Buttars melted!

By Phil Plait | February 27, 2006 5:33 pm

Pardon the shotgun posting here, but I just learned that an anti-evolution bill proposed by Utah state Senator Buttars has been denied.

Woohoo!

It appears the hero (among many) here was Senator Urquhart:

Urquhart opposed Buttars’ bill because he doesn’t feel that science conflicts with religion and said it was misleading to single out one theory as unproven.

A very telling fact about these misguided legislators like Buttars is that they do indeed single out evolution when they tout phrases like "sound science" and "teach the controversy" (of course, when they start screwing with astronomy, I get even more pissed off). These guys, plain and simple, are injecting religion into legislation, and that’s a big no-no.

It’s refreshing to see a legislator like Urquhart actually saying science and religion need not be at odds, though to be honest I wish people would simply call a spade a spade: creationism is wrong, and writing it into laws is a First Amendment violation.

Comments (45)

  1. Leon

    Well, hurrah for that! That bill had been making me uneasy since I first heard about it, even though it’s in a different state. It’s good to see common sense prevail from time to time.

  2. monolithfoo

    Whats more. I think he has a blog…

    http://steveu.com/blog/2006/01/evolution.html

    It certainly seems legit. Very cool.

  3. Miral

    Creationism of the “fully formed at 4000BC” variety is wrong, anyway. Science cannot state anything about what happened prior to the Big Bang, so it’s possible that there was some kind of Creator around before then. (I’m not saying that I believe that myself, I’m just saying that science cannot [currently] deny the possibility, no matter how remote.)

  4. J.C

    I’ve always had a problem with people teaching Evolution like its a fact. Thats what they did when I was in school. I mean, its a good theory. And its probably the correct one as there aren’t that many other good theories to prove it wrong. But we havn’t proved it yet.

    Personally I like to keep an open mind. If we get too caught up in a theory, its going to be really hard to change if someone finds evidence that another theory could be right.

  5. Miral

    J.C: this issue has been discussed lots in other blog comments. It stems from a confusion with the scientific terms.

    In science, “theory” actually means “best approximation model, which has been rigorously tested and subjected to peer review”.

    Science cannot actually produce “proof” — the “theory” is the best you can get.

    This is why the word “Law” is frequently substituted when talking to non-scientists (eg. the “Theory of Gravity” is called the “Law of Gravity”), in an attempt to avoid this sort of ensuing discussion :)

  6. captain swoop

    Hey J.C. Evolution is a Fact AND a Theory. It is a fact that evolution happens, we can observer it, the Theory tries to explain why.

    See

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

  7. Miral, “law” and “theory” both have consistant but different semantics. A “law” is an observed empirical relationship between quantities: Kepler’s Laws of Motion, Newton’s Law of Gravity, Boyle’s Law. As such, it is a lesser state than a theory because it dosn;t provide an explanation of the relationship, it merely observes its presence. A theory describes why a certain mathematical raltionship holds. It gives explanatory power and the form of the law falls out of the mathematics of the theory. Kepler’s laws describe eliptical orbits and allow someone with the appropriate mathematical tools to caluculate orbits. But it dosn;t say why these object follow these paths. An inverse square law of gravitation yields Kepler’s Laws after several pages of mathematics, but there’s still no explanation why an inverse square is an appropriate form. It isn’t until we get to Einstein where we have a model for gravity as the deformation of spacetime and we can filally talk about a _Theory_ of Gravitation.

    Since evolution has no mathematical relationships, it has no laws as such. That dosn’t make it any less of a theory.

  8. writerdd

    The word “theory” is a problem. I don’t think it should be used to talk to the public about science. I don’t think there’s any way that we will ever get the general public to view the word “theory” as anything but “guess”.

    Gravity is a theory AND a fact also.

    Fact — we don’t fall off the planet.

    Theory — Well, Newton had one. Einstein had a better one. I think I read about someone having an even better one than Einstein recently. Well, Phil, you’d know more about that than me. I’m just a science hobbyist.

