Though I am primarily a novelist, I’ve also written a couple of books (available on Amazon) that were mostly philosophical in nature. The titles of those books, Divine Evolution and Counterargument for God, provide rather unsubtle hints about the content within. That fact alone may explain why so many people seem reluctant to read them.
Those books mention God and the divine, because both were inspired by Richard Dawkins, and his book The God Delusion. Quite frankly, neither of them sell very well. In fact, my collection of animal rescue short stories called Always a Next One easily provides more income than both of my other two nonfiction books combined. Truthfully, I’ve even had some difficulty giving away free PDF or Kindle copies on the internet.
Perhaps this is because I like to offer free copies to people who consider themselves scientists, and particularly to people who are atheists — in other words, people who probably won’t agree with my conclusions. My reason for that strategy is simple — I want to know if someone can refute my arguments that apply logic and common sense to known scientific evidence with better (previously unknown) evidence, or must they only rely on their own opinions to justify their objections to the content?
My books attempt to apply logic and common sense to existing and well- known scientific evidence in order to determine the most reasonable possible answers to our existential questions, such as…
Why does the universe exist? Why does life exist? Is there a purpose for life? How did humans become conscious beings?
The mockery and ridicule of my work simply goes with the territory. People often tend to initially resist new ideas with dismissive hostility.
The typical reply from an atheist to my offer of a free electronic copy of either book might be something like “I’ll read your work when it’s published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.”
Another popular insult is to suggest, “You need to go back to college.”
My knowledge of biology, though it may be considered rudimentary by some, has proved sufficient enough for me to become a father and a grandfather. In other words, I’ve always known what I needed to know about biology to fulfill my obligation to perpetuate our species.
Frankly, the only reason to learn more about biology at this point in my life would be to learn why other people believe the theory of evolution can explain the origin of unique species, with new and significantly different body plans. Certainly, my critics believe if I only knew more about Darwin’s theory I would understand it better, even though I understand it well enough to explain what I believe is wrong with it.
Going back to school at my age to study biology for an undergraduate degree would be a monumental waste of my time. If I can’t find the answers to my questions in a book, I’ll just ask a biology professor. I’ve not reticent to send an email to the best experts asking for their opinion on a particular subject and then wait for a reply, which sometimes inspires additional questions. And now we know how absurd demands for “peer review” and for work to be “published in a scientific journal” truly are — this paper provocatively titled “I don’t mind watching him cum: Heterosexual men, threesomes, and the erosion of the one-time rule of homosexuality” alleged earned lead author an “researcher” Ryan Scoats his PhD on the subject of the ménage à trois.
Scoats even got a book deal for his efforts.
This isn’t an aberration, either — previously in 2016, a Canadian research paper titled “Heterosexual Young Adults’ Interest, Attitudes, and Experiences Related to Mixed-Gender, Multi-Person Sex” was peer-reviewed and also published in scientific journal.
Deviant sexual behavior is now being “studied” and normalized.
Frankly, I am speechless, and left with only this one question: does a person even need to graduate high school in order to have a career in the porn industry?