The Futility of Creationism

Today’s Christianity is a highly modified version of a violent oppressive ideology. After Constantine legalized the religion in the 4th century CE, humanity was treated to torture, oppression, burning at the stake for witches and heretics, the enslavement of women to repeated childbirth, un-divorceable husbands, and a second hand existence, the use of fear of being condemned to Hell as a means of control. The Mother Church greedily sucked up the wealth of the people and countries they operated in, and was to become the richest single institution in the world.  Some of the Popes and other church leaders and priests of the time were so evil and greedy you would think they were in league with a devil, not serving a God.

Over the last hundred years or so Christianity has totally reinvented itself as it realized its bad behavior in the past has alienated the churches from its paying customers.  Nowadays the Church is all about upbeat music, smiles and generally a good atmosphere and attitude.  In only a few quarters is the old fire and brimstone, hell-bound damnation still preached. Today’s rising tide of knowledge and scientific achievement is eating away at the foundational myths and old stories of the Bible and thus the religion itself.  Over the last 20 years or so a right-wing group of fundamentalists has tried to stop the erosion of what it considers a inerrant Bible by denying and lying and making up “science” to try to disprove the real science that disproves their Bible.

The creationists and Intelligent Design lackeys of today are recruiting Master’s and Doctoral candidates in the sciences and bribing those that they can to testify on behalf of religion…making up theories and boldly lying about science in their field.  They never publish in the real science journals, they have no peer reviewed papers to support their “work”, and they only have half-assed theories that are easily dismissed by real scientists in their field.  There is currently no “science” or “scientific theories” by any creationist or ID’ist that has made any real contribution to human knowledge…Its all bogus or junk science.

Hopefully this is the dying gasp of an institution that has outlasted its usefulness—that is if it ever was useful.

Ah..look at all  my minions
see more Political Pictures

Advertisements

About the word of me
Interested in family and friends,grandchildren, photography, darkrooms, history, archaeology, scuba diving, computers, software, fast cars, journalism, writing, travel, ecology, news, science, and probably most other subjects you could think of. Did I mention family and friends?? I require iced tea or cold brewed coffee and a internet connection to be fully functional. Sometimes there are just so many words in my head they spill out.

11 Responses to The Futility of Creationism

  1. churchmouse says:

    The Roman Catholic Church teaches theistic evolution and has done since 1950:

    http://www.zenit.org/article-24121?l=english

    The Anglican Communion, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, World Lutheran Federation, United Methodist Church and Presbyterian Church USA also support the teaching of theistic evolution.

  2. Ben says:

    Recently an Italian Evolutionary Biologist, suggested that if evolution theory were to be replaced, then it would have to be a better working model.Could it be that the interesting and revolutionary scientific hypothesis,present in Intelligent Design Message from the Designer be that alternative? This hypothesis answers many question in a much bigger picture:

    1) that allows for a logical explanation for the real agenda behind the appearances of the Ufos, over the millennia and especially since 1945,
    2) a sensible explanation for the original intent behind all the world religions.
    3)a better working scientific model than the theory of evolution.One simply changes the evidence of progressive design ,evidenced by the theory of evolution for the progressive evolution of design, by advanced science – much quicker than nature against a backdrop, of their having been many humanities on this very ancient planet ,which have disappeared for the self-evident reasons we an see today. With this hypothests we have an expansion of the time frame of the Bible and a contraction of the time frame of evolution theory for the development time of a human race
    With the theory of Evolution what scientists have done is retro engineer what has taken much more advanced scientists the time to create.In the same way that Darwin was not exactly popular with the then established religion, so with this theory there will also be resistance from the current ‘religion’ of the theory of Evolution.Maybebe this should be called Evolution II? Rather like putting the theory of evolution in a ‘ microwave’, it happens much quicker with the intervention of science. Surely it is not unimaginable for our scientists to progressively engineer more a more complex organisms? In time should our humanity not self-desruct ,science will eventually create man ‘ in their own image..’ and become like those who came from the sky so long ago and were mistaken for Gods. Then the buckle will be closed.Seems an excellent compromise between the Evolution perspective and that of all the world religions.
    If this is science fiction then, within the context of this hypothesis, so are the dangers of nuclear war, over-population and environmental degradation and for that matter the subject of Ufos. Further even if it were science fiction, would make a brilliant film! Cannot understand why the filmindustry is so slow to take this up.

  3. Remmeber when we spoke about how religious/theological individuals shouldn’t be attempting to address scientific theories and adapting them to religious beliefs? We also shouldn’t have scientific mined individuals attempting to make sweeping generalizations in areas of history and in particular religion.

