Sam Weaver Redefines “Science”

Every living, rational, sane and sentient human being (including Richard Dawkins, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, “the science guy” and Bill Maher) has a religion.

This alone sets the tone for Sam Weaver’s astonishing piece of apologetics, which is a polite word for lying in order to push a religious view.

It is a good  month for Science (With a capital S). The evidence for Gravity Waves from the Big Bang and the pop-Science show Cosmos starring Neil DeGrasse Tyson are both in the  news. Revamping and retreading in the progress since Carl Sagan, the new show has Creationists in a sulk.

The Universe is amazing, even without a god. And this disturbs people.

So the gods need to even the playing field. They must be an equal and alternate view point to science. As valid as vanilla to science’s  chocolate. They are just alternate ways of looking at the universe, praying for the intercession of the divine is as valid as the actions of man.

At this point, you may already be thinking, “Weaver, that is absurd! Dawkins, Tyson, Nye and Maher are all Atheists. They despise religion and all things religious!”

No, we just don’t believe in any gods and by extension any religion with a god. There are atheists who believe in stupid things though, being an atheist doesn’t mean you are perfectly rational at all points.

Let’s investigate.

What is religion?

Oh dear…

Every religion is comprised of two major concepts: 1) an explanation of origins; i.e., how the universe and all of its systems, principles (and laws*), energy and matter (including living things and, of course, human beings) came to be; and 2) an ethic; i.e., how human beings should conduct their lives – and to what end, or for what purpose they should do so.

That’s not an answer. What is religion?

It is an organised collection of belief and a world view that relate humanity to an order of existence tied to a culture of narration, symbology and it may include anecdotes or a sacred history. This usually is linked to the supernatural either through  anthropomorphisation of the natural world or through a deity. And this humans try to provide a meaning of life, explain our unique origins, explain our universe and even act as a system of morality, ethics and lifestyle.

Atheism is an absence of religion as it is a world view that utilises an entirely natural world view without any active designer which is key to religion. Science supports an atheistic view of the world as both are naturalistic views and atheists usually utilise the engine of science to explain their surroundings.

Science is infinitely superior to religion for this since science explains the world by assuming a very simple concept. We live in a natural world and all phenomenon have natural explanations. There exists no supernatural phenomenon, merely currently unexplained ones. And we can understand the world by testing our hypothesis using objective methods to prove that our subjective ideas are true or not.

Which is better than simply believing in something that our ancestors believed in without question or proof.

And political ideology, economic principles, science, art and business are not rooted in religion. Or else  most Christians would never be able to walk into a bank (Neither would Muslims). Nor could they invest money. Nor could they accept investments. In short, modern banking is anathema to traditional Christian belief.

What is the Atheist’s religion?

Sure… why not….

The religion of the Atheist is today – and always has been – naturalism. Naturalism, of course, is the belief that only the natural world exists; that there is no supernatural, or spiritual realm and no Divine, Supreme Creator and Author of Law.

No gods. Not just no Jehovah, but no Allah or Vishnu. The Buddha? He was a dude, just not a magic one. Same for Jesus (probably). This is not a bad thing, it is why we fly through the air in aircraft rather than fear the wrath of Vayu for trespassing in his domain.

There were attempts – primarily, perhaps, in ancient Asia, but also in ancient Greece and Rome – to give naturalism (Atheism) both a “valid” explanation of origins and a “valid” ethic. These efforts were largely failures, although some elements (e.g., in Asia, mixed with polytheism; and in Greece & Rome, called humanism) exist to this very day. Naturalism (Atheism) was never accepted by-and-large as a stand-alone religion (at least, not in the West) because it could not adequately explain origins and it could not provide a definitive ethic. [Please see Linda Kimball!]


Conflating naturalism with atheism is just stupid. And animist ideas have little do with naturalism since naturalism is precisely anti-animist. There is no way to pray to a tornado. It is the effect of weather patterns, not the actions of any conscious beings. Hinduism is not related to Atheism or Naturalism. To say so is incorrect at best and being wilfully misleading at worst. There are few vocal ex-Hindu atheists and that is mainly due to most ex-Hindus living within India. The few around do not have open speaking roles so are not as widely known.

