The State Religion and a Way Out
by Jeremy Ziegler
I. Introduction
In recent history, through the Media and a fair amount of liberal Scholars, most people are convinced to believe a fairytale, the State Religion (SR) of BigBangs and macroevolution. Let me progress from true scientific facts to postmodern "science" that is contaminated with subjective religious errors.
II. Real Science
The scientific, very objective fact, is the present expansion of the universe that we can see. But the bizarre extrapolation, if it did not have liberal academic "scientists" behind it, could very easily be called a fairytale. In times centuries ago, scientists shared an idea called spontaneous generation. It is when decaying inorganic matter produces live organic material. For example, when a bucket is filled with wastes from the barn, in a few days, flies are produced from the bucket! Wow!
But by 1846, Louis Pasteur, under laboratory controlled conditions, proved that the inorganic waste did not produce the flies by itself! Flies laid eggs in the waste and so the idea of spontaneous generation is false.
But under the cloak of "Science," our children are taught that we happened "by chance!" From a public school textbook: the entire universe is expanding from an extreme density mass the size of a period '.'. It's spontaneous generation with a robe of education!
The following words are from the National Academy of Sciences web page:
"While the mechanisms of evolution are still under investigation, scientists universally accept that the cosmos, our planet, and life evolved and continue to evolve. Yet the teaching of evolution to schoolchildren is still a contentious issue. In Science and Creationism, the NAS states unequivocally that creationism has no place in any science curriculum at any level."
If you are familiar with standard rules of logic, you can see how the words of the NAS use bad logic! They start their logic argument implying "there is NO GOD, therefore, evolution MUST be true." Notice also that they use such words as "scientists universally accept ..." What that means is that the media and NAS are hushhush about any scientists that see the flaws in the bigbang, macroevolution ideas.
To someone who knows scientific definitions, it is easy to rebuke anyone who calls this idea a "scientific fact." A theory that is reproducible transforms into a SCIENTIFIC FACT. As an example, in recent history, a University of Utah professor proclaimed that he had indeed performed fusion of molecules at room temperature. However, based on his science journal paper, no one else in the world was able to reproduce the process. His idea is STILL called a theory, not a fact. So be the BigBang, which bytheway, was named by a Christian professor, who, being facetious after someone's linear extrapolation of universe expansion was given commented: "Oh, everything came from some BigBang huh?"
From Kent Hovind's not copyrighted stories (http://www.drdino.com) to show the idiocy of the BigBang idea, let me present an atheist argument against the Christian idea of the worldwide flood: "What? You mean every dog on this planet originated from a dog couple on Noah's Ark? There are hundreds of different breeds of dogs from just two dogs? I don't believe in that. There was NO FLOOD!" Christian reply: "Yes we do believe that hundreds of breeds of dogs came from two dogs, but you believe they came from a ROCK!"
Oh, no, no, public school teachers don't teach that! Why, life came from massive molecular chains from the water." The Christian questions, "Where did the molecular chains come from?" The atheist publicschool student replies, "The textbooks tell us that for billions and billions of years, it rained on the earth." The Christian questions again, "How did the earth start?" "Oh, of course, it started as a mass of volcanic rock!" replies the publicschool student. "So the rain for billions and billions of years on rock made massive molecular chains?" asks the Christian. "uh, yes, I guess my dog and I came from ROCKS!" says the publicschool student.
The mainstream media and educators interpret objective facts to favor their subjective ideas.
III. More Macroevolution Flaws
Another problem of macroevolution: sexual evolution means that both sexes
CONCURRENTLY "evolved bychance." It seems obvious that when so many "chances" happen, like violations of the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, to be covered later, and concurrent bisexual evolution, "chance" turns into "design" by a superpower.
The alternative to bisexual macroevolution is asexual evolution. That is, apes with 'x' chromosomes changed into an asexual ape, macroevolved into an 'x+y' chromosomes asexual human being and then evolved into bisexual human beings
Both of these ideas do not have enough supporting evidence to be called a hypothesis let alone a theory. And the lack of reproducible actions means the ideas can NEVER become a "scientific fact."
