Welcome to Brights.ca
A Bright is a person whose worldview is naturalistic.

A Bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
The ethics and actions of a Bright are based on a naturalistic worldview.
The simple noun term, "bright" gathers up all persons who hold a naturalistic worldview (nonreligous-at large and those in the various communities of reason) under the same umbrella. Under the broad umbrella, as Brights, these people can gain social and political power in a society infused with supernaturalism. 

A web log for Brights engaged in being humane with people of Faith.

Why Creationism is NOT a Valid Scientific Theory
by Peter William Lount, peter@brights.ca
July 30th, 2003

A scientific theory must be testable to have the chance of being considered valid. One of the tests that all scientific theories must pass is the falsifiability criterion, which is essential if a theory is to be considered valid.

The falsifiability criterion requires that a scientific theory must have the possibility of being proven invalid. A theory is not a valid theory if there is no way to prove it wrong, invalid or inaccurate. Essentialy it must be possible to have a test or tests of a theory the proving of which would disprove the theory.

An unfalsifiable theory is one that can't be proven wrong by any evidence. That is, if it's impossible to prove the theory wrong then the theory is not a scientific theory. It's something else, but it's not a scientific theory.

For example:
"Your neighbor thinks Martians live in his head (very small Martians, you imagine). If you X-ray his head and show no Martians, he says they're invisible to X-rays. If you open his head up surgically and see no Martians, he says they disappear when exposed to oxygen. No matter what test you come up with, you never show any evidence of the Martians in his head, but that makes no difference. He always has an explanation. His idea about the Martians cannot be falsified and therefore is not scientific." - Physics Department, Henderson State University
In a lengthly and indepth conversation with someone, that I care about, recently the issue of whether or not Creationism is a valid theory or not was discussed. The point was put forward by this person that it's possible that God created the Universe in seven days and made it look like the Universe was really old to test us. I agreed that that is possible and asked how likely is it and how can this "Creation Theory" be tested? If there is evidence that this "created quickly but looks old universe" is the case this would, needless to say, rock the foundations of not just modern science but all of society since this would likely be enough proof that God exists. What would this evidence look like? None was presented.

The problem is that if God did a perfect job of creating the Universe to look like it's billions of years old there is no way for us to disprove the Seven Day Creation Theory (since God did a perfect job of not leaving any evidence).

On the one hand the theory says that it will present evidence of a "Young Earth" but takes refuge in the "you can't prove it wrong" since it's all an illusion anyway. This theory can't ever be disproven since they reject all contrary evidence such as radioactive dating methods and especially since their theory requires the existance of a magical super being that provides an illusion that the Earth (& Universe) is old. Thus Creationism isn't falsifiable which means that it doesn't satisify the key falsifiable test that all scientific theories must pass, therefore Creationism isn't a valid scientific theory.

Creationism relies on the assumption that there is a God and as such it is a religious view of creation of the Universe. Unfortunately for those who believe in God (or Gods) modern science, due to the rigerous tests for validity of a theory with the scientific method, has put the burden of proof squarely in laps of the advocates of a theory. If Creationists want to compare their Creation Theory side by side with a scientificly valid theory they must play by the rules of science. Since Creation Theory does not pass the falsifiability test Creation Theory must be adapted in such as way as to pass the falsifiability test. The only alternative for Creation Theory will be to stay relegated to the dust bin of the many discarded theories of realtiy.

One approach would be for Creationism to drop the "illusion of age" argument. However, they still have the problem that they reject the scientific basis of the radioactive dating methods. What they need is evidence of the "young earth" and that is what they are going after. From the fragments of that evidence I've heard presented not of it's credible. Yes there are mysteries and yes information is lost about the past.

One of the great many concerns that I have with their arguments is that the argue that we can't learn anything "reliable" or "proven" from earlier than the earliest human writing since before then there are no "witness accounts" by people who lived. They simply reject any usefullness of what can be said with radioactive dating methods, geological evidence and it's intrepretion, let alone archeology and the inferences that are possible. Certainly many scientists and researchers have made errors and some have been proven wrong later, but this is a part of the development of new theories or adjustments to old theories that is at the heart of human progress in the sciences.

A potent issue is that many people believe in the absolute truth of Creationism (and other religious creation myths) with it's fundamental assumption of the existance of God. This leads to serious social and global security problems as religious persons around the world attempt to come to grips with the harsh reality that their religion is no longer a valid explaination of reality. While this realization has been unfolding for thousands of years modern science has accelerated the "pressure". The challenge for people coming to terms with the implications of modern science on their religious lives is many fold. Some choose to reject science outright and perform extreme acts of violence in the name of their God. It's ironic that most religions teach peaceful co-existance with their fellow human beings yet so many have been killed in the name of God. Others take a more peaceful approach and this is good for us all.

May you live in peace and choose the path of peace whether you are a Bright person or a person of Faith.

All the best,

Peter William Lount

Peter William Lount The Bright Light of Life Shines Upon Us
by Peter William Lount, peter@brights.ca
July 28th, 2003

Draft - still being edited.