    It would help if you site your source when you make these claims. I never know if your picking this stuff up from a religious book who has an axe to grind against the church or what.

    “Constantine legalized the religion in the 4th century CE”

    QB: Sorry the correct term is A.D. not CE. You can argue that it should be reset to have 3 BC as the mid-point, but CE that’s just pushing a PC agenda;>)

    1)” humanity was treated to torture,

    QB: One gets the impression that the church had an army in the 4th century. Remember that the fall of Rome was in the 5th century.

    Remember that the inquisition didn’t start until the very late 15th century. The Muslims controlled Spain from the 8th to 15th century. In the dark ages the church was still having to survive against pagan hordes.

    “burning at the stake for witches and heretics”

    QB: Sorry source please. Your likely mixing the protestant reformers with the Catholic church on this one.

    An example of what the Catholic church in England did :
    The English Confessional of Egbert said, in part: “If a woman works witchcraft and enchantment and [uses] magical philters, she shall fast for twelve months…If she kills anyone by her philters, she shall fast for seven years.” Fasting, in this case, involved consuming only bread and water.

    The majority of witch burning as most people think of it occurred in the 16th century and in areas under the Reformers control not the Catholic church.

    ” the enslavement of women to repeated childbirth”

    QB: Ok where in the heck did this come from? Name any other institution prior to the enlightenment who educated women, permitted them to be leaders of hospitals, schools, orphanages, an nunneries? Women (generalized) had about 10 kids because
    1) 50% of them died prior to or at child birth
    2) of the 5 that remained 40 to 60% died prior to reaching age 10
    3) so you needed to have a lot of kids to support your tenant farm and the human race
    It’s not like the male had it easy. Stats prove that up until the 19th century 85% of an individuals time was spent of getting the essentials of life (food, clothing and shelter).

    ” un-divorceable husbands and a second hand existence,”

    Again this is absurd. The church was protecting women not enslaving them. I think your transferring modern society safety nets for women back into the past. If a man divorced a women and abandoned her back then, she would died within the year in most cases. She couldn’t vote, didn’t own any land, no professional skills, no education(unless she was of noble birth). It was a means to protect women and children. The enlightened state wasn’t going to provided for them.

    “the use of fear of being condemned to Hell as a means of control. ‘

    When you disprove that there is no afterlife we can talk.

    “The Mother Church greedily sucked up the wealth of the people and countries they operated in, and was to become the richest single institution in the world. ”

    Yes the church was very greedy building all those houses of worship. Ever check out how the economic engine of the middle ages. Those that built cathedrals in ended up creating wealth for the community? Stone cutters, flax, carpenters, artist, masons etc. All those orphanages (the place where all those suppressed women the church hated went to for food, clothing and shelter, when their husbands left them) or the colleges and universities it build or the defensive forts it build to protect the community from Huns and Vikings etc. Peasants where not protected by the king, but by the church.

    “Some of the Popes and other church leaders and priests of the time were so evil and greedy you would think they were in league with a devil, not serving a God.’

    Indeed some where.

  4. Ben says:

    My understanding of the origin of the word religion is ligere – to tie a knot, re-ligere – a linked understanding, religere-religion. So today’s ‘linked understanding, or ‘religion’ is de facto science. Problem with science is it is so compartmentalised and specialsed. While specialisation is important one also needs a holistic and multi-disciplinary approach as well in order to understand the big picture this ‘ ‘sweeping generalisation of history’ hypothesis, presents. No this is not about adapting adapting a scientific hypothesis to the religions.It is more about building a new bridge of understanding between the two opposing views of humanity’s origins, and allows them both to some degree to be partly correct. Here one has to have both and enquiring mind about history and all forty of the world religions and at the same time an understanding of the theory of evolution and an awareness of the future capabilities of science particularly genetics. Finally an awareness of the notion of there being levels of science, much more advanced than ours, in other solar systems. Ultimately this hypothesis is about the spiritualisantion of science. Here we can still respect the ORIGINAL teachings of all the prophets but in a 21st century scientific context.

  5. thewordofme says:

    Hi churchmouse, thanks for writing.

    I have wrote of the Catholic Church and mainline n0n fundamentalist Protestants recognizing evolution in several of my past posts going back a year or two…sorry I did not repeat the same info in this post.

    The early church was of course just Catholic and they didn’t really mend their ways until sometimes in the 1900s

    twom

  6. thewordofme says:

    Hi Ben, thanks for writing.

