Today on Blogcritics
Home » Creationism is Fascism

Creationism is Fascism

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Creationism is fascism. This is not an exaggeration. For the most part Mussolini defined fascism as the identification of the individual with the state. The government thereby becomes the science and the religion of the people. We are they and they are we. The truth can never be doubted in a fascist government/religion for it is political doctrine and not a matter of individual reason or empirical observation. Creationism works much the same. Granted evolution is a theory, but so is gravity a theory. In fact, what makes a theory a good theory is that it can be disproved with a single definitive empirical experiment. Creationism, on the other hand, regardless of its form is driven by white-knuckled believers. Indeed there are some unanswered questions with evolution, as with all good theories, but as yet there has not been a fatal flaw. Intelligent design on the other hand, the most sophisticated form of creationist fascism, has no experiments that can disprove the intelligent designer upon which it is based. One dinosaur bone in the wrong geological strata, however, disproves evolution as we know it. That is why evolution is vastly more likely than creationism to be empirically accurate. That misplaced bone has never been found… yet. Evolution is no more secure than any other scientific theory. It too is based on testable dubitable hypotheses, and that is its strength. The problem with creationism however, is it is rooted in the creationist’s faith in an infantile god that meddles with the creation of individual species. Creationism is indubitable, and that is its weakness. This explains why creationists hold evolution to a different standard than they hold creationism. Creationists require evolution to disprove their happy divinity whereas all they claim they need to do is cast doubts on evolution. Thank God we can doubt evolution; otherwise it would be a variety of fascism too. Evolution in its elegance is without ad hoc gobbledy gook, creationism however is ad hoc ad infinitum. Oh, and if even for an instant you think creationism is not a variety of fascism, ask yourself who would be more likely to physically punish, if not kill, his opponent: the creationist or the evolutionary scientist?

Powered by

About carmine

  • http://apathyonline.net Abbie Gonzalez

    Boy, I would hate to believe in something that could not be doubted. It might make me a fascist!
    As long as I doubt what I believe, I’ll be fine.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    Our state run schools treat evolution as fact, as do our state run museums, zoos, and other places where evolution is mentioned. It never says “based on generally accepted theories of evolution,” but rather “when birds evolved.”

    Whose the fascist?

    I’ll match your doctor and raise you

  • http://sehrgut.co.uk/tafelmusik Keith

    Okay, if one dinosaur bone in the wrong stratum disproved the Theory of Evolution as we know it, what do human artifacts (necklaces, iron cookware) found embedded in coal suggest?

  • http://www.morethings.com/senate Al Barger

    James D. Carmine PhD, I could give a rat’s ass about the authority you presume to wield by adding PhD to your name.

    Further, I would be more circumspect than to call you a “fascist.” However, this half-assed little essay certainly does look like bullying. You’re the one here trying to intimidate people into acquiescence with your colloquial little worldview. Anyone who disagrees with your theory of how the world came to be is a fascist, like Mussolini. They’re a no-good shit to be shunned or mocked.

    You didn’t even BEGIN to make an argument to justify this hateful assertion.

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    Isn’t it ironic? Talking non-stop to prevent any interjection causes the listener to close mind and ears against the verbal barrage. Writing non-stop like this, all one paragraph, has the same effect on the reader.

    Take a breath, man! Break up your argument into digestible bites.

    You might also look up the word Fascism – “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    Keith says – Okay, if one dinosaur bone in the wrong stratum disproved the Theory of Evolution as we know it, what do human artifacts (necklaces, iron cookware) found embedded in coal suggest?

    It suggests that someone was in the wrong place at the wrong time!

  • PseudoErsatz

    Evolutionary Dogmatists can be just as white-knuckled in their beliefs. Oh, and if even for an instant you think Evolutionism is not a variety of fascism, ask yourself who would be more likely to stifle debate in a high school science class: the creationist or the evolutionary scientist?

