The Real Answer to the Evoution / Creation Debate!

A little girl asked her mother: How did the human race appear?

The mother answered: God made Adam and Eve and they had children and so was
all mankind made.

Two days later she asks her father the same question. The father answered:
Many years ago there were monkeys from which the human race was developed.

The confused girl returns to her mother and says: Mom how is it possible that you told me that the human race was created by God and Papa says they were developed from monkeys.

The mother answers: Well dear, it is very simple. I told you about the origin of my side of the family, while your father told you about his side.............!

Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site www.God-101.com

Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://Allans-Perspective.blogspot.com

People Are Not Animals!

Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site www.God-101.com

Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://Allans-Perspective.blogspot.com

Dr. Kent Hovind and the Evolution Debate

I ran acros this letter from the Fall of 2005 and it brought back a whole bunch of memories for me!

Dr. Kent Hovind, (Who I'm sure you have heard of) was offering a quarter of a million dollars to anyone who could prove evolution so naturally I took him up on the offer and sent him a whole bunch of stuff!

I started out with this quote from Isaac Asimov. (Who I am also sure you have heard of!)

The exact mechanism of evolution, (the fine details) remain under dispute since the process of discovery and development is not yet finished and may never be entirely completed. Even the most argumentative of those who quarrel over the details do not deny the evolutionary concept itself.
Creationists, on the other hand, present no evidence in favor of their view. They argue entirely from the negative. They maintain that if the concept of evolution is wanting, then that alone is sufficient to force acceptance of creationism.
They then insist that the concept of evolution is indeed found wanting. They point out insufficiencies, uncertainties and contradictions in the evolutionary arguments and say, triumphantly, “Thus we establish creationism!”
-Isaac Asimov - The Dangerous Myth of Creationism

I then went on to give arguments from people who are much smarter than I am including the likes of Albert Einstein, Dr. Richard Dawkins, Dr. Burton Mack, Dr. Susan Blackmore, Max Weber, Durkheim and a host of others.

Then at the end of these arguments I put in my two cents worth from my book "The Plain Truth About God"!

A final few words to end the “evolution/creation” debate once and for all!

“What we have here is failure to communicate!”

Maybe not an original quote, but as far as the evolution / creation debate goes, perhaps a very appropriate one! The constant war of words between Darwinists and Creationists has been ongoing for many years and has not been resolved to anyone’s satisfaction.

Perhaps we should go right back to the very basics and start to build from there; just to see what happens!

First of all we have to take a position that there is either a God, or there is not!

If there is no God then the Darwinists are absolutely right and everything was created by dumb luck and there is no purpose to anything!

I can see why evolutionists have been so adamant that natural selection and the progression of lower life forms into higher ones, without outside help, seem to be the natural order of things.

They have a compelling argument and the term; “Just the facts, Ma’am” bear them out.

However, the supposition that life, and by correlation intelligence, is the result of blind chance with no interference from a God, is the same as saying that by default there is no God!

In other words, to accept evolution from a scientific point of view without taking into account the theological implications of the Atheists being right, does a great disservice to anyone who has any feelings at all of a religious/spiritual nature.

I personally cannot imagine a world where there is no God at all. That this whole kit-and-caboodle we call the Universe is just a random organization of the basic elements with no ultimate purpose!

This extremist’s view is no better than those of religious fanatics who try and tell me that the world is no more than seven thousand years old. Both are the result of people polarized in their own views and beliefs.

After all, a belief that there is no God is in no way any different than the view that there is a God; both depend on a personal belief system, since neither can be scientifically proven!

This is not to say that we should teach the biblical version of the creation of the universe as literal truth.

Any rational, semi-educated person realizes that Holy Scripture is a compilation of parables, prophesy, folk-lore, metaphor’s and common sense in a first century context!

Nor should we refer to the bible as a historical work since it is more concerned with the mind-set and morality of people than an account of their achievements!

If we can learn to distinguish between the metaphorical and the historical aspects of the scriptures then it makes it all the easier to differentiate between the divergent aims of scientific and theological schools of thought.

Just as the far right claims biblical truth and rejects scientific evidence, the Darwinists are at a loss to explain how the Universe (The Big Bang) came into being from absolutely nothing.

It’s like comparing apples and oranges. Both are different and have a different purpose.

To attempt a comparison is the same as looking for common ground when talking about two totally different things. With this in mind there is no real conflict between religion and science. God is by God’s very nature unknowable.

What I object to is the human trait of forming special interest groups whose sole job is giving only their explanation of God and even making proclamations and laws in God’s name.

This to me is the height of human arrogance and self-deception.

We do not know how God interacts with our universe and should not use one philosophy (religion or science) to try and explain the other.

“Render therefore to Cesar the things which are Cesar’s, and to God the things which are God’s.” In other words, I am all for teaching Creationism in school; as soon as they start teaching evolution in church!

After all this effort and writing Hovind sent this letter back! (You might have to click on it to enlarge it enough to read clearly)



This was a very neat trick from DR. Hovind; "You mentioned that you offered proof for evolution. I have read it carefully and failed to find any evidence whatsoever presented for evolution!"

So, in effect, what he said was; "You can say what you want and prove what you want BUT, I don't see it, so there!" (And no $250,000.00 dollars for you!)

Since then this shyster has gotten his just desserts by being sent to jail for tax fraud and a bunch of other stuff. I think it was about 5 years for the tax beef and another two just for being an asshole!

Doesn't matter though, I'm still pissed about the quarter million.

Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site http://www.god-101.com/

Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com

Saturday Morning Confusion. #14

I have got to tell you right from the "get-go" this morning that I will be rather busy this weekend.

I just had my dick size increased by 3" and have also taken all sorts of vitamins and performance enhancer Meds that I ordered from Canada, so I will be on the go satisfying women just like the ads say.

If you need me, or are a woman with a need then you will have to get me on my cell phone!

---------------------------------------------------------------

Now, as usual we have more than enough contenders for "Asshole of the Week" so this time around we are going to give the trophy and a loud fart to two people again.

First is Britney Spears for getting herself sent for a psychiatric assessment and loosing custody of her kids

Then we have this piece of shit who actually deserves to win the trophy all by himself.

A Sheboygan, Wisconsin man has been charged with break and enter and felony burglary after sneaking into a toddler's bedroom and stealing $20 from a piggy bank while the two-year-old girl slept.

Authorities say DNA evidence linked Ryan Mueller, 30, of Sheboygan Falls to the crime that occurred Aug. 10. They said the girl's mother was in another room with another child when she saw a light turn on in her two-year-old daughter's room.

She walked into the girl's bedroom and saw a man shaking the piggy bank as the girl slept.

The man fled before police arrived, stealing the money but leaving the piggy bank. (They got him on DNA evidence!)!

----------------------------------------------------------------

Next we are going to add a new category to our awards. This one is the "Loser of the Day," for stuff that happens above and beyond the call of duty or is just plain unfortunate!

Two cleaning women spent two days trapped inside a broken elevator in a Chicago suburb.

Beata Bartoszewicz and her mother, Roma Borowski, entered an elevator in an empty building in the suburb of Niles on Dec. 22. After the elevator doors closed, the women discovered they were stuck on the first floor of the two-storey building.

Bartoszewicz says there was no response from an emergency call alarm and the women couldn't pry open the doors.

Neither had a cellphone or water and the building wasn't due to open until after Christmas.

Two days later, on Christmas Eve, an employee of the building happened to go to work and they yelled for his attention.

He heard them and fire crews freed them an hour later.

The women tried to sleep on their coats and used a corner of the elevator as a bathroom.

Bartoszewicz said her mother continually reassured her.

"She kept saying, 'We're going to be OK, and we're going to spend Christmas Eve at home,"' the 25-year-old said.

Bartoszewicz says the moral of the story is simple: "Always take your cellphone with you."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are also going to give a special "Winner of the Day" trophy to the National Academy of Sciences who on Thursday issued a spirited defense of evolution as the bedrock principle of modern biology, arguing that it, not creationism, must be taught in public school science classes.

The academy, which operates under a mandate from Congress to advise the government on science and technology matters, issued the report at a time when the theory of evolution, first offered in the 19th century, faces renewed attack by some religious conservatives.

Creationism, based on the explanation offered in the Bible, and the related idea of "intelligent design" are not science and, as such, should not be taught in public school science classrooms, according to the report.

"We seem to have continuing challenges to the teaching of evolution in schools. That's something that doesn't seem to go away," Barbara Schaal, an evolutionary biologist at Washington University in St. Louis and vice president of National Academy of Sciences, said in a telephone interview.

"We need a citizenry that's trained in real science."

Evolution is a theory explaining change in living organisms over the eons due to genetic mutations. For example, it holds that humans evolved from earlier forms of apes.

The report stated that the idea of evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. "Science and religion are different ways of understanding the world. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of each to contribute to a better future," said the report.

But teaching creationist ideas in science classes confuses students about what constitutes science and what does not, according to the report's authors.

The report was released by the academy and the Institute of Medicine, which advises policymakers on medical issues. It updates academy publications issued in 1984 and 1999. It was written by a committee headed by University of California-Irvine biology professor Francisco Ayala.

"Biological evolution is one of the most important ideas of modern science. Evolution is supported by abundant evidence from many different fields of scientific investigation. It underlies the modern biological sciences, including the biomedical sciences, and has applications in many other scientific and engineering disciplines," the report stated.

The authors highlighted developments in evolutionary biology, citing its importance in understanding emerging infectious diseases. They noted the discovery, published in 2006, of the remains of a Tiktaalik, a creature described as an evolutionary link between fish and the first vertebrate animals that walked out of water onto land 375 million years ago.

President George W. Bush said in 2005 American students should be instructed about "intelligent design" alongside evolution as competing theories. "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said.

Advocates of "intelligent design" contend that some biological structures are so complex they could not have appeared merely through natural processes.

A judge in Dover, Pennsylvania ruled in 2005 that the teaching of intelligent design violated the U.S. Constitution, which requires a separation of church and state, because it is based on religious conviction, not science.

A 2006 Gallup poll showed that almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

We have a couple of honourable mentions here that would have received trophy's on their own except that it's rather old news by now, but if you haven't heard about it yet, a New York window cleaner who survived a 47-storey fall from a skyscraper last month is making a gradual recovery - in what doctors say is a "miracle".

Alcides Moreno, 37, tumbled some 500ft to the ground in a scaffolding accident that killed his brother. (He rode the scaffold down and that broke his fall somewhat!)

And finally this note from Reuters's News.

Remember the guy from Toronto who is 85 and was charged with street racing for going over 100 mph on the 401?

We have a lady in England who did the opposite.

LONDON (Reuters) - A woman banned from driving for seven days after traveling at speeds of less than 10mph on the motorway told Reuters on Friday: "that road's my nemesis." Stephanie Cole, 58, of Fishponds, Bristol, straddled the hard shoulder and inside lane as she dawdled along a stretch of the M32 near her home last August.

