) this concept is conveniently forgotten. This is not a defense of the "God" explanation, only a statement that things don't happen without a cause - they never have and they never will. Religious people may use this as part of their argument, but there is no evidence that "God" was the cause referred to and required to explain "what" caused it all.

Blaming it on some "cosmic accident" is as ludicrous as anything else. What does this even really mean? If there was nothing else there at all, in any way or form, then how could there have been an "accident". What? Possibly "two completely empty universes were moving through space, each minding their own business, when they contacted, and suddenly out of the contradictory natures of the two, our universe was begun?" Of course, how could they be "moving through space", if first there wasn’t any "space", and they really didn’t exist in any form and therefore couldn’t be moving? There has never been an "accident" anywhere which didn’t involve things, events and situations. Calling it an "accident" is simply coming up with some abstraction which explains a phenomena one doesn’t understand and is unable to adequately explain, and accepting this notion (of a cosmic accident) betrays one’s intellectual dullness. The truth is that you and no one else has a clue how it all started, where it came from, or why. But you "think" you know. You are "convinced" you know. You "believe" you know. And while many people may view this as being true for the "religious person", it is also equally true for the modern "scientific person" (who thinks he is immune from all this - but he’s not at all). Actually, why the pressing need or obsession to believe anything about it at all? Why simply not just "know that you don't know"? Be aware of your actual inability to ascertain by direct experience or otherwise how it all came into existence and how it all evolved. And in the end, really, what does it matter? How can or will knowing or not knowing how the universe began and evolved effect you or anything else?

What requires more faith, and possibly less rationality, the idea that a Supreme Being made it all, or the idea that it simply appeared, uncaused, out of nothing, for no reason at all? At least the first example of a Supreme Being involves a mechanism which would align with everything else we admit to be true about this universe - cause and effect - that things, events, situations, motion, and conditions result from earlier causes or intentions. It’s quite funny how this notion of mandatory and all-occurring cause and effect, which is a primary statement of dogma to modern science, is conveniently abandoned when it suits them in the case of the beginning and evolution of the physical universe.

The modern "reasoning" person firmly acknowledges the notion of cause and effect and applies it to everything in his experience. Yet, in the case of the formation and development of the universe, this strict rule is casually tossed to the wind by those who claim to be "more rational" and "adhere to reason and science".

Few of us would say things and situations don’t follow from earlier causes. Rocks fly in the air because little boys throw them. A messy room gets cleaned up because someone decides to and then cleans it up and puts various things into order. Television, radios and computers exist because someone thought them up and then others made them. This can go on for many things. None of those things would exist or occur unless someonethought to do them, intended to do them, and then did them. In our own personal experience of cause and effect, nothing gets done that we don't intend to get done and then cause to get done. In our own personal experience of and with life and reality, things happen and appear because someone makes them happen or appear.

The notion of everything appearing spontaneously out of nothing is supplied as a "scientific" theory because nobody has any other "reasonable" explanation - "reasonable" meaning that it must be explained without any resort to "invisible agents" such as God, spirits, Divine Will or disembodied beings. The truth is simply that there is no explanation for it within the framework of materialistic science. The spontaneous coming into existence of the universe, all by itself, and for no reason, is as much a fairy tale, derived from the realm of pure imagination, as any religious notions. This would be fine as long as it’s said to be only that, simply atheory, a guess, a product of someone's overactive imagination, and not pretended to be something else - a "scientific fact" or "fact of reality". But, first, neither you, nor me, nor anyone else was there to observe whatactually happened, so I think it best (and intellectually honest) if we all right now just stop this absurd speculating, or at least stop pretending that our speculations represent anything more than mere personal fancy and opinion. Second, how is believing the idea that everything appeared out nothing, for no apparent reason and with no apparent cause, more "scientific" and "sensible" than the idea that a Supreme Being did it? From a strict application of reason, possible verification, and experience, both notions are ludicrous.

But Man, doing what he always has done from his puny stature and location on this small planet on the edge of a galaxy, takes his concepts and abstractions about all manner of things, assumes them to actually correspond to something (which they too often don’t), enforces these notions on everything around him (people, institutions, and society), and generally wreaks chaos and havoc. The religion of Christianity did this in the Middle Ages, and "modern science" is doing it now with the "social sciences" under the names of psychiatry, psychology and sociology, and in subjects involving the formation of the universe and the evolution of all things and life.

