There has to be a mind behind the creation


Soosan Khanoom
by Soosan Khanoom
I understand people's anger against religion or as I would like to call it " false religion "

It is not the creator of the universe that needs to be rejected as "opium of the people," but rather the false religion of legitimation and by that I mean a religion that legitimating oppression of any kind including women and human rights. The European intellectual, in particular, Karl Marx, overlooked this. He, along with European Christian intellectuals who had become critical of religion, had not under stood the importance of this difference. Further more they reached to this conclusion by experiencing the false religion and by never being present at the time of the real deal.

As a scientists I am amazed by how this world inside and out side of my body is functioning... Thousands scientific papers are being published yearly and yet we are still no where even close to our understanding and knowledge of the creation ..... it is unbelievable ...... it is amazingly beautiful...... and I, by no means, can deny the existence of a brilliant mind behind all of these.

We have come a long way and we no longer live in the middle ages.

With today's discoveries in science and the fact that science has been more a proof of existence of an intelligent design / designer of universe rather than non existence of it , then we can not and should not let us live in the middle ages and deny everything as a revenge to the ruling religious hypocrites. We should move on with the speed of scientific discoveries rather than staying in the past.

Einstein was a genius with a brain functioning in the future. When he was asked that if he believes in God or not he answered:

" which God? There are two Gods ... one is the one who people have created and one is the one who has created and governs the entire universe "

We do not have a brain that functions in the future but we probably do not need it because we ourselves are living in the future.

Watch this amazing video ..... It just leaves me speechless and that is just inside a tiny cell .. WOW

The Inner Life of a Cell .....

reminds me of this Ayat of Quran......

"We will soon show them Our signs in the Universe
until it will become quite clear to them
that it is the truth.
Is it not sufficient as regards your Lord that He is a witness over all things? ( 41:53)"


more from Soosan Khanoom

Thank you Dr Saadat Noury & SK

by All-Iranians on

Thank you Dr Saadat Noury for your poem on "Jadal" and also for quoting Antony Flew who said that, "The biologists' investigation of DNA and their findings is beyond belief".

Thank you SK for reminding us that, "This is not the discussion about religion ...this is the discussion about an intelligent design".


Just a simple

by Raoul1955 on

Question for Soosan:
Your heading reads '...a mind...'  How do you know that there is just ONE mind and not multiple 'minds' in creating this universe?
Why not two minds, one male and one female?   Why not three minds?
Ayatollah [:-)] Raoul.

Soosan Khanoom

what are you talking about?

by Soosan Khanoom on

 "Like someone else pointed out below, a couple of hundred years ago, people thought that the solar system was conclusive evidence of God because they didn't understand it.  Your the modern day version of the same crowd.  " 

Solar system is as amazing as the life inside the cell ... the world inside me and out side me amazes me regardless .....That person was not wrong.  There is nothing new or old to this ...... it is that as science advances it just leaves us in more shock and owe ....

I actually think understanding of the secrets of creation is what that makes us to  confess about the existence of a mind behind it .....  

But the book of creation is an infinite ocean ......

We can try to understand it but one life time is never enough  ...

the more you know, the more you realize that you actually know nothing....

just for one molecule like " P53 " there has been tons of published papers ...

Ok ... i really have to go now but will get back to you later  :) 

Anonymous Observer

FYI - Majority of scientists are atheists

by Anonymous Observer on

Anonymous Observer

Again, where is your proof?

by Anonymous Observer on

Talk about safasteh, your comment exemplifies that.  What you say here are your personal observations and beliefs, not scientific facts.  You say:

  how can I make you see something that is there but you refuse to acknowledge it ...

Where?  Where is the designer?  What does she look like?  Where can I find her (it)?  Is she in a cave, in the sky, in the ocean, in space...?  Where is this creature?  You claim she exists.  Show her to me.  If I claim that I own a 1977 Ford Pinto, I will have to show it to you.  And if you claim that there's a designer that "designs" everything in the universe, you will have to show her to me to prove your claim.  If you can't, then you have failed in your argument.  And poetry, perosnal feelings and examples of order are not proof.  Show me this creature.

