If you believe that the religion versus science debate over human origins holds water, then you are forced to side with either of two biased and shortsighted conclusions.
Who is preaching nonsense and who is not? The truth about anything unproven is subjective. The true nature of deception is when “qualified and educated individuals”, who stand in positions of power and influence, lead us to believe in unproven facts.
Determining whether or not an argument is substantial is based upon the questions that remain after the conclusions are derived. Theoretically, the more questions that can be answered, the closer we are to the truth in our assumptions. In any proposal or theory we must consider all of the evidence and not just some of it.
Being led to believe that science is unbiased in its linear view of human history is equally absurd as believing in the 6000-year-old creation story espoused by fundamentalists. Although it may not appear on the surface, the scientific bias is obvious because of ignored evidence that conflicts with their linear view.
In a previous post we discussed the Great Pyramid, and although there are many historic anomalies like it, I will use it as a case in point. Science suggests that the Egyptians constructed this megalith because there is no other explanation within their current theories of human origins and history. Proof of their bias is observed by the reluctance to share the mounds of contradicting scientific evidence, discovered in the last 150 years, with students and the general public.
It’s extremely ludicrous to continue the charade hiding obvious cogs in the wheel of the scientific viewpoint. Anomalies similar to the Great Pyramid have been discovered by science all over the world, but they are being swept under the rug by institutions bent on guarding the obsolete foundation for human origins, which contribute largely in the influence of human thought.
Ancient Alien theory has emerged as an attempt to answer the questions left behind by the aging scientific viewpoint, but it also leaves many other questions unanswered.
We cannot ignore the implied but unobserved evidence of religion, which is hidden beneath dogmatic rhetoric. Instead of arguing its many unacceptable conclusions, we should carefully evaluate its origins while considering the effects of an institution’s centuries-old attempt to retain power and influence, much like science today. From that perspective, we can link many of the mysteries of science with the icons of religious dogma.
We, as individuals, need to examine the evidence and decide for ourselves how to evaluate the information. The more we can educate ourselves, the easier it will be to see through the veil of deception disguised as truth by the institutions whose survival rests on uniformed constituents easily led by dogma and misinformation.