The point isn’t whether one is right or one is wrong, although this is generally the point for those arguing about it. The point is that ultimately, what any person decides to believe has much more to do with personal opinion and fancy than with anything approaching even the slightest degree of fact or proof. BOTH beliefs, BOTH positions require an equal amount of faith, which is by definition, belief or confidence in things unseen (or unproven). Neither theory or view of "how it all began" can be proven, not really, and which view one accepts depends much more on one’s natural tendencies or individual likings, than upon any actual stream of "logic" or "arguments" either one uses to support their position. If you honestly follow the arguments back for either position or argument, a point is reached with both where some basic assumption is accepted which cannot be proven - at least not to the satisfaction of the person holding the opposing view. At this point belief or faith takes over, and this occurs equally, with the same degree of intensity, in both the creationism argument andthe Big Bang argument. The person of religion is no more of, and not to any greater degree, a "believer", exhibiting "faith" and "worship", than the person of "science". They each "believe", possess "faith", and "worship", and only the objects of their belief, faith and worship differ. The religious believe in and worship God (in some form). The scientific, humanistic, and atheistic believes in and worships Nature (in some form). Each conceives of all manner of concepts, explanations, and relationships within their framework of understanding, but in fact, they fundamentally do the same thing - only the object of their belief is different..

Neither the proponent of religion or science, though, is usually capable of seeing or admitting this. Most people who "believe" in anything, whether religious or scientific, are incapable of sensing or perceiving clearly that what they are doing is "believing". They tend to say things like "it’s true", "I know it", "I can prove it", and "it’s obvious to me". They use all types of "logic" and "reason" to explain, defend, and justify their position. The religious person explains, "God exists. I know it. I am sure". The "humanist" explains, "Nature is all there is. It's self-sufficient and explains itself. Science has shown this to be true. I know it. I am sure". The mechanism of belief, faith and arbitrary choice of the basic assumptions exist equally, and in the same way, for both. Once the basic assumptions are established, then the rest follows naturally and "logically" from the strictly held basic claims. The religious worships the unseen and invisible world of spirit. The materialist worships the unseen laws (as he imagines them) of astronomy, chemistry, biology and biological evolution (i.e. Nature).

I am not going to make a case or argue against the religious view, because that has been done sufficiently already by modern philosophers, psychologists and "reasoning proponents of science". Many people agree with the "modern" notion that religion often believes in things unprovable by accepted scientific standards. They do, but the critical attitude "science" all to often takes against religion is a very apt example of "the pot calling the kettle black". Or, "one shouldn't throw stones who lives in a glass house". Or, don't be so critical and demanding when you basically are doing exactly the same thing.

People call many things "science". Science should refer only to subjects derived from the honest and careful application of the scientific method. This involves theorizing, testing, observing test results, reworking theories, retesting, and coming up with theories and understandings (i.e. laws, formulas) which correspond to real things and situations which get actual results. The application of the scientific method in the physical sciences has produced many legitimate and useful understandings. These have enabled the prediction and control of many chemical, electronic and physical processes. This prediction and control has not been true for the social "sciences" because they are riddled with so much opinion, bias, and wishful thinking not based upon legitimate observation, facts and verifiable things. But they pretend their subjects are "scientific" and associate themselves with the notion of science to gain credibility, power and influence. This is very true for the subjects of sociology, psychology and psychiatry. It is also true to much of modern medicine because the subject has a severe bias to observe and address symptoms exclusively while ignoring studies or methods dealing with causesof illness. The result has been drugs and surgery, both approaches which attack and destroy symptoms instead of addressing underlying actual causes. This pretension to being scientific is also true for the more theoretical aspects of astronomy and physics.

