Energy And Life From The Stars is reporting on a Nature article

“Astronomers are reporting that organic compounds of unexpected complexity exist throughout the Universe – which means they can be made naturally by stars.

Researchers write in Nature that an organic substance commonly found throughout the Universe contains a mixture of aromatic (ring-like) and aliphatic (chain-like) components, compounds so complex that their chemical structures resemble those of coal and petroleum.”

“Not only are stars producing this complex organic matter, they are also ejecting it into the general interstellar space, the region between stars….”  Here

Going to Wikipedia to research the above mentioned organic substances we find:

“They are also found in the interstellar medium, in comets, and in meteorites and are a candidate molecule to act as a basis for the earliest forms of life.”  Wikipedia  Here  My emphasis

I wonder how this will effect oil and coal research, stellar physics, etc…and further down the road, creationism, earth origins, and so on.
sci fi fantasy Star Wars - Occupy Docking Bay 94
see more

Intelligent Design and Science

Interesting find while surfing this morning. The ID people keep claiming they’re all about science, but the never reveal any.

ISSR Statement on the Concept of ‘Intelligent Design’

The authors of this statement constitute a group set up for the purpose by the Executive Committee of the International Society for Science and Religion. Through a process involving consultation with all members of the Society, the statement has now been accepted by the Executive Committee for publication as a statement made on behalf of the Society.

The International Society for Science and Religion is a scholarly society devoted to ongoing dialogue between the sciences and the community of world faiths.  It was established in 2002 for the purpose of promoting education through the support of interdisciplinary learning and research in the fields of science and religion, conducted where possible in an international and multi-faith context.

The society greatly values modern science, while deploring efforts to drive a wedge between science and religion. Science operates with a common set of methodological approaches that gives freedom to scientists from a range of religious backgrounds to unite in a common endeavor. This approach does not deny the existence of a metaphysical realm but rather opens up the natural world to a range of explorations that have been incredibly productive, especially over the last 400 years or so.

The intelligent-design (ID) movement began in the late 1980s as a challenge to the perceived secularization of the scientific community, which leaders of the movement maintained had been coloured with the philosophy of atheistic naturalism. ID theorists have focused their critique primarily on biological evolution and the neo-Darwinian paradigm. They claim that because certain biological features appear to be “irreducibly complex” and thus incapable of evolving incrementally by natural selection, they must have been created by the intervention of an intelligent designer. Despite this focus on evolution, intelligent design should not be confused with biblical or “scientific” creationism, which relies on a particular interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.

We believe that intelligent design is neither sound science nor good theology. Although the boundaries of science are open to change, allowing supernatural explanations to count as science undercuts the very purpose of science, which is to explain the workings of nature without recourse to religious language.  Attributing complexity to the interruption of natural law by a divine designer is, as some critics have claimed, a science stopper. Besides, ID has not yet opened up a new research program. In the opinion of the overwhelming majority of research biologists, it has not provided examples of “irreducible complexity” in biological evolution that could not be explained as well by normal scientifically understood processes. Students of nature once considered the vertebrate eye to be too complex to explain naturally, but subsequent research has led to the conclusion that this remarkable structure can be readily understood as a product of natural selection. This shows that what may appear to be “irreducibly complex” today may be explained naturalistically tomorrow.

Scientific explanations are always incomplete. We grant that a comprehensive account of evolutionary natural history remains open to complementary philosophical, metaphysical, and religious dimensions. Darwinian natural history does preempt certain accounts of creation, leading, for example, to the contemporary creationist and ID controversies. However, in most instances, biology and religion operate at different and non-competing levels.  In many religious traditions, such as some found in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism, the notion of intelligent design is irrelevant. We recognize that natural theology may be a legitimate enterprise in its own right, but we resist the insistence of intelligent-design advocates that their enterprise be taken as genuine science – just as we oppose efforts of others to elevate science into a comprehensive world view (so-called scientism). See the website: Here

Intelligent design is nearly universally condemned as science and as a concept. Most people recognize it for what it really is; a wedge devise to sneak WASP religion into our school systems. The only support for it is from evangelical fundamentalists, Young Earth Creationist (YEC), and some Old Earth Creationist (OEC).