And yes, there was no satisfactory explanation of origins, however Naturalism can then posit that there will be such an explanation and not rely on praying to a god until then out of ignorance. Saying “I don’t know” is an acceptable answer, saying “so it could be fairies” is just foolish.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, along came proponents of naturalism (Atheism) Hutton, Lyell and Darwin. (For some small bit of detail, please see paragraphs 8-10 of the above link.) In a nutshell, Charles Darwin proposed the “theory” of evolution as a naturalistic explanation of origins in his book On the Origin of Species, published in the year of our Lord, 1859.

Fast forward to the 1930’s. The Atheistic religion was beginning to crystallize. Its explanation of origins? The “Big Bang ‘theory'” and Darwinian (or neo-Darwinian) evolution! [Ironically, the Big Bang “theory” was first proposed in 1927 by a Belgian Catholic monsignor who was seeking to “reconcile” his faith and modern physics. Edwin Hubble’s observations some two years later seemed to confirm the monsignor’s proposal. However, things are not always as they seem. There are many large and looming problems with this “theory!”] Its ethic? If you ask most Atheists, they will probably say that it is “Do no harm.” Yet, if you dig deeper, you may find that “no harm” is a relative and “evolutionary” ethical term prone to “progressive” moral degeneration. Bottom line: The morally relative and progressively degenerating ethics of naturalism (Atheism) have evolved into today’s Western liberal ethos, “If it feels good or seems right at the moment, as long as it harms no one other than a wealthy white, Christian male or any other person outside of the womb, then go ahead and do it!“**

Actually, the Big Bang theory was an insult coined about an expanding universe that was adopted as a badge of honour by the people whose theory was vindicated quite recently.

Atheism has no right and no wrong objectively. It has had to deeply examine every single action of humanity and debate and understand the effects of said actions are and who it affects and so justify it’s morality. So slavery is not wrong because a divine voice says that human beings are not property. The secular world view had people who thought about how they would feel if they were a slave and empathised with slaves. Human empathy made them realise that the loss of bodily autonomy and the abuse and the ownership of a person as an object made slavery  an evil. But the people who kept slaves justified their actions through religion and indeed secular means. Rape? Human empathy again and listening to women speak about their experiences helps drive rape legislation rather than the rules of a god. From philosophy and an interaction of experiences we have created a society that is progressive and that looks at moral rules critically to try and make a more egalitarian society because it is an ideal we aspire to because we wish to be that ideal because we see it as better than an unfair society.

The progressive moral degeneration of our society has lead to the equality of coloured people and women. It has lead to greater compassion across the planet. More children survive today, more children are educated. Crime is at an all time low and is still falling. We have had no global war for nearly 70 years. And soon we will treat gay people as equals. This is not a degenerate society, but one of enlightenment.

We live in a golden era of progress. To the likes of Sam Weaver, the world must be hell. A fearsome world of change.

Ecoute Bien S’il Vous Plait. If you listen very carefully you can hear the sounds of me not giving a fig over the Wealthy Christian White Male for whom all the benefits of modern history existed and who finally has to give up some power and privilege so that we can create an egalitarian society. I understand you weep into your caviar and that this is a frightful waste but the reason you fear this is because you fear that you will be treated like us.

In terms of video games, Wealthy Christian White Male OP, Nerf Pls.

Shortfalls of the Atheistic religion

The problems with the Atheistic explanation of origins are far too numerous to mention here. Let’s look very briefly at just a few.

Go for it mate.

Life cannot come from non-life under any known or conceivable physical (natural) process or circumstance. To assume that it can or did at one or any time is not scientific. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey may or may not have generated amino acids under supposed “early Earth-like” conditions in a laboratory, but they most certainly did not generate life! To this day, the “Urey-Miller” experiment has never been replicated. Yet, it is cited in textbooks even today as “evidence” that life can arise via electro/chemical processes. The Frankenstein monster exists only in the imagination.

We do not know how abiogenesis occurred. We have ideas but we are still looking for the precise way it occurred.

