www.rael.org u can download the free e-book intelligent desing and others...
Einstein versus Darwin: Intelligent Design or Evolution?
Would you be surprised to know that millions of scientists around the
world do not blindly accept Darwin's THEORY of evolution? Would it
shock you to know that many of these professors and researchers are not
religious, but they embrace the theory of Intelligent Design, which
holds that our intricate universe could not have come about by chance?
Would it blow you away to find that Albert Einstein was one of them?
It is well documented that these famous scientists strongly disagreed
on this important question. It is also well known that they, along with
all credible scientists throughout history, strongly believed that all
theories should be heard, all should be tested, and none should be
ridiculed. This is the only way that science itself can be credible.
Yet many politically active scientists today are desperately
maneuvering to censor any mention of the theory of Intelligent Design
in our schools, textbooks and media. Their accomplices in this blatant
censorship are liberal politicians, atheists, most of the media and the
national teacher's union (the Nation Education Association or NEA).
Darwin's theory is just that - a theory. It has never been proven, and
cannot be proven. But the censors mentioned above want Darwin's THEORY
taught as FACT, and they want no other theories even mentioned.
Einstein is just one of millions of prominent scientists over the years
that have supported the theory of Intelligent Design, but he is perhaps
the best known. In an article in "Science, Philosophy and Religion, A
Symposium," (see LINK below) Einstein said, "Science without religion
is lame. Religion without science is blind."
In the last paragraph of his essay, "The World as I See It," Einstein
wrote, "I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity and with a
knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence - as well
as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason
that manifests itself in nature." While Einstein referred to the
Designer as "Reason" rather than "God," his writings make it very clear
that he believed that an intelligent Designer crafted our universe and
all that is within it. On the other hand, Darwin postulated that all
life somehow crawled out of primordial ooze and miraculously became
differentiated as mammals, reptiles, fish, fowl and so on. It seems
that such a far-fetched theory would require much more faith than
simply believing that God did what He said He did in Genesis: He
created everything according to His plan.
On page 293 of his book, "The Origin of the Species," Darwin stated
that his THEORY would ultimately be proven by the fossil record. This
has never happened. If the theory were true, at least some of the
millions of fossils discovered by scientists would have provided a
"missing link", a fossil that was clearly part one species as well as
part another. Although there have been several attempts over the years
to fake evidence to prove Darwin's theory, the "missing link" has never
Scientists in China have discovered ancient bacteria that cast doubt on
Darwin's theory, and have published papers stating this. One of them,
Jian Yuan Chan, said, "In China, we can criticize Darwin, but we cannot
criticize the government. In the US you can criticize the government,
but you cannot criticize Darwin."
The issue of Intelligent Design came to national attention recently
because of an ongoing debate in Dover, Pennsylvania. The school board in Dover announced a year ago
that high-school biology teachers would inform their students that
other theories existed besides evolution. A New York Times article
states, "A statement is read to biology students asserting that
Darwin's theory 'is not a fact,' urging them 'to keep an open mind' and
pointing them to the seminal book on intelligent design, 'Of Pandas and
People.' Students are allowed to leave class when it is read." Of
course Dover liberals are incensed. They want to hide from the children
the fact that other valid theories are accepted by large portions of
the scientific community. They are not satisfied that students are
allowed to leave class during the short statement. They want the
discussion to be held (if at all) in humanities classes. Of course this
would send a clear signal to students that the theory is unscientific;
otherwise, why would it not be discussed in science classes?
It should be noted that many proponents of Intelligent Design are not
religious; they are simply intellectually honest scientists who see the
flaws in evolutionary theory. Without calling the Designer "God", they
recognize that the complex organisms that populate our universe could
not have resulted from anything other than systematic design by an
intelligent being. Unfortunately, these scientists are hounded by their
evolutionist peers, often losing their jobs because of their beliefs.