The Problem With The Scientific Explanation of the Universe

Some of you will argue, quite inanely I might add, that "science has done extensive studies, and tests, involving spectral analysis of stars and galaxies and has shown how the universe was formed". What "science" has done, in fact, is put together some results of various studies which they happily interpret and use in a way to attempt to justify and explain their pet theories. Sure, it "might" be true, but then anything "might" be true. But please, let’s be honest, at least to ourselves, most of anything anyone says about the creation of the universe is almost totally of the nature of "theory". Until some of us can go back in time and watch what actually happened, I suspect it will always remain largely in the realm of theory - despite what the "believers" may say and demand. Plus, really, who cares? What does how or in what way the universe came about have to do with the price of gas? Or anything else? Why don’t we all simply forget about it and get on with living? Why don't we each get busy and make a better family, town, city, or world? But apparently that seems to be not as easy as it sounds - for too many folks on both sides of the argument.

If either the rabid humanist or the proselytizing preacher loses sleep over the question of "how it all began" only shows to me that both have much too much time on their hands, need to begin dealing with real people and real life (instead of ideas and concepts), and get a life. They are both too willing and eager to tell everyone else what to think and do. I dislike all totalitarians, no matter what their form or label.

It’s also interesting how anyone can possibly believe the idea that scientists are capable of looking at current existing evidence and data, extrapolating this back in time over periods encompassing billions and trillions of years, and clearly perceive (or deduce) how everything happened and unfolded. Please! Modern police have trouble investigating and figuring out what happened in simple crimes which occurred three days ago! And that’s with "fresh" evidence. Different witnesses generally always report having seen different versions of the same exact accident or crime. This is common knowledge. But we are to believe, and many of us "science oriented" folks do believe exactly so, that the modern scientist is somehow immune to these failings and is capable of reverse investigating, not back only 5 or 10 years, but millions and billions of years! These people are just as delusional as the religious proponent they so readily criticize. Actually they are more deluded, because while the religious person tends to admit at a point that he ultimately believes because he simplychooses to believe, the scientific person remains determined to claim and demand that he is right and possesses evidence and reason for his position way past the point of where any "logic" or "scientific reasoning" is actually occurring.

Darwin's theory of evolution supposes that all life evolved due to some (unexplained but inferred) biological urge or capability of the organism to mutate in an attempt to survive over time. It proposes that environmental forces acted upon the organism to induce it to somehow modify itself structurally and thereby enable itself to survive better. The notion of natural selection states that those organisms which come up with the bestmodifications survive better, while the others fail and die out. This became the concept of "survival of the fittest". As with the traditional modern view of behaviorism, which follows conceptually from Darwin's theory, the environmental forces are viewed as the primary element of determination and concern. What they fail to mention is that without some indwelling intelligence of some sort, how would or could the biological organism ever modify itself, or more, even know how to modify itself to come up with these better biological structures which would enable it to better survive in it's natural environment? But as with behaviorism they happily ignore any such idea. More to the point though, this point matters only if there is any validity to the theory of evolution, which there isn't.

Evolutionists even get more adamant about there being a complete absence of any causal agent in the scheme of things, and often assert that all the changes in organism form and structure occur only as a result of minor accidental genetic alterations which have (and continue to occur) over very long periods of time. It is upon these random genetic changes occurring over extremely long periods of time that "natural selection" acts to encourage the better fit structures to remain and the poorer adapted structures to fail and die out. It isimagined that this process has produced all the varied classes and species of life from a long ago single cell ancestor. This is possibly an interesting theory, providing cute discussions at dinner parties, but it is based on very little actual evidence and absolutely no observation of any sort (other than very circumstantial "evidence" which is happily interpreted within a commonly accepted scientific and naturalistic paradigm).

One needs to really get a concept of just how much time would be required for all this. For a single cell organism to mutate, develop variations; for "natural selection" to act upon this cell and result in a better surviving new cell form, the earlier cell to continue with other mutations; the new variations to continue on this same path - mutating and developing new forms different from each other. At some point an "accident" (due to solar or cosmic radiation - convenient explanation) occurs and the cell splits but stays connected, so there is now a two cell organism. This all takes very much time. And we are now only up to 2 cells - realize this is all very theoretically because no scientist in any lab anywhere has ever seen a single cell organism develop into a multi-cellular organism from "natural evolution" or from any other cause. The accidental mutations continue and the simple life form becomes a 3-4-5 and 6 cell conglomerate. These cellular forms, after a tremendousamount of time, become quite complex and begin to take various forms of simple animal and microscopic plant life. Realize that according to the theory, thousands and possibly millions of genetic mutations occurred resulting in numerous variations of cellular forms, some of which dies out, and some of which survived. I could continue on describing this scenario, but I am sure the reader gets the point. There is simply not enough time, since the very beginning, to enable such a process to work within the framework of how this process is claimed to work