    You write:
    “Recently an Italian Evolutionary Biologist, suggested that if evolution theory were to be replaced, then it would have to be a better working model…”

    Well, ask any evolutionary biologists here in the US if they think the fact of evolution should be replaced. I predict that the answer will be no…and the reason for that is that after 150 years of being recognized and used it has only gotten stronger.

    If you examine the statement of the Italian scientists he says: “If” it were to be replaced, he’s not saying it should be. And he says that it would have to be a “better” model which can be taken two ways. The one he is probably thinking of is: “What we have is pretty darn good…anything wanting to replace it would have to be much better.”

    The overwhelming majority of biologists (over 98%) passionately believe in Darwin…sorry.

    You write:
    “Could it be that the interesting and revolutionary scientific hypothesis, present in Intelligent Design Message from the Designer be that alternative? This hypothesis answers many question in a much bigger picture”

    One trouble here—Intelligent Design is not science, never was. It is a off-shoot of Creationism and is using magic as an explanation of our world…magic is not science.

    Also ID has not done any science at all; there are no peer reviewed and published papers or scholarly books and actual predictive lab work…all it is is a theory that has no work or science behind it. It is so far below the fact of evolution that no one except religious zealots accepts it in any way.

    I follow Carl Sagan theory of UFO’s…there is absolutely no HARD evidence for them…until such evidence comes in I reserve judgment.

    You write:
    “A sensible explanation for the original intent behind all the world religions…”

    There was a time long ago when humanity was still in childhood and needed explanations for things. We didn’t have the explanatory power of science available to us and the world was pretty scary. Considering that many people have the God gene and need something to lay their troubles onto and give them a hope for a better life…gods were inevitable.

    You write
    “…a better working scientific model than the theory of evolution. One simply changes the evidence of progressive design, evidenced by the theory of evolution for the progressive evolution of design, by advanced science – much quicker than nature against a backdrop, of their having been many humanities on this very ancient planet ,which have disappeared for the self-evident reasons we an see today. With this hypothests we have an expansion of the time frame of the Bible and a contraction of the time frame of evolution theory for the development time of a human race.

    Well the fact of evolution is pretty well established in science and there are not many (except those few who somehow can carry two totally conflicting beliefs in their head) who see any need to change it since it has so much explanatory power and is, in fact, true. I think if you research it enough you will find that the 4.5 billion year age of the earth is actually true.

    Just sayin’

    twom

  7. thewordofme says:

    Hi Ben, thanks again for writing.

    You write:
    “My understanding of the origin of the word religion is ligere – to tie a knot, re-ligere – a linked understanding, religere-religion. So today’s ‘linked understanding, or ‘religion’ is de facto science.

    Religion is in no way science…science does not believe in magic or the supernatural and religion does…in fact religion falls apart if there is no magic.

    The Christians, Jew’s, and Muslim’s all believe in the same deity floating around in space somewhere, who can use magic to create and control things by just thinking…science is all about the natural world, no magic allowed.

    You write:
    “Problem with science is it is so compartmentalized and specialized…”

    Yes, that’s one of the things that makes it so effective at solving the problems it undertakes. The really good stuff comes from different specialties being compared and new information being synthesized from the two. Comparing archaeological findings to Biblical writings comes to mind easily. For example archaeologists have been looking for over a hundred years for evidence in the Sinai Desert that a million plus Jews traveled there for forty years…they have been unable to find scrap one…nothing, i.e. the Bible story is probably a myth.

    Archaeologists, geologists, paleontologists, DNA sciences, and a few other specialties have determined that modern type humans have been living on earth for about 200,000 years…thus no Adam and Eve as depicted in the Bible. Note that this can also cause many other problems for a strictly Biblical viewpoint of history.

    You write:
    “While specialization is important one also needs a holistic and multi-disciplinary approach as well in order to understand the big picture this “sweeping generalization of history” hypothesis, presents. No this is not about adapting a scientific hypothesis to the religions. It is more about building a new bridge of understanding between the two opposing views of humanity’s origins, and allows them both to some degree to be partly correct.”

    While I respect your trying to bring about some degree of cohesion in the different outlooks about life, I must say that I believe there is no way to bring the disparate elements together.

    Religion depends on magic…science says there is no such thing…and I believe science on this matter.

    You write:
    “Here one has to have both and enquiring mind about history and all forty of the world religions and at the same time an understanding of the theory of evolution and an awareness of the future capabilities of science particularly genetics.”

    I research history all the time; it’s one of my favorite subjects. I have seriously researched religion for the last two or three years, and can see spending many, many more years in it.