Order does not mean a designer.  Like someone else pointed out below, a couple of hundred years ago, people thought that the solar system was conclusive evidence of God because they didn't understand it.  Your the modern day version of the same crowd.  

And as far as my proof...well, it all started with a little book first published in 1859.  You can find it here:


You can start reading that one and move your way up with more than a century and half of related research.  That's my proof that there is no designer.  It has been proved time and time again.

You cannot believe in "intelligent design" and evolution.  They are irreconcilable.  And you're fooling yourself if you think that you believe in both. 

PS- Evolution is not accident.  It's a deliberate process. As a scientist you should know that.   

Veiled Prophet of Khorasan

but a scientist can not

by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on

but a scientist can not deny the existence of a brilliant mind behind the creation  ... that is reason ...... that is logic ....

Actually it is possible to deny it. The whole idea of evolution is based on chance. Imagine an infinite number of universes with infinite number of planets. By chance some will have intelligent life. The probability is low but multiplied by an infinite number it becomes very possible. The question of where did it all come from is no answerable now. We just do not know it. I do not even want to try to go there. I will suffice with taking baby steps. Like figuring out what is a black hole.

We have a long way to go to figure out if there is a God. Why bother? Does it make a difference in our behavior? Maybe it does. I am not an atheist but an agnostic. In my opinion if there is a God he/she would not approve of organized religion. It does not matter how many times we wash our hands. It does not matter if we pray 5 times a day. Or for that matter if we face a particular way. What matters is how we act. If there is a Heaven and Hell Khomeini is in Hell and Shah in Heaven.

Soosan Khanoom


by Soosan Khanoom on

I said it before ...... 

First law in biology is

" Structure goes with Function "

I call it brilliant design ....... you do not need to proof it ...... 

However if you say there is no mind behind it and it is accidental then you need to proof it ..... you need to proof that accident can create a structure that goes with its function  ....... the probability of that to happen is none ...... NONE 

Now keep asking me for proof ...... how can I make you see something that is there but you refuse to acknowledge it .....

deny religions ...... deny heaven and hell ......... deny ghosts ...... deny sprit ........ deny life after death ....... those are hard to proof ...

but a scientist can not deny the existence of a brilliant mind behind the creation  ... that is reason ...... that is logic ....

Yes as a scientist I say there has to be a mind behind creation cause I can not say there is not ..... I must be dumb and deaf and blind to see all these scientific discoveries and say well things just happens .......

That " mind " whoever that is ... is not acting like a magician .....

That brilliant mind acts like a scientist.......

nothing just appears ...... things appears for a reason ..... science is to discover these reasons ......

As you probably know entire  human genome has been revealed but just the sequences , what are all these sequences coding for is more than one life time job to be answered entirely?

It is like you have a book in your hands and you see the alphabets written on it but you can not understand it ....... it is like learning and reading another language? The language of science 

Accident can not even create a written book yet alone a book that makes sense and creates functionally amazing human beings ...

this is not the discussion about religion ........ this is the discussion about an intelligent design  ....... 

now please stop " doing safsate "  ...... but you are well entitle to your opinion 

now proof to me that accident did it ?

toss the dice   :) 


PS ... hey everyone I have not forgotten about you guys ..... just am busy at work ..... will get back to you all later 


Anonymous Observer

As a scientist you should know that you can only make

by Anonymous Observer on

those "replacements" when you have proof to back it up.  Where is your scientific proof?

Soosan Khanoom


by Soosan Khanoom on

I will try to write more later and will reply to each of you separately.....

many thanks to all of you for stopping by  ....

your thoughts and discussions on this subject is highly appreciated ... 

PS.. AO to just let you know that I am all for evolution and i never ever can deny it .... That by itself proves perfection .... 