In the back window of the car was a sign which said: "I don't do fast, please overtake."

Cole admitted driving without reasonable consideration at North Avon Magistrates' Court on Friday and was told she would have to take another test at the end of the ban.

"I didn't intend getting onto the motorway, but all of a sudden I found myself on it and I could not get off," she told Reuters after the hearing.

"I just panicked. I hate that particular stretch of road and I avoid it normally. It is my nemesis."

Cole had been traveling from her home to a stationer's when she was arrested in her Perodua Kenari mini people-carrier.

"I thought "thank God" when I saw the blue flashing lights," she said. "I thought they could help and I asked them if they could drive me home."

Cole, who has multiple sclerosis, said she depends on her car for getting around.

"I will try and retake the test," she said.

"I will have to do my best when driving, and hope it is better than it was."

Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site www.God-101.com

Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com

DARWIN vs CREATION (The final word!)

O.K. kids, one more kick at the cat....... and you know how I feel about cats!!!

Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site www.God-101.com

Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com

Institute for Creation Research wants to train future science teachers

Ladies and Gentlemen, the following article from the "Religious News" website is being presented here untouched, unmarked, unadulterated and unwashed. I am not going to make any comments about it since I think you know my position on something like this already.

The nonprofit Institute for Creation Research in Dallas wants to train future science teachers in Texas and elsewhere using an online curriculum. A state advisory group gave its approval Friday; now the final say rests with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which will consider the request next month.

The institute’s proposal comes amid a fierce debate over how to teach evolution – the theory that humans and other species evolved from lower forms of life – in Texas public schools.

Some advocacy groups are attacking the creation institute’s plan, saying it’s an attempt to undermine the teaching of science in public schools.

“They teach distorted science,” said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the California-based National Center for Science Education, which opposes teaching creationism in public schools. “Any student coming out from the ICR with a degree in science would not be competent to teach in Texas public schools.”

The institute was created in 1970 by the late Henry M. Morris, a Dallas native known as the father of “creation science,” the view that science – not just religion – indicates that a divine being created the Earth and all living things.

Patricia Nason, chairwoman of the institute’s science education department, said that, despite the institute’s name, students learn evolution along with creationism.

“Our students are given both sides,” said Dr. Nason, who has a doctorate in curriculum and instruction from Texas A&M University. “They need to know both sides, and they can draw their own conclusion.”

The institute, through its graduate school, wants to offer an online master’s degree in science education.

According to the school’s Web site, it offers typical education classes, teaching such fundamentals as how to use lab equipment, the Internet and PowerPoint in the classroom. But it also offers a class called “Advanced studies in creationism.”

And the course Web page for “Curriculum design in science” gives this scenario: “The school board has asked you to serve on a committee that is examining grades 6-12 science goals. Both evolutionist and creationist teachers serve on the curriculum committee. How will you convince them to include creation science as well as evolution in the new scope and sequence?”

The school has offered science degrees in California for years. It offered its first graduate courses in 1981, and its first online courses about two years ago.

The institute began moving its headquarters from the San Diego area to Dallas last year, making it necessary to get approval from the state of Texas to offer degrees here.

The school now has more than 50 students taking online classes all over the world, school officials say.

Since I am not going to comment on this it is up to you, dear reader, to give some input to this story.

Please leave a comment on this however you like, just let your feelings be known!

Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God at www.God-101.com and visit the blog "Perspective" at http://God-101.blogspot.com

Poll This!

We gave you the results of a poll last week that showed Americans believed in Creationism more than Evolution by a small majority.

(I don't believe in no evolution!)->


But, the results show another trend which seems quite surprising.

Americans trust the military and the police force significantly more than the church and organized religion, a new Gallup Poll says.

Only 46 percent of respondents said they had either a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the church, compared with 69 percent who said they trusted the military and 54 percent who trust police officers.

The figures are among the lowest for institutionalized religion in the three and a half decades that Gallup has conducted the poll. Peaking at 68 percent in May 1975, the numbers bottomed out at 45 percent in June of 2003.

But while confidence is waning for organized religion, the numbers are even bleaker for other American institutions. Just 25 percent expressed confidence in the presidency, while a mere 14 percent say they trust Congress.

Other findings suggest the nation is focused more on political issues than morality issues.

In the monthly pulse-check poll, Gallup asked Americans what they believed was the most important problem facing the country.

An overwhelming 34 percent cited the war in Iraq, followed by illegal immigration at 15 percent. The nation's religious and moral decline was fifth among the concerns, with 6 percent.

Meanwhile, among men only, the poll revealed that more guys want Jessica Alba for their girlfriend than any other woman.

The 24-year-old actress tops the list ranking female celebrities on their "long-term relationship material."

James Bassil, editor-in-chief of AskMen.com, told The Associated Press the list was determined by the rankings of 2.5 million readers and by the site's staff.

Readers of the online magazine were asked to vote according to the woman they would most want a relationship with, would consider marrying or thought best-suited to be the mother of their children.

So here we have a celebrity who has more support than the church, the cops and government. WHAT A COUNTRY!

Your "on the Q.T." scribe;
Allan W Janssen

Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God-101 (what the church doesn't want you to know!) www.God-101.com

One more Kick at the Evolution/Creation Cat!

Forget about the people who don't believe in Evolution at all.

We also have to address the people who believe in evolution but just aren't sure of the exact process.

