Tag Archives: evolution


The closest thing to religion that we have going for us is politics. That may be because the church once ran the whole thing. Between the Jews, Catholics, and Protestants, they had a couple thousand years or more to set things up that way. Opinions are in the forefront; facts have no bearing on anything. People vote against their own best interests because they have been trained that way. Right-wing politics and the church are in collusion to influence how people choose from the time of their birth on. The church works to influence how people think so they will not lose their grip on humanity. I am not talking about the Catholic Church, I am talking about the whole of Christianity in the West, and Islam in the East. Church by any other name is still a church.

Humanity is just now waking up to facts. The fact that there are facts is still new to us, even after a couple hundred years of our being able to recognize them. In some aspects of our thinking, we still don’t recognize them and don’t grant them any importance. We have been trained to shun them, to deny reality, to insist without recognition that our imaginations rule. Politicians collude with religion to limit education wherever possible. In the deep south of the United States, the effect is the strongest. Wherever poverty rules, the effect is the strongest. In those areas, religion is the main source of any kind of knowledge. Knowledge that is about fairy tales and imaginary beings endangers those who have been trained to attach them to reality. What ever trouble finds them will be blamed on something else, never the root cause. The politicians and the religions will keep their clean hands with no one the wiser.

Humanity seems trapped in this scenario, as tightly as a vice could hold it. Religions will die and evolve, just as do people, only to be replaced by different-seeming varieties. They are, after all, created by people, as the saying goes, in our own image. That must be why, even in our fear of them, we so admire them for their despicableness. Even the most adaptable of humans, after all, must answer to nature in all ways. Does that mean that we, in our desire to maintain religion as a feature of our existence, must call nature God and train scientists to become priests?

What most influences your vote? Do you trust the god named God to look after its own interests while you take care of your own? Or, did you cast another vote against yourself without really knowing why? You have until the next election to think about this and decide if you have really made the best choices.


No Forgiveness



No Forgiveness

Were he still with us, we should thank Mr. Franklin, and his friends and relatives, that he shared his thoughts with so many, and so many had the foresight to gather them up and preserve them for posterity. It gave us a direct record from which their shared thoughts may be studied and their intentions easily discerned. I have been accused of quoting out of context to change his meaning. I have a three-step deal for anyone who believes that:

  1. Show me where using context of neutral origin;
  2. Promise to verify such claims for yourself in the future before passing them on;
  3. Stop reading David Barton and listening to those who quote his words. They are his words. They would choke and gag those into whose mouths he sought to put them.

Although I owe you nothing, and my expectations are low, I will make two promises that can still be kept after I pass on, for just in case you disregard this message:

1)Unlike a makebelieve god, Mother Nature is real and we live on her beautiful world at her noble accordance. She offers no forgiveness when we mess up and make bad choices, but gives plenty of warnings by inducing pain and discomfort. You will sense such warnings all your lifetime. They are yours to interpret.

Some warnings go beyond individuals or groups, though, and may reach out to alert humanity as a whole body. We are receiving a variety of warnings that scientists have interpreted. We are ruining our planet. A few of us are raping Nature. Gaia is stressing beyond her limits. Nature offers no forgiveness. Once the line of no return has been crossed, there will be Hell to face, the innocent and guilty alike. That is the first promise.

2) If or whenever the American public awakens to all the ways they are being scammed and their birthrights stolen through dupery, the angry mob that erupts to set things straight, or get even, will be unstopable.

Due to the unusual nature of this script, I offer the following short editorial:

Atheists typically dislike metaphores and distrust the intentions of those who use them. Since I have presented “Nature” and “Gaia” as properties of reality accompanied by the metaphore “Mother Nature”, the entire script may fail to make its point. To forestall that I offer this instruction.

I understand all that exists to belong to a process named Evolution. That way of understanding helps me keep things straight, and I recommend it. Nature (Capitalized Initial) refers to the overall process, while nature and evolution (lower case initial) refer to portions of their related process. Gaia, as an example, is the regulating process of nature, whereas we are inescapeably immersed in a process named Nature.

Written entirely with OPEN OFFICE.




One of the rules that drives evolution is that of conservatism. Here, I am referring to real conservatism, not the greed-driven political practices of your conservative acquaintances. “Waste not, want not” may bespeak an air of stinginess in its expression, but exemplify efficiency in its application.

Apply that idea to the statement Epictetus made: Because we use far less energy squatting down and daydreaming than if we get up and move around, we evolved into a bunch of lazy louts. Because it’s safer, easier, and faster to store food inside your body if you need to run and hide from a predator, we evolved to become prone to large guts and constant hunger. Because improving yourself is a lot of work, people feel threatened by such a long-running use of energy. Such unusual activity may draw predators’ attention and appears to be wasteful, so those closest to you will begin to withdraw and distance themselves.

To discredit someone for making an effort in their own behalf, then, appears to be an entirely natural response. The same goes for the one whose studies led him/her away from the flock. That it requires less energy to write or say a memorized putdown than to make an attempt to gain understanding, to see what he/she knows that might benefit you, or attempt to join the effort, all require going beyond evolution’s tuning.

“To improve the world,” one of these signs says, “first improve yourself.” Rather than what we expect, what we lazy louts need to fear is that those who make the effort to improve themselves will stop there and forget about the world. After all, a place that seems to be nothing more than a source of wagging fingers, one-liner barbs and putdowns can hardly be worth the energy and risk.

Atheists’ Absurdities


I can’t help but wonder what is the problem?— and why does Mr. Chesterton find something absurd to scoff at? I find his scoffing reasoning absurd and, unlike so many who find atheism absurd, I’ll tell you why in a way that makes his absurdity obvious: His reasoning applies the same line of thought he decreed absurd. If something cannot arise from nothing, how did a god named God gain its purported existence?

No matter how many characters get inserted into the creative lineup, the first one had to arise from nothing. Two alternatives are at play, here, no matter how we present it:

  1. The universe arose from nothing or the god named God arose from nothing; or
  2. (Less likely) the universe always existed or the god named God always existed.

To me, it seems absurd that the least likely set of alternatives gets chosen by both sides of the fray. For my own self, I set out to study upon how the universe arose from nothing. First, of believers, I must inquire, if you suppose a god to exist uncaused, who possesses and controls amazing powers of all sorts, it seems certain that, whatever their origin, those powers existed on their own, zinging and crackling and popping all over the dark, empty void, waiting for some master magician to take hold of them and turn them into something useful—even if it had to create a magician to do that. Doesn’t that make more sense than what y’all have been telling me since the very beginning of my life? You betcha! Now, at least, a source of energy has found its way into the story.

But, still, your god remains *unessential to the story. Whatever could create a god could more handily, and believably, give rise to a growing cloud of dust that eventually merged through gravitation to form a black hole, implode into itself, and scatter matter all over the void. The rest is pretty much historical.

Now, isn’t that story simple, sweet, and far more sensible than the one that you’ve been repeating? I’ve been working on it for years, wrote a little book about it that no one seems to want to read. Still, I see Chesterton’s argument all over the place, despite there being a response as simple and sensible as what you just read here.


*NOTE: Occam’s razor requires that unessential elements be removed from consideration. That may be why God gets described as ‘immaterial’ by religious leaders, as in “immaterial to the subject.”