Maggie's Farm

Darwin's Doubt.
The story is a stretch. You can see evolution we even practice it. Evolution isn't in doubt or arguable. But think through the implications of "intelligent" design. "Intelligent" as in
evolved to a high degree of intelligence. Or maybe it just happened one day when thousands of atoms clustered together. Oh wait! THAT is what they are trying to tell us cannot happen. That life is too complex to self generate and evolve so it had to be created by someone/thing vastly more complex and evolved who simply "made it all appear" on a long weekend or something. This is the level of irrational thinking that is necessary to refute evolution which we can see right before our eyes every day.

Why? To save and revive the superstition that is religion. To take back and retain the power over people and lives that has been religion's dictate since before recorded history.

I don't hate religion. I think it is a good thing to be religious and to attend church. I think it inspires and moderates people. The real problem I had with the article and many articles like it is that the author essentially cannot stand another view; you bow to religion or you don't know anything. I think that argument misses an opportunity. That is I don't think religion should fight science. We know the earth is not the center of the universe and writing articles trying to discredit science on this is foolish and makes the author appear naïve and uneducated. Embrace what we learn, what science discovers, don't be archaic and stodgy, don't tilt at windmills. Most of the good things about religion are not harmed in anyway by evolution. Embrace it, religion and evolution can coexist.

I believe that humans are inherently good. Religion typically takes their "commandments" from man's natural good beliefs not the other way around. It is a dismal belief that without religion we would all be terrible people. I hope you don't actually believe that.

The other side of the coin is that probably more harm and mayhem has resulted from religion and religious beliefs than anything else in our history. The 9/11 terrorists were following their religious dictates and were only sorry that they couldn't kill more of us for their god.

The common belief in science is that major changes/jumps in evolution were the result of interstellar events. Major climate changes, massive radiation/irradiation from our sun or other sources. These things made changes that cannot be explained "simply" or easily by evolution. These events created numerous "Frankensteins" out of whatever life forms were in existence at the time of the event. Some of these dramatic changes were good and allowed favored evolutionary progress. Perhaps 99.9% of them were not and as a result they simply died off. Imagine a solar event that caused DNA and physical changes in every living thing happening today and every living thing changed in perhaps different ways and their progeny changed in perhaps even more different ways. Kind of exciting when you think about it.

"Someone sure has a bee in their bonnet"

That's funny and ironic. That is exactly what I thought when I read the article. The author did throw down the challenge. I merely pointed out the errors he made.

It is not "extraneous to the discussion" it IS the discussion. The author took a shot at anyone and everyone who believes in evolution and went on to prove that they are denying the obvious that everyone like them is so enlightened to see and understand. Why take that shot??? Why call all the scientists and others who believe in evolution names and worse? My point is that it wasn't necessary. Religion, most religions, have beliefs that were formed thousands of years ago; like the earth being the center of the universe. These beliefs aren't true, provably untrue, so why persist??? Religion can exist and flourish without trying to prove evolution is untrue (ditto for earth being the center of the universe), so why persist??? It makes them (those who persist in fighting evolution) appear sadly ignorant and it calls into doubt everything they say about religion. Leave science to scientists and stick to the "thou shalt not steal" etc.

Also, and least extraneous, stop taking the cheap shots and then clutching your pearls when someone disagrees. If the author has the balls to write this stuff then surely they should have the balls to deal with the pushback.


P.S. The purpose of "confession" to a priest was political. It was used to gather information on the common people and the elite. The church used it to black mail the elite. kings and lawmakers for centuries. Look at the Church in Central and South America where they priests are Marxist socialists and have used their ability to gather information to get "enemies" killed. They have started or at the least enabled wars. They use their power over the people for political purposes.