However considering this is science the correct thing to do is state that we do not know how abiogenesis happened. Not to invoke a magic entity. Not knowing how something works is not an excuse for your to crowbar in the supernatural.

And the Miller-Urey experiment produced amino acids. The modified Miller Urey experiment did not but that did not include Carbon Compounds and Iron Compounds that are incredibly common in our soil. Jeffrey Bada’s repeat of the experiment using a soil analogue produced the same amino acid broth. And it took hundreds of millions of years to generate life and a surface area and environments the size of a planet to generate life. This took a few months and a single flask with a mono-environment. Miller Urey’s experiment holds true and indicates that amino acids can form via natural processes.

The fact you are unaware that the experiment has been repeated with better knowledge and understanding of the issues is telling.

And EVEN if Miller-Urey’s experiment was not accurate, the logical conclusion is not to claim that it was divine intervention. But to say “we do not know yet”. Imagine if we said that birds fly because of divine intervention and that mankind should not seek to question the creator’s choice of locomotion and that research into aerodynamics was a fools errand. We would look pretty damn stupid. To Weaver, we must leave abiogenesis alone lest we prove it to be natural and forever place mankind in the realm of mundane.

To Weaver, there is nothing to humanity except divinity. That none of the other things we are and can be are worth anything unless we are magic too. That love as a product of biology is crass and gross, unlike magic love. That drive, ambition, creativity, pain, joy and the sum total of your experiences mean nothing unless they were a product of magic. Weaver cannot fathom the beauty of the simple act of pointing, of the capacity for conscious thought due to chemistry driving you to point your finger. Of the actin and myosin interacting to slide the scaffold of your skeleton to point a single finger.

And while subjective, I think there is real beauty in this. That this simple act is no different from a footballer’s looping freekick or a the driving run of a rugby player or the world record shattering run of Usain Bolt. That your simple act works on the same principle of such remarkable usages of our biology.

And Weaver would rather you simply call all this “magic” in order to make you think that his god is so huge and powerful when  in reality his god just looks huge but inside is just so so small and insignificant having been thought up by the mind of Sam Weaver.

Macroevolution (i.e., evolution from a lower or “simple” life form into a higher, more complex life form) has never been observed in nature or in any laboratory. To blindly assume that macroevolution has occurred innumerable times, even over billions of years, in the absence of any direct or verifiable evidence to that effect is blind faith; not proven science. Microbes become drug resistant. Fruit flies become resistant to pesticides. They evolve and adapt. This is called microevolution (or, adaptation). Bacteria always remain bacteria. They do not evolve into fruit flies. Fruit flies have always been fruit flies, or some variation of their kind. They never evolve into beetles! There is no evidence in either the scientific laboratory or observable nature found in support of the myth of macroevolution. Belief in macroevolution is solely based in blind faith. It is far from scientific fact!

This shows a complete ignorance of how speciation works. It requires thousands of years. If we go back 5000 years, human beings were STILL human beings. However fossil records and genetics are hard evidence for this. Sam Weaver lacking the understanding of Evolution is not a flaw of Evolution.

Microbes becoming drug resistant is like Sam Weaver being capable of eating cyanide. Same for fruit flies. And beetles are a  different evolutionary path. There is no pressure for fruit flies to stop being fruit flies. There is no pressure making them to become weaker fliers but stronger walkers while packing on chitin armour and eating an entirely different diet. Any such pressure would make them extinct. Fruit flies evolved to flit about eating fruit, not stomp around being a beetle.

The fact he is making this argument is testimony to the ignorance being pushed by  Sam Weaver.

If macro- (Darwinian) evolution had truly been the process by which all extinct and extant plant and animal species arose, then we would expect the fossil record to be inundated with (often grossly misshapen) transitional forms. Where are all the intermediate stages (i.e., transitional forms) between insects and arachnids, arachnids and crustaceans; between worms and frogs, frogs and fish; between mice and cats, cats and dogs, and on and on and on and on? The transitional forms are just not there!

This is just a word salad. Biology via the use of comparative anatomy is great but this is often accompanied with genetic analysis. Because animals that look similar are often not related.