IV. Thermodynamics
Additionally, the rock/dog evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics which says that when a chemical reaction occurs, the total chemical disorganization INCREASES, i.e. digested carbohydrates break down to single organic compounds, O2, H2O and CO2, not more complex molecular chains. This law of thermodynamics is also an "Axiom," meaning it is a rule of science that cannot be "proved," but has NEVER been violated.
Time and kinetics (reaction rate) does not play in thermodynamics; if it thermodynamically cannot work NOW, it could not work billions of years ago. Oftentimes, a superb Doctorate chemist works for years and years to formulate a chemical. It takes so long to go from hypothesis to hypothesis to success because the kinetics of the reaction are poor. Favorable thermodynamics are a REQUIREMENT, so the chemist does not waste his time. When atheists propose that the "life from rocks" methodology is factual, in essence, they are saying that Doctorate chemists' intellect is not much better than chemicals left to random chance!
In spite of denying the unfavorable thermodynamics of the rocktolife chemical reaction, State Religion preaching chemists have not preformed such a chemical reaction. The statistical chance of chemicals to react by chance is the same as millions of blind men standing shoulderto shoulder across the earth's surface solving a Rubik cube at the same moment.
V. Purpose of the State Religion
a. Pseudo Science
So, a belief that proposes dogs came from rocks and does not keep laws of thermodynamics can easily be called a fairytale religion, not a verified SCIENCE! Then the big question is why do secular professors spend their time teaching kids a State Religion? Because it denies God the Authorship of the Universe! Therefore, people do not need to believe in morals, right, wrong and salvation from sin; "when I'm dead, I'm gone forever." Just what the devil wants, your destruction.
The main and very unstated purpose of America's State Religion is to make, in the minds of Americans, the Bible a book of fairy tales. And one of the major stories in the Bible is the global flood. Therefore textbooks used in Public Schools take all efforts to make the idea of a global flood ever happening a mythological idea. It is working exactly as the Apostle Paul writes about a majority of people that believe the State Religion teachings in 2 Timothy 4:3, 4: "turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."
The State Religion takes advantage of people's desire to not be responsible to anyone. For an example, look at the fragmented heap of lost marriages. Since the introduction of nofault divorce, the number of divorces have skyrocketed. No one has to admit guilt, so anyone in a marriage can give in to whatever selfish desire.
Even Charles Darwin knew the improbability of what he wrote:
The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. (Origin of Species, page 291, Penguin edition, 1968) ( Why I believe in Creation, Dr. A. J. Monty White, Evangelical Press, 1999)
Presently, with more work done in thermodynamics, the left wing of academics, still in spite of the thermodynamic impossibility, believe the universe just happened. They use logic like this: I'm here, and I can't believe in God, therefore, I evolved from nothing. Since Charles Darwin, the elite academics have tried to create life from inorganic material. They enjoy no success.
I compare some of the smartest people on earth trying, with as much energy as they have, to verify the possibilities of macroevolution to random chances of chemicals performing the same. Which has the most probability of happening? 1) An atheist scientist, who can adapt the thermodynamics to a favorable reaction, 2) Disorganized chemicals to, by random chance, become more organized? Therefore, if it was possible, would it not have happened by now?
Is academic intelligence the same as wisdom? They try to use their intelligence to perform the impossible.
b. Religion Under a Cloak
Unbeknown to most Americans, and especially the ACLU, (who pretends ignorance in this case), the atheist doctrine taught to kids in public school, is in fact, a religion. The shakers and breakers of the Humanist doctrine admit their doctrine is a religion.
Please take a look at the Humanist Manifesto:. The following words were copied from their web page.
Humanist Manifesto I
The Manifesto is a product of many minds. It was designed to represent a developing point of view, not a new creed. The individuals whose signatures appear would, had they been writing individual statements, have stated the propositions in differing terms. The importance of the document is that more than thirty men have come to general agreement on matters of final concern and that these men are undoubtedly representative of a large number who are forging a new philosophy out of the materials of the modern world.
Raymond B. Bragg (1933)
The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.
There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word religion with doctrines and methods which have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem of human living in the Twentieth Century. Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries. But through all changes religion itself remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.
Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:
FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as selfexisting and not created.
SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.
FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.
FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.
SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".
SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation and all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.
EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.
NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social wellbeing.
TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.
ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.
TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.
THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.
FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profitmotivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.
FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.
So stand the theses of religious humanism. Though we consider the religious forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate, the quest for the good life is still the central task for mankind. Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power for its achievement. He must set intelligence and will to the task.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: There were 34 signers of this document, including Anton
J. Carlson, John Dewey, John H. Dietrich, R. Lester Mondale, Charles
Francis Potter, Curtis W. Reese, and Edwin H. Wilson.]
Copyright © 1973 by the American Humanist Association
Permission to reproduce this material in total in electronic or printout form is hereby granted free of charge by the copyright holder. Free permission to reprint the essay is granted to nonprofit Humanist and Freethought publications. All others must secure advance permission of the author through the American Humanist Association, which can be contacted at the address at the end of this file.
Using my freedomofspeech 'rights,' I publish this now. I will try to get permission, but seeing that the Web page is selfincriminating evidence of the United States of America promoting a RELGION, they may not give permission.
In essence, what these words do, just like mainstream New Age religion, is to proclaim humans, as their own gods! Ha! What power we have! We can't even live together without trying to kill each other, let alone create anything worthwhile.
The Humanist religion of manmade gods set their first claim over a century ago in public school. John Dewey, who was behind much of the public school problems, was a major leader and knew that starting at a young age would be best to question the Bible. Is the Bible the Word of God, or a fairytale book? One of the first steps to make the Bible appear as a fairytale book, was the work of Charles Lyell, who wrote Principles of Geology or the 'Geology Bible,' to make presentday, what's the earth like now geologists into history teachers! It is the young earth/old earth debate.
Besides humanists using geologists to fulfill their desires, governments counties on up to the Federal Government are doing humanist work. Instead of pampering the humanist religion, all three segments of government should have blown the whistle on Charles Lyell. Apparently, he was an eloquent speaker. In addition to writing the geologist's bible, he was a lawyer. The Catastrophic geologists lost the war.
From the late 1700's more and more Christians compromised their faith by believing the old earth story. Charles Lyell was followed by Charles Darwin and some Christians compromised more to believe in macroevolution.
When a person compromises God's Word, what they are saying is 'I don't trust God enough to believe all His Words.' It is like when criminals break the law. Their actions are saying 'I won't obey all of your laws, just a few that I want to keep.' Being a Christian is a binary situation. You either believe God's Words, and keep them, or you are not faithful (a friend looks at Bible translations and the word translated as 'faithful' should is best translated 'loyal'. Rather than 'faithful' to Jesus (you are loyal to Jesus), you are not loyal to God's Word, and don't keep His Words.
VI. O
ld Earth Flaws 1
One point the State Religion uses to support the idea that the earth is millions and millions of years old is radioactive dating. Whether it be PotassiumArgon or any other radioactive element, the same flaws exist. It is a basic mathematical idea that shows the mistake in radioactive dating. All the radioactive isotopes have a verifiable rate of decay. All artifacts may then be assayed to determine an amount of radioactivity. The State Religion then uses this data to say the artifact is millions of years old.
However, certain assumptions are made to draw information from two pieces of data. Think of a Cartesian plane with one point and a straight line with a certain slope. The slope of the line is the halflife of the material and 'y' coordinate can be the amount determined by chemical assay. But in a radioactivity vs time graph, the time can not be calculated because there is no reliable starting point of the radioactivity unless an 'educated guess' is made. But a guess is still a guess and not a reliable piece of information.
But the starting point relies on a very great assumption when dealing with the State Religion's millions and millions of years: the ratio of the radioactive elements, RbSr, PbPb or KAr.
For example, dating work done by State Religion scientists on items from the Kaupelehu Flow (about 200 years ago.) Twelve different dates were determined ranging from 140 million years to 2.96 billion years.2
The State Religion geologists appear to be in a cyclical system. They make a guess based on Sir Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology or the "geology Bible." On their guess they set an element ratio which will lead to a time span that agrees with the strata determined by the geological column.
VII. Unanswered Questions
However, the ideas that support a global flood are never mentioned:
1) Fossils are only formed in a nonoxidizing atmosphere: under water. When an animal is left on the surface of the earth, it is eaten by animals and oxidized to nearly nothing.