Historians often assume that they need pay no attention to human evolution because the process ground to a halt in the distant past.

That assumption is looking less and less secure in light of new findings based on decoding human DNA.

Guest Post by NICHOLAS WADE of the New York Times:

Genetic differentiation in modern humans has continued to evolve since our leaving the ancestral homeland in northeastern Africa some 50,000 years ago.

This both through the random process known as genetic drift and through natural selection.

The genome bears many fingerprints in places where natural selection has recently remolded the human clay, researchers have found, as people in the various continents adapted to new diseases, climates, diets and, perhaps, behavioral demands.

A striking feature of many of these changes is that they are local.

The genes under selective pressure found in one continent-based population or race are mostly different from those that occur in the others.

These genes so far make up a small fraction of all human genes.

A notable instance of recent natural selection is the emergence of lactose tolerance — the ability to digest lactose in adulthood — among the cattle-herding people of northern Europe some 5,000 years ago.

Lactose, the enzyme that digests the principal sugar of milk, is usually switched off after weaning. But because of the great nutritional benefit for cattle herders of being able to digest lactose in adulthood, a genetic change that keeps the lactose gene switched on spread through the population.

Lactose tolerance is not confined to Europeans.

Last year, Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Maryland and colleagues tested 43 ethnic groups in East Africa and found three separate mutations, all different from the European one, that keep the lactose gene switched on in adulthood.

One of the mutations, found in peoples of Kenya and Tanzania, may have arisen as recently as 3,000 years ago.

That lactose tolerance has evolved independently four times is an instance of convergent evolution. Natural selection has used the different mutations available in European and East African populations to make each develop lactose tolerance.

In Africa, those who carried the mutation were able to leave 10 times more progeny, creating a strong selective advantage.

So there you have it! Being able to drink milk has such an evolutionary advantage that people who have acquired this trait can expect to live long enough to have 10 times as many kids.

This give them a much greater chance of their progeny continuing in future generations.

In other words, the long and the short of it is that we are STILL evolving, and will continue to do so!

Allan

(Remind me sometime to tell you about Genghis Khan, who is related to about 30 to 40 percent of all Mongolians!)

Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God-101 (what the church doesn't want you to know!) www.God-101.com

Enough with the Evolution - Creation debate!

I was sitting here this morning looking at the piece I wrote yesterday about evolution / creationism and it struck me that I am like Don Quixote, swinging away at windmills.

No matter how good and pure my motives, it will all come to naught since I am fighting an enemy that has no real shape or form.

It is a "belief" I aim my raillery at, without realizing that if this false assumption can initially withstand the scrutiny of cold hard facts, then any attempt by your poor author to change the minds of these people is an effort in futility!

In other words, to put it very harshly and succinctly, these people are not thinking straight and the problem is not with their dis-belief of evolution, but rather the whole issue of being brainwashed by a mainstream Religion. I would have to approach the matter from the disease itself, rather than try and cure the symptoms. (Of which Creationism is one of the main culprits!)

To do this would be to attack peoples core values and I am not (unlike the Christian and Islamic Shaman's) comfortable with this.

To change the core beliefs of anyone is an arduous task that I don't have the patience for anyway, so I have to resign myself to the fact that people make their own "Reality," whether it is based on fact, or not!

In other words there is probably nothing I can do to convince these * enlightened souls, so why bother!

Your Pal Al;

Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God-101 (what the church doesn't want you to know!) www.God-101.com

(Am I the Shaman? No, I am the walrus!)
*assholes

Just the Facts, Ma'am!

I ran across some interesting observations on the Creationists / Evolutionists debate on Les's site S.E.B. and a few other locations.

(We had some of this discussion a few days ago on Half of all Americans are idiots! Boy, this is a good way to make friends and influence people, eh!)

Aside from the fact that 56% of Americans believe in Creationism while only 44% believe in Evolution, (These figures are arbitrary and should only be used as a general guideline.) it also found that the percentage of Creationists was quite a bit lower in Canada and even lower in the rest of the world!

In spite of Fundamentalist Christian and Islamic pressure, the Southern, Catholic States are still 70% pro-Evolution, Great Britain and the Northern Countries of Europe are 80% pro-Evolution and Australia and New Zealand are 95% pro-Evolution,

Compare this to the U.S. (56%-44%) where, in general, older adults (those 55 years of age and older), adults without a college degree, Republicans, conservatives, and Southerners were more likely to embrace the Creationism positions in the questions asked. (75%-25%)

Those with college educations, Democrats, independents, liberals, adults aged 18 to 54, and those from the Northeast and West support the belief in Evolution in larger numbers. 75%-25%)

Aside from regional differences, if we look at the beliefs of members of the major political parties we find a wide variance as well. According to CBS News, a recent Gallup Survey shows that 68% of Republicans Disbelieve Scientific Explanation of Creation!
A Gallup poll released Monday said that while the country is about evenly split over whether the theory of evolution is true, Republicans disbelieve it by more than 2-to-1.

Republicans saying they don’t believe in Evolution outnumbered those who do by 68 percent to 30 percent in the survey. Democrats believe in Evolution by 57 percent to 40 percent, as do Independents by a 61 percent to 37 percent margin.

Or, as Jon Stewart might say; (From S.E.B.)

OK, Republicans, we understand that you’re devout. We understand that you love God.

That’s simply beautiful, it really is.

Regardless of that, you have to stop cherry-picking the facts.