I do however like to play with the words a little bit and  prefer to replace

" natural selection "


" the creator / the intelegent designer / the God selection "

It is just words ...... but the one who has done it is brilliant   : ) 

Soosan Khanoom

Mr. Noury

by Soosan Khanoom on

Thanks for the wonderful poem and also many thanks for quoting Antony Flew ....  The biologists' investigation of DNA  and their findings  is beyond belief ..... That alone leaves one speechless .   Of course those are the ones who think and ponder with an open mind and honest heart    Antony Flew is among many educated people through out the world who have come to that conclusion ........  



by Truthseeker9 on


M. Saadat Noury


by M. Saadat Noury on

۱- چگونه؟ باید رفت و از همان فیلسوف پرسید
۲- بخشی از سروده ی "جدل" را دوباره مرور می کنیم

ا ز بهر آ فر ينش و ا ين نظم پا ید ا ر
صد ها جد ل به رشته ‌ی تحریر ا ست
‌گویند کا ر هستی وا ين چرخ روزگا ر
د ر د ست و در ا را د ه ی تقد يرا ست
د ا نا ز بهر قاعد ه ی نظم ا ين جها ن
جو يا ى پا سخی زعلم و ز تد بيرا ست
صد ها جد ل به صحنه ‌ی تعبیر ا ست
بس گونه گونه ا ست و قا بل تفسير ا ست
دکتر منوچهر سعا دت نوری


Anonymous Observer

Mr. Noury

by Anonymous Observer on

How is a philosopher's small mindedness, and his inability to come to terms with our lack of understanding of certain principles, proof of existence of a God?  That is, of course, if you are offering it for such purpose.

M. Saadat Noury


M. Saadat Noury


از بهرآفرينش واين نظم پایدار صدها جدل به رشته ‌ی تحریراست

At age 81, British philosophy professor Antony Flew said on December 9, 2004 that he now believes in God. Flew said that: The biologists' investigation of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that a super intelligence (God) must have been involved


Anonymous Observer

Pendar - Evolution has been proven conclusively

by Anonymous Observer on

by scientific methods.  One side of this debate has the proof.  It's the other side that demands acceptance without proof.  

What else do you need?   


if desperate

by ComraidsConcubine on

 if desperate in finding perfect patterns everywhere just like any old pigeon, perhaps a group effort of team work pecking order of the created creator crackledy crackldy might be of help or almost as  much  fun to play with would be a rather leafy miracle of a branch of pantheistic solipsism. 

Enjoy! I for one don't have time for benevolent, stalking bogeymen and judging by the creepy crawling earwig and the conniving sexual behaviour of flowers around,  nature is beyond disgusting and should be beheaded instantly!

P.S. Ignorance is indeed bliss: I'm truly too stupid to understand messages received from a satellite dish, let alone from somewhere beyond the universe. 



Of swingers...

by پندارنیک on

I am, so naively, following this blog in high hopes of a solid proof either way. 

And so far, nothing has been proposed that I have not already seen or read.

I don't deny my tendency for "Intelligent Design"....that "there-has-to-be-something thing".......

Once I read somewhere that the relation between man and God resembles that of the character of a book and its author.

and we all know what Augustine said: "If you understand it, it is not God"

I can't wait for my becoming a full-blown's no fun to be a swinger!

And please, keep the subject of religion out of this blog.


In 17th century solar system considered sign of God!

by Disenchanted on


        Later we learned we don't need that hypothesis! It's all in the Newton laws. Now you invoke the structure of the cell because of our current ignorance.

         The thing that goes for intelligent design proponents is that no matter how advanced our scientific knowledge becomes there are things that we don't know and they will use that to invoke God!





Mash Ghasem


by Mash Ghasem on

Sorry about the outburst this morning, need to be more polished in my rebuttals. Me still thinks religious thought is an expression of human alienation, nothing more, nothing less.

Not in a mood for an extended polemic, just the main points:

A) Marx's line of, religion as the opium of the masses is followed by him calling religion, the heart in a heartless world. A close reading of The Economic Philosophical Manuscripts-1843, could help in overcoming you mispreception, and an appreciation of alienation, and its significance and functions in everyday human life.


B) In the over all scheme of things what we on Earth think is pretty much irrelevant to the Universe. Take a look at The Map on The Universe, National Geographics ( yes they have a map of the Universe) and Earth's position within it, and perhaps you'll see what I mean, perhaps not.



C) For a contemporary take on modern physics see: Physics of the Impossible, Michio Kaku, 2009


ET phone home, cheers

Anonymous Observer

So an intelligent designer purposely puts a catastrophic

by Anonymous Observer on

defect in a DNA sequence?!!!  For what purpose...aside for "showing us" something, of course?  