Which is how we know the Rock Hyrax is related to the Elephant despite one looking like a mouse and the other looking absolutely nothing like a mouse. To Weaver this is madness but this is because he still lives in a tired world where genetics is only useful for executing criminals.

As for transitional creatures? Right now there exist Eukaryote cells which do not have mitochondria (endosymbiotic organelles) because they either lost the mitochondria or pre-date the symbiotic event so never “got” them.

And every creature alive today is in transition, just not in the way that Weaver demands. Weaver demands a ridiculous T-Rex sized super Chicken or a Chicken Sized T-Rex as an intermediate transition. Which is not how evolution works. The man wants to see a Potato turn into Jay Leno and as long as we cannot do that, he will never admit that evolution exists.

This is because he simply doesn’t understand how biology functions.

How did the first living organism come to be?

Every living organism consists of at least one cell. According to the “conventional wisdom” of today’s naturalists (Atheists) who falsely call their unproven theories and unverified experiments “modern ‘science,'” under just the right circumstances billions of years ago, atoms, molecules, amino acids, peptides, etc., came together to form the first “simple” cell. Over many millions of years and purely natural, random happenstances, these “simple” cells began to coalesce independently into more complex life forms. Eventually, one of those more complex life forms became human. How did that first cell achieve life? How did that first complex life form become male and female? How did the first humans achieve thought and reason? The answers to these questions by Atheists are often hilarious. “Evolution did it!” Like “Evolution” is conscious and has a purpose and a plan!

Not random. We know some proteins are self propogating and that cell membranes are based on  phospholipids which automatically assemble in the same way a drop of oil forms a perfect sphere in water. Physical properties dictate the way they work, not engineering.

Again, Abiogenesis. And we don’t know yet. Not “Jehovah did it, now throw rocks at Elton John”.

And we can see complexity in bacteria such as the slow formation of complex inner cellular membranes leading to eukaryotic cells and slowly see how that would evolve through small changes. But to Weaver, a bacteria is the same as another rather than being as different as an ant is to an elephant.

As for male and female? Is he that blind that most of life has no male/female divide or that male/female roles may be adopted by the same life form? That sex is not universal in all life.

How on Earth is this statement of unproven conjecture in blind faith by assumption any more valid from a scientific standpoint than the Christian who says, “God did it!”??!! Science is a quest for knowledge. Every quest for knowledge begins with a worldview.

Because genetics is hard evidence and the mechanism of information transfer and the method by which we can demonstrate evolution. While there is no evidence for any gods let alone the Christian one.

Just three of many reasons why the Atheistic explanation of origins cannot be considered scientific are briefly outlined above. [Life cannot come from non-life. Lower life forms do not beget higher life forms. Evidence does not support macroevolution.] But there is much more!

You are not a higher life form. You are just life. You may be more complicated but you are not more survivable than bacteria. And their success is astonishing compared to ours. Complexity is not a marker of advancement. And evolution is fact, like gravity. The theory of gravity  explains gravity and the theory of evolution explains evolution.

Again, because time and space are limited, I will cite just one more of virtually countless reasons why modern “science” (i.e., the naturalistic explanation of origins) is not scientific.

It was not until about 100 years after Darwin first proposed his “theory” that mankind really began to realize that there is no such thing as a “simple” cell. Even Darwin knew that there are three main components of every cell. Very simple, right? Coincidentally?, DNA was first identified by a Swiss chemist just a few years after Darwin proposed his “theory” to the world. Yet it was not until after the mid-1950’s, with the work of Watson and Crick, that the highly intricate and inscrutably complex structure, function, purpose and processes of DNA even began to be understood and appreciated.

It is not highly intricate and complex. It’s in fact rather simple and well mapped out. You cannot call it inscrutable when we know how it works on a biochemical scale and how it is made and assembled. You cannot quote Watson and Crick who are famous for the structure of DNA and demonstrating how it replicates and then claim it’s inscrutable when those two began the push to understand genetics.

It’s just laughable that there is an entire science dedicated to genetics that Weaver ignored in order to make his inscrutable complexity argument. Especially considering we know the function and purpose of DNA.