This gets even more involved, and very hard to believe, when one considers how these small and simple life forms changed into 1) larger life forms, and 2) multi-system life forms with complex organs and various separate yet interconnected systems (i.e. circulation, digestive, lymphatic, nervous, etc.) For example take the human eye, which Darwin himself admitted presented a very major barrier to his own acceptance of the theory of evolution. The human eye involves a tremendous number of muscles, mechanisms, and chemical reactions which translate into electrical current - which travels down the optic nerve. The eye involves very separate and distinct small systems which act together to enable vision - the lens, the cornea, the muscles controlling the lens relationship to the cornea, and the chemical reactions resulting in electrical current. The problem is that each of these by itself is useless and serves no survival purpose, so how could each have "evolved" separately, and then come into a working relation with the other smaller organic systems? The eye is useful and has survival value only as a completed organic system. No force of natural selection acting upon accidental genetic mutations could or would ever produce a human eye. Real existing life forms contain many similar organs and systems which are incapable of being explained by the theory of evolution.

Another point is complexity. A single human cell contains mechanism, functions and interactions which also could not have evolved separately because the operation depends on numerous interactions between different cellular things and functions to produce the final result. If six different cellular things and functions act together in a way where the final result has survival value, and the individual things and functions have no survival value in themselves, then how could this complex system ever have evolved according to the theory of evolution? They couldn't have (and didn't). A single cell appears to function as an intelligently designed machine. Anyone familiar with cellular functioning is made very aware of the incredible inner workings, timing, processes, and interrelations within a single cell. It works very much like a precision watch, only much more complex. Imagining that this could possibly result from some process of accidental genetic mutation acting over eons is absurd. It's as absurd as the common example where some folks claim (idiotically) that if a chimp were given a typewriter, a stack of blank paper, and eternity, that he would eventually come up with the entire plays of Shakespeare. All by accident! But this is basically what the "scientists" claim who assert the legitimacy of the theory of evolution. Stars, planets, light, the Earth, you, and me - we are all accidents of some metaphorical mindless chimp typing away at some imaginary typewriter. Only it's worse with the theory of evolution and scientific materialism - there isn't even a chimp! The typewrite types itself! People will believe anything.

Modern geneticists play with organisms and modify their structure. They do enable better surviving organisms through their tinkering. Interestingly, this is the only biological modification any of us have ever observed. These are the only examples of new organisms coming about that any of us have ever experienced and directly observed. It would make much more sense, from a strictly logical point of view based upon legitimate observation and experience, to infer a similar agent acting over eons which intentionally created mutations and adaptations, such as a God or some form of advanced consciousness or even a superior alien race, than to assume biological forms adapted all on their own. But any of these alternative views are considered unfounded and "unscientific". Or so they say. Truthfully, it is more scientific than their view, because what they propose has no basis in fact. At least the idea of a God or an alien race (remember the movie 2001?) adheres tosomething we have actually experienced and know can occur - the intentional biological adaptations of modern day geneticists. That aligns with something which is observable and which corresponds to actual current scientific procedures. Yet the theory of evolution is taught in every public school and asserted as official scientific dogma. It's a fairy tale. Ironically the modern proponent of evolution will be the first to jump up and attack anyone asserting that God created all life or that some alien race manipulated the biological forms of animals and even Man. Who believes in the bigger fairy tale? This is a case of idiots arguing over idiotic things claiming each other as the bigger idiot.

If the idea of evolution and natural selection is correct there must be thousands and even millions of life forms which mutated, didn't quite succeed, and died out, leaving only the successful ones to continue. There would have to be all sorts of animals with half-legs, partial wings, and finger stubs - and many other structural variations. But there is no fossil evidence of any of this. Unless they would have us believe that every new life form simply presented itself in the perfect new form, complete with new arms, legs, tails, or whatever, without any intermediate steps. But that's not what the theory asserts. Where are the birds with stubs of wings, or half wings - the evolutionary steps or missing links leading up to the final successful biological form? Again, since there is no evidence of them, it seems that if all life did evolve from a common genetic ancestor, as proposed by this theory, it makes more sense to posit an agency which intentional brought about the adaptations and then placed them all here. This explanation most closely aligns with the facts of fossil evidence. In fact, the majority of life, from all archeological evidence did do just that - it appeared, seemingly out of nowhere about 600 million years ago. Before that there is basically no evidence of the many and varied life forms, and then suddenly, a tremendous variety of life appeared, as if suddenly placed here from somewhere else. That is the fact of fossil evidence. Again, I am not saying God did it - I am just saying there is no proof that "evolution" did it, following some "natural law" or materialistic process. Both views lack proof or evidence.