Scientists who would censor or intimidate others with differing
theories are not worthy of the title "Scientist." A Wall Street Journal
Editorial recently exposed the decades-long
persecution of scientists who support the theory of Intelligent Design
(ID). It used as an example a scientist at the Smithsonian's National
Museum of Natural History in Washington, Richard Steinberg. Steinberg,
who holds two PhD's in biology, was the editor of a Museum publication
that printed an article on ID which had been reviewed by scientific
peers prior to publication. He was demoted and a concerted effort is
underway to ruin his career.
Steinberg's immediate supervisor was asked by top Museum officials, "Is
he religious?", as if being religious was something of which he should
be ashamed. "Is he a right-wing conservative?" One's political beliefs
should not be an issue in the scientific community. But since the great
majority of faculty members at US universities are far-left liberals,
it is always an issue. The Editorial concludes, "Darwinism.is an
essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious
faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an
instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from
anyone who enters one of its churches - like the National Museum of
The Journal Editor got it right. Darwinism stems from dialectical
materialism, the philosophy of Marxism. Communism/socialism is a
religion that demands blind faith and obedience. Darwinism is an
offshoot of that false religion. It, too, demands blind faith, and its
disciples persecute anyone who believes differently.
Our children deserve better than being brainwashed by their schools
into believing a false religion is based on fact. They deserve to be
told that evolution is nothing more than a theory that has never been
proven, and allowed to consider alternatives to that theory.
Harvard Jumps Into Evolution Debate
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - Harvard University is joining the long-running debate
over the theory of evolution by launching a research project to study how
The team of researchers will receive $1 million in funding annually from
Harvard over the next few years. The project begins with an admission that
some mysteries about life's origins cannot be explained.
"My expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple
series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine
intervention," said David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical
biology at Harvard.
The "Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative" is still in its early
stages, scientists told the Boston Sunday Globe. Harvard has told the
research team to make plans for adding faculty members and a collection of
Evolution is a fundamental scientific theory that species evolved over
millions of years. It has been standard in most public school science
texts for decades but recently re-emerged in the spotlight as communities
and some states debated whether school children should also be taught
about creationism or intelligent design.
The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have
developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a
hand in creation.
Harvard has not been seen as a leader in origins of life research, but the
university's vast resources could change that perception.
"It is quite gratifying to see Harvard is going for a solution to a
problem that will be remembered 100 years from now," said Steven Benner, a
University of Florida scientist who is one of the world's top chemists in
Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate
President Bush invigorated proponents of teaching alternatives to evolution
in public schools with remarks saying that schoolchildren should be taught
about "intelligent design," a view of creation that challenges established
scientific thinking and promotes the idea that an unseen force is behind
the development of humanity.
Although he said that curriculum decisions should be made by school
districts rather than the federal government, Bush told Texas newspaper
reporters in a group interview at the White House on Monday that he
believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as
"Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what
the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the
session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different
schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to
be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."
These comments drew sharp criticism yesterday from opponents of the theory,
who said there is no scientific evidence to support it and no educational
basis for teaching it.
Much of the scientific establishment says that intelligent design is not a
tested scientific theory but a cleverly marketed effort to introduce
religious -- especially Christian -- thinking to students. Opponents say
that church groups and other interest groups are pursuing political
channels instead of first building support through traditional scientific
The White House said yesterday that Bush's comments were in keeping with
positions dating to his Texas governorship, but aides say they could not
recall him addressing the issue before as president. His remarks heartened
conservatives who have been asking school boards and legislatures to teach
students that there are gaps in evolutionary theory and explain that life's
complexity is evidence of a guiding hand.
"With the president endorsing it, at the very least it makes Americans who
have that position more respectable, for lack of a better phrase," said
Gary L. Bauer, a Christian conservative leader who ran for president
against Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries. "It's not some backwater
view. It's a view held by the majority of Americans."
