The No Challenge Theory (Misunderstanding of Science)

Misunderstandings of Science

The No Challenge Theory

The no challenge theory is a projection of pride onto scientist by creationist. Creationist are an egotistical lot that believe that it is self evident that the whole universe was designed for the sole benefit of humans and that human beings are living proof of a perfect God.

With all this hubris about humans it is interesting as well as amusing that they also see all humans as sinners and imperfect. But according to them we were designed perfect but exercised our freewill so are now sinners and the flaw in our design is by our own choice.

It is like a perfectly designed robot with a self destruct switch. Activating this switch doesn't turn the robot off or make it explode. The switch simply initiates a self destruct sequence called sinning. Although the robot has no freewill and can only do what is programmed to do it is given the illusion of freewill in the following way.
The designer gives the robot the choice to activate it's own self destruct mechanism or to continue to accept its programming.

 If activated this robot will no longer have to follow its programming but any alteration in the programming will result in the robot's self destruct sequence. Here is the key. The entire perfect program initiated by the designer is dependent on that switch remaining neutral. So the second it is activated the activation itself is an alteration in the original program.

So now we have a perfect design by a perfect creator and life begins with complexity. First there was nothing. Then there was creation with no steps in between. Nothing could have evolved on Earth because everything alive simply appeared in all the complexity we see now from nothing.

But these creationist say that life arising from non life is impossible.

That simple organisms evolving into more complicated organisms by natural selection is also impossible.

According to creationist science denies complexity in biology. To quote The Politically Incorrect Guide To Science...

“Ever since Darwin , the tendency has been for scientist to regard biological systems as simpler than they really are. (That is why it is not so difficult to believe that they were assembled over millions of years by trial and error.)”

But how do creationist know anything about the obvious complexity of biological systems? From studying biology!

A branch of science! Does the bible describe biological systems? Does theology offer evidence for the complexity of organisms?

Finally is natural selection considered trial and error?
First we must ask what is trial and error? One method of trial and error is random. That is no actual method is used at all. If science used this method we would have no technology beyond mechanical devises. We would have no computers, X rays, MRI Scans Microwave Ovens etc. We would still be using leaches in hospitals.

Clearly the method of randomly putting various objects together to see if we can get anything useful out of them is not the scientific method used to advance technology.

Anyone that knows the history of computers for instance knows that it was natural selection not random trial and error that allows today's computers to be so good at what they do.

Our technology evolved over a period of about a hundred years or so from trial and error but it wasn't random. We used what we knew about physics and mathematics to select what methods to use. In the same way over millions of years simple organism evolved into complex organisms through a process of natural selection. Whether this selection was guided by gods, faerie, aliens, or DNA mutations the evidence is still out.

But using Occam's Razor we can rule out spontaneous creation from nothing.

Or even Jealous Angry Gods having a tribal turf war.

Appeal to ignorance does not advance knowledge!
The appeal to ignorance argument goes something like this. Not only do we not know exactly how life evolved but we may never know every intricate detail.

So you should accept a primitive document put together before science was even in it's infancy about magical jealous angry beings that created our world out of nothing for their own amusement.

Even though there is no evidence of these beings existence any more than myth based on ignorance. And even though there is no evidence of spontaneous creation of anything out of nothing since the beginning of time.

Even if you take all this into account you must accept the following. If you do not know the answer you should accept the most popular answer based on emotions passions and ignorance.

Again to quote The Politically Incorrect Guide To Science

“They do not know how the body is assembled into an organism of 100 trillion cells, starting with a single fertilized egg, when all the cells contain the same DNA-the same genetic instructions. “


Again creationist use the same arguments against genetic engineering as they do against evolution. If we don't know exactly how it is done then God did it. They focus on cloning because that science is in it's infancy.

They can not claim that medical science has not advanced or produced technology based on our understanding of biology or genetics. If Science were ever to be able to give us immortality then the game is up. Religion will have nothing to sell. Without fear of death religion is nothing. Science has greatly weakened the threat of disease and death and religion has fought this advance of civilization every step of the way.

The idea that science gives man the power of God because the mystery of life is simple and therefore no challenge is the essence of the creationist misunderstanding of science.

This no challenge theory of science does not hold up in any branch of science including biology or genetics.

Science unlike religion is not based on an arrogant deity.

Am I saying that God is arrogant? No I am saying nothing about what God is or isn't. So far there is no evidence for a God of any kind let alone whether such a deity is arrogant. Religion invented a God based on man's pride specifically related to the importance of his creation.


