THE MYTH OF MODERN SCIENCE


 "Sometimes I feel like a motherless child
  Sometimes I feel like a motherless child...


        The purpose of this chapter is not to conclusively prove that modern science theory is essentially mechanically correct or incorrect.  Rather, the intent here is to call into question the gullible acceptance of certain highly questionable 'facts' of science by many even very educated individuals, often embracing unproven assumption and outright guesswork without question or serious debate in the main, simply because modern science (or, "Mommy") says so.  Modern findings (including genome mapping) clearly indicate that simple Darwinian models of the recent past, which postulate that "simple" organisms "advance" into "complex" species, are completely inadequate for explaining the irreducible complexity of even very small plants and the multifarious functionality of coordinated super-advanced systems such as human sight.  Likewise, the Hubble telescope has brought into question fundamental formerly unshakable beliefs in the theory and nature of gravity and the size and essentially unknown scope of what might ultimately exist (including many dimensions and possibly, an innumerable quantity of universes).

        Whether or not species on our own spec-of-cosmic-dust planet evolved from a single primary source, which is improbable based on the actual known evidence, or if species do not change outside of fundamental flora and fauna "types", which may be more likely (i.e., "Family" or "genus" could appear independently from several or a great many primary sources), is not really a serious or even, a very important issue, contrary to what both sides of the evolutionary debate coin would like us to believe.  Rather, what is truly a narrow, dogmatic and completely juvenile and baseless assumption is the modern atheistic invention that the entire universe naturally selected over time without input from a grand Designer, into the immeasurably multiplex observable reality we are aware of today.  Truly such an asinine and baseless mythology belongs buried under the nuclear waste scrap heap of a boring, useless and visionless 'science' without practical, ethical or moral value, cast into the bottomless black-hole center of a galaxy located far, far away.

        "The universe and all of its known elements came into being over a long period of time through a series of random chance events"; some modern theorists have eliminated "random chance" in favor of "selective-mutational self-organizing" Natural Selection processes (as if this somehow, were any easier for the average baboon with half a brain to believe).  Though there is no evidence or logical rationale at all for believing that the observable reality came into being all by itself without any input from the Designer(s), nevertheless the entirely invented baseless postulated assertion of a Creator-less creation, howbeit in a generally more lengthy and erudite-sounding form, can be found in virtually every American college and university science textbook that deals with origins, stated as the fundamental canon of the modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution. ¹  Rather than basing a science on the overwhelming evidence of observable design spread throughout what some rather self-contradictory scientists refer to as "the grand design of the universe", modern contrivers of convoluted fairy tales instead, claim that God is "not a question for science". Apparently long accepted theory such as, for every action there is a reaction and the similar, for an observable effect there must of rational necessity, be a cause, only applies when not in obvious blatant contradiction to the theory (more accurately, entirely unproven speculation) of evolution by Natural Selection.

        Even though the history of science repeatedly shows a complete 'changing of the guard' every few generations regarding the fundamental 'facts' of the science of our civilization, humility seems to be about as foreign to our current crop of modern theorists as it is to their arch-enemy of comparable dogmatic superstition, the more-or-less equally blind and assumptive religious conservative fundamentalist.  Whatever happened to far more scientifically accurate conclusions such as "probably", "maybe" and "possibly" and in the case of random-appearing "self-organizing" processes, "based on all known observable evidence and theory of logic, most undoubtedly not"?  Or the even more precise and perhaps only ultimately true fact of physical science:  "All of the known evidence very strongly indicates that in the beginning a Grand Designer or Grand Designers created the heavens and the earth, in the present, creation continues as on ongoing observable reality and in the future, the known evidence indicates that creation will continue. . . and from there we really don't know very much at all."  (Note the recent complete flip-flop of modern astronomy, which now admits as to being unsure of whether or not the universe will eventually collapse or continue to expand indefinitely; just a few years ago, most scientists assured us with utmost certainty that it will eventually collapse---now most "believe" it will expand indefinitely to an eventual desolate demise. ² )

