It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Science Was Hijacked By Politics A Long Time Ago Politics Is Just Money And Power
page: 117
share:
My parents were very capable scientists. I was raised in a social circle of very capable scientists. I was raised with the philosophy 'Science Was
Hijacked By Politics A Long Time Ago and Politics Is Just Money And Power'.
Somebody said this once.
Substitute 'science' with 'money and power' and you're beginning to understand.
The general public seems to be lacking in an understand of how money and power work.
Somebody said this once.
The general public seems to be lacking in an understand of how science works.
Substitute 'science' with 'money and power' and you're beginning to understand.
The general public seems to be lacking in an understand of how money and power work.
a reply to: Kester
You've been around scientist too long. Money and power have ALWAYS been the thing. Science has always been the side show. Science has been allowed to be it's "own" thing as long as it fits the "money Power" narrative. In fact the last year shows how the monied and the powerful use science (for good and bad) for their own ends with some "scientists" selling their souls to the devil.
And besides, just because they are scientists, they aint gods.
You've been around scientist too long. Money and power have ALWAYS been the thing. Science has always been the side show. Science has been allowed to be it's "own" thing as long as it fits the "money Power" narrative. In fact the last year shows how the monied and the powerful use science (for good and bad) for their own ends with some "scientists" selling their souls to the devil.
And besides, just because they are scientists, they aint gods.
a reply to: dug88
You don't think that Galileo was hijacked by the pope then? This goes back to virtually the beginning of human interaction. The person with the (I would say wealth rather than money because this existed before money) the most wealth controlled the agenda and that included the scientific people.
You don't think that Galileo was hijacked by the pope then? This goes back to virtually the beginning of human interaction. The person with the (I would say wealth rather than money because this existed before money) the most wealth controlled the agenda and that included the scientific people.
originally posted by: Kester
My parents were very capable scientists. I was raised in a social circle of very capable scientists. I was raised with the philosophy 'Science Was Hijacked By Politics A Long Time Ago and Politics Is Just Money And Power'.
Somebody said this once.
The general public seems to be lacking in an understand of how science works.
Substitute 'science' with 'money and power' and you're beginning to understand.
The general public seems to be lacking in an understand of how money and power work.
I agree with most what you've said here.
Science is objective and true you get what you see 1+1=2 is about as far as science has come , We see things in a single dimension our unevolved minds are stagnent in this understanding .
A scientist on the other hand is not Objective , they are quite human subject to all human weaknesses including Greed .
Science is a Religion just like Christianity , it's only a collection of things we think we know .
Galileo
Issac Newton
Albert Einstein
The above men each turned science on it's head changing everything we think we know , the question is when will it change again. ??
Nothing is certain .
Science, like religion is prone to two things, human error an arrogance. Scientists claiming to be an imaginary figure is when you hear it
all.
edit on 25-4-2021 by Specimen88 because: (no reason given)
Tesla was an aetherist.
Does anyone in science today talk about the aether?
Clif High seems to have cracked it and is starting to patent many things we will soon see that change the perspective of scientists today.
Einsteins entire theory is based off atomism. atoms dont actually exist. the electron isn't real.
en.wikipedia.org...
Michelson Morley experiment aimed to debunk the aether and did nothing of the sort.
Einstein's theory's were based on the Michelson Morley experiment. They set us back 100 years.
The aether is real and we will soon see inventions coming out that prove that.
Im trying to read and comprehend a book called "A Theory of Natural Philosophy". By Joesph Boscovich.
It is the one book Tesla was pictured holding many times. He got a lot of his knowledge and ideas from it.
Clif High also has come up with a few new patents having to do with magnetics and got his ideas from this book.
They buried this information forever because they want to sell oil. Thats it. They make a lot of money from oil and they use it to own the media and politicians.
Does anyone in science today talk about the aether?
Clif High seems to have cracked it and is starting to patent many things we will soon see that change the perspective of scientists today.
Einsteins entire theory is based off atomism. atoms dont actually exist. the electron isn't real.
en.wikipedia.org...
Michelson Morley experiment aimed to debunk the aether and did nothing of the sort.
Einstein's theory's were based on the Michelson Morley experiment. They set us back 100 years.
The aether is real and we will soon see inventions coming out that prove that.
Im trying to read and comprehend a book called "A Theory of Natural Philosophy". By Joesph Boscovich.
It is the one book Tesla was pictured holding many times. He got a lot of his knowledge and ideas from it.
Clif High also has come up with a few new patents having to do with magnetics and got his ideas from this book.