    No-one goes around talking about the “theory of gravity”. We talk about the “law of gravity.” We should, to be consistent, talk about the “law of evolution,” shouldn’t we?

  9. Hickboy

    As a (often embarrassed by Buttars) resident of Utah, I am extremely happy to hear this news. It was clear in this case, as with most others, that the true gripe with evolution was not the theory, but the fact that it may have gone against someone’s religious beliefs. Even though Mr. Buttars at times claimed that this was not a religious issue he had said before the legislative session that part of his motivation was the example of two girls that lost their faith in God after learning of evolution in schools. I am looking for the exact quote, but it was close to that.

    By the way, the original link to the Salt Lake Tribune article seems to be dead so here is a newer one:

    http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3554104

  10. Evolving Squid

    I find it most interesting that these kinds of bills get raised only in the United States. Other “western” (i.e. the countries that Osama loves to hate) countries have many or are dominated by Christians. Yet it seems few, if any other western countries have people trying to stamp out science, or attack things like evolutionary theory in legislation.

    It’s a fairly unique aspect of US culture, and one of the areas where Americans are very different from Canadians even though so many people think Americans and Canadians are the same but for the mythical “eh”. It’s certainly an area where the US is substantially different from the UK, even though the UK doesn’t even have separation of church and state (actually, neither does Canada).

    I think that cultural issue is what really must be addressed. It’s not Senator Buttars, or the Dover school board, or the Kansas school board but a broader cultural issue.

  11. Chet

    Would it not be easier to understand, perhaps, Universe does not depend on whether we humans existed or not? Would the solar system still exist if our species had not evolved? Of course! “God”, however, is anthropogenic.
    Again, I recommend Arthur N. Strahler’s book: Science and Earth History—the Evolution/Creation Controversy.
    Pg 9: “Scientific knowledge: the best picture of the real world that humans can devise, given the present state of our collective investigative capability. By ‘best’ we mean (a) the fullest and most complete description of what we observe, (b) the most satisfactory explanation of what is observed in terms of interrelatedness to other phenomena and to the basic universal laws, and (c) description and explanation that carry the greatest probability of being a true picture of the real world.”
    “A law of science is a form of scientific statement with special attributes. First, it is a very general statement in the sense that it is applicable over a wide range of time and space; it is a statement that applies over and over, countless times, in countless situations. This is often referred to as a universal statement. Second, the statement of the law, once formulated, does not vary with repetition. Third and most important, the statement enjoys an extremely small probability of being in error because it has been tested in application countless times by innumerable investigators without once having failed its tests. Wherever and whenever the law has been applied, it has successfully predicted the outcome of the events it explains or the experiment set up to test it.”
    Pg 23: ”A law of science is a statement describing the relationship between or among variables that can be shown to co-relate always in exactly the same manner when a set of initial or boundary conditions is precisely established and defined.”
    **Pg 41: “God is anthropogenic, meaning that God is created by humans. God exists in ideas, and ideas are physical realities produced by the brain by neurophysiological processes capable of being investigated and explained by scientific study.”
    “The anthropogenic hypothesis of God (including with God any other entities that are assigned to the supernatural realm) has the strong logical position of accounting for all forms of God and accepting them all as reality. It is important to make clear that physical reality attaches to the ideas and images of God and that they exist in the natural realm (i.e., the model-image is real). In contrast, the prototype is nonreal (nonexistent). Mechanistic naturalism is not atheistic; it does not deny the existence of God. Quite to the contrary, is has a rational position for all God-models within the total mechanistic system.”
    “Mechanistic naturalism maximizes the opportunity for humans to encompass under a single general hypothesis or theory all physical and biological forms and processes of the cosmos, because it has a rational accommodation for all phenomena capable of identification and description.
    “In this context, religion becomes amendable to analysis by science and the supposed conflict between two particular religions or between a given religion and a given naturalistic philosophy is restructured into a case of two diverse phenomena capable of coexistence, each in its own habitat—the human mind.”