Those defects are there because we are imperfect biological organisms that are byproducts of millions of years of trial and error evolution.  Evolution is not "chance" or "accident."  It is a very deliberate, slow and efficient process that produces a species that can survive in its surrounding environment.  But being that is undirected, it has one way to go, and that is to build upon what is already there.  That is why we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, 92% with mice, 44% with fruit flies and 26% with a single cell organism that is in your daily sandwich bread: yeast! And even 18% with weeds!!!!


And that is why we have leftovers, mistakes and mismatches.  You do know that you can artifically create amino acids from basic chemicals in a laboratory setting, right?  It was done as early as 1953 by Stanley Miller.

  He reproduced the early atmosphere of Earth that Urey proposed by creating a chamber with only hydrogen, water, methane, and ammonia. To speed up "geologic time" in his experiment, he boiled the water and instead of exposing the mix to ultraviolet light he used an electric discharge something like lightning. After just a week, Miller had a residue of compounds settled in his system. He analyzed them and the results were electrifying: Organic compounds had been formed, most notably some of the "building blocks of life," amino acids. Amino acids are necessary to form proteins which themselves form the structure of cells and play important roles in the biochemical reactions life requires. Miller found the amino acids glycine, alanine, aspartic and glutamic acid, and others. Fifteen percent of the carbon from the methane had been combined into organic compounds. As amazing as discovering amino acids at all was how easily they had formed.


 See how eveolution works?  That's beginning of life for you.  Nothing mysterious or magical.  Just basic chemical reactions.  Yet quite beautiful!  And no designer needed. :-)

Soosan Khanoom

I said that as your

by Soosan Khanoom on

I said that as your suggestion of diseases being a non intelligent design ..... actually they are very intelligently designed ...... 

now why some one for example gets cancer and has to suffer and at the end dies? is totally a different subject ...

the topic of this blog is " there has to be  a mind behind the creation "

now we can discuss further that what i think about that mind ...... what I call that mind ...... what is life ...... what is death ........ why we suffer ...... why we even born ...... why we were in heaven to begin with .....

or as Emily Dickenson says:

"why have I been kicked out of the heaven ? Was it because I laughed too loud " 

it is getting late ....

I still have things to mention to you .... perhaps tomorrow  

thanks again for taking you time  : )

Anonymous Observer


by Anonymous Observer on

 Diseases are there to show you that how actually things work and how a tiny change can have such a catastrophic  result ..... 

Catasrophic diseases are there to "show me" something?  Says who?!!!!  The "intelligent designer" gives someone a deadly disease to prove a point?  Excuse me for saying, but WT...?  I'm sorry, but is that a scientific observation?  :-))

You're claiming the existence of a God.  It's your burden to prove it. 

Anonymous Observer

"subtle is the Lord...."

by Anonymous Observer on

Take that Einstein quote that you cited: "Subtle is the Lord, malicious he is not."  A simplistic view of that quote suggests religious inferences.  But this is what Einstein really meant by that statement: 

"Remark made during Einstein's first visit to Princeton University. (April 1921)] as quoted in Einstein (1973) by R.W. Clark, Ch. 14. "God is slick, but he ain’t mean" is a variant translation of this (1946) Unsourced variant: "God is subtle but he is not malicious."

When asked what he meant by this he replied. "Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse." (Die Natur verbirgt ihr Geheimnis durch die Erhabenheit ihres Wesens, aber nicht durch List.) As quoted in Subtle is the Lord — The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein (1982) by Abraham Paisourced variant: "God is subtle but he is not malicious."


See the difference? 

Soosan Khanoom


by Soosan Khanoom on

You have the right to be an atheists but you can not tell Einstein is ... because he was not and I  can not repeat myself so let us agree to disagree .... Even if he was that will have no effect in my thoughts .... absolutely no effect 

I am not going to discuss every single thing in biology with you to have you agreed with me. For the one who wants to see , a single tiny molecule and its function inside the cell is enough and for the one who does not want to see,  decoding the secretes of the entire universe is not enough ...

You mentioned diseases as imperfections and lack of intelligent design ... I , however, completely disagree with that. Diseases are there to show you that how actually things work and how a tiny change can have such a catastrophic  result ..... 