They buried this information forever because they want to sell oil. Thats it. They make a lot of money from oil and they use it to own the media and politicians.
twitter.com...
here's an interesting tweet. People will realize soon that the aether is real. Academia will probably take 20 years to acknowledge the aether if they last another 5 years.
Anyone who denies the aether will be left in the dust.
here's an interesting tweet. People will realize soon that the aether is real. Academia will probably take 20 years to acknowledge the aether if they last another 5 years.
Anyone who denies the aether will be left in the dust.
During the last 2 centuries (20th and 21st), science has greatly increased our knowledge of the natural world around us. Its telescopes have revealed
the awesome wonders of the starry heavens, just as its microscopes have disclosed the amazing complexities of molecules and atoms. The marvels of
design in plants and animals, the wisdom reflected in our own fearfully and wonderfully made bodies—this knowledge also comes to us through the
discoveries of hardworking scientists.
Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories (playlist)
But there is another side to science. Not all its practitioners measure up to the image of the objective, passionate pursuers of truth, regardless of where it might lead. There are too many scientists who select the material that supports their theory and discard what doesn’t. They report studies they have never made and experiments they have never performed, and they fake what they cannot establish. They plagiarize the writings of fellow scientists. Many claim authorship of articles they have never worked on and maybe have never even seen!
Flagrant fraud may be rare, but some of the manipulating of data mentioned above is common. Even more common, however, are two additional kinds of fraud, both involving deceitful propaganda. Some examples:
Fraud in Science—It Makes the Headlines
The image of scientists as invariably dedicated to truth has been tarnished, as these headlined items show.
“Ethics in Science”
“A fight is building in the U.S. House of Representatives over fraud, misconduct, and conflict of interest in science.”—Science, July 7, 1989.
“Do Scientists Cheat?”
“After the initial inquiry by this [congressional] committee into this subject, the committee has had growing reason to believe that we are only seeing the tip of a very unfortunate, dangerous, and important iceberg.”—NOVA broadcast on PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) on October 25, 1988.
“Two New Studies Ask Why Scientists Cheat”
“It was an innocent enough question: how do scientists behave when no one is looking? But it has produced an incendiary answer: not too well, reports a paper this month in the British journal Nature.”—Newsweek, February 2, 1987.
“A Nation of Liars? Scientists Falsify Research”
“A study published last month accused 47 scientists at the Harvard and Emory University medical schools of producing misleading papers.”—U.S.News & World Report, February 23, 1987.
“NIH Sees Plagiarism in Vision Paper”
“Panel says researcher took data from paper he peer-reviewed and used it for his own work; . . . NIH [National Institutes of Health] recommends debarment proceedings.”—Science, July 14, 1989.
“‘Permissive Behaviour’ Breeds Fraud in the Laboratory”
“Biomedical scientists in America are performing sloppy and sometimes fraudulent research in an effort to publish more papers and make more money.”—New Scientist, February 25, 1989.
“Researchers Roll Back the Frontiers of Fraud”
“Scientific fraud and carelessness among researchers could be widespread, warns a study in last week’s issue of Nature.”—New Scientist, January 22, 1987.
“Researcher Accused of Plagiarism Resigns”
“A biochemist accused of plagiarizing a National Academy of Sciences report for a book on nutrition and cancer resigned from his position at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.”—Science, September 4, 1987.
“The Pill: Professor’s Safety Tests Were Faked”
“His deception puts a question mark over safety checks on pills being taken by up to 2 m[illion] women in Britain and 10 m[illion] worldwide.”—The Sunday Times, September 28, 1986.
“Senior Drugs Researcher Resigns in Disgrace”
“He resigned last week after an independent committee of inquiry found him guilty of scientific fraud.”—New Scientist, November 12, 1988.
“NIMH Finds a Case of ‘Serious Misconduct’”
“A surprisingly long-running, flagrant and deliberate case of scientific fraud according to a draft report of an investigation conducted for the National Institute of Mental Health.”—Science, March 27, 1987.
“Research ‘Fraud’ Puts Poison Into the Ivy League”
“A prominent Bostonian psychiatrist resigned as head of a mental hospital affiliated to Harvard University, following charges of plagiarism.”—New Scientist, December 10, 1988.
“The Case of the ‘Misplaced’ Fossils”
“A prominent Australian scientist has examined two decades of work on ancient Himalayan geology and alleges it may be the greatest paleontological fraud of all time.”—Science, April 21, 1989.