        Shortly before the dawn of the 21st century, several astronomers decided to map the observable circle of known astronomical objects; things believed to exist based on observations made with optical and radio telescopes as far as can be penetrated in every direction outward from the earth.  According to the modern theory of random chance evolution, it was pre-supposed that the known galaxies, clusters and super-clusters thus observed would be more-or-less, evenly spread throughout the universe.  Much as if someone threw up stars of cosmic sand, it is a logical assumption that, if our current evolutionary theory and "universal laws" of light, gravity, etc. are correct, elements emanating from a singular "big bang" would mostly evenly disperse by random chance over cosmic evolutionary time.  What these astronomers discovered instead is that galaxies, clusters and super-clusters appear to be woven and interlaced in pattern-like strands across the sphere of the observable universe, much as if some unseen potter has woven a gigantic universal artistic expression on an endless vase of expanding space; a portrait that can be fully comprehended and understood only by observation from outside and beyond the known Cosmos. And, unlike random chance theory predicts, there are huge blank spaces containing relatively few or no galaxies of stars in the observable reality. (Individual stars are far too numerous to portray on such a map, thus the use of units of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and larger components.)

        Everywhere we look in both inner and outer space, we see pattern upon pattern of ongoing, natural creation (creation in flux); individualized patterns of snowflakes, the pulsating-light courtship rituals of fireflies and the individualized construction of objects even much smaller, appearing to be uniquely designed with deliberate and intricate care and intent.  Many of the same scientists who expect us to "believe" the opposite of the overwhelming, crystal-clear evidence of deliberate design, themselves refer to objects such as galaxy NGC 2997 as a "grand design" spiral galaxy, not to mention the "grand design of the universe" phrase noted above.  Thus many modern theorists admit by default to their own illogic of random chance "self-organizing" speculations.  The same science educators who plot to convince us that theories of God do not belong in the classroom because we cannot actually see God, quite readily claim to "believe" in black holes, invisible light and other phenomena which can not be seen either and "believed" to exist only by much less indirect evidence.  There is far more evidence of sin in the historical record of civilization than there is of invisible light in the current database of modern science (see below) and there is far more evidence of an invisible Creator or Creators than there is of evil.

        Again, our modern Synthetic Theory Of Evolution would have us conclude that all human activity can be narrowed down to reproductive motivation (survival of those best able to reproduce), yet the historical record clearly indicates a second fundamental drive within our species, a drive of irrational lust for gold at the abandonment of all hope of reproduction, law and order, sanity and everything else most of us deem civilized (the history of United States westward expansion, for example and the Klondike gold rush, in particular).* Some perceptive modern historians, notably at the University of Berkley in California, have actually had the gall to suggest that modern evolutionary theory at best, may be only half right, as it does not adequately explain why people do what they do in the historical record,**  neither does it logically explain where concepts such as God, soul and good and evil originate.

        Why is it often difficult for us to teach our children to be good, while at the same time, they seem to be bad quite easily on their own, without our promises of candy or threats of punishment if they are not?  Why do we have to be taught as a species the logic of mutual cooperation rather than mutual annihilation through murder and war and why, after over 5,000 years of education to the contrary, do we still experience murder, rape, war and rumor of war in even our most 'civilized' societies, indulged in by some of our species' most erudite members?  Why have some of our most educated modern scientists wasted their time and talent designing the most destructive weapons of war in history, weapons that rationally have the ability to destroy our species along with the rest of the flora and fauna on our planet?  How can this possibly be rationalized as "survival of the fittest"?  (See also, Adam and Eve's Apple for a discussion on the evidence of good and evil.)

        Proponents of the modern Synthetic Theory Or Evolution universally insist that all known life forms on our planet evolved from a single primary source, even though there is considerable evidence that this might not be true, including an overwhelming lack of 'cross-over' species in the known record.  In the utter haste to eliminate a Creator from the equation, this absolute 'fact' of singular origination is blindly accepted without question by professional biologists and millions of gullible students alike.  Nevertheless, mutation experiments conducted for a great many years representing thousands of generations of fruit flies over and over again indicate that primary species have a natural 'fail safe' mechanism which protects species toward predetermined norms, strongly indicating macro-evolution (the natural crossing over of one species into a brand new species) does not and cannot take place.  As of this writing, there is very little evidence that species evolve into new distinct species and apparently no evidence whatsoever supporting postulated evolutionary changes outside of basic "Family" types (taxonomic category).  Any 'theory' stating such is merely guesswork devoid of empirical science.  (See Of God and Monkey Business for more information.)