This assumes both that man is a creation by a perfect God and the assumption that petty emotions such as jealousy and anger make this God no less perfect.

Remember arrogance means unjustified pride or confidence. So the religious concept of God can make this God full of pride or even jealousy and anger as long as all these petty emotions can be justified. This system of justification is known as Apologetics.

Since creationist worship their own ego and call it God they assume that the scientific method is based on the same ideology which I call the no challenge theory. For the creationist there is no challenge to answering all the questions of philosophy and science because if you get stuck all you have to do is use God in a sentence.

Since human beings are God's special creation then all you need for a little insider trading in the mystery of all that is ...is to be part of the “one true religion”. Once you are one of the elite,the religious cult of creationism, then you are one of God's special pets.

You do not need to think anymore for any other reason then the entertainment value of debate. Because now all is “revealed” to you. With revelation no thinking is required.

By contrast the scientific method is based on doubt and reasoning. Because of doubt and ignorance we must use what knowledge we have to draw up theories and then we must watch these theories evolve and be replaced with no faith to keep them alive. Theories in science must be proven. Not just once but over and over. Faith must never enter into it.

The most simplistic explanation of life is first there was nothing then out of nothing life was spontaneously created out of nothing with not only all its complexity but built in meaning as well.

Talk about no challenge. A snap of theologians fingers and all is explained with the simple idea God did it. Nothing else need be said.

Science has always been a challenge. The no challenge theory of science is based on the assumption that since religion is as easy as make believe based on a child like desire to get what you want without having to work for it, then science must work the same way.

Science has spent centuries bringing us advances in both knowledge and technology. Theologians by contrast have been using the same arguments since religion began and have not advanced civilization one bit since the dark ages. Any advancement in our society by religion was totally dependent on freethinkers and heretics.

The reason for our advancement ironically is because the no challenge theory can only be applied to theology not science. Theology is the only example of no challenge theory in practice. Theology has spent most of its history defending the no challenge theory. That life is simple and all you need is a God to snap his fingers and everything falls into place both life and the meaning of it.

They then must assume that science must work on the same principle. Only when science does this it is hubris. But the truth is religion is based on The No Challenge Theory and it is hubris. Science on the other hand has had to struggle which is why it has advanced or evolved and why religion is still stuck in the dark ages with only Theological Fluff known as Apologetics  to defend it.

The Book of Genesis certainly doesn’t talk about trillions of cells or of biological complexity. This is because today's religions were taken from primitive creation stories such as the Epic of Gilgamesh in Babylonia. These stories were invented when we had no idea of the complexity of life.

Now that science reveals more and more just how complex life is the creationist who once claimed God as a simple creator must change their tune and call God a designer of complexity. Then they have the audacity to suggest that it has been science holding us back by finding no challenge in the complexity of life when science is what opened our eyes to this complexity in the first place.

Designer Genes

Designer Genes  

• Theological determinism is the idea that there is a god who determines all that humans will do, either by knowing their actions in advance, via some form of omniscience^[5] or by decreeing their actions in advance.^[6] The problem of free will, in this context, is the problem of how our actions can be free if there is a being who has determined them for us in advance.
• Biological determinism is the idea that all behaviors, beliefs, and desires are fixed by our genetic endowment and our biochemical makeup, the latter of which is affected by both genes and environment.

Compatibilism tries to reconcile Determinism with Moralism. In order to evaluate the truth of this statement you must choose a starting point. The difficulty of this is very telling. If you are an atheist perhaps you read the writings of Daniel C Dennet on Compatibilism. Then you might question how Determinism can possibly lead to Moralism. It is true that without Compatibilism it is not possible to get to Moralism from Determinism. That is there is no direct link between Moralism and Determinism.

But the science of Behaviorism and religion of Theology both have the same goal of Social Engineering. And not surprisingly they both posit Determinism as the cornerstone of their ideologies. But if determinism is accepted as true then even though both Science and Theology have achieved half of their goal of getting rid of our pesky belief in freewill they are left with the paradox of no possibility for morality. The worse fear of Behaviorist and Theologians is a society where justice can not be established with punishment and reward.


Theology starts with a God which is all powerful. If this is our starting point then Freewill is not possible. The only difference between Theology and Behaviorism is a debate on what is the First Cause. Everything has a cause in physics. So being mere machines we must behave in relation to external causes that can be traced back to the beginning of the Universe. The moment the Universe began there was a chain reaction that led directly to the formation of planets and ultimately to life on Earth. This whole chain was predetermined by the initial cause which science postulates as The Big Bang and theologians postulate as God.


