THE MYTH OF MODERN SCIENCE
The purpose of this article 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 article 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 article 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.
$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.
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. Letter To The Hebrews 11:1
7. First Letter To The Corinthians 13:12
8. Psalm 14:1
9. Letter To The 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.
|