        Frustrating contradiction of experimentation such as this is rarely discussed in modern textbooks, as doing so might bring into doubt the entire validity of evolutionary theory by Natural Selection.  Other possible explanations for the physical reality based on the known evidence, such as the possibility of species (or genus or family) evolving separately from several or perhaps even thousands of primary sources or of a Creator manipulating an ongoing creation process to cause changes in species and produce new species, are entirely ignored.  It is indeed accurate to state that modern evolutionary theory possesses only a rudimentary possibility of being at random chance best, half right.  (For a detailed discussion of contradictory problems with the theory of evolution by Natural Selection, again see Of God and Monkey Business.)

        Worms studied at Chernobyl after the recent nuclear accident there have been observed to have already changed, after only a few generations, from asexual (self) reproduction to sexual (male/female) reproduction.  This is attributed to being a profound example of "survival of the fittest", indicating that these worms have achieved a fundamental change in reproductive method in order to eliminate defective genes caused by lingering radiation effects of the disaster.  What these same scientists can't seem to plausibly explain is why, if only after a few worm generations, undesirable gene traits are being eliminated in such dramatic fashion, do species that have been around for millions and some, billions of years, continue to harbor defective gene traits leading to devastating diseases which are most obviously contrary to the reproductive progress postulated by the theory of Natural Selection?  As in other troubling contradictions to the theory of Natural Selection, scientists often twist the observable evidence to fit the theory, rather than being forced to admit that current theory may in fact, be severely flawed.

        Similar to this, astronomers have recently postulated the unproven (and non-provable from present-day knowledge) existence of large quantities of "dark" and "vacuum" matter, “anti-matter” and “dark energy” spread throughout the universe; the reason for inventing such mysterious substances is that major modern theories of science cannot be correct if this matter does not exist. Modern theorists term this "speculative science" to differentiate it from what is considered "empirical" science.  Some modern scientists claim that the existence of such hypothetical entities has already been proven, ³  even though theoretically anything labeled as “proven” by definition of true science, must be empirically validated.  Whether or not this mysterious matter does or does not exist in true reality is not what is debated here.  What is in serious question is a modern theory of 'monkey science' insisting on ignoring overwhelming evidence of design, based on some convoluted irrationality that "God is not a question for science" because God cannot be empirically proven (which in fact, is not true based on other supposed empirical science concluding the existence of invisible light and black holes).  Yet this same 'science' consistently bends the rules of empirical evidence to fit its own shallow pet theories, regardless of the observable evidence or lack thereof, in particular in the case of the theory of evolution by Natural Selection.

        Based on recent Hubble Telescope observations, the expansion of the universe, unlike what was previously assumed due to gravitational drag, is not slowing down but rather, it appears to be speeding up, much as if Newton threw up an apple and it not only kept on going but it continued on moving away ever-faster.  If our current theories of gravity are not correct, then there may eventually be a much different and better explanation besides dark matter and energy for the apparent fact that galaxies are defying all previously believed ‘laws’ of gravity.  Apparently the concept of what is “proven” varies considerably within the realm of our mythical construct we call “modern science”.  And woe is unto anyone who would ask the obvious very reasonable question:  If such bizarre stuff as “dark energy” “anti-gravity”, “vacuum matter” and “dark matter” is believed in enough based on indirect evidence to be stipulated as in fact, “proven”, then why doesn’t our science consider the overwhelming evidence of a grandly designed cosmic reality evidence enough that the existence of a Grand Designer is likewise, proven?  To compare the amount of indirect evidence for a Creator with the indirect evidence for dark energy is to compare the size of the universe to the size of a misguided molecule buried deep within the dark caverns of certain modern physicists’ brains and yet, our modern ‘scientists’ continue to believe in their own thimble-sized cranial misassumptions while ignoring the overwhelming universal evidence of the Grand Designer.  Is it any wonder that the title chosen for this chapter is The Myth of Modern Science?  Can modern science empirically or even indirectly, rationally be called anything else?