Scientists label certain events as they discover their existence and functions .....  Sometimes the labels they use and the naming they apply to certain inter cellular processes by itself suggests the existence of an intelegent design ... Willing or non willing they have no choice but to choose those names for those processes or even molecules .... 

example :

When a single cell for any reason becomes abnormal it will automatically turn on certain genes that codes for its destruction . This is to avoid further multiplication of the abnormal cell via cellular division.  The cell senses its toxicity to the neighboring cells and the cell itself gets rid of itself ...  this process is called " Programmed cell death "  ... programmed ?  who programmed them?  Cells our smart .. aren't they?  

now smarter than the healthy cells are the cancerous cells ...... because once the cell becomes a cancer cell it prevents itself from committing suicide  by knocking the genes involve in PCD out...... so they can not be turned on to kill the cancer cell . as the result the abnormal cancerous cell keeps multiplying and multiplying despite the fact that it is so toxic to the neighboring cell  .... 

Researchers are looking into this and they are trying very hard to find a way to prevent cancerous cells from knocking out these genes.  

I guess whoever this creator is ..... he is both the pain and the cure !!


also when DNA replicates and I am not going into its detail  ...... once the job of replication is done a tiny enzyme will show up and start checking the new constructed DNA out and compares the bases to see if they are replicated accordingly and are in right order ... if not that tiny enzyme will fix it ..

do you know what that tiny enzyme is called ?   "Proofreading enzyme "  

ok now if this is not an intelligent design I do not know what is  ..

dear AO .... I do not need to proof anything further ...... it is up to you  : )







Anonymous Observer


by Anonymous Observer on

"Evolutionary artifact," "mistake" and "leftover" are inherently irreconcilable with the concept of an "intelligent designer."  An intelligent designer would not leave leftovers and will not make mistakes.  Period.  I happen to know a thing or two about biology (take my word for it).  Our bodies are perfect examples of trial and error.  A spinal column that is put in backwards (a leftover of our four legged ancestors, and then subsequent upright posture), an eye that sees upside down...everything and anything in our bodies is a product of evolution.  Have you ever thought about why the chemical composition of salts in our bllood is so similar to that of sea water?  Plus, an intelligent designer--of the power and magnitude of Abrahamic religions---would have had the ability to produce error free, everlasting biological machines.  That is simply not the case.

And as far as Einstein, your view of his quotes is rather simplistic.  Einstein declared himself an agnostic, which is as close as you could have come to calling yourself an atheist in the 1940's U.S. without becoming persona non grata.  His "God" was not a magical being that controlled everything.  He called the order in the universe "God."  He saw order and was fascinated by it.  But order is also a relative term, and so is chaos.  Was the destruction of all life on Mars a product of "order" or "disorder?"  That depends on your point of view.    

Again, the burden is on you.  I need conclusive proof--as demanded in the scientific field--that God exists.  Conjecture and quotes from ancient, frightened desert dwellers are not enough.  Where is the proof?   

PS- Nothing personal, but because of all the false quotes about religion that have been attributed to Einstein, I only believe that ones where the sources can be linked and verified.  In my experience, the overwhelming majority of those quotes are false and have been fabricated by religious nuts. 

Soosan Khanoom

Some Einstein's Quote on the subject of creator

by Soosan Khanoom on

God does not play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

"I want to know God's thoughts...the rest are details." - Albert Einstein

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God." - Albert Einstein 'The Human Side', 1954

"Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not." - Albert Einstein

"Strange is our situation here upon this earth. Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to a divine purpose." - Albert Einstein

"There remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion." - Albert Einstein

"Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune intoned in the distance by an invisible player." - Albert Einstein

"Scientists were rated as great heretics by the church, but they were truly religious men because of their faith in the orderliness of the universe." - Albert Einstein

"When the solution is simple, God is answering." - Albert Einstein

Soosan Khanoom

By the way

by Soosan Khanoom on

Should you want to purchase this book buy the hard cover one .... the photos are amazingly beautiful 

here is a look inisde it


Soosan Khanoom

Einstein was not an atheists

by Soosan Khanoom on

There are numerous valid quotes on his thoughts and remarks on the creator .... he may not have been a follower of a specific religion but he never denied the existence of a creator ...  