Similarly Man is said to have evolved from monkeys. The search for the missing links still goes on, but have never been found. The theory demands there be intermediate evolutionary stages between the apes and Man yet none are ever found, despite much looking. But they hold onto their unproven theories as firmly as any staunch religious person. I am not asserting the creationist view is right - I am simply showing the view of the evolutionist is unfounded by all honest dictates of reason and holds no validity. Darwin's notions cannot be proven anymore than the idea that a God created all life can be proven. Belief in either depends upon faith, although "modern scientists" like to imagine themselves free of such "religious" tendencies - which they aren't. I doubt either view is correct, and consider the entire battle between the two to be meaningless. The battle of religion versus science in this arena is simply a case of the entire arena itself being invalid. The answer will most likely not be found within the playing field where this ideological, conceptual and theoretical battle occurs.

If evolution worked as these people say it does it should always operate. Biological organisms should be changing and unique biological forms should right now be coming about in the endless attempt of life forms to adapt to the environment (or through accidental genetic mutations), and present better and more survivable biological structures. But it doesn't happen. Is the process temporarily on hold? Has the theory taken a vacation? I maintain that the theory never referred to anything having any basis in reality in the first place. It's atheory, and not a very good one at that. But it is called "science" and almost the entirety of the modern educated world rushes to embrace the theory of evolution. If there is anything to understand from the theory of evolution and the scientific community's almost rabid demand for it's acceptance and legitimacy, it's Mans continuing tendency to believe in things, rigidly and forcefully, which have no honest basis in observable fact.That is a scientific fact. We can all find many examples of that.

Belief and Faith Parading as Science

I am sorry to say, oh yea of scientific faith, that the modern "disciple of science" is often in no way different than any adherent of religion he or she frequently looks down upon, considers irrational, or assumes inferior, especially and primarily in the social sciences.

Basically, what it comes down to is this - what either believes, equally to the same degree, is solely and only abelief. In the end, it is a choice of what one decides to agree with and believe. It comes down to faith, either in the "religious" explanation or the "scientific" explanation. That it makes you feel good is irrelevant. Both "feel" this. That it makes "mores sense" is meaningless. Both think it "makes more sense". At the most basic level each simply asserts what they tend to like as an opinion, and then spend endless hours theorizing, explaining, and reasoning to defend their largely arbitrary views. That's okay. I can live with that because it recognizes and accepts man's tendency and right to believe and assert whatever he chooses. What I can't live with is anyone or any group which sets their opinions as facts, more right and important than anyone else's, and rams them down the rest of our throats - whether these be religious, scientific, political or otherwise.

The problem is that the religious folks, today, are generally content to be left alone, do their own thing, and allow others to do the same, while the scientific and humanistic factions are not so generous. In fact, the entiremodus operandi of the secular humanists, Darwinists, atheists, naturalists, and materialists is to do everything they possibly can to get into everybody else’s business and enforce their opinions upon everyone else.

It is stupendously ironic. The secular humanists, materialists, and atheists talk endlessly about the flaws of religion, especially how religion has always tended to force its opinions and beliefs on others, and they do their damnedest to ensure religion cannot influence anything anywhere. It's true - religion has often done this, and I also hold a great disdain for the oppressive activities of past European Christianity such as the Spanish Inquisition, and the attacks on early scientists such as Copernicus and Leonardo Da Vinci. But they fail to notice that they are now doing exactly the same thing they criticize past religion of having done. They are forcing, having aligned with and procured the backing of government agencies, their belief system upon the rest of the society.