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Those darn Christians… we should kill them all.

  • Nancy

    Good evolutionists are not white-knuckled in any beliefs, and the regular donnybrooks they engage in at conventions, and the verbal brawls they have in various publications prove. I’ve never met a more contentious, argumentative, contrary group. It’s very close to like being in the vicinity of the post game of a European soccer match. The point is, they MUST be flexible, or become petrified themselves. Just about every discovery or new technology shoots all hypotheses and carefully thought out evolutionary trees straight to hell and everyone has to start at the beginning again. It’s a very plastic field; has to be. Not carved in stone (or bone, as some would say) at all.

  • JR

    Oh, and if even for an instant you think Evolutionism is not a variety of fascism, ask yourself who would be more likely to stifle debate in a high school science class: the creationist or the evolutionary scientist?

    Too easy. Creationist.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    JR – did you go to a HS that taught both? I did and neither theory was stifled in the classroom. One of the theories may have been slightly stifled every first friday of the month when we had to go to church, but the discussions were not stifled in school.

    It just amazes me how scared people are of an idea!

  • JR

    JR – did you go to a HS that taught both?

    Honestly, I don’t remember them teaching either one! My high school was more day care than education.

    I do remember Creationism being explained in the science books I saw as a kid; usually at the beginning before they went on to describe how it was supplanted by evolution. Intelligent Design as such wasn’t invented yet when I was growing up.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    I thought ID and creationism were pretty much the same thing. My point is…the folks that should be against the teaching of anything but creationism aren’t! And the folks in public education that should teach it all won’t!

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    oh andy, you ignorant, misinformed slut..

    that is because Evolution is a scinetific Theory..and ID is not..it is metaphysics at best

    so let’s keep science in the science classroom and metaphysics where it belongs

    i have no difficulty with ID being discussed..but NOT in a HS science class

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Well, this bit of twaddle certainly isn’t the brilliant counterpoint to the recent invasion of Christian book pseudo-reviewers we’ve had on BC.

    Dave

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    Gonzo…I said ID and creationism…not evolution…I know what evolution is…and BTW…you hurt my feelings…BITCH!

  • http://www.publichealthpage.com MDE

    re: “who would be more likely to stifle debate in a high school science class: the creationist or the evolutionary scientist?”

    So high school science class should be a debating society?

    Democracy in action! Let’s have each class debate and vote on just what constitutes scientific explanation.

    Similarly, in English class they can decide what constitutes good grammar.

    Mark

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    MDE…are you saying that different theories shouldn’t be taught in school? Only the theory that YOU subscribe to?

  • http://www.publichealthpage.com MDE

    re: “MDE…are you saying that different theories shouldn’t be taught”

    I’m saying that there is a time and a place for everything under heaven, and that high school biology class isn’t the place to debate creationism.

    Mark

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    why not? if half the world actually believes in it…why shouldn’t it be bought up in class…how is a kid supposed to know what’s right and wrong if he doesn’t know both sides of the story?

    Is it an ignorance is bliss kinda thing?

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    no andy, you silly bastard..

    it is the difference between what is SCIENCE and what is NOT

    now..i’m calling St. Agnes and telling the nuns yer being a dink, then the Monsigneur will send some Jesuits around to “explain” this shit to you

    again

    Excelsior!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    Man…they used to beat the hell out of me! I’m hiding!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    I know I’ve asked this question before…but isn’t evolution a theory as well? or are we distinguishing between scientific theory and other theories?

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    yes andy, we are distinguishing between the rigors of scientific Theory and unproven, unfounded declarations with no evidence or experimental data

    check the other Thread on this..i have beaten the horse into glue enough to satisfy even you

    heh, and now i have your pic on my blog bit..time for some pie throwing if i go to VA…but since yer a home boy, i will even defrost the pie first

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.publichealthpage.com MDE

    Andy – I find Evolution to be an unsatisfying and incomplete explanation what with its improbalilities and all. But that doesn’t mean that I’m ready to give up on scientific explanation all together.