Now proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) are using ‘Stealth Candidates’ who are running for positions on local and state school boards without declaring or admitting that they will advocate teaching ID in schools when elected. They just don’t get it…and they will try anything, including dishonesty, to achieve their goals. That they would use dishonesty in the furtherance of their religious sect speaks volumes about the true value of their faith.

Most people don’t analyze this battle enough, and don’t seem to realize that the ultimate goal of the religious right is to take over our country and remake it into a religious society; kind of like the Dark Ages in Europe when the Catholics ruled, and the strength and direction of your belief…decided whether you lived or died.  A lot of people don’t realize that the religious right has taken control of the Republican Party.

Cognite tute-think about it/use your head.

For latest post go: Here

more animals</a

Add to Technorati Favorites

Evil, Original Sin, Babies, and God

The writings of Paul, and much of the New Testament (Well actually-mostly Paul), leads one to the belief that the human species is fundamentally flawed, worthless, guilty of sins we didn’t realize we committed, and deserving of condemnation by God. The last I heard the Catholics were even calling unbaptized babies sinful and deserving of punishment. I supposed this is why babies were bashed against walls and dashed to the ground, and occasionally run through with swords in the Old Testament.

Paul entered the pantheon of geniuses when he conceived of the concept of universal sin, or original sin, as we now know it. This concept gave everyone on earth a reason to pay attention to the death of Jesus.

Of course we all know the consequences of original sin, the preachers and ministers all over the world continually remind us. We all die now, something we weren’t going to do when we were created originally…or so they say. Those preachers, pastors, and ministers still haven’t explained all the Neanderthal and pre-historic Homo bones that keep getting themselves found.

We are also guilty of horrible sins that we never committed. Even though we didn’t choose to be born into this earth, and, at least for the first 8 or 10 years are immaculate souls…we deserve to die unless we get religion real quick…so the ministers, pastors, and preachers tell us. I kinda disagree with this whole mess of addled reasoning.

No one has ever chose to be born a human, with the theologically required evil, corrupt, sinful, and incorrigible nature. So for that reason alone original sin does not apply to us, and we are not guilty of, nor deserve punishment for some mythical ‘sin.’ We deserve punishment only for misdeeds we consciously commit. Babies and young children do not deserve the punishment of death for anything, as they have no concept of the kind of sin and misdeeds that these crazy believers in ‘original sin’ think of.

Original sin is a truly crazy concept, and that so many people have believed it for so many years is pure stupidity. It is a monument to incredible ‘chutzpah’ on Paul’s, and the early churches part. And for millions of people to blandly accept the concept and feel guilty for being born and living life is just insane. It boggles my mind.

I think we would be able to blame God for this dilemma, as he was the creator of evil. Someone who eats the fruit of a forbidden tree does not deserve to die. They were newly hatched…and had no concept of right and wrong. Old Testament has no record of God condemning us all to sin. Paul did it, and we have paid for it ever since. We all should tell the pastors, priests, ministers, etc., that the original sin idea or theory…sucks, and needs to be re-examined.

Natural evils and misfortune are brought about by random accidents, flood, forces of nature, things we cannot control, and are not caused by our ordinary decisions or any sinfulness on our part. This is a lie that’s genesis comes from the need of some people to ‘control’ a large part of our lives.

There are golden rules out here that explain all you have to do is treat others as you would wish them to treat you…and the Christians are not the ones who thought of it.

Christians seem to like getting into your face about sin…and they want to be the arbitrators of it to the exclusion of all others.

For latest post go: Here

more animals

Make Me Famous
Add to Technorati Favorites


I have fielded lots of questions about beliefs in God and science. One person in particular had some questions that were similar to ones I hear all the time and that intrigued me. I thought I would make a column.