Evolution is a fact, just like some of those other facts that are somewhat less controversial, like Helio-Centrism. The church no longer arrests and executes people who believe that the sun is at the center of our solar system because there’s just simply such an abundance, a cornucopia if you will, of observational evidence, that no rational person would claim otherwise.

The same is true for the facts of evolution: That species emerge and change over very long periods of time.

That some species that used to exist, no longer exist.

Further, it is a fact that humans appeared relatively recently in the history of our world.

The facts are irrefutable.

They are written in the very bedrock of our planet.

They are there for everyone to see, everywhere: older species in strata below newer species.

Never an exception.

No human jawbones have ever been found in a Tyrannosaurus nest.

No dinosaurs after 65 million years ago.

No Australopithecenes after about 2 million years ago.

No Homo Sapiens before about 500,000 years ago.

None!

Anywhere!

Now, while you can certainly take a religious position on the explanation of Evolution, you cannot take a religious position on the existence of Evolution.

In other words, you can certainly disagree with the leading scientific Theory of Evolution, which explains how such facts as we observe everywhere in the world came to be (and does so quite nicely, thank you very much), but you can only disagree with the facts of Evolution to the same extent that you can disagree with the fact that the sun is at the center of the solar system, or that Pasteurization helps preserve foods, or that DNA codes genetic information for all species on earth.

We need to remember that, as Stephen Jay Gould said, there’s a difference between a fact and a theory, and Evolution is both:

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.

Facts are the world’s data.

Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.

Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them.

Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome.

Humans evolved from apelike ancestors, whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

If you’re planning on rejecting the Theory of Evolution, the scientific mechanism that Darwin proposed almost a century and a half ago, you have to follow the rules.

The rules are simple.

Come up with a better explanation for the fact of Evolution.

Just make sure it doesn't require anything beyond what we can expect from our normal, natural, very non magical world.


Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God-101 (what the church doesn't want you to know!) www.God-101.com

Revelation, or Delusional Again?

Continuing with our "two for one Sunday," a strange thought came to me as I sat in the back of the church with my wife today.

Thinking about the George Carlin piece, (below) I had a thought!

I can't quite decide if it was a revelation, or I am just being delusional again!

First of all, yes I was in St. Georges with my wife and don't consider this hypocritical in the least. If you have read this column at all you know that while I do believe in in some sort of Supreme Being that is responsible for "First Cause," *** I consider the Resurrection a myth and misleading.

(It just doesn't work that way in this Universe. When your dead, your dead. That's a rule and to break it negates the whole thing and the Universe falls apart.)

Anyway, although my wife is a very good Catholic and I am not a Christian by any means, I still take her to Church now, (Especially since she got cancer!) and it makes her feel better.

I guess you could say she's being a good Catholic and I'm being a good husband!

Now we come to the crux of the matter, and this is where I need your help!

Sitting there at the back of the Church, a thought occurred to me.

The revelation (?) I had was this. Maybe God still influences things in the Universe, just not with US, since the advent of "Free Will!"

Perhaps, since our "maturing" into "free will," we are expected to be more like adults now and make our own decisions. (Or at least teenagers, which is really scary.)

When we were in the Garden of Eden (operating by instinct instead of reason) we were under God's care. Now, with a taste of the "Apple" (Reason) we are like the bird that's kicked out of the nest and told to sink or swim! That would explain the lack of any outside involvement in our affairs.

I only had this thought a few hours ago so don't take a half baked idea as Gospel, ;-) but it does seem to have some interesting possibilities.

If you have any thoughts on it please let me know!!

Your "questioning" scribe;
Allan W Janssen


*** Please do not confuse, in any way, "First Cause" (Big Bang) with Intelligent Design.

I.D. seems to be a watered down form of Creationism to make it more palatable and is trying to slip religion in through the back door. (You have to watch those guys!)

I, on the other hand, am a Darwinist who simply thinks that everything we see is NOT without purpose.

Rather, Something had to set it in motion.

The Big Bang simple can't be put in the same category as "spontaneous human combustion."

It don't work that way!

There is always a cause, and especially with something on the scale of The Bang.

It can't simply have just "happened!"

(That's my story and I'm stickin with it!)

P.S. If you want to see what I have against "Religion," look below and listen to George Carlin put things into perspective!

Creation and Evolution (the final word)

Short and to the point. We don't need any long dissertations like the three or four pages of nonesense that Peter sent me for the last blog on this subject.

Let's reduce everything to basics and not try and impress anyone with flights of convoluted logic!

It's a generally accepted scientific fact that the Universe operates according to certain laws of "nature."

I don't think these "laws" appeared out of thin air, or are supported by "nothing!". There has to be some force, or whatever, that started the ball rolling and keeps some order to things. (Like that old saying: "Time is Natures way of preventing everything from happening at once!")

This "Divine Cause" supports "Intelligent Design," but doesn't necessarily mean anything that has happened since is caused by, or even the result of, Divine Intervention!

As a matter of fact, looking at the world and how it operates I would hazzard a guess that since the original Creation there has been little or no "Divine Intervention" AT ALL!

(Two notes here; First - my big commission cheque came in from work today, just in time for Christmas.
To which my wife said, "Thank the Lord."
I replied,"I don't think the Lord had too much to do with it but you can thank the people in accounting!"
Second - my wifes Lymphoma, on the roof of her mouth, has mysteriously disappeared thanks to healthy living and a lot of prayer from everyone that knows her.
To which I said, "Thank the Lord!!!!!")