Past religions often allied themselves with the State thereby promoting, often forcefully, a specific belief system over others. Thought, belief and behavior were dictated and controlled. Today, "science", "behavioral psychology", "secular humanism", "psychiatry" and "materialism", all of which are nothing more than alternate systems of belief about the nature of the universe and Man, have allied with the State, also promoting, with no option for refusal, a specific set of beliefs over others. Thought, belief and behavior are again dictated and controlled. Today the justification is that "it's scientific truth". In the past the justification was that "it's religious truth". Yap - Yap - Yap! It's the same action of enforcing ideology and it never seems to stop.

Modern "science", "materialism" and "secular humanism" are fundamentally, when examined down to their basic axioms and postulates, only another arbitrary set of beliefs about Man, the universe, and how Man relates to the Universe. There is no ultimate "truth", "rightness" or "possession of accurate knowledge". Modern materialism is an ideology. There is as much "faith" involved with their beliefs, as with anything associated with the label "religious". And sadly, these adherents of social "science" will enforce their opinions and views, through mandated education in the public schools, psychiatry, social services utilizing modern psychological theories, and in other ways, on everyone else, violating every principle they claim to promote.

The "atheist" argues that everyone should be "free" to believe whatever they choose. But in application, they are very happy to secure a monopoly for their opinions on what is "correct belief" in society. The same is true for the secular humanist. They argue all day long about guaranteeing the rights of freedom of thought, limiting coercion of belief, and allowing "reason and truth" to reign, but in actual fact and results, they interpret this to mean "freedom to accept only their specific and limited notions of reality", which they call "modern, scientific, and educated".

They are the modern tyrants. They excuse their abuses against humanity, just as have every past tyrant, with claims and the firm belief stating, "I am right" (and "you are wrong"). They "know" they are right. They "believe" they are right. They "consider" they possess the "true and accurate understanding of Man and the universe". Call it "science" or call it "religion", but there is no difference when it comes down to actual practical results. The actual thing they are both doing is the same - forcing beliefs and the results of their beliefs upon everyone else. And continuing in the same vein of all past tyrants, these opinions and beliefs (which they consider "truth") are fundamentally incorrect.

When will people finally grow up, mature and wake up to the fact that, in the end, whatever we each choose to accept ultimately lies with personal opinion, belief and choice, and not much anything else! The reasoning and educated discussions of the priests of the Spanish Inquisition were as complex, erudite and knowledgeable as any modern proponent of psychiatry. The priests of the Spanish Inquisition were the most educated people of their time - and look what they believed and did! Psychiatry and the past priests, they both make sense in their contexts. But both are severely flawed with nonsensical basic assumptions about Man and the world which render their views absurd. When will people finally cease demanding others accept the same as them, andreally allow others to think, believe and do whatever the hell they want? Stop assuming you know what is totally correct and right, or at least stop demanding that everyone else conforms to your opinions about what is totally correct and right. This applies just as much to the modern scientist who claims and asserts his rightness using justifications of "scientific proof", "logic" and "reason", and who enforces his views on the rest of the population through government, political, educational and other social systems.

There is no free market place of ideas in the western societies. Big money interests have aligned with the materialistic view of the social sciences in the form of humanism, pragmatism, social Darwinism, modern psychology and psychiatry, and enforce this view upon modern Man. It occurs through drug companies, foundations, educational systems, governments, insurance companies, research corporations and the media. Never at any time in the entirety of human history has a specific ideology been so systematically enforced upon the general public to their continual detriment and harm.

Note clearly that I am not attacking "science" or the advances which science has bestowed upon Man through the work it has done in the physical sciences - chemistry, biology, mechanics, physics, electronics, etc. This discussion applies only to what "science" has done with the subject of Man, his mind and societies - psychology, psychiatry, economics, politics, and sociology - the social sciences. These are much moreideological, being based upon concepts and theories, rather than scientific, or based upon facts. They claim to be "scientific", but they are no such thing.

What differentiates Man from all other observable phenomena in the entire physical universe is his awareness, and consciousness, and the resultant abilities to reason, imagine, recall, consider, value, admire, believe, find meaning, plan, choose, intend and initiate action (to mention only a few). The mind of Man is what needs to be recognized as the prime factor for Man. It is this alone which enables societies to exist, and also anything else Man has created or developed. But behaviorism has tossed out the notion of an indwelling mind or causative agent. It is Man's tendency to find meaning and believe (largely in concepts and opinions) which then turns into a demand for others to view things similarly that causes all the trouble. But Man will never stop finding meaning and asserting belief - this is what Man does. What he needs to stop doing is forcing his own personal opinions on everyone else. Only an understanding and acceptance of Man from this view will lead anywhere decent - Man as a mind.