    You write:
    “ Finally an awareness of the notion of there being levels of science, much more advanced than ours, in other solar systems. Ultimately this hypothesis is about the spiritualization of science. Here we can still respect the ORIGINAL teachings of all the prophets but in a 21st century scientific context.”

    I have an awareness that there “may be” others out there…but it is by no means settled that there are.

    twom

  8. thewordofme says:

    Hi Quickbeamoffangorn, thanks for dropping by.

    It is always a pleasure to have you comment here.

    You write:
    “Remember when we spoke about how religious/theological individuals shouldn’t be attempting to address scientific theories and adapting them to religious beliefs? We also shouldn’t have scientific mined individuals attempting to make sweeping generalizations in areas of history and in particular religion.”

    Sorry sir, I just can’t seem to control myself…:-)

    You write:
    “It would help if you site your source when you make these claims. I never know if you’re picking this stuff up from a religious book who has an axe to grind against the church or what.”

    I really try to not do that Qboa. Most stuff I usually have two different sources for, and remember I am not a scientist so I usually forget to cite sources, not purposely, but out of dumbness. I’ll try hard to reform my work habits.

    “QB: Sorry the correct term is A.D. not CE. You can argue that it should be reset to have 3 BC as the mid-point, but CE that’s just pushing a PC agenda;>)”

    Yeah…I like AD (have used it most of the time) better myself; I just thought I would step up to the 21st. century. OK I’ll take the hint…BC and AD it is.

    “QB: One gets the impression that the church had an army in the 4th century. Remember that the fall of Rome was in the 5th century.”

    In a sense the Church did have an army…the Roman Empire and Emperor in the beginning and by the time the Empire was defeated Christianity was deeply entrenched, and I believe that one of the leaders of the evil hoards that sacked Rome was an incipient Christian. At any rate by the 500’s AD the Church was very powerful and as you say they were in bed together with the local kings, princes, sheriffs, etc. and basically controlled (in many, not all ways) most peasants and peons.

    Twom: “burning at the stake for witches and heretics”

    QB: Sorry source please. You’re likely mixing the protestant reformers with the Catholic Church on this one.

    And:
    “The majority of witch burning as most people think of it occurred in the 16th century and in areas under the Reformers control not the Catholic church.”

    In 500 C.E. the Salic Law recognized witches’ right to practice, and in 643 an edict declared it illegal to persecute witches.(1) In 785, the Synod of Paderborn said anyone who killed a witch must be executed.(2) Scriptures available at that time apparently did not contain what is possibly the bible’s bloodiest passage, Exodus 22:18: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” We are not sure when that passage was written, but it seems to have NOT been regarded as God’s law until 1390 in France, when witchcraft was first declared a crime.(3)

    The Inquisition was empowered by Pope John XXII to prosecute anyone who worked magic (a practice that anyone who truly knows there is a real God would know is not true), as opposed to the heretics who had been largely exterminated by the Albigensian, Waldensian, and other crusades. In 1375, a French inquisitor lamented that all the rich heretics had been eliminated, their wealth having been appropriated by the church, and now it was “a pity that so salutary an institution” as the Inquisition should not have a future.(8) The solution was found in declaring witchcraft a demonic heresy.
    English law tolerated witches up to the reign of James I, the Renaissance equivalent of a “born again” national leader. The infamous Witchcraft Act was instituted in his time.(4)

    A history of the Inquisition, written by a Catholic scholar in 1909, said the church “invented the crime of witchcraft and relied on torture as the means of proving it.” The official handbook of the Inquisition was the Malleus Maleficarum, “A Hammer for Witches,” written by two monks, minutely detailing the techniques of torture.(5)

    Pope Innocent VIII “infallibly” declared in his bull Summis desiderantes that witches magically injure crops, domestic animals, and people, and in general “outrage the Divine Majesty.” (6)

    Remember that ALL of the witch trials were prosecuting something that NEVER existed, and the Church should have known this if they were in contact with God…which they claimed to be. I posit that this is one more fatal error of Christianity.

    The witch burning and torture went on for about 400 years…from the 14th. Century to the 18th. And although the Church only admits to “a few hundred thousand” killings, some secular scholars advise that multiple millions were probably tortured and exterminated.

    Twom:” the enslavement of women to repeated childbirth”

    QB: Ok where in the heck did this come from?

    Jesus and Paul were tolerant of women in higher positions and the early church as a whole was, however it seems that after the Romans (Constantine) officially recognized the Church that the role of women was downgraded from that moment on. If a person or persons are continually treated evilly and not allowed freedoms like we enjoy nowadays and are keep under thumb at all times they have no other choices, nor chances, to build support networks, such as theoretically possible for a church to provide in those early times.

