Religion, even as a child, has always fascinated me. But when you're a child, it seems, they don't really tell you the low-down on just what religion is, or what it's about. They're very vague, but (depending upon the religion) each has a way of defining the rules of coexistence, the matter of existence, and of self maintenance. Many also offer an explanation of a beginning, though some do not. And then, as you get older, it starts sounding complicated, and a little bit competitive, too. Theism vs atheism, monotheism vs polytheism, agnosticism vs atheism, etc. So, even though I was blessed with a decent mind, I nonetheless did what it seems 98% of the world population does - I accepted the religious package my parents offered, which was atheism. The easy way out. That's not to slam atheism, though.

My father was an inorganic chemist for the aerospace industry, and my mother was both a teacher and a registered nurse (a good thing when I developed diabetes at 4 years old). My dad was a walking calculator, encyclopedia, and so much more. An intellectual monolith. Mom, who had never done so before, rebuilt an inline 6-cylinder Jaguar engine, using nothing but hand tools and the rebuild manual, on blankets and throw rugs on our living room floor! Amazing, both of them. So as my brainiac father laid out his understanding of the world around us, as any good father does, he made it clear that religion was mythical, like the Easter bunny, but that we had science to really know what's going on. As a high-IQ kid, I aced all that school put before me, and I was a real believer in the Darwinian theorems by the time I was a late teenager. I used to love to have theological debates with the door-knockers, because with each new successful destruction of belief I had more and more confidence that I was onto the truth. After all, all shredding of other's beliefs aside, I really wanted at the truth.

Then I started to realize that evolution had problems. I'll discuss that in a moment. But first, let me say that the problems were fundamental enough to cause me to believe that either evolution needs serious rethinking, or needs to be tossed out. OK. There are a few things that made me change my faith in the Darwinian model of evolution. Things like the eye, that only works once it's complete - how does evolution explain the "design" of the eye? All during the "design" era, allegedly millions of years (I'll discuss that in another blog), nothing works. Why does it continue? And if we believe the model, then there should be a constant stream of variant fossils, not large gaps between "design" stages. Instead of seeing mostly fossils of a creature developing an appendage, as an example, we see sharp defined lines between where an animal has or has not any given feature. It should be a blur, similar to video film. A constant stream, with slow change. Too often that's not the case. And there are others. But the real clincher was when I learned of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a law of physics. I never took physics in college, so I learn these things and others outside of school on my own time.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that everything in our closed system universe is in a constant state of decline, or "entropy". Spin a top, it winds down. Throw a ball, it comes to rest. Heat something up, it cools down. And along these principles, things become less complicated, not more complicated, over time. The only known exception to this law of the physical universe is when an intelligent will applies energy in direct opposition the the effects of the law. Huh? In other words, if a hurricane were to blow through an automobile junkyard, it is inconceivable, no matter how many times or chances given, that it will ever produce a working automobile. This is the effect of chaos, or randomness. But if a man (an intelligent will) were to go to work on a car in that yard (applying energy in opposition to the declining property of the law), it is quite conceivable that a working, or progressive (as opposed to regressive) car would emerge. Life evolves, apparently unguided, in a progressive manner. Life forms become more complicated. By my understanding of the physical laws of our universe, that requires an intelligent will in order to occur - a "God", or Gods. This is the basic standing of the Theist. He/she believes that something supernatural would be required for things to exist as we see them today. A monumental revelation in my life, to realize that things only evolve progressively, as life does, when an intelligent will intervenes. The atheist will believe that over millions or billions of years, such a thing could happen by random chance. I still respect that position, but I do not currently subscribe to it.

This is a small sampling; my road to where I sit today is more complicated than merely this. But I wanted to present the scientific logic behind the theistic point of view, as Gods are often thought of as purely mythical and utterly impossible, when in fact they're scientifically "more likely than not". imho. Comment away; I enjoy feedback. I'll address the respectful ones, opposing me or otherwise. I've changed my mind before - challenge me! And until next time, be well. Come back for more.

John