    Mark

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    I agree…I kinda settled it with myself a long time ago…evolution started it all and then something happened that made man self aware…I can’t figure that part out! and 11 years of catholic school didn’t help any!

  • Nancy

    Something which might be confusing a lot of people is that ‘theory’ is a big difference from ‘hypothesis’, and I suspect this is what may be part of the problem with the public in general as well. I refer all to ‘talkorigins.org'; google definition hypothesis vs theory. They have a very nice explanation of the difference.

    In sum: in everyday talk, most people use the word ‘theory’ when what they mean is ‘hypothesis’, i.e. an educated guess. A fact is absolute data. Theories are based on facts; they never become or are facts themselves. They refer to the structure of organization of facts, with very high probability ratings, from certain to almost certain. Hypotheses, on the other hand, are much more tenuous, and while they refer to facts, they have lower probabilities: they are possibilities, not probabilities.

  • http://www.publichealthpage.com MDE

    Them damned aliens I tell ya…

  • PseudoErsatz

    Don’t take it personally Andy, anyone who disagrees with them is their target. As they have discovered how meaningless life is when living as if the cumulative empirical knowledge gained by man is all there is, it has made them concerned. They love, enjoy stupid movies, and cry when they hear a certain song–all things that are not empirical. They observe from the sidelines as 85% of the world believes that there is something or someone outside of the known empirical world, and frankly, it makes them angry, because they don’t get it. Why don’t they, of all people, “get it”. They can balance their checkbook without using a computer program. They disdain NASCAR. They voted “blue”. They read books on the Best Sellers list in the New York Times. These are all marks of high intelligence. How come they can’t get “God”?

    It bugs them, even though they feel that it shouldn’t. Things are going well. They have a good job. They are blessed with good health. They have freedom and opportunity. They may be stuck with a President they don’t like, but life isn’t that bad for them. The jack-booted thugs have not kicked down their door yet. They shop and exercise and hang out with friends, drink coffee and ponder evolution. Yep, things are good. They don’t need God. Heck, they did it all on their own. Yes! That’s it! All by themselves! Yes, they are powerful! They have faith in their income, worship at the altar of entertainment, preach to the choir in their comfortable blog sites, and sing their own praises to their reflected image every time they stand in front of a mirror. Golly, they can stump some creationist chumps! They can compare Bush to Hitler in seconds–don’t even need to break any mental sweat. They can argue rings around someone who claims there are moral absolutes; they especially like the words, “intolerant” and “homophobic”; they make arguing so darn easy.

    Yet, ironic as it may seem, these same individuals are confronted by the metaphysical constantly. They celebrate Christmas, get married in churches, occupy pews at Easter time, and some even get their children baptized at a young age–like some sort of vaccination, “just in case” that church stuff was right after all. (They wouldn’t admit that to their friends, lest they show weakness, though) Keep their ears plugged; keep their blinders on. If they shout loud enough, for long enough, their paradigm will become reality, they reason. Make money, live for pleasure. Be nice to family. Why, those are good things, aren’t they? Yet, the dark clouds approach, they will call upon God when they hear those words, “You have cancer.” They will call upon God when they get caught with child porn or when they get caught embezzling. Deep down, they know that calling on Darwin at those times is pointless. Deep down, they are not impressed with the concept of being food for worms. In the back of their mind, they’re saying, “It’s go to be something more than that.”

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    Hey People! What he said!

    Very well said PE!

  • Bennett

    “if half the world actually believes in it…why shouldn’t it be bought up in class…”

    Half of the world believing in something doesn’t impress me at all. There was a time, not so very long ago, when the fundies of the day were torturing and killing people who believed that the world was round, that the earth revolved around the sun, etc…

    And at the time, the fundies were really really sure that “God” was behind this “good work”.