“Now It’s the Journals’ Turn on the Firing Line”
“[He was speaking] specifically about how poorly many [science] journals have handled scientific fraud. . . . The same message previously dispatched to other members of the scientific community has now been addressed to the journals: clean up your act or you may find legislators getting into it.”—The AAAS Observer, July 7, 1989.
Fraud in Science—Why It’s on the Increase
“The competition is savage. Winners reap monumental rewards; losers face oblivion. It’s an atmosphere in which an illicit shortcut is sometimes irresistible—not least because the Establishment is frequently squeamish about confronting wrongdoing.” So opened the article “Publish or Perish—or Fake It” in U.S.News & World Report. To escape perishing, many scientific researchers are faking it.
The pressure on scientists to publish in scientific journals is overwhelming. The longer the list of published papers to the researcher’s name, the better his chances for employment, promotion, tenure in a university, and government grants to finance his research. The federal government “controls the largest source of research funding, $5.6 [billion]* a year from the National Institutes of Health.” (*: the article mentioned above is from 1990, so this number is also from that year)
Because “the scientific community shows little stomach for confronting its ethical dilemma,” “has been strangely reluctant to probe too deeply for hard data about its ethical conduct,” and “isn’t keen about cleaning house or even looking closely for malfeasance,” congressional committees have held hearings and considered legislation to do the job of policing for them. (New Scientist; U.S.News & World Report) This prospect wrings from scientists much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Yet, one science journal asks and answers the question: “Is the house of science clean and in order? The bit of evidence that reaches the public invites serious doubts.”
[Continued in next comment]
Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories (playlist)
But there is another side to science. Not all its practitioners measure up to the image of the objective, passionate pursuers of truth, regardless of where it might lead. There are too many scientists who select the material that supports their theory and discard what doesn’t. They report studies they have never made and experiments they have never performed, and they fake what they cannot establish. They plagiarize the writings of fellow scientists. Many claim authorship of articles they have never worked on and maybe have never even seen!
Flagrant fraud may be rare, but some of the manipulating of data mentioned above is common. Even more common, however, are two additional kinds of fraud, both involving deceitful propaganda. Some examples:
Fraud in Science—It Makes the Headlines
The image of scientists as invariably dedicated to truth has been tarnished, as these headlined items show.
“Ethics in Science”
“A fight is building in the U.S. House of Representatives over fraud, misconduct, and conflict of interest in science.”—Science, July 7, 1989.
“Do Scientists Cheat?”
“After the initial inquiry by this [congressional] committee into this subject, the committee has had growing reason to believe that we are only seeing the tip of a very unfortunate, dangerous, and important iceberg.”—NOVA broadcast on PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) on October 25, 1988.
“Two New Studies Ask Why Scientists Cheat”
“It was an innocent enough question: how do scientists behave when no one is looking? But it has produced an incendiary answer: not too well, reports a paper this month in the British journal Nature.”—Newsweek, February 2, 1987.
“A Nation of Liars? Scientists Falsify Research”
“A study published last month accused 47 scientists at the Harvard and Emory University medical schools of producing misleading papers.”—U.S.News & World Report, February 23, 1987.
“NIH Sees Plagiarism in Vision Paper”
“Panel says researcher took data from paper he peer-reviewed and used it for his own work; . . . NIH [National Institutes of Health] recommends debarment proceedings.”—Science, July 14, 1989.
“‘Permissive Behaviour’ Breeds Fraud in the Laboratory”
“Biomedical scientists in America are performing sloppy and sometimes fraudulent research in an effort to publish more papers and make more money.”—New Scientist, February 25, 1989.
“Researchers Roll Back the Frontiers of Fraud”
“Scientific fraud and carelessness among researchers could be widespread, warns a study in last week’s issue of Nature.”—New Scientist, January 22, 1987.
“Researcher Accused of Plagiarism Resigns”
“A biochemist accused of plagiarizing a National Academy of Sciences report for a book on nutrition and cancer resigned from his position at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.”—Science, September 4, 1987.
“The Pill: Professor’s Safety Tests Were Faked”
“His deception puts a question mark over safety checks on pills being taken by up to 2 m[illion] women in Britain and 10 m[illion] worldwide.”—The Sunday Times, September 28, 1986.
“Senior Drugs Researcher Resigns in Disgrace”
“He resigned last week after an independent committee of inquiry found him guilty of scientific fraud.”—New Scientist, November 12, 1988.
“NIMH Finds a Case of ‘Serious Misconduct’”
“A surprisingly long-running, flagrant and deliberate case of scientific fraud according to a draft report of an investigation conducted for the National Institute of Mental Health.”—Science, March 27, 1987.