Secular scientists like George Gaylord Simpson noted that when using the uniformitarian concepts (the rates of everything years ago is the same as it is now) do not explain what is found in fossils.
"The sudden appearance of life is not only the most puzzling feature of the whole fossil record but also its greatest apparent inadequacy." (The Evolution of Life, pg. 144)
The explanation of the fossil record should be CATASTOPHIC and not UNIFORMATARIAN! A flood happened whether the atheist secular people want to believe it or not.
2) Why was Lake Bonneville, with shores of 5000 feet above sea level, present and want happened to it?
3) If the Grand Canyon took "millions and millions of years" to form, why are round rocks ONLY at the bottom?
4) Why is the back side of the moon only a smooth plain with no craters?
Also, in order to understand the flood idea better, Bible scripture must be understood better. The scripture that best relates the earth configuration before the flood is Genesis 1:6.
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
My first understanding of the scripture was similar to islands in the midst of the ocean. But now, I see it as the earth being similar to Venus, the Earth had a water shield above land. Many secular studies proclaim that the earth was struck by a meteorite. Such a meteorite collapsed the water shield and the flood resulted. Water not present on the surface of the earth was suddenly on the surface.
The hypothesis of a flood causing the Grand Canyon was reproduced from the Mount Saint Helen's eruption effects. The eruption of the mountain caused Spirit Lake to flood. When the shore holding the water broke, the downstream river became a miniGrand Canyon.
For more information, look at Answers in Genesis.org, Kent Hovind's Doctor
Dinosaur or Science Against Evolution.org. From the last web site listed they briefly state that the only two documented cases of inanimate objects coming to life are: Pinocchio and Frosty the Snowman.
You need not believe the State Religion because there is no alternative. The alternative is the concept that we, and the universe we inhabit, were created by God.
VIII. Intelligent Design
Secular atheist scientists are of two sets of science and two sets of rules. They call it Science of Process and Science of Origin. Science of Process uses the rules of today, the rules of engineering. The Laws of Thermodynamics are seen as valid rules that work. However, if the same rules are applied to the Science of Origin, the Science of Origin becomes a Religion. The rules that say science is observable, testable and reproducible does not work for the "science" that our kids are taught in public school.
There is a movement around the world that fills the missing links with the use of a superhuman being that is not limited to the laws of science as we know them. This movement is not religious based. It is based very firmly in standard logic. It also indicates the obvious difference between a scientist and an engineer. This is a general comparison, not a solid binary situation.
Rather, I mean that thinking methods are different in scientists and engineers, but some scientists think engineering thoughts.
In general, some scientist are more philosophical than is usually thought.
When some scientists come up with the idea of macroevolution, that does not keep a standard scientific rule of reproducibility, they are definitely playing philosopher. An engineer on the other hand, is employed to build or design things. And everything in the world as we know it, keeps the standard rules of science and thermodynamics. Materially nonexistent ideas are the only things on this planet that do need to keep the rules. Engineers are not paid for ideas that do not produce a product or process of some nature. Scientist are paid sometimes to produce ideas that fulfill human needs, not a material product.
In the macroevolution idea, the human selfish need is to not be obligated to believe in a superhuman being that created the universe. So philosophical thinking scientists come up with the ideas of BigBang cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, organic evolution, and macroevolution to fulfill selfish human needs. Microevolution is the only reproducible type of evolution that has a retail value: breeding horses, dogs, cats or any other valuable animal or plant.
However, with the Intelligent Design movement, some engineerthinking scientists see the flaws in the atheist human origination ideas. They see how some of the human physiology did not evolve by itself.
I took a course in human anatomy and physiology and one human process amazed me. It was a process in an organ that by itself was thermodynamically impossible to work. But because some other reactions happened at the same instant, this thermodynamically impossible reaction changed its thermodynamic values to react properly. The probability of such a process to happen by itself is almost zero. But through atheist philosophical scientists, most Americans believe that our planet and ourselves "just happened." For some more information on Intelligent Design, you can link to h ttp://www.apologetics.org .
From http://www.answersingenesis.org, Mike Riddle wrote the following paper about the origin of life.
Can natural processes explain the orgin of life?