Leaving aside the question of whether there was a first cause or not we are still left with a big problem.

That is the problem of how a Determined Universe can manifest conscious beings with freewill. The answer is simple. Determinism and Freewill are incompatible. So you must choose between one view or the other. If you choose determinism you must give up moralism and most moral philosophy. This would not be a problem except that the Punishment/Reward Ideologies of both Theology and Behaviorism are undermined . The goal of both theology and behaviorism is control. The first step in instituting this control is to get rid of the idea of freewill as being possible.


It is easier to get people to obey God if they believe that disobedience is impossible. So religion attacks the human beings they want to control two fold. One they put in their head that God is all powerful. Resistance is futile. Two they argue we have freewill and are responsible for all our actions and will burn in Hell if we disagree with the current Church in power. In order for any Church to maintain power said Church must maintain an interpretation of the Bible based on fear. Of course freewill is not compatible with God's will. But this is a problem for theologians not me.


No will is done that is not God's will. Every time people try to resist the authority of the church they are punished by the church. This is God's will. But what of those who escape justice? They must fear a Justice beyond this life. In short they must fear God. So those that get away with going against the church must harbor fears that go deep into the psyche that trip them up. This will lead to self destructive behavior out of guilt and fear. This will lead to their eventual capture by the authorities or to them creating self fulfilling prophecies out of paranoia. Nobody wants to take Pascals Wager on. "What if there is a God to punish you but you don't believe? " so most people behave as they are told to. 

Finally if all else fails and people find out there actually is injustice and some escape punishment both by God and the Church then there must be a final Justice. So if a man says I disobeyed and the church never caught me. Also I lived a life where I got rewarded instead of punished. That is I had a good life that had more pleasure than pain. Then there must be an answer to this injustice. And the answer is you will pay after you die in Hell.


So what do we do as a society when Theology fails to control the masses? We must create another punishment/reward system that is inescapable even to the Atheist or Agnostic.


At this point I must digress into what I believe the goals of Theology and Behaviorism are. Obvious crimes such as murder or theft can easily be punished by the State with no need to appeal to a higher authority than consensus. We in society do not want murders and thieves moving freely in our society with no consequence. So we make an agreement with our government that they can punish crimes after a fair trial that establishes guilt without a reasonable doubt. This is in no way dependent on Theology or Behavioral Moralism.


At no point in this writing am I implying that Theology or Behaviorism are systems of thought that wrongly punish such obvious crimes. There is no motive to convince people they have no freewill in order to bring crime down in society. Determinism was invented theologically for the same reason it has been pushed in scientific Behaviorism. Theology/Religion was not invented to slow down crime but for mind control. 

The crimes that Theology and Behaviorism were invented to curtail are thought crimes. The ideologies goal inherent in both disciplines is to decrease original thinking or questioning of authority. The goal in both Theology and Behaviorism is obedience or compliance. This is the reason that both ideologies are centered around Determinism. This is why both are concerned in eliminating any idea or belief in freewill.


Determinism is not a scientific concept but an ideological one invented by religion and substantiated by science until Einstein toppled the Newtonian mechanical Universe. The first spiritual people known as shamans did not see the Universe as mechanical but organic and alive. Then came Pagans with their magical rules. Then Christianity with a rule giver and watch maker. And finally Newton and his analysis of watches. But Quantum Physics toppled determinism. 

And so determinist and defenders of tyranny have tried to argue for the absence of freewill in both the determined world view and indeterminacy of quantum physics. That way they are covered whether quantum physics create an indeterminacy in our brains or not. They have even tried to argue for Compatibilism between Determinism and Freewill. Just as the Theologians before them did. They want you to pay for your crimes of immorality even if you are not free.


In history when religion or psychology held the most power questions of morality hardly ever came up outside of elite circles. But in recent history both Pluralism and Cultural Relativism have gained power that rival the powers that be. If human beings have no freewill then what right does the Church or the State have to punish people for any crime? The whole liberal philosophy of rehabilitation has come out of this one question. Instead of punishing we should use scientific behaviorism to predict peoples behavior and prevent bad behavior by conditioning, Those who already have committed crimes
need to be rehabilitated.


Again the real goal here isn't to eliminate crime but to get society to accept behavioral modification and brainwashing as moral. Churches and Governments want to be able to control and oppress individual thought. In order to do so they must establish that this is a situation where oppression is justifiable.


So in order to justify treating people as having no worth beyond how well they function in society Determinist must find a behavior that we all condemn. The Criminal element is a threat to us to it is OK to modify their behavior and control and oppress them not only with prisons but the mind control of behavioral modification. They are puppies that need to be trained to not pee on the rug.