        A Creator equals Cause and creation equals Effect.  This satisfies as far as is possible, the rational human mind and all known theory of logic.  Natural Selection without a Creator involved, on the other hand, is fundamentally flawed.  With this immature concept, there is no primary cause but only effect---Natural Selection can not itself be a cause because there can be no selection without something to select from.  Since there cannot logically be selection if there is nothing from which to select, the theory of Natural Selection without a Creator has no coherent basis of beginnings and is fundamentally to the unscientific core, irrational.  To say that Natural Selection is not required to address origins, as some extremely shallow and entirely unscientific 'educators' currently argue, is by same logic to state that a knowledgeable theory of automobiles and the highways they travel on is not required to have any rational explanation for highway design or from where the materials originate that roads are constructed of.  Likewise, to claim that science theory is not required to match the historical record of our species and adequately explain the motivation and resulting behavior surrounding what we actually do in the real world, is to publicly and openly state that we are following an ungrounded random chance mythology of pointless confusion, having no particular value to our species or correlation in the physical reality.

        There is no greater logical postulate of truth than the concept of "I AM" handed down through Moses; i.e., before Abraham and the universe was, I AM. This is Logos, the beginning of all true science, logic, reason and rationality; there cannot logically be a Cosmos (effect) without I AM (cause).  If the Creator is eternal and has no beginning or ending as we as temporal beings tend to view everything, then the fundamental rational of cause and effect is satisfied. Without I AM, there is no such thing as science, for all other theory breaks down at genesis (beginnings).  There can be no Natural Selection processes if there is nothing from which to select, nor is the origin of the process or the materials from which to select satisfied apart from I AM.  Therefore, atheism and agnosticism are fundamentally unscientific, based on a random black hole bottomless pit of irrational superstition, accurately defined as "lies" and "darkness" leading to confusion, by the always-perceptive authors of the Bible.

        Random chance evolutionary theory is such a rigid religion to modern educators that they completely ostracize any of their colleagues who would dare to question such a foundationless mythology.  American educators risk losing tenure or their teaching careers entirely if they dare to openly explore alternative theories to the evolutionary sacred cow of modern science. Interestingly enough, arguably the three greatest scientists of the past few centuries, Leonardo DaVinci, Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, all believed in a Creator and just as importantly, all three were highly skeptical of the religions of their particular era.  It kind of makes one wonder why modern theorists of self-organizing superstition would try to pretend, in some arrogant and irrational vanity of baseless egotism, that they are somehow wiser than these three. Truly, the great sin of modern science is not so much that it may be primarily and fundamentally flawed (which it very clearly is due to the complete ignoring of overwhelming evidence for a Creator), but rather that it retains, much as modern conservative fundamentalism promotes blind acceptance without question, a pious and unbending religion of evolution by Natural Selection founded on the unproven and entirely irrational assumption of a Designer-less, Grand Design.

        Based on modern inflation theory and the apparent 'flatness' of our known universe, very recently several of the 21st Century's top cosmologists have begun to speculate that our universe may be only one bubble of a great many bubbles on some vast cosmic ocean of unfathomable forever-and-ever.  An author of the Bible long ago claimed that the universe of our habitation is surrounded by water, a theory once speculated on by some scientists (i.e., helps explain the abundance of hydrogen in the universe) and then largely discarded because of lack of conclusive evidence due to the limitations of our earth-based perspective.  Many modern theorists now believe that there may be at least eleven dimensions within our universe alone, even though we are physically aware of only three, again giving credibility to the Biblical insistence that there are unseen beings surrounding us in dimensions outside of our natural physical awareness.  (For a partial listing of what the authors of the Bible claim is true in comparison to modern science theory, see Random Chance A-Z Primer of Science and the Bible.)

        Those of us who grew up in the fifties and sixties were presented with a now rather simplistic-appearing view of Darwinian evolutionary theory; of "advanced species" such as we imagine ourselves to be having evolved from "simple" one-celled organisims.  Over time, biologists have come to understand that there is nothing particularly simple about one-celled organisms or even about individual parts of such beings, which were previously viewed as mere rudimentary rungs on the evolutionary ladder of progression.  Human beings are now thought to have less than 25,000 total number of genes while a "simple" plant such as mustard weed is believed to carry over 27,000 genes. Likewise, Darwin assumed that further research would uncover an abundance of cross-over species in the fossil record and the lack of such abundant findings today continues to cast a shadow on the validity of fundamental Darwinian theory.