“Research ‘Fraud’ Puts Poison Into the Ivy League”
“A prominent Bostonian psychiatrist resigned as head of a mental hospital affiliated to Harvard University, following charges of plagiarism.”—New Scientist, December 10, 1988.
“The Case of the ‘Misplaced’ Fossils”
“A prominent Australian scientist has examined two decades of work on ancient Himalayan geology and alleges it may be the greatest paleontological fraud of all time.”—Science, April 21, 1989.
“Now It’s the Journals’ Turn on the Firing Line”
“[He was speaking] specifically about how poorly many [science] journals have handled scientific fraud. . . . The same message previously dispatched to other members of the scientific community has now been addressed to the journals: clean up your act or you may find legislators getting into it.”—The AAAS Observer, July 7, 1989.
Fraud in Science—Why It’s on the Increase
“The competition is savage. Winners reap monumental rewards; losers face oblivion. It’s an atmosphere in which an illicit shortcut is sometimes irresistible—not least because the Establishment is frequently squeamish about confronting wrongdoing.” So opened the article “Publish or Perish—or Fake It” in U.S.News & World Report. To escape perishing, many scientific researchers are faking it.
The pressure on scientists to publish in scientific journals is overwhelming. The longer the list of published papers to the researcher’s name, the better his chances for employment, promotion, tenure in a university, and government grants to finance his research. The federal government “controls the largest source of research funding, $5.6 [billion]* a year from the National Institutes of Health.” (*: the article mentioned above is from 1990, so this number is also from that year)
Because “the scientific community shows little stomach for confronting its ethical dilemma,” “has been strangely reluctant to probe too deeply for hard data about its ethical conduct,” and “isn’t keen about cleaning house or even looking closely for malfeasance,” congressional committees have held hearings and considered legislation to do the job of policing for them. (New Scientist; U.S.News & World Report) This prospect wrings from scientists much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Yet, one science journal asks and answers the question: “Is the house of science clean and in order? The bit of evidence that reaches the public invites serious doubts.”
[Continued in next comment]
Some researchers eliminate data that does not support what they want to prove (called cooking); report more tests or trials than were actually run
(called trimming); appropriate for their own use data or ideas of other researchers (called plagiarism); and make up experiments or data they never
performed or produced (called forging). A cartoon in a science journal poked fun at this last tactic, one scientist talking to another and saying of a
third: ‘He’s published a lot since he took up that creative writing course.’
“What’s the major product of scientific research these days? Answer: Paper,” U.S.News & World Report said. “Hundreds of new journals are being founded each year to handle the flood of research papers cranked out by scientists who know that the road to academic success is a long list of articles to their credit.” Quantity, not quality, is the goal. Forty thousand journals published yearly produce a million articles, and part of this flood “is symptomatic of fundamental ills, including a publish-or-perish ethic among researchers that is stronger now than ever and encourages shoddy, repetitive, useless or even fraudulent work.”
A senior editor at The Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Drummond Rennie, commented on the lack of quality: “There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.”
Making Mountains out of Molehills
The publish-or-perish syndrome has made many researchers very resourceful in nursing a modest output of published articles into phenomenal numbers. They write one article, then chop it up into four smaller ones—called salami slicing in the jargon of the profession. In this way, instead of a publication credit for one article, they have four articles added to their publications list. Then they may send the same article to several journals, and each time it is published, it is counted again. More often than not, one article may show several scientists as authors, and each author adds the article to his list of published articles. A two- or three-page article may show 6, 8, 10, 12, or more authors.
On the NOVA program entitled “Do Scientists Cheat?” telecast on October 25, 1988, one scientist commented on this practice: “People are trying to get their names attached to as many publications as they possibly can, so that very commonly now you find huge teams where 16 people all sign their name to a particular publication, which probably wasn’t worth publishing in the first place. But this is part of a kind of rat race, a competitiveness, a vulgar quantitative counting mentality that is absolutely encouraged by the structure of science in the United States today.” Some listed as coauthors may have had very little to do with the article, may not even have read it, yet add the article to their list of publications. Such bloated lists influence the granting of research requests involving hundreds of thousands of dollars of public funds.
Peer Review, a Safeguard Against Fraud?
Editors of science journals often—but not always—submit papers to other scientists for review before publishing them. This practice, called peer review, theoretically weeds out erroneous and fraudulent articles. “Science is self-correcting in a way that no other field of intellectual endeavor can match,” Isaac Asimov says. “Science is self-policing in a way that no other field is.” He marveled that “scandal is so infrequent.”
But many others do not share this view. Peer review is “a lousy way to detect fraud,” said previously quoted Dr. Drummond Rennie. The American Medical News said: “Peer-reviewed journals, once regarded as almost infallible, have had to admit that they are incapable of eradicating fraud.” “Peer review has been oversold,” said a medical writer and columnist for The New York Times.
The journal Science reports that one researcher assigned to review another researcher’s paper was charged with plagiarism. He “took data from paper he peer-reviewed and used it for his own work,” according to the NIH (National Institutes of Health). Such conduct is a “violation of trust that is supposed to lie at the heart of the peer-review system,” and in this particular case, the reviewer has been declared “ineligible for future federal funding.”
“For high-octane gall in proclaiming its ethical purity, the scientific community has long been the runaway winner,” said New Scientist magazine. The highly vaunted peer-review system that theoretically screens out all the cheats is felt by many to be a farce. “The reality,” New Scientist said, “is that few scientific scoundrels are caught, but, when they are, they frequently turn out to have been running wild for years, publishing faked data in respectable journals, with no questions asked.”
Previously, an official of the NIH said, as reported in The New York Times: “I think an age of innocence has ended. In the past people assumed that scientists didn’t do this kind of thing. But people are beginning to realize that scientists are not morally superior to anybody else.” The Times report added: “Although a few years ago it was rare for the National Institutes of Health to receive one complaint a year of alleged fraud, she said, there are now at least two serious allegations a month.” Science magazine observed: “Scientists have repeatedly assured the public that fraud and misconduct in research are rare . . . And yet, significant cases seem to keep cropping up.”
The chairman of one of the congressional investigating committees, John Dingell, at one time said to scientists: “I will tell you that I find your enforcement mechanisms are hopelessly inadequate and that rascality seems to be triumphing over virtue in many incidences in a fashion that I find totally unacceptable. I hope you do too.”
The NOVA program on “Do Scientists Cheat?” concluded with this acknowledgment by one of the scientists present: “Skeletons have to come out of the closets, bureaucrats’ careers have to be impaired if that’s what it takes, and there’s no alternative. This is ethically required, this is legally required, and it’s certainly morally required.”
[continued in next comment]
“What’s the major product of scientific research these days? Answer: Paper,” U.S.News & World Report said. “Hundreds of new journals are being founded each year to handle the flood of research papers cranked out by scientists who know that the road to academic success is a long list of articles to their credit.” Quantity, not quality, is the goal. Forty thousand journals published yearly produce a million articles, and part of this flood “is symptomatic of fundamental ills, including a publish-or-perish ethic among researchers that is stronger now than ever and encourages shoddy, repetitive, useless or even fraudulent work.”
A senior editor at The Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Drummond Rennie, commented on the lack of quality: “There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.”
Making Mountains out of Molehills
The publish-or-perish syndrome has made many researchers very resourceful in nursing a modest output of published articles into phenomenal numbers. They write one article, then chop it up into four smaller ones—called salami slicing in the jargon of the profession. In this way, instead of a publication credit for one article, they have four articles added to their publications list. Then they may send the same article to several journals, and each time it is published, it is counted again. More often than not, one article may show several scientists as authors, and each author adds the article to his list of published articles. A two- or three-page article may show 6, 8, 10, 12, or more authors.
On the NOVA program entitled “Do Scientists Cheat?” telecast on October 25, 1988, one scientist commented on this practice: “People are trying to get their names attached to as many publications as they possibly can, so that very commonly now you find huge teams where 16 people all sign their name to a particular publication, which probably wasn’t worth publishing in the first place. But this is part of a kind of rat race, a competitiveness, a vulgar quantitative counting mentality that is absolutely encouraged by the structure of science in the United States today.” Some listed as coauthors may have had very little to do with the article, may not even have read it, yet add the article to their list of publications. Such bloated lists influence the granting of research requests involving hundreds of thousands of dollars of public funds.
Peer Review, a Safeguard Against Fraud?
Editors of science journals often—but not always—submit papers to other scientists for review before publishing them. This practice, called peer review, theoretically weeds out erroneous and fraudulent articles. “Science is self-correcting in a way that no other field of intellectual endeavor can match,” Isaac Asimov says. “Science is self-policing in a way that no other field is.” He marveled that “scandal is so infrequent.”
But many others do not share this view. Peer review is “a lousy way to detect fraud,” said previously quoted Dr. Drummond Rennie. The American Medical News said: “Peer-reviewed journals, once regarded as almost infallible, have had to admit that they are incapable of eradicating fraud.” “Peer review has been oversold,” said a medical writer and columnist for The New York Times.
The journal Science reports that one researcher assigned to review another researcher’s paper was charged with plagiarism. He “took data from paper he peer-reviewed and used it for his own work,” according to the NIH (National Institutes of Health). Such conduct is a “violation of trust that is supposed to lie at the heart of the peer-review system,” and in this particular case, the reviewer has been declared “ineligible for future federal funding.”
“For high-octane gall in proclaiming its ethical purity, the scientific community has long been the runaway winner,” said New Scientist magazine. The highly vaunted peer-review system that theoretically screens out all the cheats is felt by many to be a farce. “The reality,” New Scientist said, “is that few scientific scoundrels are caught, but, when they are, they frequently turn out to have been running wild for years, publishing faked data in respectable journals, with no questions asked.”
Previously, an official of the NIH said, as reported in The New York Times: “I think an age of innocence has ended. In the past people assumed that scientists didn’t do this kind of thing. But people are beginning to realize that scientists are not morally superior to anybody else.” The Times report added: “Although a few years ago it was rare for the National Institutes of Health to receive one complaint a year of alleged fraud, she said, there are now at least two serious allegations a month.” Science magazine observed: “Scientists have repeatedly assured the public that fraud and misconduct in research are rare . . . And yet, significant cases seem to keep cropping up.”
The chairman of one of the congressional investigating committees, John Dingell, at one time said to scientists: “I will tell you that I find your enforcement mechanisms are hopelessly inadequate and that rascality seems to be triumphing over virtue in many incidences in a fashion that I find totally unacceptable. I hope you do too.”
The NOVA program on “Do Scientists Cheat?” concluded with this acknowledgment by one of the scientists present: “Skeletons have to come out of the closets, bureaucrats’ careers have to be impaired if that’s what it takes, and there’s no alternative. This is ethically required, this is legally required, and it’s certainly morally required.”
[continued in next comment]
Fraud in Science—A Greater Fraud
Fraud is defined as “an act of deceiving or misrepresenting.” It is the “intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value.”—Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.
“Evolution is a fact.” This is the standard confession of faith that assures the scientific community of your orthodoxy. And for public consumption, the claim is often added: ‘It has been proved so often that there is no longer a need to repeat the proof.’ Very convenient, especially since the evolutionist has no proof to repeat. Yet, for years the statement has been made again and again, like some mystical chant: “Evolution is a fact.”
In April 1989, in a book review in The New York Times Book Review magazine, biologist Richard Dawkins wrote: “We are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt.” He then said that to consider creation “in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay on evolution in the January 1987 issue of the science magazine Discover. Intent on overkill, in this five-page article he proclaimed evolution to be a fact 12 times! Excerpts from the article follow:
Darwin’s lifework was “establishing the fact of evolution.” “The fact of evolution is as well established as anything in science (as secure as the revolution of the earth about the sun).” By the time of Darwin’s death, “nearly all thinking people came to accept the fact of evolution.” Gould spoke of it as “secure fact” and “the fact of transmutation.” “Evolution is also a fact of nature.” “Evolution is as well established as any scientific fact.” “Our confidence in the fact of evolution rests upon copious data.” He speaks of biologists’ agreement “about the fact of evolution.” “Theologians haven’t been troubled by the fact of evolution.” “I know hundreds of scientists who share a conviction about the fact of evolution.”
At one point in the article, Gould said: “I don’t want to sound like a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys,’ but biologists have reached a consensus . . . about the fact of evolution.” But really, does that not sound like “a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys’”?
Molecular biologist Michael Denton referred to this glib talk about evolution’s being a fact and dismissed it with these words: “Now of course such claims are simply nonsense.” It’s much more than nonsense. It’s fraud. It deceives and misrepresents. It perverts the truth to induce another to part with something of value. Newspapers, radio, TV, nature series, science programs, schoolbooks from second grade on—all drum this evolution-is-a-fact litany into the public mind. More recently, however, The New York Times reported that California’s school board has issued guidelines for science textbooks that apparently de-emphasize teaching evolution as a fact.—November 10, 1989.
It copies the tactics of the chief priests and the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. When officers sent out to arrest Jesus came back without him, the Pharisees demanded: “‘Why is it you did not bring him in?’ The officers replied: ‘Never has another man spoken like this.’ In turn the Pharisees answered: ‘You have not been misled also, have you? Not one of the rulers or of the Pharisees has put faith in him, has he? But this crowd that does not know the Law are accursed people.’” (John 7:45-49) The tyranny of authority: ‘None of the important people, none of the educated people, accept Jesus as Messiah. Only the stupid accursed ones do.’
Evolutionists today use the same Pharisaic approach: ‘Believe as we do,’ they say. ‘All competent scientists believe evolution. All intelligent people believe it. Only the uneducated and the ignorant don’t believe it.’ By such intimidation and mental bullying, masses of people are herded into the evolutionists’ camp. They know nothing of the weaknesses and inadequacies of evolutionary theory or its unsound speculations and hypothesized impossibilities—such as the origin of life from inanimate chemicals.* So they are swept along by the repetitious mantras recited by evolution’s propagandizers. The theory becomes dogma, its preachers become arrogant, and dissenters reap disdainful abuse. The tactics work. They did in Jesus’ day; they do today.
This four-word propaganda line, ‘Evolution is a fact,’ is little (little in content), is a simple sentence (easily said), and is repeated persistently (even 12 times in one short essay). It qualifies as effective brainwashing propaganda, and with repetition it reaches the status of a slogan—and slogans everywhere repeated are soon programmed into brains and tripped off tongues with little critical examination or skeptical dissection. Once a theory has been sloganized into community thinking, it no longer requires proof, and any who dissent are scorned. If such dissenters present rational refutation of the slogan’s validity, they are especially irritating and subjected to the only available response, namely, ridicule.
Evolutionists that specialize in the Big Lie that ‘Evolution is a fact’ also take another leaf out of Hitler’s book, for in it he said of the masses he controlled: “With the primitive simplicity of their minds they will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one, since they themselves perhaps also lie sometimes in little things, but would certainly still be too much ashamed of too great lies.” A book of popular quotations lists this one among them: “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it often enough, many will believe it.” The one evolutionists tell is apparently big enough, and it’s certainly told often enough, for millions believe it.
It is a lie that is also a fraud because it is “an act of deceiving or misrepresenting,” an “intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value.” Teaching that man’s ancestors are animals, starting with some microbe and ending with some ape, evolutionists have “exchanged the truth of God for the lie.” By this lie, they induce many to part with something of great value—their faith in God as their Creator.—Romans 1:25.
This fraud does terrible damage. Its victims feel freed from the Creator’s laws, and they become a law to themselves: ‘No right or wrong. Fulfill all fleshly desires. Do your own thing. No need for any guilt trips.’ Enter the moral breakdown, unrestrained and full-blown. Parted from their Creator and the true values of the Bible, they become spiritually impoverished and end up “like unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed.”—2 Peter 2:12.
[Footnote from earlier]
See Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?, chapter 4; or the relevant videos in the playlist I shared in my first comment concerning “Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories”.
“Propaganda will not lead to success unless a fundamental principle is considered with continually sharp attention: it has to confine itself to little and to repeat this eternally. Here, too, persistency, as in so many other things in this world, is the first and the most important condition for success. . . . The masses . . . will lend their memories only to the thousandfold repetition of the most simple ideas. A change must never alter the content of what is being brought forth by propaganda, but in the end it always has to say the same. Thus the slogan has to be illuminated from various sides, but the end of every reflection has always and again to be the slogan itself.”—Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler.
The Big-Lie Propaganda
“As to the fact of evolution there is universal assent.”—Limitations of Science, 1933.
“Evolution as a historical fact was proved beyond reasonable doubt not later than in the closing decades of the nineteenth century.”—The Biological Basis of Human Freedom, 1956.
“The evolution of life is no longer a theory. It is a fact.”—Julian Huxley, 1959.
“All reputable biologists have agreed that the evolution of life on the earth is an established fact.”—Biology for You, 1963.
“Anyone who is exposed to the evidence supporting evolution must recognize it as an historical fact.”—The New Orleans Times-Picayune, 1964.
“Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority.”—James D. Watson, 1965.
“Evolution has, by now, the status of fact.”—Science on Trial, 1983.
“What we do have is incontrovertible proof of the fact of evolution.”—Ashley Montagu, 1984.
[continued in next comment]
Fraud is defined as “an act of deceiving or misrepresenting.” It is the “intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value.”—Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.
“Evolution is a fact.” This is the standard confession of faith that assures the scientific community of your orthodoxy. And for public consumption, the claim is often added: ‘It has been proved so often that there is no longer a need to repeat the proof.’ Very convenient, especially since the evolutionist has no proof to repeat. Yet, for years the statement has been made again and again, like some mystical chant: “Evolution is a fact.”