  12. SFwriter

    Now THAT is an explanation that Douglas Adams, Isaac Asimov, and myself could all agree upon: God is all in your head! Fine work there, Chet. ;-)

    Kudos to Phil, too, for not bending to the phony PC-ness in his choice of expression. Often taken as racial, the expression ‘to call a spade a spade’ is much older, dating back to at least 423BC, when it appeared in Aristophanes’ play “The Clouds”, and refers, quite LITERALLY to calling something exactly what is is. Never surrender to PC-ness, a most appalling affliction of our times… :-(

  13. Leon

    writerdd Says:

    The word “theory” is a problem. I don’t think it should be used to talk to the public about science. I don’t think there’s any way that we will ever get the general public to view the word “theory” as anything but “guess”.

    You’re probably right about the public perception of the word “theory”. I’ve sometimes thought that scientists should use a different term to mean “scientific theory” to avoid the confusion.

    Of course, creationist activists would probably take advantage of that to shout that “They got tired of us challenging their unproven theory, so they changed the name to try to trick us!”

  14. Irishman

    Miral Said:
    >Creationism of the “fully formed at 4000BC” variety is wrong, anyway.

    I think this is in response to Phil’s statement, “creationism is wrong”. Let us clarify terminology.

    “Creationism” is not the mere belief in God, that a deity is responsible behind the scenes. Creationism is a declaration about the methods used by that god – what is sometimes termed “special creation”, but I like to call “instantaneous appearance”. That’s what we’re really debating. Evolution is a description of “change over time”. Creationism is a description of “instantaneous appearance and immutability of species”, i.e. species are uniquely defined and do not change. That is the scientific distinction between the two “theories”. Only one of those is supported by the evidence – Evolution. The other is grossly wrong.

    If one wants to discuss the philosophical ramifications, one can argue about Evolution as God’s method or about Evolution meaning God is unnecessary. But those are metaphysics, and are not science. The science is the description of how the diversity of life occurs. Change over time, through mechanisms of Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, Mutation, and Recombination during reproduction.

    writerdd Said:
    >No-one goes around talking about the “theory of gravity”. We talk about the “law of gravity.” We should, to be consistent, talk about the “law of evolution,” shouldn’t we?

    Not really. The “Law of Gravity” is Newton’s Law of Gravitation. It is a scientific law – a description of behavior. The Gravitational Force between two objects will have the magnitude proportional to the product of the masses of each object and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the objects. The proportionality factor is a Universal Constant, G.

    Newton didn’t really have much of a Theory of Gravity – he proposed there was some “field” emenated by masses. This field concept was also applied to electromagnetism. Einstein’s “Theory of Gravity” has a more specific name, so we know it by “General Relativity” rather than Gravity Theory. That’s why we don’t talk about the Theory of Gravity.

  15. text guzzler

    Evolving Squid, you’re right on target: It’s a cultural issue, not a religious one.
    No wonder Americans are looked abroad as (a little tongue-in-cheek) ‘the country where children think as adults and adults act like children’ The quote comes from an American popular icon (MAD magazine, none other).
    But seriously, as a Japanese proverb says: ‘when you only have a hammer, you tend to treat all your problems as nails’. Any resemblance to current American policies (science included) is unintentional, I’m only advancing my 2 cents for rumination.
    Keep the good thread rolling, guys.

  16. Irishman

    I “like” this quote, from the Desert Morning News article:
    “We talking about the origins of life,” she said. “Some say that we started with monkeys, others say we climbed out of the slime — if you look at everything that has been said, all you can do is point out that there are competing theories.” — Utah Eagle Forum President Gayle Ruzicka
    http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635178973,00.html

    That’s right, she’s equating two different popularizations of ideas from Evolution with being competing scientific theories for human origins. She’s either an idiot or she’s being disengenous.

  17. Evolving Squid

    It’s a cultural issue, not a religious one.

    Exactly, and it’s an issue that interests me a lot.

    If an MP in Britain tried to table a private member’s bill to have creationism taught along-side evolution, or to “teach the controversy” or something similar, I’m sure the Queen herself would smack him upside the head with her mace… and she’s the head of the Church of England as well as head of state.