"And that's all I have to say about that!"
Your "matter of fact, but hedging his bets," scribe;
Allan W Janssen

The Creation - Evolution Debate. (again)

I am going to wax philosophical for a few minutes so if that bores you just go to one of the blogs with pictures in it because we are going to re-visit the long simmering debate on Evolution - Creationism.

As you probably know by now I am a Darwinist and not a Creationist but that does not mean that I reject “Intelligent Design” out of hand. (I was asked, during a chat room discussion on evolution, whether I had read Michael Behe. I replied that I had, at which point the person let out a self-rightgeous “Ah HA!”)

What this person didn’t realize is that he asked the wrong question!

Yes, I have read Michael Behe, but that by no means indicates that I agree with him.

On the contrary, his crap about “Irreducible Complexity” is full of holes and contradictions. Besides that, who uses words like irreducible anyways?

No, my point there, and in this article, is that we are asking the wrong questions in the whole debate over creation and evolution. It is not an either/or answer.

First, we have to take a brief look at the whole concept of God and Creation.

Everything we do and wonder about is grounded in THIS Universe and we have to apply the “laws of nature” to understand them in a “this world” context.

Another way to define this is by a line of reasoning by Dr. Michael W. Tkacz concerning some points that were first voiced by Thomas Aquinas.

Strictly speaking, points out Thomas, the Creator does not create something out of nothing in the sense of taking some nothing and making something out of it.

This is a conceptual mistake, for it treats nothing as a something. On the contrary, the Christian doctrine of “creation ex nihilo” claims that God made the universe without making it out of anything.

In other words, anything left entirely to itself, completely separated from the cause of its existence, would not exist—it would be absolutely nothing.

The ultimate cause of the existence of anything and everything is God who creates, not out of some nothing, but from nothing at all.

Now, that is pretty heavy and convoluted, but basically it says that God is not of this universe, but rather “apart” from it and we cannot use physical terms to describe God, or the process (act) of creation.

There is no way we can describe “God and Creation” in “earthly” terms since there is no frame of reference for us.

But, after the Force we describe as God created this universe, IT operates according to laws we can understand. (Science)

In other words, the Universe was created as a single thing quite apart, but caused by, the creator. Then, “after that,” the laws of this universe took over and guided the process of evolution.

With this in mind, and after all is said and done, this means that Creation and Evolution are not an “either / or” proposition. Rather, it turns out that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.

Yes bunky, "Intelligent Design" was used in the creation of the Universe, but since then...............God only knows!

Now, take two aspirins and go do something else!

Yer "The Olde Philosopher" scribe;
Allan W Janssen


Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God-101 (what the church doesn't want you to know!) at; www.God-101.com
And the petition to have people mind their own business instead of yours at; http://www.petitiononline.com/moses/petition.html

Oh for God's Sake!

Dr. Richard Dawkins has been one of the leading proponents of the atheistic point of view and according to some articles I have read he is slowly starting to preach atheism with the same feverous zeal that is displayed by some evangelical religious adherents.

He started off slowly with his first book "The Selfish Gene" back in the seventies, but has been gathering up momentum recently in his quest to disprove the existence of God.

He describes his astonishment that, at the start of the 21st century, religious faith is gaining ground in the face of rational, scientific truth.

Science based on scepticism, investigation and evidence must continuously test its own concepts and claims.

Faith, by definition, defies evidence: It is untested and unshakeable, and is therefore in direct contradiction with science.

In addition, though religions preach morality, peace and hope, Dawkins says; "They bring intolerance, violence and destruction. The growth of extreme fundamentalism in so many religions across the world not only endangers humanity but, is in conflict with the trend over thousands of years of history for humanity to progress –to become more enlightened and more tolerant."

In his latest book "The God Delusion" he has a few comments that I would like to expound upon, and a few that I would like to refute!

Consciousness is the biggest puzzle facing biology, neurobiology, computational studies and evolutionary biology. It is a very, very big problem. I don't know the answer. Nobody knows the answer.

I think one day we probably will know the answer. But even if science doesn't know the answer, I return to the question, what on earth makes you think that religion will?

Just because science so far has failed to explain something, such as consciousness, to say it follows that the facile, pathetic explanations which religion has produced somehow by default must win the argument is really quite ridiculous.

Nobody has an explanation for consciousness. That should be a spur to work harder and try to understand it. Not to give up and just say, "Oh well, it must be a soul."

That doesn't mean anything. It doesn't explain anything. You've said absolutely nothing when you've said that.

Now, Dr. Dawkins is right when he states that we don't know the answer to conciousness, but I believe he is dead wrong in saying that a religious explanation has no merit. (This in spite of the fact that I have absolutely no use for any mainstream religion whether it be Christianity, Islam or Buddhism. They are just interpretations of the Divine that are flawed by human agendas and purposes!)

We cannot look upon this marvelous Universe without some degree of awe and wonder. The notion that all of creation is only a matter of chance and random luck would be as big a fallacy as as making proclamations of blind faith to a belief system that was thought up by some fast talking shaman.

We have to look upon conciousness as our link with the Divine - since this seems to be the root of its purpose. We are living in the here and now of this Universe and although we have some empirical evidence of other planes of existence they are by their very nature beyond our ken.

This by no means precludes their own reality in a way that is not verifiable by us and this is where conciousness could play a role. It might be a link with other realities and this allows us to make conjectures about their validity.

From the book: "The Plain Truth About God-101" (what the church doesn't want you to know!)

The gulf between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom is so great because of our unique outlook and appreciation of existence! (Conciousness)

As far as we know, not even the great apes, dolphins, whales, dogs, cats, or any other living thing, has ever given even the slightest thought to our reason for being here!