The tendency of modern "science" as applied to the social sciences has been the attempt to force Man within a tight framework of conceptual understanding - which regards Man as nothing more than a biological "animal" and who is part of a larger, and assumedly more important, unified organic whole. There has been a gross error in the assignment of relative importances. Man, as a biological organism, is obviously part of the environment of nature, and interrelates with numerous other "natural" influences. Ever since Darwin entered the scene there has been a tendency to view and conceive of all life and the universe as a single, unified whole. This is true, but only from a certain conceptual viewpoint of some human, thinking mind. Otherwise, this notion doesn't exist. It's true from a conception taken, endorsed, and accepted by a mind. Treating this viewpoint as the entirety of existence and as explaining everything is simply another case of Man conceiving something about himself and others and forcing this conception upon Man's actual behavior in life and existence. Also, and this is key, this view of the importance of the larger, organic whole, or environment, or Nature, detracts from the view that Man is an entity of consciousness, an individual, and a creative source of thought, imagination, cause, will, self-determinism and responsibility. Psychology used to deal with the study of the mind, by definition, but not today. The mind, and all it does, has been flushed down the toilet.

As long as the current view of Man continues to conceive of Man as only a biological entity, subject to genetic, biochemical and environmental influences alone, so will any real chance of Man attaining higher and better states for himself, and the societies he forms, remain elusive and non-reachable.

Scientific methods of discovery and research have never been applied to the mind of Man. Instead science has chosen to deny and ignore the mind of Man, because they assume it is "invisible" and can’t be observed and tested as any other object of research using scientific methods. Man is viewed as any other rock, molecule, energy or atom, and handled accordingly - with force. In all cases the mind of Man is ignored - and this will always have severe ramifications for the individual and the society.

The mental functions of awareness, attention, will, intention, imagination and responsibility, to name a few, doexist, are "things", and follow certain "laws", but have never been investigated with an aim to enable further control and understanding by each human being themselves. This is probably largely due to the fact that there is no "profit" in understanding any of this. That’s a really sad statement of the current condition of Man’s concern for truth and of his flimsy intention to elevate individuals and societies towards better things, conditions and states. The main intention of any person or group aiming to understand the mind is to understand and control the minds of others - for their own purposes, profits, or imagined gain. Rarely is there an intention to bring about an understanding of the mind to increase the self-understanding and self-control of the mind and its ability by and for the person themselves.

There is no absolute right or wrong, just as the secular humanist demands. There is probably no ultimate truth, just as the moral relativist proclaims. There are no absolute facts outside of personal belief and experience, just as the educational psychologist asserts. There is no meaning or value, except as any single human bestows upon something, just as the modern pragmatist explains. But I would never consider myself in any of their camps. Why?

What they completely fail to realize is that this also applies to them! They enjoy no monopoly on the truth, or at least they shouldn’t. The beliefs they have are in no way more "right" or "valuable" than anyone else’s. They need to put into application the obvious logical conclusion of their basic premises and theories. How so? By allowing others to have the right to opine, believe, pass on to their children, promote to others, and practice whatever they choose - no matter how "absurd", "ill informed" or "unscientific" they might conceive these things to be. The truth is that the views of Man held by the majority of the modern social scientists are just as absurd as any they so easily criticize.

It isn’t only a matter of separation of Church and State, or religion and government. What should be divorced from any and all government involvement is:

any system of belief about Man, the universe, and his relationship to the universe, whether called "religion", "science", "philosophy" or anything else - any ideology or orthodoxy whatsoever.

But the modern secular humanist, materialist and "follower of science" is quite happy to play the same power games his enemies (the State and Religion) played in times past. He will use the government to promote his ideas, above all others. He will use the educational system to wipe out all competitive ideas, leaving only his own. He will align with large financial interests to support his claims, opinions and ideology (i.e. psychiatry, psychology). He will set himself up in a position of authority, power and social position through his pretensions of knowledge and erudition.