    I guess it’s the antagonism between the Christian “church” (certain specific flavours of it, anyway) and the secular part of society that I find fascinating, combined with the fact that it really only manifests itself in the United States. Perhaps it’s just a population thing – there are simply more people of that persuasion in the US so there’s enough of them to form a critical mass, whereas even in Canada where the percentage of Christian fundamentalists is probably similar, there’s just not enough of an absolute number of them for people to listen?

    The other thing I find fascinating about it is that the same people who would condemn science and have the state embrace religion condemn Iran for running their state in essentially that way.

    Senator Buttar should be made to sit and read “A Handmaid’s Tale”.

  18. Leon

    Irishman Says:

    I “like” this quote, from the Desert Morning News article:

    Wow, that really is striking. Ignorance abounds!

  19. Leon

    Evolving Squid says:

    Perhaps it’s just a population thing – there are simply more people of that persuasion in the US

    Or, it might be a manifestation of the whole attitude we Americans seem to have adopted, that “By God I’m Right; I know I’m right. Therefore anyone who thinks differently is wrong, and needs to be shown it. And if it takes a little raw power to shove the Truth down someone’s throat, so be it.”

    It’s the same attitude that got is into Iraq.

  20. Leon

    (sorry, should be “got us into Iraq”)

  21. beskeptigal

    “These guys, plain and simple, are injecting religion into legislation, and that’s a big no-no….”(Dr. Plait)

    And there is an organized effort to inject the Christian religion into all areas of government as well, time to call that spade too.

    “though to be honest I wish people would simply call a spade a spade: creationism is wrong, and writing it into laws is a First Amendment violation.”….”(Dr. Plait)

    Perhaps more scientists should be less afraid to confront religion with the tools of science as well. Earth sciences tiptoe around religious issues. Rather than saying there is no evidence for gods we say science doesn’t address gods. (We can make both statements.) Social sciences tiptoe around religious issues as well. Rather than saying there is anthropological evidence the Bible arose in a limited geographic area and until recently represented the beliefs of the people in that area alone, we do the research but ignore the obvious conclusion. Just as a multitude of parallel religious beliefs developed in other geographic areas the Bible is not qualitatively different from any other religion. If science has no trouble calling Zeus a mythological being, science should have no trouble calling ‘God’ a mythological being. [Raise the force shields, Spock, ready for attack. ;) ]

    There is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE for the theory of evolution. That statement maintains the terminology and gets past the public’s ignorance about that terminology. J.C., you need to catch up your school evolution education with the genetic sciences that have since added overwhelming evidence supporting the theory of evolution.

    Mechanistic naturalism, while I like the rest of your post, Chet, sounds like merely another term for cognitive dissonance.

  22. beskeptigal

    Evolving Squid Says: “I find it most interesting that these kinds of bills get raised only in the United States. Other “western” … countries have many or are dominated by Christians. Yet it seems few, …have people trying to stamp out science, or attack things like evolutionary theory in legislation.

    It’s … one of the areas where Americans are very different from Canadians … It’s certainly an area where the US is substantially different from the UK, even though the UK doesn’t even have separation of church and state (actually, neither does Canada)…

    …If an MP in Britain tried to table a private member’s bill to have creationism taught along-side evolution, or to “teach the controversy” or something similar, I’m sure the Queen herself would smack him upside the head with her mace… and she’s the head of the Church of England as well as head of state….

    text guzzler Says: “Evolving Squid, you’re right on target: It’s a cultural issue, not a religious one.”

    Perhaps you both should not be so sure this “cultural issue” isn’t spreading.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm
    “Britons unconvinced on evolution, Charles Darwin (PA)
    Over 55s were less likely to opt for evolution than other groups
    Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.

    Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons”

    BTW, ‘eh’ is not a myth. I live close enough to Canada to hear ‘eh’ and ‘aboot’ on a regular basis. Perhaps it’s a BC thing, eh?