    Just because 99% of the people of the world once thought it was flat, didn’t make it so.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    maybe not…but it was taught in the schools!

  • Bennett

    Right, so let’s agree not to make the same mistake, eh?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    what if it’s right?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    do you know for sure that it’s not?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    then maybe…just maybe…we ought to mention it to our kids???

  • Bennett

    Mention it to your kids all you want, but don’t try to claim it is science.

    Prove your “God Theory”. Develop evidence that will stand up to critical review. Show me how “your” god is more real than Thor or Hera.

    Show me the science of the things that you accept on blind faith, or stop trying to argue that these fables belong in a science class.

  • http://sussfr.blogspot.com Matthew T. Sussman

    Creationism is a beautiful metaphor. Those who consider it fascism are probably not beautiful themselves.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    Prove it’s wrong! I learned about Thor and Hera in Catholic school too. They weren’t afraid to teach us all different ideas. Why should public school kids be given any less?

    Look, I’m not saying what’s right or wrong here. I’m saying that kids in HS are old enough to form opinions and should be given ALL the information. What’s wrong with telling kids in HS that Darwin and most of the scientific community believe in the the theory of evolution and that other groups believe in ID and creationism and explaining that as well.

    If it’s such a fucked up idea as you seem to think it is, then it’ll get blown out of the water when it’s discussed in school!

    It goes to the same thing on these other threads…I’m by no means a religious person…I go to church for weddings and funerals and baptisms…but why are people so afraid of information? Just because you don’t believe there’s a god or a higher power or whatthefuckever, doesn’t mean it ain’t so and doesn’t mean that EVERYBODY else shouldn’t get the information so they can make the same “informed” choices” you’ve made!

    I mean come on…they taught that the earth was flat…but somebody…even after being taught that…still managed to figure it out…fucking amazing man is…fucking amazing!

  • http://churchnstate.blogspot.com/2005/06/evolution-vs-intelligent-design.html churchNstate

    My favorite evolutionary theory is how the whale came into existance.

    A wolf/cow land creature decided to live in the water (why it didn’t get out, we don’t know). It remained in the water, had offspring in the water and over numerous generations evolved into a new creature. The hind legs and hoofs grew into a big tail. The front legs and hoofs grew into flippers. Their nostrils moved to the top of their head. They lost all their hair. And all their bones became much lighter so they could float.

    I have to admire the amount of faith it takes to subscribe to this theory.

  • The Duke

    Oh Gawd… we do like to go at over this, and like subjects….

    I got one fer ya….

    Mussolini was strangled, shot, and hung upside down for the crows to pick at, for being a dumbshit…..

    what’s that spell?

    Darwinism.

  • http://churchnstate.blogspot.com churchNstate

    I also love the Intelligent Design “chicken and egg” problem…

    A cell can not replicate it’s DNA without the presence of RNA.

    A cell can not manufacture the RNA without the instructions in the DNA.

    I can’t figure out how a sticker on a science book, that reminds students that evolution is a “theory” and makes no reference to other theories and no reference to anything remotely religious is removed because of the “separate of church and state.”

  • Wackypotato

    “Creationism works much the same. Granted evolution is a theory, but so is gravity a theory.”

    Gravity is a fact. Go take a flying leap off of a very tall building and prove it for yourself Doc… whew!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    how’s it work? this gravity thing? maybe it’s divine? Nobody knows what makes gravity work…it’s a theory…

    one day…something…maybe a god…maybe an alien, is gonna come down here and thump us all on the head and go “HEY…I did it!”

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    last time on this one for me, and it is just for andy, cuz he is a homeboy

    i have no difficulty with ID being taught in a metaphysics class, andy

    but

    until you can dig me up ANY kind of experiment to prove some of the hypothesis, or use empirical data and mathematics to show a model for prediction that has some semblance of accuracy then it is NOT fucking science

    it is a “fuzzy subject” on par with psychology but slightly below the other fuzzy subjects that have gathered evidence and data for extrapolation like anthropology and archaeology etc…

    “scientific Theory” is MUCH different than unsubstantiated hypothesis

    one uses stuff like math and data, the other just needs sophistry

    hope that helps

    Excelsior!

