About:

This site is dedicated to resolve the conflict that creationists have with the idea of evolution and science in general. When I talk about creationism I explicitly mean Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the bible. This faction of Christian is generally referred to as Evangelicals, meaning the people adhering to Evangelicalism.

We have come a long way since the dawn of mankind (whenever that was). And we achieved a lot; we call ourselves civilized and think of ourselves as living in a higher form of society. And all of us agree that we strive to have liberty, health, and prosperity for everyone (I will be using the word liberty and freedom synonymously). If you do not agree to this, you are an enemy of society, and an enemy of humankind.So think wisely about yourself if you have a problem with what was said already!

And these ideals are realized in different forms, be it the laws which protect us and our property, be it the constitution which protects your individual freedom and the liberty of everyone, or be it the hippocratic oath or the declaration or Helsinki dealing with our health. But most importantly these ideals are encompassed in the 'Human rights'.

That said, I think the creationism discussion violates these human rights, and has to be resolved in order for us to progress as a society and as humankind.

Freedom:

Freedom applies on different levels and can mean different things. You are free to go where you want, you are free to vote in an election, you can craft art, you can believe in any God, you are free to express yourself and make yourself heard, practice religious rituals, research any scientific topic, you are free to pursuit happiness as you like. And all these levels or freedoms act in parallel, there is no freedom that supersedes another. Freedom is multidimensional.

But what happens when I ask different people: 'What is freedom?' The answer I hear most is: 'I can do what I want!'. And that is WRONG! The correct answer is: 'I can do whatever I want, as long as it does not interfere with someone else's freedom!' Freedom the way we understand it as a society necessarily includes the concept of tolerance. The connection between tolerance and freedom is the foundation of peace. If we want to continue to have this freedom we have to practice tolerance, and we have to convince everybody else to be tolerant, we have to take responsibility to maintain freedom and tolerance. If fail to do so, we will loose our freedom. What I have just written applies to everyone, man or women, atheist or theist of any creed. This is a universal statement!

What is the problem?

If you google or check on youtube the term creationism vs. evolution you will numerous links dealing with a debate wether or not evolution is true or if instead creationism is the right explanation for us being here, and the species of this planet looking how they are. This goes as far as books being published like 'you can lead an atheist to evidence but you can't make him think' (Ray Comfort, creationist) and 'the god delusion' (Richard Dawkins, scientist). In my opinion this discussion alone and the extend of this discourse is a disgrace for humankind, and a disappointment of society. I think that both factions are violating the principles of freedom and tolerance, and are most often impolite and act uneducated or infantile.

Limits of science, or the inability to prove or disprove God or any almighty being

I try to keep this short. Science works according to a simple set of rules or guidelines, which include logic and reason, but also observation and reproducibility. At the end of the day science produces a system of hypotheses which are imbedded and structured in theories or laws. The idea is, that science makes predictions about reality, and thus can be rejected by observations, which themselves have to be reproducible. If that happens science does not seize to exist, in contrast new hypotheses are formed and thus science improves - it becomes more predictive. All science can only apply to observables, and we know that things that are outside of a system can not be observed from within. But for science to work causality must be consistent and can not be violated. And an omnipotent being of any kind, violates this assumption. And if we would observe something that violates causality, this would not be a prove of God, it would mean that science does not work, and everything we ever concluded becomes meaningless.

But this does not contradict God in any way. Is just means that God either is not interacting with what we call universe, or God interacts in a way that does not violate causality, or any interaction changes the universe in such a way that reality is changed in such a way that the interaction was causal. Nevertheless this precludes that God is provable, and at the same time it precludes that God is disprovable. And here is the crux of the matter, if you are a scientist, you can not make a valid statement about the existent of God. The only statement that is allowed in science regarding God is, that God is not a natural explanation, and thus can not be the cause for anything. Any scientist how talks about the existence or non existence of God leaves the context of science and states his opinion or believe. Nothing else!

Limits of religion, or the inability to prove or disprove anything

I try to keep this short. Religion is not what we call a system of inference. Religion works on an authoritarian basis, what was said (or written) by the authority (God) is true and right! You can not doubt, challenge, or question it, and also there is no method to learn more about reality or nature unless you encounter a prophet, or have a revelation. In layman's terms: The bible does not teach you how to learn more about the world you live in. But most importantly the bible does not deal with the idea of generalization, or reproducibility. The experiences with God or on a subjective individual base. There is no guideline that will prove Gods existence or any other thing that is reproducible.

All biblical proves for the existence of God are explicit examples of non causality - miracles! But again, a demonstration of a violated causality does not mean prove, it means that every prove or reasoning becomes meaningless, because reason, logic, and proves rely on causality. Therefor any prove of God that is shown by a violation of causality renders the concept of prove useless! So if you insist on Gods existence that is fine with science as long as this God is not interacting with the universe and is not used as an explanation within.

Fortunately you have two choices: You can believe in God or not, and you can use science as a method to understand, describe, and predict reality - or not. But if you choose God to be existent you can only use science if you exclude God from being a natural explanation/phenomenon with reality. Therefor God does not exclude science and science does not exclude God. The only thing that is impossible is using one or the other to make inferences about each other. No religious argument in science, no scientific argument in religion. Nothing more nothing less. This is how it is, and this is as far as the discussion goes, anything beyond this point is meaningless. There is no meaningful dialogue between science and religion. And you don't need one, because they don't deal with each other, except the question about how to treat each other.

Conclusion:

We as a society have to be tolerant with each other, this means that science has to respect the believes of others, as well as religion has to accept that science is the method of choice to understand reality. And both factions have to tolerate their inability to argue with each other, and accept that they can not make inference about each other. And the discussion about evolution and creation has to stop, because it is purely an expression of intolerance and ignorance.

What do I 'believe'?

Simply put: I don't need a supernatural explanation for anything, because I never needed one, and I know that if I use a supernatural explanation everything I concluded thus far becomes meaningless. Have I thought about the beginning or the universe, because that appears to be the only place where one might need an explanation from outside of our system? Sure I did, and there are two simple ideas that prevent me from using a supernatural explanation. The first deals with the concept of causality and time. Without time there can not be causal relations, and we know that 'before' the universe there was no time, so that necessarily means that before the causality of the universe there was no cause that caused the universe. This is a conclusion from within science about reality itself. And secondly there is an alternative explanation to what was before the big Bang... and that is that the universe already existed since ever, and what we observe as the big Bang is just a sudden rearrangement of reality. We understand that the universe is infinite and at the same time has a ever growing volume. So our universe can be infinite along the temporal axis. I understand that 95% of everybody who reads this doesn't understand it. And I apologize for it, but it is not my fault that these matters are not understandable by everyone. Not everyone understands physics. If you want to understand these matters, I welcome you to get the proper education.

And in addition, I don't care if you understand this or not. I tolerate your believes and ideas. You can think whatever you want about the origin of the universe. Be my guest. You might even say the universe is 6000 yeast old - I couldn't care less. What is in your head is yours, and yours alone. If it comforts you to think you go to heaven, and I go to hell, let it comfort you. In your mind everything is possible, and you can do with it whatever suits you. But don't start a scientific discussion with me about it! Because once you do that, your ideas will be put to a test, and you have to play by the rules of science. Because that is the only discussion I will have with you that I consider interesting. And remember, if you are a Christian, I will not confront you with Shiva, or Allah, or Thor for that matter, as you will not talk religion when you enter the realm of science.

At last I have a personal problem with the concept of sin and at the same time with the concept of omnipotence. A supernatural being that is omnipotent (omnipotent means almighty and is the word that is used for God in at least the Latin version of the book Genesis, and omnipotence includes the ability to know everything which is omniscience) can not exists at the same time that I have a free will. If I have a free will, you or anyone else including God, can not predict what I will decide. So either I have no choice about committing a sin because God already knows what I am going to do, or I have a choice, and God is not omniscient/omnipotent.

What makes me a moral person?

I think that we need ethical norms so that we all can have a fulfilling and meaningful live. And the best heuristic I ever came across with is actually from the bible. To be more specific, in a loose translation Jesus said: 'You should love everybody as you should love yourself!'. If we all would live our lives like that I suppose Jesus prophecy about paradise on earth would indeed come true. I would love to live in a place where everybody acts according to this principle! I understand that our societies might not be ready for it, and that our world right now has still too much evil in it to just 'jump' into that reality. And this simple line also includes that we should tolerate each other wether we believe in God or not! And I am also aware that a life according to this love commandment includes a lot of responsibility, we have to maintain this idea and concept constantly. But we don't need God to enforce it, we just need tolerance and education.