In an episode of the Simpsons referred to the education of the theory of the evolution in the schools, Smooth (the small list and skeptic of the series) it consoles in the end to Flanders (the religious fanatic of the series) when a judge approves the education of the theory of the evolution in the schools with:

“I do not like that they teach the creacionismo in the school as well as to you it would not like that the scientists spoke in the churches�

Aim of the chapter. Final moral: the religion is a thing, science is another one. The religion is not bad while it does not put with science. But, in the religion they leant (as it is the custom in our society) God there. As if God and Religion were indissoluble.  Also Science and Atheism are raised like indissoluble. It is only a cartoons. but it is part of a washed length of good brain mounted by the persistent religion but of all indeed. The official religion of ours was: the EVOLUCIONISMO.

In order to begin it would want to throw light on some false concepts that the evolucionistas promote perpetuating the disinformation.

We are against the Christians to that the THEORY OF the EVOLUTION in the training centers is taught?

I cannot speak by all the Christians, because the Christians we are not a monolithic sect of beings incapable to think by we ourself. The original, true Christianity, is a way of knowledge and reason.

But in the personnel, and based on 1 Tesalonicenses 5:21 that says we must “examine it everything and retain the good thing�, I am not against to that the THEORY of the evolution in the training centers is taught. It would not oppose to me either to that the THEORIES are taught that other human beings have on the origin of the Universe, as soon as he is taught indeed like which he is: A THEORY.

Like Christian, I examine everything. But I am against fully to evolucionista PROSELYTISM in the training centers and to that it is taught like an IRREFUTABLE FACT what, with great difficulty and after pressures of all nature is as soon as a hypothesis that has reached about social pressure the theory rank hardly.  It would not bother to me that in the classrooms it was said: “this is the theory of the evolution, and SOME people think that thus we got to exist� raising the cold facts, including the enormous lagoons, deficiency of fossil evidence and obstacles to the same. Or in other words, the opinion of the thousands of scientists who PRESENT/DISPLAY OPPOSITE ARGUMENTS to this theory.  And, why no? , the option of the INTELLIGENT DESIGN, not raised like fact, but like another THEORY or alternative explanation to our origin.

Nothing would be necessary to fear to disclose exact knowledge, because the truth in the long run prevails by its own weight.  The problem is that when I went to the secondary one the Biology professor did not say to me “thinks that the life formed by a chemical reaction in a date that we do not know�. No. It said “the life to me FORMED 100 ago billions of years� and it did not explain to me why, neither how, nor from where it removed that date, nor that maintains it demonstrates it. Until today no professor of Biology it has been able to say to me nor how, nor why, nor the EVIDENCE of which in determined date life formed by chance and by means of what method arrives at that date.

The certain thing is that no matter how much hurts to them, which they have is FAITH. They create, without seeing it, that it passed tal o cual thing does 100 thousands, 50 thousands, 5 thousand or 1000 million years (the dates of this FACT vary according to the school that touch to you).  The certain thing is that there is the same evidence of which the first cell I form by chance in such date that the evidence that exists to affirm that it does 1000 million years was a crystal glass with Tannat wine inside in Earth means. It saw it to nobody, it can demonstrate nadio it, there is no sign, neither demonstrates, nor nothing that is not BLIND FAITH, maintaining a dogma.

And to teach facts nonmaintained by concrete evidences, nondemonstrable in laboratories, nonprovable, violates the laicism of the educative systems. By my, they teach that the life appeared of giant rabanito. The rational minds would react to the information comparing it with the world that surround to them and the evidence and sabran to discard the falsification, dislate and the silly thing. But really it seems perverse to teach to me like SCIENTIFIC FACTS what, objectively, simply THEY ARE NOT IT.

They say CREATE, ONE THINKS, IT COULD BE before each phrase and teach what they want. And with the same right, they allow that other options and explanations, of equal scientific weight are raised like option. Among them of course, the theory that the UNIVERSE presents/displays design evidences that MANY CREATE is test of a deliberate act of intelligence in exercise from a plane beyond which we can measure. After all, great scientists like Newton, Servet or the own Einstein believed in Intelligent Diseño.

It is God and religion the same thing?

There is nothing infuriates to me but that the perpetual league that does the average ones between God and Religión as if they were indissoluble.  The religion speech of God (it is the reasoning) therefore cannot be spoken much less of God outside a religious frame and of one scientist.

But this is a deceit.

There are religions that speak much of the Sun, in fact that adores to the sun. We are going to say that to speak of the then Sun it is to speak of religion and to prohibit to mention the sun in the schools?

There are religions that speak of “the mother earth� and in fact many world-wide organisms borrow to them the term. We are going to conclude that we cannot speak of the Earth because is a religious question?

We must know clearly that, “God� like concept, for the religions means many things and different following each from them. However from a scientific point of view GOD it refers the author of the design that many we considered patent in the universe that surrounds to us, to the being who carries manifest intelligence in the creative procedure.

GOD is the cause of the great CONSEQUENCE that surrounds to us. And point.

There are many thinking MECHANIST DEISTS or who remain in that POINT. They think that the reality is a so clear design that the designer is only deduced. And in its skepticism they do not dare to affirm but nothing.

Others we thought that DESIGNER I do not leave us completely without information and let a code legible to explain our origins. Second it can be taken like a particular GOD but point of view, as scientific concept can be boarded from any point of view without implying religious connection some. Few scientists do not create in God without belonging nor professing religion some.

It happens that the prejudice is so great that the GOD word sounds to RELIGION, although only is enough a second of reflection to realize that we spoke of different concepts.

We establish then, as they simply say to the writings “all house by all means is constructed by somebody, but the one that constructed all the things is God�, defining to GOD like a universal concept.

DIOS= names dice to the Being Author of the reality who surrounds to us, whose existence can be deduced of the constant landlord of symmetry, design and order in the Universe. This Being is the First Cause and obvious he lives and he lives in an existence plane beyond which we can include/understand or measure.

That is GOD objectively. Scientifically.

And when tenth “inexplicable� they label to us again as MONKS. And I ask… how much within the theories that the atheists raise to explain our origins he does not remain INEXPLICABLE?

For example. if the flowers require of the bees to reproduce and bees and flowers are beings of different species and kingdoms, how they could evolve at the same time of way so to guarantee his mutual survival? In other words,as the flowers without the bees were fixed to them, or the bees without the flowers? And if were fixed you, why to develop to the flowers a dependant procreative system of an insect that not yet existed? Or if the bees already existed, how they existed without previous flowers that provided their nutritional and edilicia raw material to them?

Of these INEXPLICABLE atheistic science this flood, against a pair hardly of INEXPLICABLE which we faced (and perhaps only transitorily) who we think that the UNIVERSE is product of a deliberate creative act.

When raising the universe like the product of a deliberate act, the majority of the surroundings acquires sense and the majority of the questions has answer. We remained with a pair of enigmas: the nature of God, the perpetual existence and without beginning of God, on which we can speculate in understandable scientific terms but whose last truth we perhaps do not know by a time and this does not have to scare to us.

If we tried to explain a man to him of century I as it is possible that I this writing this article from Uruguay, while very many people of different shown parts read from the world from a luminous window, possibly would sound to him absolutely inexplicable.

We do not have to be closed. Possibly used the technological capacities of God in the design of the Universe estan million and million years ahead in scientific terms than we could understand.  Sometimes one forgets to us that what we know the universe and its laws very small is compared with the immensity than we do not know.

But not to understand a process completely it does not have to take to us to reject it if it left signs undeniable. If I see tracks of footsteps in the perfectly synchronous wall and the ceiling I cannot simply discard that anybody way by the walls and the ceiling because “it is not the normal thing�. I must leave a margin of doubt, an open window. Perhaps there are facts that I do not know. Perhaps IF it walked helped by a device that I still do not know. Perhaps somebody way but that ceiling and that wall were the floor of the room at some time for some reason that I do not know.

That would be a scientific mind and without prejudices. Arranged to examine it EVERYTHING.

When some scientists say to ANY THING LESS GOD to explain the origin of the universe, without no scientific reason but by mere emotional reflections, they are building but near a religious frame where the emotional dogmas are dominated the search of the truth that within a scientific frame.

It is the evolucionismo science?

The law of the gravity was open pie by Newton. Any boy in his factory of science can make tens of experiments demonstrate that it. The effects of the same are observable. That is SCIENCE.

The Earth is ROUND. (as Isaiah said to the prophet by the way does thousands of years) This can easily be verified taking an airplane and traveling of country in country until giving the return him. The spherical Earth shade can be seen in the moon. The ships in the sea can be seen lose themselves when moving away.  THIS IS SCIENCE.

The first alive cell with tremendously the complex genetic code I form in a sterile atmosphere, as sterile as a test tube. Of sterile matter, it appeared an alive cell with capacity to reproduce. It survived, one reproduced, it does thousands of million years, although we cannot prove it. Soon these cells simply and without puedamos to say why they were united, and they trained a multicellular being, who product of mutations and genetic accidents was forming by chance the million existing species without leaving fossils that show clearly the transitions and leaving to the observable world just in a while where all the million species or are defined and no it seems to develop to new organs or characteristics. Of all this we can show a few bones, and to say that since all the beings have two eyes must be all relatives.  This is science?

me it does not seem it. I do not see the organic EVOLUTION around happening. I do not see thousands of surviving intermediate species, semi-simios ancestors of the man of each stage that have survived. I do not see tracks cheers nor dead tracks. I see a pile of indescribable bones that tal o cual scientist (with the own weaknesses of the human being) always interprets like the GREAT MAS DISCOVERY of the decade. I do not see evolution in process, nor rest of evolution. Neither I can reproduce it in a laboratory nor explain the mechanism.

It sounds to me, hurts to him to who hurts to him, but to a RELIGION, that to a SCIENCE.

“THIS HAPPENED THUS… we do not have tests but creelo, because we have a title and we are people respectable�

Why in concrete and probable subjects but like the theory that there are volcanos in Venus or Mars water, the scientists are humble and say WE THINK that this could thus be, but when they speak of our origins they say THIS IS THUS and stigmatize to which it is against to them?

They were not the great religions the ones that always faced the paper to give the explanation of our origins and burned in the bonfire to put that it in doubt? Is not perhaps the present darwinismo a too obvious parallel with the medieval Catholic Church?

Conclusion

The majority of people, like Marge Simpson in the episode that I mentioned in the beginning, thinks that the theory of the evolution is a fact although does not have the smaller idea than implies, means or affirms. They stop to 10 people by the street, preguntenle if they create in the theory of the evolution and to which it says IF they ask things to him like “when formed the life? How? What evidences has�  . What they will repeat is they saw that it listened to, it they read or it in some side, especially will repeat that THEY CREATE IT to the SCIENTISTS. To people it does not like to think by itself.

Very few will have read the books that define this theory and less still those refute than it.  Marge Simpson took the book from Darwin, the Origin of the Species and I am CONVINCED. He is peculiar. nowadays nor but the fervent evolucionistas would dare to believe in that book. Plagued of errors and own scientific inaccuracies of the time in which it was written, on the part of a young person without academic formation. A simple observer of the birds in one ventures on board a boat.

The birds pinzones look like… are different species with a common ancestor. ERROR. It is already demonstrated that is VARIETY within the species, and nonEVOLUTION from a species to another one. There are dogs sausage and dogs Bulldog. Both are dogs. It is only variety within the species but at the time of Darwin one was unknown, clearly. The genetics not yet existed.

On the basis of the tips of pinzones the young observer of birds imagined that all the animal look like a little: all have two eyes generally. More or less four extremities. So they must have all a common origin.

Another ERROR. Common origin is not just like common ancestor. I can use the same argument of the similarity between the species to seat a common origin: a COMMON DESIGNER. After all, when different designs keep similar usually are evidence of a common manufacturer and not that a design came from the other.

A motorcycle and an Honda car can be seemed. I deduce that they come from the same factory, and not that the car is a motorcycle that went away by chance transforming into car. Certain?

I make a call to that you investigate. That you look for the truth about your origins. Not what scientist says such, or such shepherd or so cures. To that you read all the involved books, that you analyze the universe that surrounds to you, you compare, you use the common sense and you determine as they are your origins. Free of pressures, free of prejudices.

Because we were born free: who created to us, free to investigate and to know I create to us. You do not give that freedom to him to others.

Shalom

Apolos of Montevideo

Tags: creacionismo, Darwin, darwinismo, evolucionismo, simpson, origin of the species