  • Bennett

    The madness has set in. Hey ChurchNState, did you read that in a science book? Or on one of those “How to discredit evolution” websites?

    Please ref a book if you can.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    but that’s what I mean…where would you classify metaphysics? Theology? A science like para-psychology is a science? However you spell that…you get my drift. And i guess if you classifed it a theology then you couldn’t teach it in a public school…so…we’re back to where we started…

    I just think that everybody should be given as much info as they can take in…and sort out the bullshit from the reality as much as possible…

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    Andy, i have no problem with that..but metaphysics and parapsychology are both “fuzzy subjects” as is philosophy etc…

    all for the reasons i have stated above

    as for fuzzy subjects being taught in high schools…that is up to the various school boards, but one would think that reading comprehension and mathematics, as well as solid grounding in the sciences and scientific methodology should be the FIRST priority in our public high schools

    as for the Jesuits, they are stopping by St. Agnes to get that yardstick with the copper straight edge from the Sisters…

    just to help make sure you have learned your Lessons and done the homework

    Excelsior!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com andy marsh

    You bring back the ugliest memories!

    But you know what?

    I enjoy talking to you and I’m glad you started one of these dumb ass things. I’m looking forward to reading the crap you write! No offense!

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    I invoke Godwin’s Law… this thread is dead, before it even started.

    Someone who can’t make their point without calling the other side Nazis deserves to be ignored.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    John B. sez…
    *I invoke Godwin’s Law…*

    interesting..wikipedia sez…
    * As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

    There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. In addition, it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly. Godwin’s law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. Many people understand Godwin’s law to mean this, although (as is clear from the statement of the law above) this is not the original formulation.

    Nevertheless, there is also a widely-recognized codicil that any intentional invocation of Godwin’s law for its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.*

    as they say in chess…
    “check”

    Excelsior!

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    But it’s like the Evil Dead, John; sometimes the most moribund threads are the ones that put on pink bunny ears, seize the drum, and keep going, and going…

  • Bennett

    Did I miss something? Before John dropped by for a friendly comment, did anyone mention Nazis?

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    See post title, Bennett.

  • Bennett

    Nope, that doesn’t qualify.

    Lots of facists in the world, Hitler was a big bugger of one, but no one actually typed the word “nazi” until John showed up.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    umm DrPat…not all fascists are/were Nazi’s

    and i didn’t see the word used anywhere before John B.

    therefore John B. violated Godwin’s Law a swell as Quirk’s Exception

    “check”

    Excelsior!

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    Gonzo,

    We need a new post comparing ID to psych as real science. That should get some traction.

  • Bennett

    Go for it Randy, it’s your pulpit.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    Randy,

    as i have stated..neither ID nor psychology are “science”

    both are fuzzy subjects as i have defined countless times

    Post as you like

    Excelsior!

  • Duane

    Good grief PseudoErsatz (post 29). As Allison Portchnik (Carol Kane) says in Annie Hall, “That was wonderful. I love being reduced to a cultural stereotype.”

    Do you claim to be a Christian? If so, then I don’t believe you are trying especially hard to be Christ-like. You don’t sound as though you’ve found any kind of inner peace. Are you an example of one who walks in the path of righteousness? You sound like a sniveler to me. No offense. Walk with God, bud.

  • PseudoErsatz

    “If so, then I don’t believe you are trying especially hard to be Christ-like. You don’t sound as though you’ve found any kind of inner peace.”

    Yes, it sometimes bothers me that those who don’t believe in the God I believe in (until those foxhole moments) still have the ability to hold me accountable to that which I believe. I know it is strange, and makes the worldly part of me–pride, independence, and love of self over others–rise to the surface. God is in the process of perfecting me through His Son; the inner peace will come with less reliance on self and more reliance in Him. Thanks for the corrective words.