You will never hear fido say to you, "What's it all about - Alfie.”

People, on the other hand, spend an inordinate amount of time and effort on the question of purpose. So much so, that it seems to influence almost every aspect of not only our lives, but everything around us.

We might see flashes of pseudo-cognizance in fido's eyes every now and then, but I can tell you for sure that fido and his buddies do not sit around and discuss the merits of art or literature!

Allan W Janssen is the author of The Plain Truth About God-101 (what the church doesn't want you to know!) at; www.God-101.com
And the petition to have people mind their own business instead of yours at; http://www.petitiononline.com/moses/petition.html

So shut up already!

I ran into an article about the creation/evolution debate in Kansas and elsewhere in the States. This about says it all so shut up about it!!!

But when we win minor skirmishes, as we did in Kansas, we must remember that the issue is far deeper than this. We must hold our elected school officials to certain standards of knowledge about the world. The battle is not against faith, but against ignorance.
Lawrence M. Krauss is a professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University.

Which brings me to a favorite little saying of my own.
"We will teach creationism in our schools, as soon as you start teaching evolution in your church!"

Your Humble Servant;
Allan W Janssen

Deep and Important

A lecture from Dr. Michael Tkacz

Where are the Thomists?

A few years ago I received a phone call from Dr. Stephen Meyer, then on the philosophy faculty at Whitworth College. He had just returned from an international conference devoted to challenges to evolutionary biology from Intelligent Design Theory.

There was a bit of urgency in Dr. Meyer’s tone, so I agreed to meet him. As it turned out, he had something of a complaint to make, for he opened our meeting by showering me with a series of questions: Where are the Thomists? Where are the Catholics? How come you Thomist guys are not out there defending us Intelligent Designers? After all, we are on the same side, are we not?

Asking Dr. Meyer the occasion of this outpouring of questions, he explained that he and the other organizers of the conference had invited several Thomists to participate and he was dismayed that, far from expressing sympathy with the Intelligent Design Movement and its challenge to Darwinism, they were quite critical of the Movement. Perhaps feeling a bit betrayed, he wanted to ask me, a Thomist, just what was going on.

The debate between Creationists and Evolutionists has been going on for a long time now and neither side has been especially interested in what Thomism—a minority position to be sure—has had to contribute to the discussion. To the extent that philosophers working in the Thomistic tradition are considered at all, both sides seem to have been dissatisfied.

Secular Darwinians often view Thomists as just another species of literalists attempting to substitute the Book of Genesis for good biology—indeed, the only difference between Thomists and Protestant Creationists, on their view, is that Thomists do it in Latin.

On the other hand, Protestant Creationists have often viewed Thomists as already half-way to secularism and naturalism—no doubt due to insufficient attention to the reading of scripture.

Now come the Intelligent Designers who have revived the debate with evolutionary biology on scientific grounds. This new challenge to Darwinism attempts to show that the biological evidence supports gradual evolution of species less than it does direct creation by a Divine Designer.

Given the philosophical sophistication of their arguments, it is perhaps natural that Intelligent Designers would assume that they had allies among traditional Thomists who are known for their systematic defense of the doctrine of creation.

Yet, Thomists have not generally been quick to jump onto the Intelligent Design bandwagon. As Dr. Meyer discovered, the Intelligent Design Movement has, overall, not been well-received in Thomistic circles.

So, the question is: Why? Why have Thomists, who share with Intelligent Designers so many of the same concerns about the secularization of our society, not been more supportive of the Movement? Why have so many Thomists hesitated to join Intelligent Design Theorists in their campaign against Darwinism?

Why do some Thomists, far from being supportive, appear even a bit hostile to the Intelligent Design project?

A bit of attention to the Thomistic philosophy of creation may help to answer these questions. More importantly, investigating the coolness of Thomism toward Intelligent Design Theory may help to move the debate away from its polarized Creation vs. Evolution state toward a discussion that is more philosophically productive.

A look at the Thomistic understanding of God’s relationship to nature may even suggest a third alternative to the already well-known positions of the Darwinians and Intelligent Designers.


Thomas Aquinas on Creation

Back in the days of Thomas Aquinas himself, there was a scientific revolution that seriously challenged the traditional Christian doctrine of creation. From the time of the early Church, orthodox Christians have held that the universe was created by a transcendent God who is wholly responsible for its existence and the existence of everything in it.

In fact, this is a teaching that Christians inherited from the Jews and shared with those of the Islamic faith. At the beginning of the thirteenth century, however, a great historical change came to Western Europe as the works of the ancient Greek natural philosophers and mathematicians became available in the Latin language for the first time.

Especially important among these works were those of Aristotle who had worked out the basic principles of nature and developed a methodology for scientific research that promised, in time, to unlock the secrets of the universe.

This scientific revolution caused great excitement among the Latin-speaking scholars in the then new universities of Europe. They avidly pursued research in many of the natural sciences and, essentially, founded the historical tradition of experimental science that continues today.

It was not long before progress was being made in such fields as mathematical astronomy, optics, meteorology, botany, zoology, and other sciences. At the same time, the new science was a cause for concern, for some theologians saw in it a challenge to the doctrine of creation. Specifically, many held that there is a fundamental incompatibility between the claim of the Greek naturalists that something cannot come from nothing and the Christian teaching of creation ex nihilo.