While few materialists will understand it and none will accept this, they are the religious fanatics of modern times. They are the uncompromising ideologues. They are the rigid believers, incapable of entertaining even the slightest possibility that their world view may be flawed, and are also extremely willing to force their ideas on everyone else.

Ask a behavioral psychologist about what they do. They will answer with things like, "Science has shown us that Man responds to stimulus just as any animal, forms attitudes and behaves in exact conformity to environmental factors, and… blah-blah-blah…." "It’s our right and duty to apply what we know to Man and society to better the conditions of people all over the world". And so on. See? They believe it completely. They are convinced. They are sure. And just as any Nazi SS officer or torturer of the Spanish Inquisition, they will "do their work to make a better world", despite the rest of us.

Ask a psychiatrist. Ask a modern pragmatic philosopher. Ask a proponent of social engineering, a social scientist or people planner. Ask a member of the UN, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergers, CIA, Department of Education, international banker, mega-corporate CEO, or college professor. You’ll generally get the same type answers. They all have the "truth" and they all attempt to get us all to conform to their notions of the way they conceive the universe to function - or more accurately, how they conceive it should function. Beware of elitists - those who think that they know what is best for everybody else.

"Science" has functionally replaced "religion" as the object of modern faith. Psychologically, the mechanics areexactly the same. This is not a cute concept or theory, like so many of their notions. This is exactly how the adherent of modern "science" functions. "Science" serves the same purpose "religion" served in past centuries - to give reasons for, explain, and make sense of the world we each find ourselves surrounded by. But sadly, it also demands strict adherence as did past religions and states. It devolves into dogma, rote ideology and strict orthodoxy - or else.

It acts in similar way as past religions - oppressing, demanding conformity, excluding all other possibilities, and using every means possible to gain a complete monopoly of thought, belief and behavior.

A major problem with this is that the modern systems of belief (i.e. materialism, secular humanism, etc.) involve methods of human control which have never existed before. Such a massive alignment of power, finance, and ideology have never before co-existed along with the tools and techniques of securing complete acceptance and conformity to the ideology (i.e. psychiatry, drugs, shock treatment, behavioral engineering, genetics, eugenics, education, media, politics, advertising). The coming together of all these elements does not portend for a bright future.

The theory of evolution is a part of the modern "scientific" view of the world. It takes its place as an ideological forerunner, and along with behavioral psychology, psychiatry, genetics and biochemistry as the current materialistic interpretation of Man which denies Man’s mind. What happened was this. "Science" reacted against religion in the 1800's - partly as a defense against the religious attacks against them, and partially as an attack against what they saw as irrationality. They wanted to allow Man to finally base his thoughts and actions on honest observation, proof, facts, and verifiable evidence - or "science". In their aim to do this, somewhere along the line, the awareness of Man - consciousness and Man's mind - were equated to the realm of things spiritual. The mind of Man became associated with notions of God, spirits, devils and mysticism, largely because its functions and content are invisible to objective observation. Thoughts, imagination, hopes, dreams, purposes, intentions, and all that an individual mind does cannot be perceived or detected outside of the awareness of the person whose mind it is. Since it's "invisible", and the modern scientist demands he addresses only observable things and events, he tossed out the mind of Man along with with God, spirits and devils. The mind of Man is a much different thing than God, devils, or angels. It is a hidden cause because it is invisible. And it does exist. Simply, the "scientific" rendition of reality allows for nothing which cannot be seen, detected, weighed or measured - since the human mind, and all it does, violates this, and even though it is real and every much exists, it was ignored, and remains very much ignored as a part of modern scientific dogma. In a nutshell, modern science "threw out the baby with the bath water". This was and continues to be a very major mistake.

The modern scientific materialist view is as much of the nature of an ideology as any religion ever was or is. Actually though the results are worse, because it doesn't simply assert things which are not true, as they claim religion does, but it denies the existence of something of great importance which is true - the human mind and all it does. This needs to be understood and their influence in this regard erased. This is not only because they harbor arbitrary belief systems and foist them upon the rest of us, but also, and more importantly, because their practices produce so much harm to people and society. The denial of the mind of Man effectively denies Man himself, and this has opened the door to tremendous inhumanity masquerading as its opposite.