        It is to be expected that science will change its mind, so to speak, as innovations such as the Hubble telescope, genome mapping and other new technologies emerge.  What is challenged here is that modern science just maybe could display a little more humility regarding the way in which the current 'facts' of science are presented to our impressionable children in school and the general public at large.  It is baseless and ludicrous for modern scientists to pretend to "know" what in fact, they only very marginally have a grasp on, if at all.  Regardless of how accurate or inaccurate the conclusions of individual processes may be, any theory that ignores the overwhelming evidence of deliberate design is fundamentally flawed.  Those who attempt to persuade a sometimes gullible public that, based on our spec-of-dust perspective here on Planet Earth we "know" for certain that Natural Selection theory is essentially correct, are announcing to us who have bothered to seriously question a little of what today poses as 'science', that they are by evolutionary theory default, naturally selected fools of ivory tower dementia.

        Today, there are two very much divided camps consisting of those who espouse an often very narrow-minded genesis explanation called Creationism and those who believe in a more-or-less, equally myopic Designer-less 'science'.  There are numerous often highly impassioned articles and discussions on "Creation verses Evolution", as if our science is against the natural order and our Creator is opposed to rational thinking.  As a species, we need to learn to move away from blindly defending a particular side or cause and move toward seeking out what might actually be true.  To believe in a conclusion because a priest or scientist or educator or societal tradition dictates such to be the truth is to move in the opposite direction of freedom and toward pharisaism, fascism and tyranny.  " . . .And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free", 4
 a famous statement made by the founder of Human and Civil Rights, implying not only that freedom is a primary goal, but also, that truth and freedom go hand-in-glove, the later being impossible to attain without the former.  Only by asking and looking and knocking in the reality of our daily lives in an unbiased search for the truth can we hope to become people of Human Rights oriented compassion, grounded in rational basis and reason obtained through true faith, science and education, which arguably are essentially synonymous.  (See also The Tree of Knowledge.)

        In attempting to be honest regarding the known evidence, undoubtedly the truth is that neither modern scientists or anyone else on our planet currently knows how much or how little the Creator is involved with the day-to-day observable reality, nor do we know for certain how species arise.  It may be true that there is a process, which we can term “Natural Selection” from our own perspective, that is set in place by the Creator to more-or-less, automatically alter and re-invent species as adaptive need arises.  In other words, modern science may be essentially correct in “believing” that species on our planet originated from a single primary source and developed over time into the seemingly infinite variety of creatures we are now partially aware of.  On the other hand, this may be an entirely incorrect deduction of Creation reality from true Logos perspective, as incorrect as onetime scientific ‘facts’ of an earth-centered solar system with other planets and stars smaller than the moon revolving around on celestial spheres according to natural concentric perfect-circle laws of established motion.

        Many modern theorists point to the evidentiary fact that species change and then grandly proclaim they have proven that the theory of evolution by Natural Selection is an established fact, while in reality, all they have proven is that species do indeed change.  What actually causes species to arise, change and adapt at the fundamental level remains a very great mystery open to serious debate and many possibilities based on the same observable evidence. If indeed modern science is essentially correct, which is extremely doubtful given its overall track record (i.e., from a fair historical perspective, science has no established track record of ever having been mostly or essentially correct regarding major scientific postulates, theories or assumptions), all modern science has managed to do is to open a very small and extremely clouded window on the unfathomably ultimately unknowable process of creation. Anyone who would state that modern science has proven otherwise based on empirical evidence is truly a liar of infinite magnitude beyond universes of infinity wonder. There is no definitive evidence that from true cosmic perspective, there are any such thing as universal or any other laws of science or other human-invented disciplines.
5   It is a fair and perhaps, learned opinion that postulates the Creator as needing no laws, rules, Natural Selection or other processes from which to create or to otherwise, be governed by.