AO if you are an atheist, I still would like you to recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe - that its brilliant design demands the existence of a creator God !

The quote I mentioned on him is from my notes of a class I took in college. Also there is a book in which you see this quote and many similar ones by Einstein and other intellectuals accompanying amazing pictures from universe  

The Hand of God: Thoughts and Images Reflecti…

by Michael ReaganSharon Begley




Soosan Khanoom


by Soosan Khanoom on

Thanks for taking your time and discussing these things with me.  You have brought up several points I shall get to them one by one .. whenever I get a chance but this first ..... 

I have seen this video before. This has generated some discussions in the scientific community and not necessarily all are in support of Dawkins. I am not an Evolutionist Biologist but rather a Molecular Biologist . I will however present a few valid points to you concerning his remarks.  

The first rule in Biology is  " Structure goes with Function " 

There are many structures that their functions are unknown and yet to be discovered.  But that won't change the fact. There is no single structure out there that has no proper function based on it.  

Dawkins questions intelligent design and even goes further and calls it not too intelligent .. but how can he prove or disapprove a design without specifying the intentions and abilities of a designer?  

There are tons of perfections and if one seems otherwise to us then than should prove our lack of  knowledge . Once you follow the law of biology that structure goes with function then you can not come to that conclusion as Dawkins did .  Even if that is an imperfect structure ( imperfect design or evolutionary artifact ) there is a function in association with that imperfection that could not be if it was perfect.  So it makes it perfect any way ... is it not?

Ok ..suppose it is and it could well be a sub-optimal or a poor design?  but not in evidence, as shown in the video .  Evolved from fish?  perhaps ...... A possibility if gene tweaking as a design technique to alter species has been employed.  Is it harmful to the giraffe? ... hmmm ... not really, if you’ve watched them battle in neck to neck combat. It may even provide strain-relief for rapid swings and sways. In biology you may see mistakes and imperfection although they are much less than perfections that we see but in reality they actually are as perfect as the perfect can get .....

Here is an example:  There are a limited number of ‘antibody genes’ in your genome, and yet we apparently have the ability to make countless different antibodies to react to countless different pathogens and diseases. How does this work out?..... First, you can combine the different gene segments in different ways. You break DNA with an enzyme you stole from retroelements and domesticated for this purpose millions and millions of years ago. It gets ‘fixed’ by some enzymes  which make a ton of mistakes ‘fixing’ everything. Yes, these mistakes contribute to the diversity of our antibodies, but there is so much cell death along this ‘perfect’ path. This is not a precise, streamlined process. It generates many cell deaths ( 90% of the B-cells body makes die ). Some are just non functional  and some are killed because they think you are a pathogen. If its not killed, you get autoimmunity. Look at how perfect that process is. And the death of a ‘self-reactive’ B-cell? Its biochemistry, not mistake 



Anonymous Observer

Also, if there was an "intelligent" designer of our cells & DNA

by Anonymous Observer on

Why do we have serious and often times fatal genetic diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis, cancer, MS, etc.  Wouldn't an "intelligent designer" have figured out a way to do away with those mistakes and produce perfect biological specimens?!!!  Not too "intelligent," is she?!!!

Look, religion has been with us in one form or the other since the dawn of our existence.  We create it so that we can deal with our uncertainties and fears.  BTW, have you studied ancient Egyptian mythologies?  Have you seen their justifications for the existence of the universe?  Talk about elaborate...that's one complicated religion.  

As an atheist, I am perfectly fine with people believing in whatever they want to believe in, if that helps them emotionally.  But the fact remians that the whole thing just doesn't add up.

Religion is the only theory on this planet that demands acceptance without proof.  You just have to believe that Adam and Eve were in heaven and they came down to Earth, etc....As a scientist, how do you feel about that?  Shouldn't the people who advocate this theory---which they demand we base our entire existance upon---have the burden of proving it?  Aren't you as a scientist required to prove your theories?  Why shouldn't they?  They have the burden of proof.  Show me!  Prove to me that there is a guy in the sky that "designs" things.