He writes:
” What do you do with the flaws in your faith-system? Is it adequate to you when the dogma of the last decade is replaced by the new and improved dogma of this decade? Not being negative, just asking. I am curious about how the new knowledge supercedes the old knowledge. And what about those who choose to cling to the old knowledge and call the new stuff heresy? ”

Like all inquiry of a scientific nature, if you put a theory out there, expect an immediate attack by your fellows…in your field. Those that have heavy intellectual baggage in one theory or another will probably give you grief. Those that don’t have hard opinions on your methodology yet OR are investigating something not quite on your target will wait till more evidence comes in. But, ultimately your stuff has to stand up to very close examination, and be repeatable by others, or many leaders in the field need to agree (not an easy thing to achieve). As a scientist you cannot just throw something out there and expect it will immediately be believed as true.

The reasons you are seeing sooo much change nowadays, is that investigational tools, new methods, computer technology, and the shear number of new investigational people is exploding. Like all scientific exploration, new work will have to stand-up to many people critiquing it before it is widely accepted in the community of science. Dating methodology for example has been put through the wringer, and is proven many times over…even though evangelical fundamentalists don’t believe it, and stand on their head trying to prove it wrong, and have been known to lie about the science.

He writes:
“I know the modernization of knowledge is inherent in the scientific inquiry process. If this is the foundation of your belief system, does it sometimes feel like you are standing on shifting sand? (Serious question).”

To the contrary, I feel pretty safe in believing what I do. I have been following science for about 50 years and I have seen the progression of science in the archaeological, and other earth sciences, from immediately disturbing and collecting of everything in sight; to today’s careful, methodical work that returns infinitely more information.

I have seen and followed the combining of different disciplines to attack old problems, people from widely divergent cultures unite and share information and life’s work. In short, I have been witness to an unbelievable explosion of knowledge and unity.

Even when governments and religions are at odds with each other…the scientists of each country and religion continue to work with each other. If anything the scientists are the ones setting the good examples of how to behave towards each other. Differing religions are continually at odds with each other unless science mediates

I feel that the believers in that old Hebrew God myth are the ones standing on quicksand. The basis (old myths and stories that are proven untrue) for their faith is being eroded day by day.

He writes:
“And I am curious about the flaws you have found in the Bible. Is there something I should know about? (Another serious question).”

Well over a hundred inconsistent stories or verses contradicting each other. Some stories being proven totally untrue, known manipulation of the contents of Scripture and the Bible, many anachronisms, wrong interpretations, Paul probably ‘inventing’ the religious theology behind Christianity. I found some independently, but most were found by Biblical scholars.

Jesus was probably a true historical person, but was he magical?

If we’re talking about a real God…the logic that should be evident…is missing. And yes, I can define the logic behind a God. Anyone can…as long as it is real logic.

There are no supernatural or magical forces in the world or universe today. Everything you see follows physical laws, even if we don’t quite know what they are yet.

Probably the most serious flaw is the religion itself. It lacks logic. The belief that a God–that created the whole universe–chooses to only reveal himself only to a wandering tribe of Hebrews, many tens or hundreds of thousands of years after humans evolved, and not tell the rest of the world, and stays mostly hidden to millions of people for such a long time is just silly and illogical. And yes I can define the logic of it.

For latest post go: Here

Add to Technorati Favorites

more cat pictures

Evolution, Flood, Neanderthals

Today’s Evangelical preachers and those who urge that “The Bible is the Accurate Word of God” (Answersingenesis) seem to be repeating a 170-year-old arguments

The Reverend William Buckland, the first professor of geology at Oxford University, rejected a single flood theory in 1837, 22 years before Darwin’s seminal work. He wrote:

Some have attempted to ascribe the formation of all the stratified rocks to the effects of the Mosaic Deluge; an opinion which is irreconcilable with the enormous thickness and almost infinite subdivisions of these strata, and with the numerous and regular successions which they contain of the remains of animals and vegetables, differing more and more widely from existing species, as the strata in which we find them are placed at greater depths. The fact that a large proportion of these remains belong to extinct genera, and almost all of them to extinct species, that lived and multiplied and died on or near the spots where they are now found, shows that the strata in which they occur were deposited slowly and gradually, during long periods of time, and at widely distant intervals.” My emphasis.