        True science, like true faith, true knowledge and everything else that is sought in truth, is based on "evidence of things not seen"
6  and/or, fully understood, for in regards to all truth, we see only in part, as "in a mirror, very dimly." 7   Truly the psalmist of Israel was being fair when he sang, "the fool has said in their heart, there is no God." 8   And most assuredly, it is a foolhardy 'science' that attempts to explain the observable effect while ignoring the clear evidence of a Grand Designer of primary cause.  As the psalmist's brother in arms and a great scientist in his own right would add a few centuries later:  "For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse . . ." 9  (see Like A Tree Planted for evidence of "Godhead" in the natural world). ***


FROM A VIEW INSIDE THE BOWL:  It may be a fairly safe bet that what is probably occurring in true universal reality is that the Creator behind the scenes, in ways beyond our finding out, is continually manipulating overall physical and other circumstance reality from Logos perspective (i.e., the Creator’s true ‘outside-the-fishbowl’ perspective), which in turn, down the line cause slight changes to occur within species favorable to survival and in turn, new species thus arise.  It may even be fair to state, as modern science now claims, that the observable process (actually from true Logos perspective, result) is from human view, a naturally selecting process which again from our view, appears as being somewhat on automatic pilot and/or as a result of reproductive survival competition.  It is also possible that the Creator sets a universe in motion from a totally preconceived grand design and, once the initial conceived process is in motion, an abundance of change occurs ‘naturally’ without further or only rare Designer input.
        What is purposefully ridiculed in the above article is not the mechanical correctness or incorrectness of modern evolutionary theory but rather, the insane assumption of many that the overall grandly designed observable result somehow, appears all by itself without any input from a Grand Designer(s). The weakness of current theory noted above, in the notes below and in the companion chapter Of God and Monkey Business, is included to point out that the accuracy of modern science theory is not nearly as proven or even as provable as many modern intellectuals would have us believe.  The truth from the view of any honest human being is very plainly, we know extremely little of both what is actually and what is ultimately, true. *

...Sometimes I feel like a motherless child,
   A long, long way from my home"


$10,000 Reward Challenge

American Foundation for the Blind      Braille Institute


DEDICATED TO:  Dedicated to Leonardo DaVinci and the legacy of true science: True science, by definition, is founded on the "God question"; 'scientists' and 'educators' who lack the humility to and/or, are afraid to center on and otherwise ignore the question, are charlatans and frauds.  Likewise, 'scientists' who are afraid (perhaps due to economic fear of losing a comfortable-salaried position) to make indecisive statements of conclusion, such as "perhaps", "possibly", "we do not know" and "we are not certain", are plainly liars.

* FootNote:  Michael Shermer, the head of the Skeptics Society, stated in a debate that modern theories of intelligent design are not correct because they fail to explain who designed the designer.  What he failed to point out is, Darwinian theory also fails to explain who designed the designer.  According to modern evolutionary theory, everything that we can observe through our telescopes and our microscopes was designed by random processes appearing out of nowhere from nothing; some Darwinian evolutionists claim that the fundamental "stuff" of which the universe is made has always existed in some form while others claim that modern theory does not have to explain how it got here.  As pointed out elsewhere in this book, if there is no Creator and, equally as important, if the Creator is not eternal, then there is no rational explanation for how we got here or for anything else, nor can there ever be one.  The arguments of Shermer, Richard Dawkins and other evolutionary atheists invariably break down at the point of origins into irrational drivel, not worthy of the poorest of fairytales. To say there is no Creator is not equivalent to a microscopic organism living inside of a larger microscopic organism, living inside our intestines, claiming that people do not exist.  Given the known size of even just our own universe, it is far, far more irrational than that.
        Francis Collins, one of America's most well known scientists and the leader in mapping the human genome, has impeccable scientific credentials.  He holds both a Phd in physics and a medical degree.  According to him, neither Darwinian evolutionary theory or modern theories of intelligent design are correct.  According to Collins:  "Both of these extremes don't stand up to logic, and yet they have occupied the stage".  "We cannot let either side win.  I have trouble with the argument that altruism can be completely explained on evolutionary grounds. Evolutionists now universally agree, I think Dawkins and Wilson and Dennett would all agree, that evolution does not operate on the species.  It operates on the individual.  If that's the case, then it does seem that in any given circumstance, the individual's evolutionary drive should be to preserve their ability to reproduce at all costs.  They're simply, as Dawkins has described them, a way of propagating DNA.  That's what we are.  But that's not what I see in my own heart.  And it's not what I see in those around me.  I see Oskar Schindler, who sacrifices his own potential for long-term survival by saving Jews, not even people of his own faith.  When I see Mother Teresa dedicating herself to help others, not even of her own tribe, we admire that.  What is that all about?  If I'm walking down the banks of a river and I hear someone who's drowning calling for help, even if I'm not a good swimmer, I feel this urge that I should try to help, even at the risk of my own life.  Where is that coming from?. . .if it was just a cultural tradition, you ought to be able to find some cultures where it is not present. . . these altruistic things seem to be a universal feature of human beings.  And yet, they're a scandal to evolutionary biology because they motivate people to do things that are exactly the opposite of what evolution would require."
       According to Jonathan Wells, a former professor at Berkeley who holds a Phd in molecular biology, "Darwinian theory is flat out wrong."  Many of the points he and Collins make in debating this issue are covered here and elsewhere in this book; they were arrived at by the author from his own independent study; he had never heard of either individual until after this book was completed.  As is claimed in this book, Jonathan Wells also claims that modern evolutionary theory is not given proper critical analysis by either modern scientists or educators and, both modern scientists and educators risk ostracization and termination of employment for merely seeking to question its validity.  A theory that is afraid of open challenge and critical analysis is no more credible than conservative fundamentalist religion.