Hi, I have always been called brilliant by those around me. Now there is a new meaning to that description that fits very well with who I am and how I view existance. I am, and have always have been, a bright, a person with a naturalistic and beingistic worldview. A world view that respects the existance of all living beings. It's excellent that there is now a new word, "bright", that describes those of us of the non-religious world views. I find myself in good company.

In my view of existance, living beings that actually exist, are the center of the universe. That's right, each of us is the center of the universe; our universe from our own eyes. We all deserve respect and the right to exist. We exist within a universe that has at it's untold multitude of "being" centers, each and every living being that is consciously aware - regarless of species. You might even go further and include every living cell of every living being. On a planet abundant in life it's awesome to be one of those lives. One of those lives that contributes to life continuing and to improving and maximizing the quality of life of those of us alive today and those in the future.

This space is a web log. A space for me to wax, wane and polish words in an attempt to expand the understanding amoung human beings that care about a peaceful and bright future for all those living on Earth. Heck, even for those of us just plain concerned with our survival on an individual basis as well as on a species and planetary basis. I have started this new web site as a community service and to further explore the freedom of thinking for oneself in our most amazing universe that we find ourselves existing in.

One of the interesting conotations that is evoked with the term "bright" is that brights are "smarter" than those "dims" who believe in supernatural beings. They could be called "dims", but that would be disrespectfull of them as living beings. The whole point of the scientific point of view is to be open to other views but without your brain falling out by being "hooked" by thoughts based upon no evidence - thoughts and experiences known as "faith" or "beliefs". Being open to debate other points of view, but with evidence as the deciding line between "phantasy" or "theory" and "reality". I submit that the use of "dims" end here.

bright \brt\ adj
1 : shining, radiant
2 : illustrious, glorious
3 : intelligent, clever; also : lively, cheerful
syn brilliant, lustrous, beaming 
bright adv 
brightly adv 
brightness n
(C) 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporate

Alan Kay, one of the inventors of the modern personal computer, says that "a new point of view is worth fourty IQ Points". An essential skill for any Bright is to learn to take on the points of view of others without getting lost withing the goop of the experience and most importantly without loosing one's mind or sense of sanity. The purpose of taking on another's point of view is to build bridges. It's these bridges that we need. We humans need all the additional points of view that work to increase our individual and collective intelligence as we can get.

The natural beauty of the objective view of reality is that it can be tested.
One can test the evidence oneself in most cases. One does not need to rely on the "word" of others when one can test reality and find out it's nature. The word of others is a trust that can and has been violated untold times in human history and in the present. It is not possible to test the validity of someone's faith since faith is not based upon reality but is based upon a "feeling".

A "truth" that can be verified for "accuracy" and "corelation to reality" by anyone can deepen
our mutual and common depth of understanding of reality and, on occasion, find that the "truth" does not corelate with reality.

The beauty of the objective "bright" view of reality is that it can shine light upon the darkness created by the impeniterable prisions of "beliefs" and "faith". Beliefs and faith create "barriers" between people that can and often do lead to real divisions between people. The darkness of shattered lives destroyed by powerful human force and actions unleashed by the "divisiveness" of beliefs and faith. It seems, as an observation and an untested hypothis with lots of personal experience, that human beings are wired to select, filter and determine which other humans are members of their same group and those who are members of other groups. This "evolutionary" survival strategy has servered us well to get to this point, but in the technological modern world with instant communications and near instant travel it's imperitive that we strengthen current strategies and develop new eveolutionary stategies that encourage humans to bridge their "groups" and seek co-existance. The alternative future of the past behavours projected forward includes much that is dim. We need to create our future from our future. We need to create our future from a place that is inclusive of all human beings and other living beings. It's the new survival game. I wonder how many of us know that they game has changed?

Testing the evidence of "information", "news", "beliefs" is crtically important especially in these days of "media powered propoganda" where coporations, governements, religions, cults and other organized groups inject a steady stream of potent "neuro-linguistic" and "neuro-semantic" messages artfully crafted into "though memes" and "thought viruses"into our brains. These messages are designed to sell particular points of view. The medium is powerful and it seems to work much of the time. What should we believe from these messages? How do we know what information to give credence to? A perfect example of this is health related information. Which information do we trust? Our lives can depend upon it!

Another perfect example are the "social manipulation memes" or "social perceptions" of different groups of humans. By carefully crafting views of others as different, as dangerours, as strange, as weird, as deviant from your community norm or customs, divisions are made between groups of people. Divisions that can be exploited.

Brighten your future. Open your mind and keep your brain thinking. Include others. Bridge between your group and other groups. Start with the next person that you meet. Learn a new language, even a few simple words in anothers language is a great start. Begin building connections and widening your network of people from various groups. Expand and brighten your and others horizons. Read the books "Nexus" and "Linked" to gain a better understanding of how to exploit the power of personal "networking".

Brighten the future of others! Brighten the future of all human beings! Help those on the dark side creating divions to construct bridges and disolve hostilities generated by "beliefs" and "faith". Enourage "faithless peace". Let's create the "unbelievable" peace that the vast majority of us dream for. Link and connect, one person at a time.

May your future be bright!

All the best from a bright light,

Peter William Lount

Powered by