    If you are NOT allowed the freedom to walk alone, divorce, refuse sex, or babies, to have an education, vote, own property, or even congregate if leaders decide not, and the whole male society considers females to be property to be used in any manner they choose…of course they need protecting under those circumstances, but remember the Church put them there by using scripture from the Bible. The power was utilized for near two thousand years by Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike.

    If the Church was inspired by a God who really cared for humanity, where was the real help, the help that lifts up not keeps you down? Killing a few million women…or even a few hundred thousand…is not a help to women, or humanity in general.

    I have admitted that the Church has been sometimes a real help to us, but when it does stupid things like burn witches and heretics and blasphemers…I know deep in my heart that this is not of a God. If there is a God and he allows this in His Church…He is bogus…not to be followed. My logic is simplistic I know, but I believe that it is perfectly sound.

    Qb: “Women (generalized) had about 10 kids because…..”

    I realize that early birth rates were horrible, seems God decided to NOT pass on ‘germ theory’ to His poor souls here on earth. And of course He loosened all those diseases and viruses and let Jesus (God?), and others, believe that they were caused by evil spirits or demons and that a prophet could cast them out.

    You write:
    “Yes the church was very greedy building all those houses of worship. Ever check out how the economic engine of the middle ages. Those that built cathedrals in ended up creating wealth for the community. Stone cutters, flax, carpenters, artist, masons, etc. All those orphanages (the place where all those suppressed women the church hated went to for food, clothing and shelter, when their husbands left them) or the colleges and universities it build or the defensive forts it build to protect the community from Huns and Vikings etc. Peasants where not protected by the king, but by the church.

    By building all those churches and cathedrals they were increasing their wealth also. I don’t at this time know the details of Church finances…that is on my to-do list though.

    I didn’t say the Church hated women (although I’ve wondered from time to time) I say the Church has been instrumental in their virtual slavery in the past and to a sometimes large degree still…Muslims mostly now.

    The church my wife belongs to now does not allow female clergy and insists that women are subservient to men in many ways…she accepts it, but it bothers me. My male friends say “shut up dummy” 🙂

    Salic Law
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salic_law

    Synod of Paderborn
    http://books.google.com/books?id=7CIUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA729&lpg=PA729&dq=Synod+of+Paderborn&source=bl&ots=MxEQKKHePA&sig=GIYxuADIHB4AY-dYdUWa89h6QmM&hl=en&ei=Vb7CSu2RM4nKsAOD7KXBAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage q=Synod%20of%20Paderborn&f=false

    1.Tannahill, Reay. Flesh and Blood. New York: Stein & Day, 1975, pp. 96-97
    2. Castiglioni, Arturo. Adventures of the Mind. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1946, p. 233
    3. Robbins, Rossell Hope. Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology. New York: Crown Publishers, 1959, p. 209
    4. Knight, Richard Payne. The Symbolical Language of Ancient Art and Mythology. New York: J.W. Bouton, 1892, p. 207
    5. Robbins, op. cit., p. 9, 271
    6. Masters, R.E.L. Eros and Evil. New York: Julian Press, 1962, p. Xxvi
    7. Robbins, op. cit., 219
    8. Ibid., p. 8 Sorry, got out of order on this one.

  9. Ben says:

    Hi Twom thankyou for responding

    You write:
    “Recently an Italian Evolutionary Biologist, suggested that if evolution theory were to be replaced, then it would have to be a better working model…”

    Well, ask any evolutionary biologists here in the US if they think the fact of evolution should be replaced. I predict that the answer will be no…and the reason for that is that after 150 years of being recognized and used it has only gotten stronger. Not a question of so much replacing evolution but understanding a new concept whic unlike evolution includes a sensible understanding that addresses both the scientific origins of our humanity and the religious perspectives.

    If you examine the statement of the Italian scientists he says: “If” it were to be replaced, he’s not saying it should be. And he says that it would have to be a “better” model which can be taken two ways. The one he is probably thinking of is: “What we have is pretty darn good…anything wanting to replace it would have to be much better.”

    BEN
    This is much better because it synchronises so many different issues into a much larger picture, in the time frame we are in NOW.