Credits:

1. Some have questioned the author as to what the "Synthetic Theory Of Evolution" refers to, as though he may somehow have invented such an appropriate phrase for his own mischievous purposes (such as they may be).  The unfortunate truth however, is that this is a term used by some in the past for what is considered a general consensus of theory at any given time, based on a "synthesis" of various disciplines working to find a cohesive explanation for the observable reality.  Biological science developed in a rather haphazard fashion and an integrated patchwork of various disciplines was eventually pieced together by neo-Darwinian "evolutionary synthesis".  Consensus on evolutionary theory is far from being in the unified agreement textbooks often pretend it to be and what science "believes" frequently changes, as scientists pause to reinvent former unsupported assumptions (as they are tossed to and fro by the great cosmic winds of evolutionary change weighed against newly discovered data and practical explanatory reality, so to speak).  The now somewhat archaic term "The Synthetic Theory of Evolution" is used here as most assuredly, there is nothing more superficial, specious and artificial to the common senses to have ever been devised within the entire contradictory 'intellectual' history of our species than the preposterous and entirely absurd notion that we somehow arrived here on this planet by a series of random chance or selective-mutational processes of Natural Selection devoid of any input from a Grand Designer. Perhaps some mischievous researcher naturally selected the title as appropriate for such an exercise in convoluted irrationality---the author only wishes he were the credited inventor of such an apt and perceptive description for such juvenile and perverse superstition. (For more detailed discussion regarding the theory of evolution by Natural Selection, see Of God and Monkey Business.)

2. Not long ago according to modern science, the universe was 6 billion or so years old.  This figure grew until it reached a maximum of about 30 billion years and now, it has again been revised to be a definite 14 or so billion.  Very recently one dedicated theorist has calculated an exact age of 13.62 billion years.  The latest projections, like the rest, are based on what we can observe from our earth-based telescopes (including Hubble) and what are believed to be correct universal laws of gravity and light and principles of sound.  This latest estimate does not take into account the fact that some scientists now believe that the speed of light may not be constant, that light may slow down and/or speed up in various situations and timeframes.  If this is true, then current estimates could be way off in either direction, as the farther we peer into space, the farther back in time we are looking.  Additionally, in order for current age calculations to be accurate, our "universal laws" of physics must be essentially correct and given the historical track record of science, this is highly unlikely.  Also, even though the majority of scientists believe that we are close to seeing the end of the universe, i.e., close to the beginning of the "big bang", there is currently, no way of knowing for certain if the age and physical laws of the universe are not beyond what we can ever know.  Those philosophically minded might even argue that there are no such thing as true universal laws; 'laws' as conceived by us being only superficial mental constructs for our own rudimentary purposes as seen from our very minute 'trapped-inside-the-fishbowl' observational viewpoint.
        Recently, the European Space Agency stated that the universe could be much older than previously expected, based on an examination of X-rays from a peculiar body near the edge of the known cosmos.  Also recently, an American scientist proposed that the universe may give ongoing birth through a series of infinite big bangs, thus the universe may in fact, be eternal. And as noted in the main body of the material above, many scientists now conclude that our universe may be only one of a very great many such heavenly structures.  As one modern British scientist has remarked, judging the age and nature of the universe by what we can now ascertain using our current technology is similar to, having never before seen the earth, trying to understand the size and nature of our planet while standing in London on a foggy evening. Of course, even if modern astronomers could somehow eventually prove how old the universe may in fact be, such an achievement would in no way prove modern science's primary ridiculous assertion to be true.  There is no logical way of proving that we are here due to a series of random chance events and/or by self-organizing processes of Natural Selection, thus such an absurd speculation does not belong in our modern education system nor in our canons of modern science (such as they are).  Rather, it belongs on a planet of perverse science fiction fairy tales, somewhere "in a galaxy far, far away".