As mentioned previously, there are three main components of every cell: 1) the cell wall (or membrane), 2) for lack of a better term, the central processing unit [In eukaryotic cells, this is called the (DNA-containing) nucleus. In prokaryotic cells (i.e., bacteria), it is basically a DNA-containing region of the interior of the cell.] and 3) the cytoplasm (containing organelles vital to the function of the cell). Each of these components has an essential role to play in the function of the cell. Independently, they could not exist and/or would have no purpose whatsoever. How could purely natural, random processes simultaneously create these components, bring them together and give them life? Better yet, how could purely natural, random happenstances encode the megabytes of information that exist within every molecule of DNA?

Dear Sam Weaver, you don’t understand biology.

Don’t make up words for things and pretend you are an expert. Especially considering you just said that we don’t know what DNA is for…

1. Cell walls and membranes are entirely different structures and we in particular are quite happy to knock about with no cell walls.

2. Many prokaryotic cells exist with no nucleus and live just fine and there is no DNA containing region since the entire inside of a prokaryote cell is a single chamber.

3. I like the fact the cytoplasm is so impressive to you. The cytoplasm is effectively differentiated with external fluid through the concentration of solutes due to active uptake gates. It is not a miraculous fluid but water.

By whatever method or process the first living organism came to exist on this or any other planet, it could not have been by purely natural means. The atheistic explanation of origins is a fantasy. It requires much more faith (in naturalism) than the Judeo-Christian requires (in G-d; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost). Modern “science” is not scientific!

Because you think these things are miraculous and I repeat… don’t know the purpose of DNA. Which means you didn’t even bloody Google it.

It requires no faith. Evolution is like Gravity. If you have no faith in gravity you will not magically float away. And I think the abject lack of understanding of biology does not make you fit to declare what is and isn’t biologically valid.

Science by consensus

Many Americans today have learned (or are learning) that “science by consensus” is a ruse – a total scam and a major fraud. The surest way for any university or private venture to receive lucrative government grants is to cite “anthropogenic climate change” as the subject of its research. “The ‘science’ has been ‘settled’ (by a consensus of ‘scientists’).” Unfortunately for them, actual scientific data has been indicating for well over a decade now that the “science” is very far from settled! Science by consensus is not science!! It is tyranny!

Wait what? We were discussing evolution? Climate Change is an entirely different topic.

And science by consensus works by claims being tested by scientists and different scientists across the planet collating data and working together rather than just some guy in his shed. This allows for larger experiments, more repeats to ensure viable results and more oversight.

It is a tyranny only because Sam Weaver’s god only exists in a world of magic. Where the weather is bequeath to a divine weather machine. Where gay sex causes hurricanes. Sam Weaver’s science is superior to him because no one can disprove that gays cause hurricanes or that there isn’t a divine weather machine that can be controlled by cajoling the operator.

While the scientific consensus states that there is no evidence that one can reason with a hurricane.

Most Americans must learn that the Atheistic explanation of origins is not“settled ‘science!'” Naturalism, Darwinism, the Big Bang “theory” and modern dating techniques are all matters of pure – and, for the most part, blind – faith rooted in certain unproved and/or disproved assumptions, interpretations, interpolations and ideas. It is not science at all!!

I have never heard the term “settled science”. I however have heard the term “Theory”. The gulf between our understanding of science boils down to this. I understand that a scientific theory is the highest accolade given to a scientific statement. A hypothesis is a postulated idea from an observation. A theory is a refuted hypothesis, backed up with experimentation and observed phenomenon. A readily observable fact is a scientific law.

And an assumption based on education is different from the wild assumptions based on  ignorance. It is quite sensible to assume you are right handed. It is not a wild guess. It is the utilisation of the understanding that the majority of human beings are right handed and that probability states that you are one. This is often called an “educated guess”. The usage of experience, skill and education to make a logical guess of an answer.

The best example is the Darwin Orchid where he postulated a moth or a butterfly with a long tongue that pollinated the flower or Mendeleev’s table of elements where the missing gaps were elements that were to be discovered. These are not stabs in the dark but the utilisation of science to predict something.