This is where Theology and Behaviorism part ways. Religion was built solely on the Reward/Punishment paradigm with the focus on Punishment. For Behaviorism the lack of freewill does not present a problem in this regard because behavior modification is the goal and whether this is done by punishment or rehabilitation the goal is achieved. Religion on the other hand wants people to fear and obey an all powerful God. Without fear you may question whether God is all powerful. When you ask if you have no freewill then how can a just God punish you? Theologians will tell you because you have freewill. It is your choice whether to obey or not.




The problem manifest differently for theologians then for behaviorist. Theologians could not answer the questions of Evil or Freewill.




If God is all good then how could he create a Universe with Evil in it? If God is all powerful then how can we have freewill? So they took the easy way out and avoided answering either question by answering one question with the other. Why is there Evil in the Universe? Freewill. When you read a freewill answer to Evil you will be blown away with the beauty and consistency of their answer if you ignore the obvious problem. That is how can there be freewill in the first place if nothing is done without God's will? And if God's will is the only will that is done then how can there be Evil in our Universe? Their answer is Compatibilism. The Universe is predetermined (designed) by God but part of the design is our freewill. That God gave us freewill because he is good. But this begs the question and was only put forth as an answer to shut up the skeptics and control the rest.


The problem manifest for Behaviorist when the whole system is challenged.


When us pesky Philosophers ask why be moral at all? What is morality without freewill? But even more deeply what is there to rehabilitate? How can you mold the individual when there is no individual? And the straw that broke the camels back... Why do we need civilization at all? If Civilization is an illusion why go to so much trouble maintaining this illusion?


All arguments in moral philosophy are focused on what constitutes progress towards a more just society. Not only a more more just society but one that balances justice with freedom of the individual. It is reasonable to believe that with out both happiness is not possible. Without freedom there is nothing to fight for. Since religion and governments need wars to gain more power they must convince us that freedom is worth fighting for even if they exist to take all our freedoms away. Governments love to point to other governments and say look they are more evil so our evil is OK just as some children like to justify being bad by pointing to their siblings and say but look what he did.


If all individuals are predictable automatons then civilization is not possible. You can not design a civilization of obedient servants if you can not establish there is a such thing as civilization. Unless the definition of civilization is a society of individuals that cooperate in accumulating knowledge in order to advance technology. Then we must define technologies purpose as using the scientific method to prolong life and increase the comfort of the majority of individuals in society.


The problem is technology is a trickle down theory. It first benefits the rich. Then the rich eventually trickle down a tiny bit to the consumer and make them more comfortable for a price. But what about the majority of individuals who work but get little reward beyond being alive to work? You must allow an infrastructure of a welfare state for the poor so they too can benefit from technology such as free healthcare or transportation. 

You need taxpayers to support the system so those who can not become rich or even middle class must be made a little comfortable. You can not set goals let alone define a moral society if there is no motivation of an individual. Enter behaviorism. Individuals are motivated by preprogrammed DNA. Science would have us believe the program was designed by chance in a trial and error program called evolution. The circular reasoning goes that if it works it will survive. And that which survives obviously works. If something is extinct it was out evolved.


This reasoning breaks down on several levels.


For instance were dinosaurs out evolved?


Many scientist believe that dinosaurs were destroyed by a great meteor. Let us suppose that meteor hit when the dominant species was mammals. These mammals would not of survived either. It seems that at least in one case the survival of a species did not in anyway depend on survival of the fittest. Because there is no species "fit" enough to survive a meteor of that magnitude. If we are to argue that that what can survive the most extreme conditions is the fittest of all animals and therefore superior then the cockroach could be argued superior to man. Do we follow the morals of cockroaches? Do we base civilization on the superior model of the anthill? I am not arguing against the reality of evolution. I am arguing against Social Darwinism as a basis for morality.


Social Darwinism teaches that social groups that have the most survival level are superior to those groups that fail to influence society enough to be the basis of it's political structure. By this definition religion is superior because inquisitions and crusades have survival value. In other words religion has survived this long by tyranny and violence therefore those are desirable traits to a social group's survival. This is why ideologies use some of the same tactics as religion to increase their survival rate. Apologist will argue religion is not to blame for oppression because there have historically been secular movements that also ruled by oppression.


In logic there is a form of reasoning called fallacies. Fallacies are arguments that are inherently flawed and can not lead to truth statements. One such fallacy is known as tu quoque. Which is Latin for you too.