3. In June of 2003, physicist Paul Steinhardt of Princeton university stated “we owe our very existence to dark matter.”  Astronomer Robert P. Krishner of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics said that the existence of dark matter was proven about five years previously. This directly contradicts a very recent overview of current astronomical theory shown in June of 2003 on The Science Channel, which claimed that none of the four postulated terms noted in the body of the main material here can be empirically proven and that the existence of such weird phenomena has been speculated on for an explanation of recent Hubble Telescope ob-servations indicating that the universe is expanding ever-faster (which contradicts all current theories of gravity if such extraordinary entities as dark matter and dark energy do not exist). Steinhardt admits that the nature of dark matter is unknown and it cannot be seen or detected directly.  Dark matter is believed to exist by indirect evidence based on observed otherwise unexplained effects on objects that can be seen.

4. John 8:32.

5. Recent observations since the launch of the Hubble Space Telescope have brought into question fundamental “universal laws” of light, gravity and motion.  In addition to an expanding ever-faster universe that seemingly defies fundamental laws of gravity, some scientists now believe that the speed of light may not be constant or an ultimate speed. Indeed, it is likely that the concept of time itself is only a construct from our own spec-of-dust birth and death globe-spinning human perspective and that in ultimate reality, there is no such thing as time. If there is no such thing as time, then the existence of an eternal Creator becomes probable rather than difficult to believe.  While it may be of certain technological and other value for science to “believe” in certain defined ‘laws’ from our own earthbound perspective, it would be refreshing if these laws were called “true as far as we can now determine” or “convenient constructs having no hope of being ultimately correct” rather than “universal laws” of true science, which we cannot at all possibly know to be the universal outside-the-fishbowl reality. Because certain ‘laws’ based on many careful observations seem to always be correct from our own minute perspective, it does not rationally (and probably most certainly does not in reality) follow that such laws are universally correct or even adequate from true LOGOS (Cosmic or God) perspective.  It is both grossly dishonest and entirely unfair for modern students and the non-scientifically inclined to be taught that modern science knows essentially or even remotely what is universally (or even earthly) correct.

6. Hebrews 11:1.

7. First Corinthians 13:12.

8. Psalm 14:1.

9. Romans 1:20.


*FootNote:  "Ethology, the study of behavior, has yet to find the evolutionary basis for man's aberrant conduct that allows him to kill members of his own species wholesale, which other species do not." --From Encyclopedia Britannica; "The Theory Of Evolution".

**FootNote II: Fernando Cortez, a most brutal 16th Century Spanish explorer, who very deceitfully, cunningly and savagely annihilated a civilization of 10 million Aztecs in his lust for gold and with whom otherwise, he had no particular quarrel, is reported to have said:  "We Spanish suffer from a disease of the heart which only gold can cure."

***FootNote III:  For more information on modern science verses historical (and physical) reality, see Notes On The Great War, Adam and Eve's Apple, Of God and Monkey Business, Like a Tree Planted Random Chance A-Z Primer of Science and the Bible and Fleeing Sodom.



           


'Click Here' To Purchase This Book

'Click Here to eMail the Author

Copyright © August 20th, 2003 by Richard Aberdeen.

       No part of this material may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including printing, photocopying, recording or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher and signed by the author. Inquiries: Freedom Tracks Records or requested via eMail.  Essays entitled Revolution and Revolution ~ Side B are open copyright and may be reproduced and distributed as desired.