  23. beskeptigal

    Perhaps you both should not be so sure this “cultural issue” isn’t spreading.

    and

    BTW, ‘eh’ is not a myth. I live close enough to Canada to hear ‘eh’ and ‘aboot’ on a regular basis. Perhaps it’s a BC thing, eh?

    are my only statements in the above post.

    I left off a couple “” marks and my obsessive-compulsive nature is forcing my fingers to the keyboard to make this correction. Can’t …..resist….ahhhh.

  24. Christian fundamentalists in America operate under willful ignorance and tend to twist and omit facts that threaten their beliefs. Unfortunately, most of the US population is composed of Christians who blindly listen to them.

  25. TR

    Chet (quoting Strahler) said:

    “It is important to make clear that physical reality attaches to the ideas and images of God and that they exist in the natural realm (i.e., the model-image is real). In contrast, the prototype is nonreal (nonexistent). Mechanistic naturalism is not atheistic; it does not deny the existence of God. Quite to the contrary, is has a rational position for all God-models within the total mechanistic system.”

    Strahler may not think of this as atheism, but I imagine most Christians (and indeed adherents to most of the world’s major religions) would probably disagree. For the most part, believers do not think of themselves as worshiping the “model-image” of a god. They worship God himslef. (Yes, for most it is a him.) They believe God to be a real, genuine, extant being with an objective reality which extends beyond the neurochemical processes taking place in their own brains. No Christian is going to be comfortable with the suggestion that God wouldn’t exist if no one had ever thought of him!

    After all, this exact same line of argument could just as easily be applied to unicorns, elves, and Santa Clause. While some people (myself included) may be comfortable putting “God” on that same list, most of the world (myself included) would certainly consider those people to be atheists.

  26. “I don’t believe that anybody in there really wants their kids to be taught that their great-grandfather was an ape.” — Utah St. Sen. Chris Buttars.

    Unbridled ignorance nauseates me.

  27. Nigel Depledge

    Wolverine, ignorance itself is not a crime. What gets my goat is when the ignorant presume they know better, or at the very least fail to acknowledge their ignorance.

    If someone chooses to be ignorant, that’s their prerogative. I just wish they didn’t then expect to be able to tell others how to live their lives, or consider themselves to be in a better position to judge what should or should not be taught in schools.

  28. Cindy

    Wolverine,

    My response to comments like that of Buttars is that I much rather claim to be more closely related to apes than to people like Buttars.

  29. Nigel: Agreed. Perhaps I should have specified … wilful ignorance.

  30. Irishman

    “I don’t believe that anybody in there really wants their kids to be taught that their great-grandfather was an ape.” — Utah St. Sen. Chris Buttars.

    Well, if that’s the truth, then I suppose I’d want that taught. We don’t get to vote on the truth. I mean, if we can vote, I’d rather be descended from cats. Cats are so much cooler than apes. Okay, they don’t have thumbs, but if cats ever developed thumbs we’d be in trouble. They already know they’re better than us. Wait, that’s why they have us – we’re the cats’ surrogate opposable thumbs. ;-)

    What’s so wrong about being descended from apes, who are descended from other mammals, descended from reptiles, descended from amphibians, descended from fish, descended from cyanobacteria? It connects us to the great chain of being, the Tree of Life. It means we’re an integral part of nature and the world, and that what we do in and to the world affects us and our existence. It means that all life is precious as it is, in some sense, us. It means that what makes us unique is not the means of our existence, but only the form and extent. It’s a far more amazing thing to realize that we can study and understand how we got here and where we came from, not merely chalk it up to popping out of nothingness on a random Tuesday. I find that a much more meaningful and satisfying answer.

  31. beskeptigal

    A little too much Red Dwarf there Irishman?

  32. Trevor Wood

    Looking at the USA from a distance (Australia) one has an impression of a country with a deep underlying belief in the supernatural… from the creationist politicians playing to their credulous constituents to Hollywood with their endless stream of shows about vampires, demons, ghosts, etc. I guess if you accept a god with an army versus an opponent with an army then all the assorted evil ones follow logically but we seem a bit short on angel and seraph movies! (Yes I know there have been a couple!)