Indeed, the Greek philosophers used their fundamental principle as grounds for arguing that the universe is eternal: there can be neither a first nor a last motion. It certainly appeared to many of the contemporaries of Thomas Aquinas that one cannot have his Christian cake and scientifically eat it too; Christianity and natural science seemed to be incompatible and one must choose between the two.

Into this medieval debate comes Thomas Aquinas. He pointed out that the Christian conception of God as the author of all truth and the notion that the aim of scientific research is the truth indicates that there can be no fundamental incompatibility between the two.

Provided we understand Christian doctrine properly and do our science well, we will find the truth—not a religious truth and another scientific truth—but the truth, the way things actually exist and function. Yet, what about the apparent conflict between notion of creation from nothing and the scientific principle that for every natural motion or state there is an antecedent motion or state?

Thomas points out that the judgment that there is a conflict here results from confusion regarding the nature of creation and natural change. It is an error that I call the “Cosmogonical Fallacy.”

Those who are worried about conflict between faith and reason on this issue fail to distinguish between cause in the sense of a natural change of some kind and cause in the sense of an ultimate bringing into being of something from no antecedent state whatsoever. “Creatio non est mutatio,” says Thomas, affirming that the act of creation is not some species of change.

So, the Greek natural philosophers were quite correct: from nothing, nothing comes. By “comes” here is meant a change from one state to another and this requires some underlying material reality, some potentiality for the new state to come into being. This is because all change arises out of a pre-existing possibility for that change residing in something.

Creation, on the other hand, is the radical causing of the whole existence of whatever exists. To be the complete cause of something’s existence is not the same as producing a change in something. It is not a taking of something and making it into something else, as if there were some primordial matter which God had to use to create the universe.

Rather, creation is the result of the divine agency being totally responsible for the production, all at once and completely, of the whole of the universe, with all it entities and all its operations, from absolutely nothing pre-existing.

Strictly speaking, points out Thomas, the Creator does not create something out of nothing in the sense of taking some nothing and making something out of it. This is a conceptual mistake, for it treats nothing as a something.

On the contrary, the Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo claims that God made the universe without making it out of anything. In other words, anything left entirely to itself, completely separated from the cause of its existence, would not exist—it would be absolutely nothing. The ultimate cause of the existence of anything and everything is God who creates, not out of some nothing, but from nothing at all.

In this way, one can see that the new science of the thirteenth century, out of which our modern science developed, was not a threat to the traditional Christian doctrine of creation. To come to know the natural causes of natural beings is a different matter from knowing that all natural beings and operations radically depend on the ultimate cause for the existence of everything: God the Creator.

Creation is not a change. Creation is a cause, but of a very different, indeed unique, kind. Only if one avoids the Cosmogonical Fallacy, is one able to correctly understand the Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo.

What we have here is failure to communicate!

It may not be an original quote, but as far as the Evolution / Creation debate goes, perhaps a very appropriate one!

The constant war of words between Darwinists and Creationists has been ongoing for many years and has not been resolved to anyone’s satisfaction. Perhaps we should go right back to the very basics and start to build from there; just to see what happens!

First of all we have to take a position that there is either a God, or there is not!

If there is no God then the Darwinists are absolutely right and everything was created by dumb luck and there is no purpose to anything!

I can see why evolutionists have been so adamant that natural selection and the progression of lower life forms into higher ones, without outside help, seem to be the natural order of things. They have a compelling argument and the term; “Just the facts, Ma’am” bear them out.

However, the supposition that life, and by correlation intelligence, is the result of blind chance with no interference from a God, is the same as saying that by default there is no God!

In other words, to accept evolution from a scientific point of view without taking into account the theological implications of the Atheists being right, does a great disservice to anyone who has any feelings at all of a religious/spiritual nature.

I personally cannot imagine a world where there is no God at all. That this whole kit-and-caboodle we call the Universe is just a random organization of the basic elements with no ultimate purpose! This extremist’s view is no better than those of religious fanatics who try and tell me that the world is no more than seven thousand years old. Both are the result of people polarized in their own views and beliefs.

After all, a belief that there is no God is in no way any different than the view that there is a God; both depend on a personal belief system, since neither can be scientifically proven!

This is not to say that we should teach the biblical version of the creation of the universe as literal truth since any rational, semi-educated person realizes that Holy Scripture is a compilation of parables, prophesy, folk-lore, metaphor’s and common sense in a first century context!

Nor should we refer to the bible as a historical work since it is more concerned with the mind-set and morality of people than an account of their achievements!

If we can learn to distinguish between the metaphorical and the historical aspects of the scriptures then it makes it all the easier to differentiate between the divergent aims of scientific and theological schools of thought.

Just as the far right claims biblical truth and rejects scientific evidence, the Darwinists are at a loss to explain how the Universe (The Big Bang) came into being from absolutely nothing.

It’s like comparing apples and oranges. Both are different and have a different purpose. To attempt a comparison is the same as looking for common ground when talking about two totally different things.

With this in mind there is no real conflict between religion and science. God is by God’s very nature unknowable. What I object to is the human trait of forming special interest groups whose sole job is giving only their explanation of God and even making proclamations and laws in God's name. This to me is the height of human arrogance and self-deception.

We do not know how God interacts with our universe and should not use one philosophy (religion or science) to try and explain the other. “Render therefore to Cesar the things which are Cesar's, and to God the things which are God's.” In other words, I am all for teaching Creationism in school; as soon as they start teaching evolution in church!

I have a theory, and it’s called Evolution!
I have a belief, and it’s called Intelligent Design!

Your scribe
Allan W Janssen