John G. West, an executive with the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based
think tank supporting intelligent design, issued a written statement
welcoming Bush's remarks. "President Bush is to be commended for defending
free speech on evolution, and supporting the right of students to hear
about different scientific views about evolution," he said.
Opponents of intelligent design, which a Kansas professor once called
"creationism in a cheap tuxedo," say there is no legitimate debate. They
see the case increasingly as a political battle that threatens to weaken
science teaching in a nation whose students already are lagging.
"It is, of course, further indication that a fundamentalist right has
really taken over much of the Republican Party," said Rep. Barney Frank
(D-Mass.), a leading liberal lawmaker. Noting Bush's Ivy League education,
Frank said, "People might cite George Bush as proof that you can be totally
impervious to the effects of Harvard and Yale education."
Bush's comments were "irresponsible," said Barry W. Lynn, executive
director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He said
the president, by suggesting that students hear two viewpoints, "doesn't
understand that one is a religious viewpoint and one is a scientific
viewpoint." Lynn said Bush showed a "low level of understanding of
science," adding that he worries that Bush's comments could be followed by
a directive to the Justice Department to support legal efforts to change
Bush gave no sign that he intended to wade that far into the debate. The
issue came up only when a reporter from the Knight Ridder news service
asked him about it; participants said the president did not seem especially
eager to be asked. "Very interesting question," he told the reporter playfully.
At a morning briefing yesterday, White House press secretary Scott
McClellan said Bush was simply restating long-standing views. "He has said
that going back to his days as governor," McClellan said. "I think he also
said in those remarks that local school districts should make the decisions
about their curriculum. But it's long been his belief that students ought
to be exposed to different ideas, and so that's what he was reiterating
In comments published last year in Science magazine, Bush said that the
federal government should not tell states or school boards what to teach
but that "scientific critiques of any theory should be a normal part of the
The president's latest remarks came less than two months after Cardinal
Christoph Schonborn, archbishop of Vienna and an influential Roman Catholic
theologian, said evolution as "an unguided, unplanned process of random
variation and natural selection" is not true.
"Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the
overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science,"
Schonborn wrote in the New York Times. He said he wanted to correct the
idea that neo-Darwinism is compatible with Christian faith.
Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, warned this
year in a "Dear Colleagues" letter of "increasingly strident attempts to
limit the teaching of evolution."
The most prominent debate is underway in Kansas, where the conservative
state board of education is expected to require the teaching of doubts
about evolution to public high school students. A challenge to the teaching
of intelligent design is scheduled for trial in Dover, Pa., while a federal
court in Georgia said textbook stickers questioning evolution were
The messages dictated to Rael explain that life on Earth is not the result of random evolution, nor the work of a supernatural 'God'. It is a deliberate creation, using DNA, by a scientifically advanced people who made human beings literally "in their image" -- what one can call "scientific creationism." References to these scientists and their work, as well as to their symbol of infinity, can be found in the ancient texts of many cultures. For example, in Genesis, the Biblical account of Creation, the word "Elohim" has been mistranslated as the singular word "God", but it is actually a plural word which means "those who came from the sky", and the singular is "Eloha" (also known as "Allah"). Indigenous cultures all over the world remember these "gods" who came from the sky, including natives of Africa (Dogon, Twa, etc.), America, Asia, Australia, and Europe.
Leaving our humanity to progress by itself, the Elohim nevertheless maintained contact with us via prophets including Buddha, Moses, Mohammed, etc., all specially chosen and educated by them. The role of the prophets was to progressively educate humanity through the Messages they taught, each adapted to the culture and level of understanding at the time. They were also to leave traces of the Elohim so that we would be able to recognize them as our Creators and fellow human beings when we had advanced enough scientifically to understand them. Jesus, whose father was an Eloha, was given the task of spreading these messages throughout the world in preparation for this crucial time in which we are now privileged to live: the predicted Age Of Revelation.
Thank you for reading love Jesse James
|NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material
from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. |