Religion apologists often argue that religion is not based on violence and oppression of ideas because they can give examples of secular movements based on violence and oppression of ideas. So the argument goes that is human nature to seek power and to oppress through violence and persecution and can not therefore be laid at the feet of religion. But this nature of human beings is magnified and focused by ideological thinking. And dogmatic thinking such as that which is found in religion which is the extreme version of ideological thinking. So the fact that similar ideological thinking can fuel oppression and violence in secular movements for power does not indicate the innocence of religion. On the contrary it strengthens the arguments against religions innocence in historical oppression.










The idea that man is superior to all species on the planet was first put forth as the doctrine of the major religions. Scientific Behaviorism is simply one of the major religions that uses Social Darwinism based on evolution to scientifically justify this hubris of man. But this hubris is both deceptive and disingenuous. Because if we are all predictable automatons then where in lies our superiority to other animals? If the dominator model is a true basis for society then how is man superior to any other predator that dominates it's prey by violence? Can we really argue a basis of morality from this?


According to definitions of mental illness an individual is mentally imbalanced when they are a danger to themselves and others. By this definition most politicians are mentally ill. But again there is a conflict of definitions. How can you argue both that violence and oppression is a survival trait and that mental illness is being a danger to oneself and others? Where is justice or morals to be found in this paradigm?


There answer is simple Scientific Behaviorist and Theologians want us to believe that freewill is not possible. But acting as if you had freewill is desirable for the benefit of society as a whole. So both theology and behaviorist postulate what is known as Compatibilism so they can have their cake and eat it too. The major problem of behaviorism is that it postulates that both determinism and indeterminism invalidate freewill. The major problem of theology is that apologist must argue against both indeterminism and moral nihilism.


The solution that both Apologist and Behaviorist accept is Compatibilism. The theologians argue that even though God's will is the only will and we are are designed and there is a master plan we still have freewill. The behaviorist argue that even though we do not have freewill we should behave as if we do .
The goal of both is the defense of moralism.


We are designed by our genes and God designed our genes and therefore us. But whether we are genetic machines designed by chance or by God we should behave as if we have freewill. The problem is that the word"should" is not compatible with design. And the word free is not compatible with predictable. Because we have freewill we are not by nature predictable. So science helps politicians to
social engineer us to be predictable. That is we are manipulated by brainwashing techniques in order to make us more predictable. All human action is not needed to be predictable. Only ones that influence power. For instance voting. Most people in this country vote a straight ticket. But there are those that are independent. The goals of politicians are twofold here. Decrease incentives to be independent and make the few that stay independent more predictable.


So many brainwashing techniques are used from inducing fear of the wrong party getting in to mocking those who do not vote. Also politicians continue to search for emotionally charged "issues' to motivate the independent to vote a straight ticket or at least be predictable in the way they do vote. For instance many independents are that way because they are split on social issues versus fiscal issues. Many independents who are fiscally conservative are socially liberal. They want the government to stay out of our wallets and our bedrooms. These independents would classify themselves typically as Libertarians. This works in favor of social engineering. Because unlike a complete independent a Libertarian belongs to a party with a well defined platform and is therefore predictable.


If behaviorist really believed we were genetically predetermined automatons then social engineering would not be necessary. You do not need to modify behavior if all behavior is inherently predetermined. And there is no point to designing better and better Utopias if individuals have no freewill.




The truth is that we do have desires and we are capable of being happy as well as miserable. And predictability does not prove determinism because the predictability is not inherent but a product of social engineering. Our genes may be consistently predictable and may produce a majority of human beings with extreme complexity and ability to survive. But according to Social Darwinism either there would be no flaws in our basic human design or those traits perceived as flaws are OK to eradicate and we are only arguing over the means necessary. Religions argument was for ethnic cleansing like that of Hitler only they did this to Heretics so it was OK.

When violence become unacceptable then other forms of oppression were emphasized such as stigmatizing those with unpopular viewpoints. Finally Behaviorist and Theologians have found something they can agree on. In the theology of religion those who question the status quot are heretics.
In the theology of liberalism those with unpopular viewpoints are called deniers instead of heretics.

This is all about money power and marketing. Whether this be the selling of designer jeans or designer genes the goal is to make labeling more important then thinking and to make original thinkers to appear the fools because they do not fit in. So by all means if the genes fit wear them. I for one do not fall for labels and I am more then my genes. Sometimes my genes don't fit. I wear them anyway. Other times I go naked. I am the behaviorist and theologians worse nightmare. I am a philosopher and original thinker.