  • Nancy

    Another possibly irrelevant observation: one can be very religious, but not subscribe to, or even to actively hostile to, organized religion, which is a whole ‘nother ball of beans. There’s a lot of them people out there, too, and growing more every day.

  • http://www.thebmrant.com Matt

    PseudoErsatz –I bet you’re a regular laugh-a-minute at a party.

  • http://www.trueorigins.org Steve

    The so-called Cambrian explosion has never been factually explained by evolutionists (sudden appearance of all these species in the “Cambrian” rock layers all over the world with no verifiable species-to-species transitions when there should be billions). What the Cambrian explosion supports scientifically is that you have millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. Not to mention recent T-Rex bone found (at least one or two recently) with soft tissue in the bone, including blood vessel that could be squeezed with something oozing out. Now all of the above is true scientific discovery! Which model does it support?

  • Nancy

    At this point, who knows? As I mentioned above, put any 3 evolutionists in a room and you’ll get at least 21 different opinions, depending on what facet you’re discussing. Geologically, the Cambrian lack of transitionals isn’t surprising, considering that not that much rock from that period of time has survived. Most of it from older periods has been worn down, washed away, and re-formed. I’m always a little astonished at the Canadian preCambian pipe. As for dino soft tissue: too cool to move. I’ll bet it tastes like chicken. Now, THAT is an anomaly (the tissue existing, not that it tastes like chicken; birds being theropod-descendents IMO, I would expect that, lol)!!!

  • http://www.trueorigins.org Steve

    The above response to Cambrian explosion: it’s all by faith, just another interpretation of what one observes. Can’t be reproduced. The question must always be: where does the vast majority of what we observe fall? Which side? And those soft-tissued t-rex bones? Over millions of years? Let’s be reasonable here. Have you ever frozen fresh meat (with veins) for a long period of time, say, just a decade then slowly thawed it out? Compaired to a few weeks, thaw it out and see the difference in composition and breakdown of the vessels. Then think of the breakdown of, supposedly, millions of years. Do you want to experiment?

  • Nancy

    Ok, so it tastes like BAD frozen chicken.

  • Bennett

    Steve “Not to mention recent T-Rex bone found (at least one or two recently) with soft tissue in the bone, including blood vessel that could be squeezed with something oozing out.”

    Not exactly correct on that. The “soft tissue” was not “flesh” but rather a different “exchange medium” than the minerals that typicaly replace bone material when a fossil is formed. It is rare that even the “impression” of connecting tissues survives the millenia, and in the discoveries you reference, no actual “tissue” was present.

  • http://www.trueorigins.org Steve

    Hmmmm…..blood cells? An artery or vein? Liquid-like substance oozing out? These all are “exchange mediums” of a millions of years process?

  • PseudoErsatz

    I bet you’re a regular laugh-a-minute at a party.

    Usually I am, but here I get to truly let my hair down…

  • http://www.website.com name

    THE PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE
    (Many people get it, but much of the world doesn’t, yet)