    TWOM
    You write:
    The overwhelming majority of biologists (over 98%) passionately believe in Darwin…sorry.
    BEN
    Yes they may believe in Darwin, and I do as well, as far as it goes, and I think his theory is excellent because it provides the part of the template for this new hypothesis, which includes a very useful and relevant argument in the world today.We can respect the past in a new way without living in it. Great theory but what is it’s relevance to dealing with real issues in the world today. One can hardly imagine someone like Dawkins being asked to a Middleast peace conference? Just imagine he is trying to explain to those present at such an event, ” …gentlemen there is no God so you do not need to fight about the past, we are simply the descendant of monkeys….”. I doubt if he would leave the conference …….!!!! So here we have an argument which allows for compromise where a sensible explantion is offered for the intent behind ALL the world religions, simply different people contacted at different times with the SAME message designed for the level of the society at the time. Purpose to help precipitate a capacity within our humanity AS A WHOLE to survive this scientifically predictable point in time when we would develope nuclear technology.This is nodal to the understanding of this hypothesis.If you believe that as one scientist said to me , ‘ they said that about gunpowder 500 years ago’. My answer to him was something like you need a reality check on the danger of nuclear weapons.There is no comparison. I believe Dawkins at some point argues how the dangers of nuclear weapons being used by religious fundamentalists. Well this is obviously a serious danger.However you can hardly appeal to a religious fundamentalist on the ground that there is no god and that evolution theory is the answer.One has to have a better argument in order to help neutralise religious fundamentalism.This in my opinion provides just that and a step forward from the Darwinian argument.
    TWOM
    You write:
    “Could it be that the interesting and revolutionary scientific hypothesis, present in Intelligent Design Message from the Designer be that alternative? This hypothesis answers many question in a much bigger picture”

    One trouble here—Intelligent Design is not science, never was. It is a off-shoot of Creationism and is using magic as an explanation of our world…magic is not science. This is not about magic but about the scientific reality of what our scientists are about to do and likely to do do in the future.

    Also ID has not done any science at all; there are no peer reviewed and published papers or scholarly books and actual predictive lab work…all it is is a theory that has no work or science behind it. It is so far below the fact of evolution that no one except religious zealots accepts it in any way.
    BEN
    No there are no peer reviewed papers yet, but that does not preclude it from being brought into the scientific arena.This hypothesis offers a connection between science and creationism

    TWOM
    I follow Carl Sagan theory of UFO’s…there is absolutely no HARD evidence for them…until such evidence comes in I reserve judgment.

    BEN
    Absence of evidence is no evidence of absence.This hypothesis provides a a useful start to addressing the issue of what ET wants.We as a humanity are under onservation by at least the scientists who engineered us and probaly of interest to other scientifically advanced societies.The hypothesis allows for what they are waiting for….for our humanity to either ‘cook ourselves or prove ourselves..(270000 nuclear weapons)we are on our own but not alone. If you were an advanced scientist, from another solar system, would you want to come down onto a planet where people are still killing each other, let alone complete strangers? You say there is no hard evidence, well here we have to look at many issues. There is plenty of video evidence and photgraphs both military and non- military on the net.There are the increasing number of testimonies from astonauts and ex senior military people. This hypothesis provides a framework where we can start to address precisely what does ET want. In the same way as a doctor and nurses are waiting for the birth of a child , they cannot change the DNA of the baby, it is on it’s way and they have to wait. until the child, that is our humanity, is ‘ born’ so to speak. or as in the cas e of a nuclear war , ‘ still-born’. It is the convergence of the three main issues, Nuclear weapons, population and environment that are the pillars of this argument.One looks at humanity as a whole and developing ‘organism’. Once one understands the hypothesis, then one can start to understand the function of the religions.
    TWOM
    You write:
    “A sensible explanation for the original intent behind all the world religions…”

    There was a time long ago when humanity was still in childhood and needed explanations for things. We didn’t have the explanatory power of science available to us and the world was pretty scary. Considering that many people have the God gene and need something to lay their troubles onto and give them a hope for a better life…gods were inevitable.
    BEN
    Yes we are all ‘ religious creatures, we need something to believe in . May people believe in the old ideas in the past and many believe in Darwin’s theory. However at the end of the day there has to be some compromise, where we can respect the past without living in it and believe in the future of science.and it’s capabilities in the hand of wise scientists. It is just a question of letting go a little and considering this hypothesis alongside the two prevailing explanations as to our origins. Our level of science is primitive compared to the level of the science that engineered our paricualr humanity. We are but like children putting their hands through the playpen in this argument. What we are dealing with here is the artificial evolution of design.