    I suppose it’s all about education and suchlike but to be honest USA, sometimes you make even your friends uneasy! When God tells your President to push the button, who’s to argue?

  33. Leon

    Trevor Wood says:

    I suppose it’s all about education and suchlike but to be honest USA, sometimes you make even your friends uneasy!

    I can’t disagree. It’s not always easy seeing what’s being done in my name.

    beskeptigal Says:

    A little too much Red Dwarf there Irishman?

    lol! I suppose you could say this bill sounds a bit like an Arnold Rimmer idea…

  34. Buzz Parsec

    Since he’s making $120K/year spewing this nonsense, greed might be
    as much a factor as ignorance.

    As someone (in The Grifters? ) said, “Stupid and greedy, my favorite
    combination!”

  35. Melusine

    Wolverine, I think I’m going to be sick. That’s great, teach kids at five years old to distrust and challenge science and learn how to argue against evolution in 2nd grade along with their multiplication tables. Forget about all those cool-looking dinosaurs! Mark Twain wasn’t kidding when he wrote about the Lower Animals.

    Trevor Wood says:

    Looking at the USA from a distance (Australia) one has an impression of a country with a deep underlying belief in the supernatural…

    With all due respect, Trevor, can you please not send us any more Australians like Ham. ;-)

    “Answers in Genesis is the biggest of these ministries. Ham co-founded the nonprofit in his native Australia in 1979.”

  36. RAD

    Whats amazing about evanglists is they not only say to only believe the words in the bible they also tend to, like every other religion, conviniently leave out what doesn’t fit their beliefs.

  37. Hickboy

    Irishman said:

    What’s so wrong about being descended from apes…? It connects us to the great chain of being, the Tree of Life. It means we’re an integral part of nature and the world, and that what we do in and to the world affects us and our existence….

    For many, I’m afraid that’s the problem. Many people want to thing that humans are above the rest of the world. These people cannot see that humans are unique regardless of origin and are likely afraid that if they admit that the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that humans evolved from something “lower,” then we are no longer unique and special. Once that happens, their “faith” is destroyed, and life begins to have no meaning. (Disclaimer: this is not to say that many cannot have both religious faith and a respect for science, the above statements only apply to those who cannot handle both that I have observed.)

  38. Leon

    Wolverine Says:

    Speaking of wilful ignorance…

    That article is absolutely frightening. WTF are we coming to? The damage these people are doing to our future scares the h*** out of me.

    I’ll think of Ken Ham at lunch today when I bite into my ham sandwich.

  39. RAD

    For those who think we didn’t descend from apes, just take a look at Patrick Ewing. Thats what I call the missing link.

  40. Evolving Squid

    Perhaps you both should not be so sure this “cultural issue” isn’t spreading.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm
    “Britons unconvinced on evolution, Charles Darwin (PA)
    Over 55s were less likely to opt for evolution than other groups
    Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.

    Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons”

    While I don’t doubt the veracity of that, there still aren’t members of parliament or the senate tabling bills to get ID shoved into schools, or evolution pushed out, which was my point.

    I’m well aware that there are plenty of people in the western world who, for whatever reason, choose the supernatural over the logical – but outside the USA, those people more-or-less keep quiet unless you ask them directly.

  41. Trevor Wood

    To Melusine….
    Please excuse my ignorance but who is Ham? Another case of the prophet being ignored in his own land? I can guess why he moved to the US… “Dig where the gold is!” Back to my original comment?

    Don’t feel too bad – we have a healthy supply of US based “missionaries” bringing fellowship, love, and tithing.

  42. Melusine

    To Melusine….
    Please excuse my ignorance but who is Ham? Another case of the prophet being ignored in his own land? I can guess why he moved to the US… “Dig where the gold is!” Back to my original comment?

    I was referring to the article Wolverine posted. Click on his link in this post:

    Wolverine Says:
    February 28th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
    Speaking of wilful ignorance

    Yup, no doubt about your “digging for gold” comment.