    For a long, long time, I have felt that the well-known theory of intelligent life on other planets should be expanded and taken one step further.
    I am a religious person, being a member of a very large mainstream religion. I believe that every human is related, whether it is through Adam and Eve, or Through animals that Darwin has claimed evolved into humans. (I believe the Adam and Eve account of the human family).
    There has been much speculation over the centuries as to what our purpose is, on this earth. Many people claim that we are just wandering around through time without purposes or results. Others claim that our purposes are limited, such as to gradually build immunity to diseases for future generations, before we die.
    I believe we are here on earth for many, many reasons. I believe that, after everything is taken into consideration, every moment that we are here eventually results in advancing life and existence for not only human society but also in elevating all species and life forms that exist.
    Countless years have passed since the beginning of time, the planet earth itself being billions of years old. Human technology only began to rise above primitive levels around the early 1900’s. Almost all of the multitudes of amazing miracles of technological discoveries and inventions, such as electronic circuits and jet airplanes, have only appeared since then, during the last 100 years. The possible technologies that we could develop in only 20,000 years (instead of 100 years), is probably beyond our imaginations. Just the last billion years alone contained 50,000 times 20,000 years. In only one billion years, the possible evolution of technology could have surpassed all ability to comprehend it, many times over. The planet earth is billions of years old. Countless solar systems and galaxies like ours also exist and are likewise billions of years old.
    I would be surprised if there weren’t other planets like ours, containing many life forms, within all of these countless galaxies in the universe. I would be just as surprised if none of these other planets and life forms did not have enough time, over billions of years, to develop highly advanced societies and technologies. If other civilizations were able to evolve their technologies far beyond ours during these billions of years of existence, we might well see their inventions as miracles and view their powers and abilities as wondrous.
    Even a single society, whose technology was so highly evolved, would be viewed by humans as a higher power, even as a deity by our limited comprehension.
    I often used to wonder why such an advanced civilization wouldn’t completely change our lives and environments to match their levels, if they were really here with us. But then I finally realized that we generally try to avoid changing, harassing, or otherwise impacting other species, such as lions and other animals in Africa and other areas around the world, with our advanced cities and technologies.
    We try to allow them to continue living in their primitive surroundings for many reasons; Not only out of respect for their unique existence but also in order to study them and maintain their natural place in the cycle of life. We have learned so much for our own advancement by studying and preserving all the species of life around us. We continually try to protect and preserve all species of life as a whole, while trying to avoid altering their natural habitats and their specific interactions and evolutions within their environments as they currently exist. More advanced civilizations could easily be giving us the same room to grow, exist, and develop.
    If there existed an extremely advanced society that was devoted to introducing and encouraging the evolution of technology and civilization on other planets and in other galaxies, their devotion to Earth’s technological and societal evolution could yield even more inventions and discoveries yet unknown. Their advanced wisdom and knowledge would increase even more.
    Our limited intelligence would probably see such advanced individuals as almighty Supreme Beings. If visitations and revelations from them were limited or mostly unseen and undetected, we would further view these beings as mysterious and all powerful.
    There have been many documented sightings of “UFO’s” over the years. In addition, there have been numerous sightings of “other worldly beings“.
    Many religions also have numerous accounts of visitations by angels and heavenly messengers, throughout the centuries. A person might be considered narrow-minded if they dismissed all of these accounts as nonsense.
    Many would consider such a person even more narrow-minded, if they believed that we are the only intelligent beings in the whole universe, with the only evolved technology that has ever existed.
    If all of the human societies and cultures are able to allow other species on Earth to develop on their own, we are then able to learn so much about them and about ourselves.
    if we are allowed the same freedom to develop on our own, by more advanced entities, (especially with the huge amount of technological evolution that we have experienced in the last 100 years), then perhaps they are likewise able to increase their observations, knowledge, and wisdom.

    Posted by: name on August 20, 2005 02:45 AM
    ——————————————————————————–

    When I mentioned ?highly advanced societies and technologies? in the paragraphs above, I should clarify what I mean by that. I mean that their technologies would probably be beyond our imagination in the level of capability that they possess, in at least some of the following ways:

    1) They could have practically unlimited interplanetary traveling capability, and therefore also virtually unlimited technologies, resources, and space in which to implement their activities.

    2) They could have virtually unlimited computer and database resources (such as we would comprehend it), to permanently record and catalog every physical detail of every human being and every life form that ever existed. In addition, they could record every non-physical detail of every human and every life form, such as moment by moment life stories.