Even in 1837 some preachers were trying to tell us that Noah’s flood caused the stratigraphy record. Any person with just a bit of intelligence, and no preconceived notions, can see what Reverend Buckland saw. And yet, the religious right continues to push the same old argument

“In 1996, Jean-Jacques Hublin and colleagues (1996, p. 224) proved that the human remains at Arcy-sur-Cure were Neanderthal. This site is a Chatelperronian site–the Chatelperronian being the earliest Upper Paleolithic technological complex. The importance of this was the association of Neanderthals with personal ornamentation, including pendants and necklaces. The necklace made the cover of Nature magazine. At that time, Hublin et al suggested that Neanderthal had obtained the necklace by means of trade or imitation. The assumption was that Neanderthal could not be intelligent enough to have invented such a symbolic object.” Wrong…see full Article:

Also see: The case of a Neanderthal skull that was carved into a drinking cup. This also has symbolic implications

There is already pretty good info out there that implies Neanderthals were a living, intelligent entity, well before any supposed worldwide flood.

All Neanderthal remains are found WAY below biblical era/supposed flood era relics and artifacts. This fact was noted in the 1800’s when they were first found, but it just doesn’t seem to sink into “Genesis” people and evangelicals. They just continue to deny facts. The evidence sits there, both in the field, and documented in museums.

Everyone in science sees it, understands it, knows it, and goes on with their life. The people that hold on to their superstition have a blind spot in their mind. Their mind just does not register what’s there. It filters through misrepresentations and what comes out is superstition. Any effort to lay out the truth before them is, they think, the work of the devil testing them.

Politicians are reaching out to suck up that power.

They are succeeding.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Intelligent Design…Isn’t


To advance their anti-science and anti-secularism agenda, ID creationists at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture seek to use public schools “to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies,” “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God,” and to “see design theory (Intelligent Design) permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life” (Discovery Institute, 1998).

Do American’s really want this in their public schools? Do we really want to start closing down the blossoming minds of our children and sucking our civilization down to the level of some theistic societies in the Middle East?

Most of the sciences have as their ultimate truth that nature, not God, is the driving force behind the physical world. Can you imagine a science class in lets say archeology. “Well teacher I know that the earth is only 6,000 years old, but the dinosaurs don’t seem to have left any traces along with human remains. We find human bones only in the top levels of earth strata and the dinosaur bones seem to be MANY years lower. At this point we can only surmise that God has separated them for some purpose that is a mystery to us, and that He may reveal to us in his own good time.”

An article in the journal Science, one of the world’s most respected scientific publications says that among 34 countries surveyed, the US ranks second to last in the number of adults who accept the theory of evolution. “The acceptance of evolution is lower in the US than in Japan or Europe, largely because of widespread fundamentalism and the politicization of science in the United States” (2006).

In a 1998 document entitled “The Wedge,” known informally as the “Wedge Document”

(Discovery Institute, 1998; Forrest and Gross, 2004a, 2007a, ch. 2). Using the metaphor of a metal wedge that can split a log, the ID movement aims to use aggressive public relations programs of book publication, lectures, etc., to create an opening for the supernatural (i.e. Magic) in the public’s understanding of science.

The various sciences are today progressing at a record rate, providing the means to enhance human life in many ways. The US cannot afford to allow Intelligent Design, fundamentalist thought, evangelical proponents, or any of the thousand and one religious right groups to hijack our school systems. We need scientifically trained minds as never before in history. Our low level of scientific literacy in the American public is shameful for a nation that has heretofore led the world.