Many of us alive today have been taught all our lives that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. “It is a known scientific fact.” “Darwinian (macro-) evolution is a known and proven scientific fact.” Propaganda – the Big Lie (Große Lüge) – is powerful and very effective. Many have fallen for the Big Lie. Fall completely for the Big Lie, and you will lose your soul. Pleasedo not lose your soul! Do not deny the Source of American Liberty – the Judeo-Christian Creator and Author of Law, and of True Liberty!!

It amuses me that American Liberty was built on apartheid, genocide and slavery and people do not wish to speak about it. It is not something to be proud of but it is something to learn about. The word “liberty” means nothing when you consider the American usage of it meant solely for White Rich Christian Men. Eventually black people and women got the vote. Eventually apartheid was pulled down. America was founded by men, men who did terrible things like the various native massacres.

The source of American Liberty  is guns, germs and steel. Physics, Biology and Chemistry. Those drove the colonisation of America and it’s history more than prayer and intercession from the divine.

This is not necessarily a bad thing, the point of learning history is to accept the mistakes of the past and do not repeat them in the future. It is to understand that for most of American History…. Rich White Christian Blokes were lucky and got away with “actual murder” and that they are the least oppressed group in the USA rather than pretend to be persecuted. And then look at the mistakes they made.

Not repeat them gleefully and blindly. And that is what you seek, a rewritten science designed to prop up your small god. A rewritten science to make people think small thoughts so that your god seems big. And a rewritten history so that people forget the mistakes of the past and make the same mistakes again and again.

Outside your god just looks really big but he is really just so small and insignificant.

Then again? I am not wealthy, not white, atheist and male. How can I understand Sam Weaver’s pain when I only share gender and none of the problems that come from being Wealthy and White and Christian.


  1. says

    Every religion is comprised of two major concepts: 1) an explanation of origins; i.e., how the universe and all of its systems, principles (and laws*), energy and matter (including living things and, of course, human beings) came to be; and 2) an ethic

    That’s a great big lie. He left out that religions are based on a belief in the supernatural – a god.
    What a doofus; in order to make a poor rhetorical point, he threw his faith under the bus.

  2. Al Dente says

    Life cannot come from non-life under any known or conceivable physical (natural) process or circumstance. To assume that it can or did at one or any time is not scientific.

    When in doubt, always fall back on the argument from incredulity. That’ll really impress the athiests and others who know something about science.

  3. smrnda says

    On human caused climate change and creationism, the only reason there exist outlets that deny the first and affirm the second is that a bunch of hacks have money thrown at them to give the appearance of ‘controversy’ about what are pretty much settled among reputable scientists. We see the same thing with other forms of woo – someone with $ provides funding to pseudo-research can be cited to argue that a ‘controversy’ exists.

    And o no, rich white heterosexual males are SO being harmed by not being the lords and masters of us all.

  4. Holms says

    Much shorter Sam Weaver:
    “If I completely redefine religion to the point where simply being conscious counts as being religious… everyone is equally religious! Therefore, science loses! Or something!”

  5. Peter B says

    Sam Weaver:

    >…modern dating techniques are all matters of pure – and, for the most part, blind – faith rooted in certain unproved and/or disproved assumptions, interpretations, interpolations and ideas. It is not science at all!!

    Sam Weaver almost certainly believes that the sun will not rise in the west tomorrow. Most people believe the same. Yet that belief is based on blind faith in the unverifiable assumption that nature is consistent. Are the various rates of radioactive decay consistent? The Earth can’t be much more than 6000 years old. Because the Bible tells me so. Therefor radioactive decay rates must have changed. Is he intrigued by K Capture that can be altered, very slightly, by oxidation state? After all, potassium 40 to argon 40 is useful to determine the last time a given rock was molten.

    Avicenna, you wrote:

    >A hypothesis is a postulated idea from an observation. A theory is a refuted hypothesis,

    “Refuted” appears to be the wrong word. Perhaps “tested”? Or “a theory is a hypothesis that is not refuted after much testing.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>