    Traces of evidence are in ALL the religious texts. One simply has to put in the effort to look for this.Our ancestors were intelligent but conceptually primitive.I mean that for example if you could travel back say to 2000 years ago with a mobile phone, people would be in fear of you.They just would not understand.Even say 40 years ago people would be impressed. Yet today one takes such devices for granted. Was there not in the recent past where USA was delivering food to natives on an island .They were so awestruck by these benevolent visitors, that they started a religion. ( The Cargo Cults)So you have to re-examine both historical and religious texts to find that information that supports this hypothesis. T
    TWOM
    You write
    “…a better working scientific model than the theory of evolution. One simply changes the evidence of progressive design, evidenced by the theory of evolution for the progressive evolution of design, by advanced science – much quicker than nature against a backdrop, of their having been many humanities on this very ancient planet ,which have disappeared for the self-evident reasons we an see today. With this hypothests we have an expansion of the time frame of the Bible and a contraction of the time frame of evolution theory for the development time of a human race.
    TWOM
    Well the fact of evolution is pretty well established in science and there are not many (except those few who somehow can carry two totally conflicting beliefs in their head) who see any need to change it since it has so much explanatory power and is, in fact, true. I think if you research it enough you will find that the 4.5 billion year age of the earth is actually true.
    BEN
    Yes the planet is indeed very old but there have been many human races that have dissppeared for the self-evident reasons we can undersatnd TODAY

    Just sayin’

    twom

    thewordofme // September 29, 2009 at 5:59 PM | Reply

    Hi Ben, thanks again for writing.

    You write:
    “My understanding of the origin of the word religion is ligere – to tie a knot, re-ligere – a linked understanding, religere-religion. So today’s ‘linked understanding, or ‘religion’ is de facto science.
    TWOM
    Religion is in no way science…science does not believe in magic or the supernatural and religion does…in fact religion falls apart if there is no magic.
    BEN
    Science is a linked understanding.With his hypothesis I would argue that the scientificunderstanding provides a greater ‘magic’ than that of the old religions.
    TWOM
    The Christians, Jew’s, and Muslim’s all believe in the same deity floating around in space somewhere, who can use magic to create and control things by just thinking…science is all about the natural world, no magic allowed.
    BEN
    Yes science is about the natural world and man can influence nature, ever more so
    TWOM
    You write:
    “Problem with science is it is so compartmentalized and specialized…”

    Yes, that’s one of the things that makes it so effective at solving the problems it undertakes. The really good stuff comes from different specialties being compared and new information being synthesized from the two. Comparing archaeological findings to Biblical writings comes to mind easily. For example archaeologists have been looking for over a hundred years for evidence in the Sinai Desert that a million plus Jews traveled there for forty years…they have been unable to find scrap one…nothing, i.e. the Bible story is probably a myth.
    BEN
    I do not believe the Bible story is a myth nor are the other religious texts.We simply have to learn to re-examine them in the light of modern science
    TWOM
    Archaeologists, geologists, paleontologists, DNA sciences, and a few other specialties have determined that modern type humans have been living on earth for about 200,000 years…thus no Adam and Eve as depicted in the Bible. Note that this can also cause many other problems for a strictly Biblical viewpoint of history.
    BEN
    I believe from this hypotheis, contained in Intelligent Design Message from the Designers that there was an original ‘Adam’ or Adapa some 13200 years ago and then there was the Adam of the Bible some 1654 years before the flood which in this understanding was artificial and took place about 3800 BC, Here we have an explantion for the Sumerians appearing out of nowhere, when those who came from the sky elected to restart this master-epic, on the basis that if our humanity was dangerous it would ultimately self-destruct
    TWOM
    You write:
    “While specialization is important one also needs a holistic and multi-disciplinary approach as well in order to understand the big picture this “sweeping generalization of history” hypothesis, presents. No this is not about adapting a scientific hypothesis to the religions. It is more about building a new bridge of understanding between the two opposing views of humanity’s origins, and allows them both to some degree to be partly correct.”
    TWOM

    While I respect your trying to bring about some degree of cohesion in the different outlooks about life, I must say that I believe there is no way to bring the disparate elements together.
    BEN
    Thankyou, but I believe this hypothesis can bring these things together

    TWOM
    Religion depends on magic…science says there is no such thing…and I believe science on this matter.
    BEN
    What was magic for our ancestors is not for us today. Mobiles phone would seem like magic thousands of years ago. We have to learn to replace the ‘magic’ of mysticism, with the ‘magic’ of understanding’
    TWOM
    You write:
    “Here one has to have both and enquiring mind about history and all forty of the world religions and at the same time an understanding of the theory of evolution and an awareness of the future capabilities of science particularly genetics.”

    I research history all the time; it’s one of my favorite subjects. I have seriously researched religion for the last two or three years, and can see spending many, many more years in it.
    BEN
    I love history too and I agree I have spent many years researching the past in an attempt to find evidence for this hypothesis
    TWOM
    You write:
    “ Finally an awareness of the notion of there being levels of science, much more advanced than ours, in other solar systems. Ultimately this hypothesis is about the spiritualization of science. Here we can still respect the ORIGINAL teachings of all the prophets but in a 21st century scientific context.”

    I have an awareness that there “may be” others out there…but it is by no means settled that there are.
    BEN
    I agree it is by no means settled but we have to be ready when this is officially announced.Not I might add a ‘faked’ ET invasion from the powers that be, in order to herd humanity into a NWO,but the genuine article

  10. Twom,

    Sorry it took so long to respond.

    TWOM: In a sense the Church did have an army…the Roman Empire and Emperor in the beginning and by the time the Empire was defeated Christianity was deeply entrenched.

    QB: Nope see this is where it gets muddy for most. The Roman Empire left Rome & went to Constantinople. The pope didn’t have any army and all of Italy was bankrupt. Eastern Orthodoxy (or what would become Orthodoxy) was involved with the Byzantine Empire.

    TWOM: At any rate by the 500’s AD the Church was very powerful and as you say they were in bed together with the local kings, princes, sheriffs, etc. and basically controlled (in many, not all ways) most peasants and peons.

    QB: Nope. In fact the Byzantine Emperor threw the then Pope dragged out of church, beaten and imprisoned. They would have been at war had the pope had an army but they didn’t.

    TWOM: The Inquisition was empowered by Pope John XXII to prosecute anyone who worked magic (a practice that anyone who truly knows there is a real God would know is not true)

    QB: Not at all. If one believes that there is a spiritual realm, then those working magic are attempting to utilize the evil spiritual forces of the world. I grant that a person shouldn’t be tortured for casting spells(which don’t have any material affect).

    TWOM: “Pope Innocent VIII “infallibly” declared in his bull Summis desiderantes that witches magically injure crops, domestic animals, and people, and in general “outrage the Divine Majesty.” (6)

    QB: The problem with the source your using is that its subject is -The Sexual Psychopathology of Witchcraft. The opinion of that author is that the popes bull is infallible; however that’s not the case at all. There is no theological truth proposed, its a disciplinary measure to prevent further spread of Christians engaging in witchcraft. One could argue that the state should not permit the church this authority, but such authority was given to them back then.

    TWOM: And although the Church only admits to “a few hundred thousand” killings, some secular scholars advise that multiple millions were probably tortured and exterminated.

    QB: We went over this before recall or if you like simply google in Black legend. There was political and religious conflicts which helped the British in their wars with France and Spain to spin those figures. If you have modern 20th century scholars that agree with those figures I’d like to see them. I think you’ll find they’d all utilize secondary sources from previous centuries.

    TWOM: Jesus and Paul were tolerant of women in higher positions and the early church as a whole was, however it seems that after the Romans (Constantine) officially recognized the Church that the role of women was downgraded from that moment on.

    QB: Note that Jesus selected only male Apostles not females. Constantine simply prohibited Christians from being killed. He didn’t make it the official state religion and exclude other faiths.

    TWOM: If you are NOT allowed the freedom to walk alone, divorce, refuse sex, or babies, to have an education, vote, own property, or even congregate if leaders decide not, and the whole male society considers females to be property to be used in any manner they choose…of course they need protecting under those circumstances, but remember the Church put them there by using scripture from the Bible. The power was utilized for near two thousand years by Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike.

    QB: You realize that the concept of a nation-state didn’t come about until 18th century. Empires ruled prior to that and the concept of private property (something the church supported) was rejected by the kings. People couldn’t afford to get an education survival was the only priority 85% of the time. The concept of leisure time was unthinkable except for perhaps a handful of individuals.

    TWOM: I realize that early birth rates were horrible, seems God decided to NOT pass on ‘germ theory’ to His poor souls here on earth. And of course He loosened all those diseases and viruses and let Jesus (God?), and others, believe that they were caused by evil spirits or demons and that a prophet could cast them out.

    QB: Actually God didn’t do that. That was caused by the fall of man by their free will.
    You could complain about God providing us all with free will, but then your endorsing slavery;>)

  11. Aleksey says:

    @theworldofme: You said “The early church was of course just Catholic and they didn’t really mend their ways until sometimes in the 1900s”.

    Do not mix the Early Church with the Catholic Church, those are two distinct things, at least according to the Orthodox Church.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: