We all know that things need to change. We know it in our bones. Society, as it is, is broken. We see the rich getting unimaginably rich and everyone else losing everything. Pretty much every aspect of our infrastructure is corrupt and is run by people who are greedy and apathetic. Extremism has become the norm in politics and religion and it looks like everyone is simply divorcing themselves from reality. Those who are supposed to protect and serve instead harass and abuse. Everyone ignores pertinent issues and instead focuses on banal entertainment fodder. It seems that as long as people are fed and entertained, they will tolerate every form of decline. How are we to survive this?

No policy change will make it better, because it still takes place within a defunct system. We need a complete overhaul, but it won’t be enacted by the current system. It will only come about when people take it upon themselves to stop playing along and create something else. It has to start with our own minds.

Now, I know that feeling you just got. “Not another book on imagining things into reality and New Age mumbo-jumbo!” You’re right, this isn’t one. No mumbo-jumbo here. Just practical, useful information to deprogram ourselves from all the bullshit and restructure how we think so that we can restructure how we live, and create an entirely new infrastructure based not on some ideology, but on what makes rational, practical sense. Based on what simply works. However, that mountain of bullshit is mighty high. We will bring that mountain down, or we will go extinct.

Or, even worse, we’ll survive and complete our decline into idiocracy. A nation of people who spend their days in cubicles and nights absorbing misinformation while stuffing their faces with monochromatic lumps of slow death. Perhaps we’ll evolve a second mouth so that we simultaneously can stuff ourselves while spouting talking points and Bible verses, and quoting sitcoms and “reality” shows. Should anyone question the status-quo, they’ll be drowned out by the senseless gibbering of ignorant automatons which will only subside when they get hungry or have to go shopping. Their day will end with drinking pisswater beer and laughing at lolcats. We’re nearly there as it is, so we have no time to lose. Let’s get to it!

If you’re offended by any of the above, then you likely enjoy the status quo, and you can have it. However, the rest of us are moving on.

See, not everyone will come along for the ride. At first, it will be a few of us, followed by a groundswell of people defecting from the current system. Of course, we’ll be demonized and made to look like the most destructive force since exposed breasts, but our adherence to common sense, rationality, and facts will make their arguments look as stupid as they are. A ton of people will still stick steadfastly to their broken system and others will claim to represent us while spouting wingnuttery. Eventually it will become like marijuana: many partake and many disparage, and they do so side-by-side. However, we’ll be happier, or at the very least, have a sense of purpose and usefulness rather than simply squandering our lives as we make others rich.

There are already some people living the symbiotic lifestyle but just haven’t put a name to it. Many individuals and some loosely gathered. Many have decided to covertly live as they will and let everyone else play the game. Stealth symbiotism, as it were.

What do I mean by symbiotism? Well, the word usually refers to two different species whose survival depends on each other, like bees and flowers. In this book, I use it to mean interdependence rather than just dependence. The current societal structure has us dependent on the government and the economy for pretty much everything. A symbiotic society simply depends on people helping each other out without all the red tape, corruption, and ideology. It’s where people make use of their talents and abilities to enrich each others’ lives and work together to create a means of living that isn’t some useless, soulless, timesink that makes some people rich while they live paycheck to paycheck if they’re lucky.

No, it’s not about forming communities, at least not in the usual sense. People live where they will and how they will, but the way they conduct their lives and the effort they put forth helps create lives of practicality, fulfillment, and sometimes even happiness. It’s helping each other live lives that make sense.

It’s also not about pure logic and function. Without passion, what’s the point?

You may have heard of Burning Man. It’s based on the concept of radical self-reliance. It means you have the ability to take care of your own needs, but at the same time, everyone comes together to create a necessity that most leave out when talking about the basics: amazing experiences. Burners are fiercely independent, yet share the deepest of bonds. These bonds are not possessive and are nearly indefinable, and they’re mostly unspoken, but the effect of them is tangible and transformative.

The experience of Burning Man is similar to what I am trying to describe as symbiotism. Burning Man takes place in a lifeless, alkaline, flat expanse comprised of nothing but dust. The symbiotism I’m talking about can take place among the vast resources of the whole world. It will take courage, it will take resourcefulness, creativity, imagination, discipline, and intense self-examination, and it will be worth every frustrating pain of growth that happens along the way.

Now, let me be clear that I’m not talking about creating Burning Man-like events as a way of life (though some happily do), I simply use it as an example of what is possible. We can use our intelligence and passion to create lives worth living, but it means we can’t keep doing what we’ve been doing. We need to do this not just for ourselves, but for each other. Either that, or more of the same.

Sometimes life is a choice of two hells: one hell is a difficult process of transformation where you come out on the other side much stronger and resilient and fulfilled, and the other has you continuing to do what you are doing now for the rest of your life. Your choice.

An unfortunate tendency of lawmakers is enacting laws that have been disastrous in other states and thinking that somehow, magically, it’ll work in their state. Usually these things are done for political PR purposes rather than any useful purpose. They want to make their constituents chant talking points and pump fists in the air and vigorously wave flags, distracting them from the very real consequences of legislation that has already been proven in another state of being not only a failure, but a very serious detriment.

See, this has been tried before. In Prince William County in the state of Virginia in 2007 and 2008. Same kind of bill, same intention. It was made popular by jingoistic shrieks of “Remember who caused 9/11! Illegals!!”

It passed, and it divided the county into almost warring factions. It also completely destroyed their already suffering economy. When we get riled up about political issues, we don’t often stop to think about the unintended, yet very real consequences. We just parrot what we think we’re right about and we don’t stop to think.

House forclosures skyrocketed. Retail stores and restaurants lost tons of sales. They forgot that all these brown people actually do work and have some money, and they spend it everywhere. When they’re not welcome, they leave, and their money goes with them. They lost not only the illegal immigrants, but legal citizens who were born and raised in America, but happened to be brown, and therefore were targets. They left too, along with their money.

The effect was so devastating that they had to repeal most of the bill. Perhaps we should learn from their example, because we have far more to lose.

In Virginia, Latinos were a much smaller percentage of the population. Here in Arizona, we don’t need to be told that it is much, much higher. Therfore, we will lose much, much more money.

Already, the University of Arizona has lost over $100,000 in canceled tuitions. ASU has probably lost even more. Resorts, airlines, hotels and other parts of the tourist industry are reporting increasing canellations and loss of projected revenue. This bill hasn’t even gone into effect yet and we’ve lost hundreds of thousands of dollars. When it goes into effect, you can be sure we will lose millions, at least. Not just from Latinos, but from all people who view this bill as distatsteful, if not illegal. You’ve already heard the calls for boycotting our state. It’s happening, and we can’t afford it.

Unfortunately, those most strongly in favor of the bill can’t see past the word “Illegals!” and are paying no attention to the real cost of this legislation.

Arizona happens to be the state that is number one in job losses in this economy. We’re at the bottom. We can’t afford the financial devastation that this bill will bring.

It was once explained to me that the reason the economy is so bad is because big corporations knew that Democrats were about to seize power and are known for being less business friendly, so they pulled out. Same thing here. Make the environment unfriendly for most of your population and you can say goodbye to the money they used to spend here.

Now, a person can be against illegal immigrants all they like. No matter how worked up they get, their emotion will not make this bill a good idea. No matter what problems we blame on illegals, this bill will bring even worse problems.

Farms will close and food prices will surge upwards. House forclosures will be far worse than what Virginia suffered. Money will vacate our state as if it were being swept away by the sea. Like it or not, those illegals are a large part of our economy, and what will replace that? Tourism is another big part. What will we replace that with? (cue the sound of crickets)

You can be against illegals to the core of your being, but we need a solution that won’t kill us. I don’t know what that solution is, but if we can repeal this bill now rather than waiting to die and then repealing it, then we’ll have the resources available to enact a viable solution when someone comes up with one. Until then, unbunch the panties and buy some oranges on the street corner, because while some of that money may go to their families elsewhere, some of it will get fed back into our stores and restaurants.

We can’t afford to be picky about our neighbors. We gotta suck it up and deal. All the talking points in the world will not change the reality of how bad we will suffer if we continue to support this bill. Sometimes medicine is bitter, but it beats dying.

With every intrusive law that gets passed, you’ll invariably hear a chorus of “If you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about!” I’ve heard this several times over the last week alone, and it has to be addressed.

If this statement were true, you’d never hear of innocent people being harassed or going to jail. You’d never hear of corrupt police. You’d never hear of the wrong house being raided. You’d never hear of people being screwed over because the other guy has a better lawyer and can get away with a fabricated case. You’d never hear of people being harassed by cops simply for the color of their skin or their style of clothing.

There are countless episodes of innocents having their lives ruined or even ended due to a deeply corrupt legal system and vague laws that allow cops to decide for themselves who should be singled out next.

The argument that you are safe as long as you obey the law is the epitome of social ignorance. You have to ignore all of history and current events in order to believe it. You basically have to completely divorce yourself from reality to buy into the idea that the cops will treat you fairly, and the law will protect you.

When a system becomes very corrupt, every citizen is a victim. Every law that singles out some people eventually ends up affecting far more people than it was intended to. The War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, the recent Arizona immigration bill, all of these create a system where the police are above the law and every citizen is suspect.

Every law like this that gets passed is another axe chop at the tree of freedom. Sure, it doesn’t look so bad to many people, but it won’t take that many more whacks to make that tree fall.

This is the worst kind of ignorance. It is hypocritical as well, because those who claim to desire freedom the most are the ones who have no issue taking it away from people who are not like them. Sorry, folks, that’s not how freedom works. If any of us do not have the same rights as others of us, then none of us are truly free.

When we say that some citizens are less “American” than others, or that some don’t deserve the same rights as “us”, we tear down the very fabric of democracy. If you buy into the idea that some are less deserving than others of rights, then you are wiping your ass with the Constitution and the Flag you claim to honor.

Freedom means having to deal with people and lifestyles and races and beliefs that you don’t like or agree with. It means that you have to deal with the fact that your neighbor, whose values, beliefs, choice of sexual partner, choice of music, choice of religion or lack thereof, skin color, and everything else you might detest deserves the exact same rights and freedoms that you enjoy just because they are an American citizen.

What’s going to happen soon, is that perfectly legal citizens who happen to have brown skin are going to be harassed more than usual. They’ll be profiled and you know it. And they won’t have done anything wrong. If you are okay with this, you don’t truly care about freedom. If you agree with it and spout patriotic phrases about freedom, you are completely full of shit.

I think it is Un-American to be okay with any of us being harassed or singled out. Ever heard of “United We Stand, Divided We Fall”? As divided as we are, it’s no wonder we’re falling so fast.

As crazy and ignorant as I think the Tea Party folks are, I would defend to the best of my ability their right to spew their jingoistic bullshit, short of threats to the President. After all, if it’s not okay to threaten one, it’s not okay to threaten any.

If only they were as diligent in protecting the freedom of ALL citizens, even if they are brown, gay, non-Christian, or liberal. Their cries for freedom and democracy are empty if it doesn’t apply to all citizens equally.

See, folks, to be American is to not have to have everyone be just like you or agree with you. No matter how wrong you may think another person is, the basic fact that they are a citizen means you should defend their rights and freedoms as intensely as you’d protect your own. That would include resisting laws that would curtail those rights and freedoms. So, wake up and be real Americans.

There’s a huge culture clash regarding all kinds of issues that are often relegated to aspects of morality. Many claim that, without some kind of religious guidance, we simply revert to barbarism and lack of conscience. I will show how this is not only untrue, but that morality is best served outside of religion.

In primitive societies, there are still basic, commonly understood rules even if they don’t have a written code of law. They have no religious text to tell them what to do and no set of commandments from some deity to guide them. They may have theistic beliefs of a primitive nature, but there’s no equivalent to a Bible, Quran, or Talmud.

Yet, primitive tribes did just fine surviving even to modern times, at least those that weren’t wiped out by supposedly more civilized peoples. How would this be possible with no Bible or similar text to guide them? How did they know not to wantonly destroy each other without conscience? How did they understand that it’s best to not kill each other off, steal from each other or abandon all sense of social unity?

Common sense. Human instinct. Natural morality. Our nature is to be sociable, just as it is often in our nature to be selfish and violent at times. Yet, the only times we fall into violent madness that includes wanton destruction of others, the basic social understanding is overridden by some kind of dogmatic beliefs. Whether religious or secular in nature, it is dogma that makes us barbaric. It is a belief of racial or cultural or religious superiority that causes humans to lash out mindlessly.

Left to our own devices without dogma, we seem to get along reasonably well. There’s no inherent natural reason for any culture to view another as inferior or inhuman. Think of it this way: when the pilgrims landed in America, they were treated with gifts and hospitality by a godless, primitive people. It was the religious, “civilized” people that committed genocide, intentional spread of disease and famine, and systematically wiped out all those who would not conform to their culture. Who was more barbaric?

It’s an unfortunate irony that most cultures that have been invaded in this way tend to have the highest percentage of religious people. A dogma that is spread by the sword tends to hang on rather tenaciously.

These people that cut down and eradicated entire cultures were Christians who knew all about the teachings of Jesus and believed they had God on their side. They had religious guidance. This guidance told them that they were meant to have dominion over all the earth and that anyone who stood in their way was expendable.

The native peoples had no such guidance. They had primitive animist religious beliefs, but nothing in their beliefs told them that they had the right to take anything and everything. In fact, their beliefs were quite the opposite. Many of these indigenous cultures had beliefs that included reverence of nature and included a kind of inherent sustainability.

The difference between these beliefs was dogma. So, to be clear, it is not religious or spiritual beliefs or lack thereof that is the problem with regards to morality, it is dogma.

Secular people will bring up the Crusades, Inquisition and other events in order to point the finger at religion, and the religious will bring up Stalin, Pol Pot and other events to point the finger at secularism, however, as we can see, all of those incidents had the same thing in common: dogma.

If we are to find common ground, we must base it on a lack of dogma. If people wish to have dogmatic beliefs as part of their worldview, well, they’re welcome to them as long as they do not take any action that would cause harm to an unconsenting person or their property.

The main reason we can’t use popular religions as the basis for a common morality is because you can find a horrible admonishment to commit atrocities for every admonishment to do something nice. Usually these kindnesses are reserved for believers only. One scripture will say love thy neighbor, and another will say to kill them if they suggest that you worship another god.

Natural morality already includes the positive messages such as the Golden Rule. The reason for this is that these messages were not invented by the religions they tend to be associated with. They’re just common sense with or without any belief in any god(s).

So, we already know that we should not kill, steal, rape, lie, etc. We don’t need any special beliefs to understand these things. Even the most primitive cultures understand this, which is why they survived for thousands of years without the help of dogmatic religion.

Of course, some people will still do these things and they’re generally punished. In a primitive society, there are no legal loopholes to hide behind. The tribe finds you and brings swift retaliation.  The survival of the tribe depends on people not adopting some kind of “anything goes” attitude.

For some odd reason, many religious people will say that atheists believe in “anything goes”. They have yet to provide any evidence for this. All of us are human, no matter what religious beliefs we may or may not have. We still have our inherent natural morality which, on balance, is all we really need to get along. We have aberrations, but they are always a scant minority.

We also have the fact that all the good messages in all the religious texts do not prevent people from committing atrocities. When they are riled up, they aren’t remembering the passages that tell them to be kind and hospitable, they are acting on the ones that tell them to kill unbelievers. Without dogma, it’s very hard to get anyone to agree that it’s a good idea to go kill a lot of other people. Even in the military, it’s been shown that many soldiers will aim over the heads of their enemy to avoid killing them.

It basically takes brainwashing, propaganda and indoctrination to convince humans to adopt barbarism, and the basis for all of it is dogma.

How do we differentiate dogmatic beliefs from non-dogmatic ones? Simple. If the belief is simply a version of “do not cause harm” then it is not dogmatic. If it purports any kind of superiority, being “chosen”, or in any other way having something about oneself that other humans don’t have (including beliefs), it is dogmatic.

Consensual crimes are a whole other ball of wax, and the laws against them tend to be based on dogmatic beliefs rather than natural morality. I’ll address those in detail soon.

For now, let’s collectively agree to put to bed the idea that it is religion or secularism themselves that are responsible for the worst atrocities committed by mankind. It isn’t a contest. We know that it’s dogma, and there’s no such thing as a good one.

A very well-reasoned and enlightening explanation of many common misconceptions about Atheism.

Like any other group (I know, we’re not actually a cohesive group, but bear with me), attitudes among atheists cover a wide spectrum. Some are timid and afraid to offend and some revel in tearing apart every theist that crosses their path.

There are militant atheists and moderate atheists. I’ve heard some atheists refer to other atheists who are nice to theists as “appeasers”. As if treating them like humans is somehow weak or gives credence to their beliefs.

Now, when a theist is being obstinate, pushy and is doing nothing but obfuscating and preaching, they need to be put in their place. Unfortunately, those are the types that tend to show up in online discussions regarding atheism and theism. So, such discussions generally immediately devolve into mud slinging where the theists quote Bible verses and psuedo science and atheists hurl quotes from Hitchens and Dawkins, the more vitriolic the better.

While this can be funny as hell, it’s not doing a lot for our image. Yes, we know we can be good without god, but if we’re dicks, we don’t do a good job of proving it. After all, if we’re big on evidence, let’s provide some.

Most theists don’t take part in these discussions and, mostly through no fault of their own, are simply ignorant regarding their own Bible and regarding science. Most theists only know what they’ve been told via the mainstream media and through sermons at their churches. I’m talking about non-fundamentalists here. The ones who, when someone takes the time to calmly and kindly explain a lot of things, can say “Oh, I didn’t know that” and are more capable of being accepting of not just scientific facts, but of atheists.

We need them on our side, and furthermore, they need us on theirs. Why? Because, to the fundies, moderate theists may as well be atheists. Anyone who is not a fundie is hellbound and an enemy that must be converted or destroyed. Fundies are not known for embracing any ideas that aren’t already part of their ideology. They need to know that even most theists are not on their side.

If the moderate theists can view us as allies and we can view them as allies, then we can both expose fundamentalism for the social poison that it is. Imagine a group of atheists and moderate theists standing together to oppose hate and blind fear! Imagine the message that would show the world for how we really can all get along.

We need to show them that we’re not trying to remove their freedom to believe in their god, we just want to have the freedom not to.

Now, I know what Sam Harris has to say about moderate theism enabling fundamentalism, and I agree. However, it’s not an intentional act on the part of these theists. Most of them are simply theist by default. They grew up with it and don’t even know that atheists don’t hate god and are simply people just like them who want a good life and friends and families and to take part in a civil society. They are given an image of us that would be laughably cartoonish if it wasn’t so dispicable.

So, let’s reach out as friendly atheists and show the moderates that we’re people too. Treat them with kindness. Stand up for them when they’re under attack from fundies. Be an example of the Golden Rule they claim to hold so dear. When they see that we truly are good without god, they won’t have to fear us anymore. They won’t misunderstand us so much. They may even stand up for us in return.

The big enemy is the abject wingnuttery that has taken hold of the fundamentalists. The mindless insanity that drives them to bomb abortion clinics, picket funerals, and constantly spew such ugly hate whenever they have anyone’s attention.

Don’t forget, we can be an example to their children! When they see their own parents acting like maniacs and they see us treating people well and being happier, they may start to question their indoctrination! Being good examples is a wonderful way to teach!

We don’t need to respect the beliefs of moderate theists, we just need to respect them as people. In return, they don’t need to agree with or respect our lack of belief, but they can learn to treat us like humans too. This is what’s missing from the whole theist/atheist clash: basic human respect.

Part of this respect is choosing our battles more wisely. If you sneeze and they say “God bless you”, don’t say “I’M AN ATHEIST!! KEEP YOUR GOD TO YOURSELF!!” Just say “thanks”. In those little moments, they’re not trying to convert us, they’re just saying what they feel is polite according to their default beliefs. It’s not an attack on our freedoms.

Of course, if they’re trying to replace evolution in a neighborhood school, fight tooth and nail! Like I said, pick your battles wisely. We can’t expect respect if we’re not respectable, and neither can they.

I found a rather pleasant surprise last night. Perhaps some would be offended, but I thought it was cool.

I frequent a site called Reddit under the username Up2Eleven. I made a comment on the site which someone turned into a video and posted on YouTube. If it was someone posting the words as their own in a blog post or lifting something from my blog and posting it as their own, then I’d have an issue. In this case, I think the dude just dug what I said enough to make a video of it and I’m extremely flattered.

Now that I’ve done the hardnose science thing, let me balance the scales a bit. I’d like to talk about kindness.

We’ve all had to deal with rude people, and we all know how much it sucks, yet lots of people continue to be rude to others. Maybe they just don’t care about others, or completely lack empathy…I don’t know. What I do know is that kindness is usually more effective in most situations than rudeness.

It’s the whole common sense of the Golden Rule. If we are rude, we make someone’s day worse and they’re more likely to be rude to someone else, and the cycle continues. If we are kind, we just make their day, and they’re more likely to pass on that kindness. Of course, some people are cantankerous assholes and what can we do?

I saw a commercial recently where people were just doing small kindnesses for each other and each person who had something nice done for them was surprised and did something nice for someone else. The fact that people are usually surprised by kindness says a lot about our society. It’s a rather sad sign, actually. Shouldn’t it be the norm?

Yesterday, before work, I was at Walgreen’s and the guy in line before me was some dude in his early 20’s and he was 18 cents short for his purchases. He went out to his car to look for change. The cashier rang me up and part of the change allowed me to give 18 cents to the cashier. I said “I’ll cover that dude’s 18 cents.”

As I was walking out, I saw the guy heading back in with a dejected look. It looked like he didn’t have the change after all. I told him “I covered your 18 cents, bro!” His face lit up! He was astounded that anyone would do that, especially in Phoenix where little acts of kindness are very few and far between. As I pulled my car out, he came out of the store, grinning ear to ear and thanked me again. I just nodded and smiled and drove off.

I realized that the only thing that feels better than having a kindness done for me is being able to do one for someone else. It was just a small act, but it made me feel like a more worthy human being. Like that is how things should be.

It’s been shown that people are more energetic, more productive and all around healthier when they are happy. When treated with kindness, people are more dynamic and creative and optimistic. That’s something we could use a lot more of right now. I think spreading more kindness around would help alleviate some of the stress of these very difficult times.

We don’t need more bickering and arguing. We need more moments that make us grateful to be alive. We all need a moment of happiness in the middle of such strange and overwhelming days.

So, here’s hoping we can spread a little more kindness around. Folks, you’ve got homework. Sometime in the next 24 hours, do as many random acts of kindness as you can. Hold a door open, thank someone for some thankless thing they do every day, make someone’s day! Even if you’re having a crappy day, doing something kind will help make it less crappy. At the very least, you’re helping someone else have a less crappy day, and we all know how unexpected kindnesses can really help when we’re down.

Get to it, folks! Make someone’s day!

One thing that often comes up when discussing belief systems and ways of determining reality is the belief that science is just another belief system, no more solid than any other, and that it takes just as much faith to believe in as any religion.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Science is not a belief system and requires no faith whatsoever. Faith is belief in that which lacks evidence. When there is evidence, you then have knowledge and therefore faith doesn’t apply. Evidence is not something one “believes in”. You either accept the evidence or reject it, but evidence is evidence regardless of whether or not people choose to accept it.

I think that most of the public is not familiar with scientific protocol and how it works, otherwise they would not claim it is a belief system or requires faith. So, I shall explain.

A scientist discovers or notices something occuring and wishes to understand how it happens. He forms a hypothesis, which is the closest thing in science that equates with “guess”. Theories are far more solid and will be discussed in a moment.

He runs various tests and does a great deal of observation, and once he has information that has survived his tests, and the evidence holds up to his scrutiny, he then forms a theory. He does not do this until he feels pretty solid about his information and has exhausted every bit of evidence he can find to test against the theory. He usually is not alone in his work and will generally have a handful of people assisting and brainstorming with him.

Keep in mind that the word “theory” in science does not mean the same thing as it means in public discourse. Most people use it to mean something akin to a mere guess that is just pulled out of someone’s behind. In science, a theory is based on tested evidence and the definition of a scientific theory is something that explains how an observed phenomenon works. Some theories are more solid than others.

Once he has a pretty solid theory, he publishes his findings in scientific journals for the peer-review process, as well as the methods and tests he used to form the theory. Other scientists then use their expertise to perform further tests and see if the theory is upheld or debunked. If it is debunked, they all go back to the drawing board to form another theory. If it is upheld, any time new evidence is discovered, the theory is tested against it and the theory is either weakened or strengthened by the new evidence.

Now, a theory does not become a law. It’s not anyting like the political process where a bill becomes law. The scientific process is quite different. A scientific law describes seomthing that affects the entire universe, such as gravity or the laws of physics.

For example, gravity is considered a law because there is nothing in the universe that is not affected by it. It is a universal force that applies to all things. Evolution, while factual and proven beyond doubt, can never be a law no matter how much evidence there is because it doesn’t affect everything in the universe, it only affects that which has DNA. Rocks, nebulas, solar systems, gases, etc do not have DNA and therefore can’t evolve. If it’s not universal in its effect, it’s not a law.

So, theory and law are not hierarchies of proof. One is not more solid than another. Many theories are absolutely factual, yet can never be considered laws as they only affect certain things, not the universe as a whole. Many things are simultaneously a theory and a fact. It is a demonstrable fact that natural selection occurs. The theory of evolution explains how natural selection works. That’s the difference.

When scientists are not absolutely sure about something, they don’t claim certainty about it. They are usually very careful to qualify their statements and will say something like “our current understanding, based on the evidence we’ve seen so far, is that the universe started out in a very condensed form and then exploded into what we have now.”

When it comes to things that are upheld with so much evidence that it would be ridiculous to deny that thing, they are rather clear about that as well. Unfortunately, the public, who aren’t as familiar with the evidence as scientists are, will create debates about things that really aren’t debatable.

Evolution is probably the most publicly contentious example. Biologists have so much evidence from so many kinds of observation and testing that has all been completely corroborated that natural selection is as solid as the fact that gravity exists.

The only “weakness” that can be thrown at evolution is that many people attack Darwin’s originial statements about evolution and some of them have indeed been debunked thorugh the scientific method and current scientists do not make those same claims, so arguing against them is a red herring. His basic theory of natural selection, however, has been absolutely confirmed. There is no shortage of books that explain how it works and no credible biologists have any doubt regarding it. Every new bit of evidence that has come forth regarding natural selection has only solidified it further.

The evolution of humans, specifically, is the most hotly contested part of evolution. Though we don’t have every link from the earliest humanoids to today, we still know that natural selection itself occurs for a fact and the fossil record for humans, while broken, does not veer off. It’s as clear as having a one million piece jigsaw puzzle and only missing three pieces. If you had such a puzzle of a giraffe and are missing a piece or two where a spot on the giraffe’s body would be, it would be abysmally absurd to state that it’s not a puzzle of a giraffe. That’s the level of scientific certainty on the specific evolution of humans.

To quickly clarify one very common myth: we did not evolve directly from apes or monkeys, however, we and they share a common ancestor. Natural selection is 100% factual, and that we and other primates share a common ancestor is about 99% certain.

Yet, those with an ideological agenda refuse to learn about the evidence and deny it out of hand. They clamor for teaching “both sides”, even though the claim regarding intelligent design has yet to have any evidence to support it. This is not to say there definitely is no intelligence behind the universe, there very well could be. But, there’s no evidence as of yet to support the idea. The fact is, on that specific topic, we just don’t know.

It is irresponsible to teach as fact something that not only lacks evidence, but is something we cannot know.

The only reason there is a public debate on evolution is because fundamentalists refuse to accept the evidence (and usually don’t bother to find out what it is) and the media validates their assertions by treating them as if there is an actual debate, but if you ask any evolutionary biologist, they will confirm that, in scientific circles, there is no debate. Unfortunately, most of the public doesn’t know any better and they end up believing there is some question regarding the validity of evolution.

The same goes for ideas such as the earth only being 6000 years old. This is another thing that is provably, certifiably, flatly, definitely false. Science has used a great many methods of dating and they all corroborate one another. This information can be found in many books, but the most notable is perhaps “The Greatest Show on Earth” by Richard Dawkins.

In fact, the greatest margin of error in any of those dating systems is in hundreds of thousands of years. Even with the widest margin of error, the earth is still placed as being at least four billion years old. With the all the various methods and all margins of error taken into account and measured against each other, the age of the earth has been narrowed to 4.3 billion years old.

The vast amount of inaccuracy present when claiming the earth is only 6000 years old has been likened to someone claiming that the distance from L.A. to New York City is about 700 yards.

Now, for questions such as how did life first begin, science has some hypotheses, but does not know for sure. They have been able to recreate one theory in a lab; that of lightning striking a collection of amino acids and RNA in mineral-rich water and were able to spontaneously create life where there was none. We now know that this is a probable method for the beginnings of life, but it is not known for certain what actually happened when life began on Earth. Therefore, there is valid debate on this topic.

It would be wise for us as citizens to educate ourselves on these topics so that we can be more informed in general. Plus, the more people who have knowledge based on evidence, the more sane and sound we will be as a society. Sanity is sorely needed in these times.

For most people, though, they are not at fault for not knowing these things. Public school is woefully inadequate and is being tampered with. In some schools, you can’t even learn good science anymore as it’s been replaced with theological teachings rather than scientific ones. One might ask why they don’t teach “both sides”.

A great many people are rather nebulous in their beliefs regarding evolution and other topics and just kind of go along with whatever the media currently has to say on these topics. Since the media is rife with inaccuracies and false debates, it’s not a very good source of information.

So, my desire is for people to seek the most up to date scientific information they can find, so that people may be empowered with the knowledge necessary to refute factually erroneous claims. As for the unanswerable questions, the only honest answer is “I don’t know.”

Let me be clear that I can’t and won’t disparage people for believing things that can neither be proven nor disproved, such as the belief that there is a god that loves us all. Such a belief does me no harm whatsoever and it doesn’t directly contradict scientific evidence. The beliefs that do not conflict with evidence should not be a problem for anyone. We should not ever seek to try to convice people one way or the other, but there’s not any harm in friendly discussions and civil debates, even if such are irrelevant due to the unknowable nature of such questions. But hey, no harm, no foul.

To boil it down: if an idea is expressed as fact and is directly contradicted by clear evidence, the idea should not be given merit or respect and should be exposed as erroneous. If it does not conflict with evidence, then may it bring you happiness and fulfillment.