    Don’t feel too bad – we have a healthy supply of US based “missionaries” bringing fellowship, love, and tithing.

    Hopefully, Australians aren’t as gullible. :-)

  43. Morsey

    Lets refer back to the the “theory of evolution”. First of all it is based on flawed assumptions:-
    (a) science has an answer for EVERYTHING
    (b) the human brain is unlimited…. which i really think is what they are assuming because they want to know how are we here in this world. Do you really think that this human brain which is no more than a ball in size has no limits? In my opinion, thinking about how are we here is tresspassing the boundaries of your brain, which may likely result in you getting crazy, which have happened in some occasions.
    Okay let’s say, the theory of evolution is true, does it answer the question of how we are here… ofcourse not? If you keep going back and back to the origins of things you will find no end, actually you will it will be the end of your brain. Say humans originated from apes is true, then where did the apes come from, if they came from “a piece of lipid which a rain drop initiated the development of a living thing” (which i presonally find is nonsense when you see how humans are made from DNA which itself is broken down to even finer origins… and so on…. how can something as specific and precise as this originate from “chance” or from a “drop of rain hitting a piece of lipid”…. nonsense). Let’s even go beyond that and say this “drop of rain on lipid” thing is true, where did the lipid come from, and who or what created the rain….. you see where this is going to….. you will reach the point where the “big-bang” theory comes in, and how the universe started from matter. Oh ok what started the big bang, who created this matter, who made the big-bang begin….. stop right there! your brain will throb if you go beyond this point. Based on what science wants this is where you will end up, nowhere.
    So did i make it clear that the human brain cannot think about the origins of everything? Hope so.

    Now about why we are here. I have one evidence ( i don’t know if it is considered “evidence”) which disproves that the universe and humans were created by “chance”, and at the same time has somewhat an idea of why we are here. If you think about it…. why does mating have a pleasant feeling? Did you ever think why…. do you think pleasant feeling is only there for people to get entertained? Ofcourse not. This pleasant feeling is only with humans because they have the choice to do what they want unlike animals who have their life dedicated to do certain things and daily routines which they do not mentally control. Like if mating didnt have a pleasant feeling would someone ever bother in pracising it, no because they have the choice not to…. anyway back to the point. This pleasant feeling ensures that mating constantly takes place in humans to preserve the human population, and why is that? because Man was created for a certain task and goal, which is to construct this world…. and ofcourse religion has a main influence here, but i think i should introduce it when you are convinced with what i am saying. So do you think that by chance, the human was created with it’s “self-characteristic” of preserving it’s population and so has a certain goal in hand. Ok ok you say that all organisms have their own ways of ensuring their population to survive, well yes as well because the human will not live without these other organisms, it’s an interlinking community with Man being most Intelligent and so because Man is most Intelligent and has the brain power to choose whatever he wants, then God created Man with this characteristic of pleasant feeling during mating to keep it’s population surviving and to construct this world. You see now I have introduced religion here, but i had to because there is no other source of convincing you. And again, im telling you it is good to think about this and many other things, but when you reach a point when you think…. oh who’s God and I dont see him and How was he created?!! Stop yourself because you are crossing the boundaries of your brain. How can you use your brain to think about the creator of your brain? No way.

    There are many othe evidence for this and how religion really has the answer for your convincing, but you should look at things more deeply and don’t just take the opinions or comments of other people and agree. Becuase im telling you, if u really want to gather religious information, the Internet is not a good source because it is too open for anyone whoever wants to talk about anything, and anyone here inculdes people who want to mislead you, or think they are saying the truth but actually are putting you deeper into falseness.

    If i want to say anything in it’s fullest form, i’ll be talking and talking forever, so i will stop here. Thank you for taking your time and using up your patience to read this. (by the way: what i said is not just “my opinion”, it was based on reading and information gathered from reliable sources)

    thanks again

  44. Morsey

    by the way im not against science, i love science and i really like reading about scientific things because when you get deeper into science you will find new solutions for problems in the world, but that doesn’t mean that science is everything and is 100% true.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »