Survival is the Selector

Evolution is 'descent with modification'. FACT: Animals change. Deal with it. The evidence for descent with modification ie. evolution is undeniable. The most commonly referrenced source is the fossil record. There are beautiful fossils showing the ancestry of modern and ancient animals, detailing intricately the changes that species have undergone over millions of years. The process that has allowed this to happen, natural selection, however is even less understood. There is a wildly propagated misunderstanding that natural selection means that animals consciously know how to adapt and what to change, or that nature is somehow a force that picks and chooses this trait or that gene to be passed on. No, natural selection does not involve mother nature arbitrarily favouring one species over another. Nor do animals themselves orchestrate knowingly their own adaptation and modification. Natural selection means survival and reproduction. Survival is the selector. If a gene, mutation, trait etc increases an animal's chances of outrunning its predators, or living in a harsh habitat, then it will survive and mate and subsequently that beneficial change will be passed on to the next generation. That mutation is then said to have been selected. Not by the animal or by Gaia, but by its impact on the likelyhood of survival. Again, survival is the selector.

The Immorality of God

The entire Christian faith (the fall of man, man’s inherent sinfulness and the need for a redeemer to die for in our place) is founded in the doctrine of Original Sin, an issue which I have dealt with in depth in regards to evolution. This doctrine states that through the first sin of Adam, sin has been passed down through mankind (we are yet to discover the ‘Sin Gene’) and therefore we are all inborn sinners. I believe that this is an abhorrent doctrine. To think that from birth, every innocent baby is already guilty before God, both for a sin committed by a non-existent ancestor, and for every sin it will ever commit in its life. The problem is that none of us choose to be born with an innate sin nature, the fact that we are born with original sin passed from Adam makes it impossible for us not to sin. So we are sentenced to eternal punishment for sins that it is impossible for us not to commit. The Ray Comfort-esque Christians will say ‘You have broken God’s Law, and God is a just God and He must punish sinners’. My issue with that is due to original sin, it has been made IMPOSSIBLE for us not to break God’s Law. What just judge would sentence someone to eternal punishment for a crime they had no choice not to commit? Moreover, what just judge would punish a person with death for the crimes of another? The doctrine of substitutionary atonement states that Jesus died in the place of mankind. Ray Comfort likes the phrase ‘Jesus paid your fine’. Sure, pay someone’s fine, but that does not take away that person’s responsibility, and the idea that a good judge would ever sentence a person to death (no matter whether the person is willing or not) to make the accused innocent in the eyes of law is deplorable.

Under God’s Law, we are all already guilty, and it is IMPOSSIBLE for us not to break the law, we are going to sin whether we want to or not. And because of that we are already condemned to eternal punishment. The only way to avoid this fate is to put our faith and trust in a scapegoat who took the punishment that we had no choice in deserving.

This is immoral paganistic scapegoating and we are punished essentially for the sin of being born. God (if the God of the Bible exists) is not just.

No Need For a God

Evolution is a fact. Period. Which means that the Bible is wrong. And if the Bible is wrong then it has no foundation in reality and no basis for its moral code. Does this mean that God doesn't exist? No. But it shows that the God of the Bible and his moral law are not compatible with the evidence. I know that I repeat this again and again in most of my posts, but I can't stress the importance of this. Do not let yourself be guilted and manipulated by religions that have no basis in reality and which are contradicted by all available evidence. Sure, a God may exist, but it's highly unlikely. The actions of every God so far constructed by the human mind have been explained by science and attributed to natural phenomena which we can observe and test. What about a Deistic God? It's a nice idea to have a God that sets up the universe and lets it roll. But what's the point in believing that. Everything that we know about science can be explained naturally, with no supernatural involvement. Why should the origins of the universe be any different? It is special pleading to invoke a God - one might say out of emotional need for there to be purpose and design to the universe - to explain something unexplained, when everything in science that used to be unexplained and attributed to the hand of God has now shown to be completely natural.