    3) They could even have the technology to capture, extract, and encapsulate all of the actual brain functions and all of the nervous system functions of a human being, at the exact moment that the person?s body dies and ceases to perform this capability on its own. They would be able to use materials and mechanisms in the encapsulation process that would be durable enough to last a long time, perhaps even forever. For lack of a better term, we could then call this encapsulated vessel a spirit or soul. This could be done for both human beings and also all life forms that have ever existed.

    4) They would probably be able to combine these capabilities, to create an after-life existence for every human being and every life form, with conditions that would be virtually everlasting.

    As I said before, these technologies are probably beyond our ability to imagine them completely. I am sure that it would be just as difficult for the ancient pyramid builders to imagine our modern machines, such as the stealth bomber, cruise missiles, and miniaturized computers.

    There is one additional thought, about these extremely advanced societies and technologies, that came to mind. If their technologies were truly advanced far beyond our imaginations, to the point that they literally are all-powerful, all-seeing, and all-knowing, then they would essentially be Gods, in every way. They would have unlimited possibilities and realities. We, on the other hand, have been allowed to live our lives as mortals, in our own unique and natural surroundings.
    Even though we are placed in a fairly un-tampered and primitive environment during our mortal lives, these advanced entities could still encourage our endeavors to learn and to grow as much as we possibly can, through writings, revelations, angels, messengers, spiritual leaders, and religion in general. They would undoubtedly give us many teachings on living our lives to the fullest, and on the after-life that follows our mortal experience. Some might even say that God sent us a Son, to lead us to a higher purpose.
    In any event, when I use the phrase ?mostly unseen and undetected?, I mean that numerous entities could very well be all around us, all the time. Even though they would possibly be ever-present, all-knowing, and all-seeing, we nevertheless might not always be able to see or detect their presence.
    It definitely is something to look at, from time to time.

    Posted by: name on August 31, 2005 01:58 AM
    ——————————————————————————–

  • James Castelli

    What some people here fail to realize is, while PEOPLE may be dogmatic or fascist in their scientific beliefs, SCIENCE ITSELF is not. Because people are stubborn and fallable, it usually takes a generation or two for “new evidence” to dethrone a long-held scientific principle. This is why we know the earth isn’t flat TODAY. But this wasn’t always so, and certainly it was a rather tumultuous changing of the guard, so to speak. Yesterday’s “fascist!” cries sounded more like “blasphemy!” “heresy!” followed by some good-natured imprisonment, excommunication or forced public apologies. And who, or what, was behind this? Rational religious dogmatists?

    But “the earth is round and not the center of the universe” is a quaint fact nowadays. It is no longer at the forefront of “debatable reality.” This is why “religion’s last stand” is festering in the still-open wounded topics of “how the universe started” and “how did life begin” – because scientists don’t know for sure yet it is an easy target for those who would have GOD be responsible, as this God-of-the-Gaps slowly runs out of think to be responsible FOR in this day and age.

    If it weren’t for science and scientific inquiry, religion would still be fulfilling the same function it did centuries ago and making the same claims. Only a revolutionary theory in science sparks a debate and “rethinking” of holy writ, and inevitably REINTERPRETATION, made clear by the colorful variety of religions (Christianity, Islam, etc. AND their SUB-categories (Protestant/Catholic, Shiite/Sunni, etc.) wheras this doesn’t occur in the scientific community. There is not a 1+1=2 club and a 1+1=3 club both claiming to have “the truth.” Of course, there IS debate, but this is in the as-yet unproven domain of speculation and testing of new theories. So why are there STILL in this day and age so many interpretations of religious text?

    Oh, and I was let down by the doctor’s last sentence, in which he commits to logical fallacies right after damning “the other side” for doing just that. I forget the latin, but essentially he “attacks the man” (ad honimen) by suggesting that a groups practices alone produces the correct deduction that all else they believe must be wrong, and then commits “correllation does not imply causation.” This does not mean he is WRONG – simply that his argument isn’t as watertight and it could be. I’m sure mine leaks a bit too…