In April 1989, in a book review in The New York Times Book Review magazine, biologist Richard Dawkins wrote: “We are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt.” He then said that to consider creation “in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay on evolution in the January 1987 issue of the science magazine Discover. Intent on overkill, in this five-page article he proclaimed evolution to be a fact 12 times! Excerpts from the article follow:
Darwin’s lifework was “establishing the fact of evolution.” “The fact of evolution is as well established as anything in science (as secure as the revolution of the earth about the sun).” By the time of Darwin’s death, “nearly all thinking people came to accept the fact of evolution.” Gould spoke of it as “secure fact” and “the fact of transmutation.” “Evolution is also a fact of nature.” “Evolution is as well established as any scientific fact.” “Our confidence in the fact of evolution rests upon copious data.” He speaks of biologists’ agreement “about the fact of evolution.” “Theologians haven’t been troubled by the fact of evolution.” “I know hundreds of scientists who share a conviction about the fact of evolution.”
At one point in the article, Gould said: “I don’t want to sound like a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys,’ but biologists have reached a consensus . . . about the fact of evolution.” But really, does that not sound like “a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys’”?
Molecular biologist Michael Denton referred to this glib talk about evolution’s being a fact and dismissed it with these words: “Now of course such claims are simply nonsense.” It’s much more than nonsense. It’s fraud. It deceives and misrepresents. It perverts the truth to induce another to part with something of value. Newspapers, radio, TV, nature series, science programs, schoolbooks from second grade on—all drum this evolution-is-a-fact litany into the public mind. More recently, however, The New York Times reported that California’s school board has issued guidelines for science textbooks that apparently de-emphasize teaching evolution as a fact.—November 10, 1989.
It copies the tactics of the chief priests and the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. When officers sent out to arrest Jesus came back without him, the Pharisees demanded: “‘Why is it you did not bring him in?’ The officers replied: ‘Never has another man spoken like this.’ In turn the Pharisees answered: ‘You have not been misled also, have you? Not one of the rulers or of the Pharisees has put faith in him, has he? But this crowd that does not know the Law are accursed people.’” (John 7:45-49) The tyranny of authority: ‘None of the important people, none of the educated people, accept Jesus as Messiah. Only the stupid accursed ones do.’
Evolutionists today use the same Pharisaic approach: ‘Believe as we do,’ they say. ‘All competent scientists believe evolution. All intelligent people believe it. Only the uneducated and the ignorant don’t believe it.’ By such intimidation and mental bullying, masses of people are herded into the evolutionists’ camp. They know nothing of the weaknesses and inadequacies of evolutionary theory or its unsound speculations and hypothesized impossibilities—such as the origin of life from inanimate chemicals.* So they are swept along by the repetitious mantras recited by evolution’s propagandizers. The theory becomes dogma, its preachers become arrogant, and dissenters reap disdainful abuse. The tactics work. They did in Jesus’ day; they do today.
This four-word propaganda line, ‘Evolution is a fact,’ is little (little in content), is a simple sentence (easily said), and is repeated persistently (even 12 times in one short essay). It qualifies as effective brainwashing propaganda, and with repetition it reaches the status of a slogan—and slogans everywhere repeated are soon programmed into brains and tripped off tongues with little critical examination or skeptical dissection. Once a theory has been sloganized into community thinking, it no longer requires proof, and any who dissent are scorned. If such dissenters present rational refutation of the slogan’s validity, they are especially irritating and subjected to the only available response, namely, ridicule.
Evolutionists that specialize in the Big Lie that ‘Evolution is a fact’ also take another leaf out of Hitler’s book, for in it he said of the masses he controlled: “With the primitive simplicity of their minds they will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one, since they themselves perhaps also lie sometimes in little things, but would certainly still be too much ashamed of too great lies.” A book of popular quotations lists this one among them: “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it often enough, many will believe it.” The one evolutionists tell is apparently big enough, and it’s certainly told often enough, for millions believe it.
It is a lie that is also a fraud because it is “an act of deceiving or misrepresenting,” an “intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value.” Teaching that man’s ancestors are animals, starting with some microbe and ending with some ape, evolutionists have “exchanged the truth of God for the lie.” By this lie, they induce many to part with something of great value—their faith in God as their Creator.—Romans 1:25.
This fraud does terrible damage. Its victims feel freed from the Creator’s laws, and they become a law to themselves: ‘No right or wrong. Fulfill all fleshly desires. Do your own thing. No need for any guilt trips.’ Enter the moral breakdown, unrestrained and full-blown. Parted from their Creator and the true values of the Bible, they become spiritually impoverished and end up “like unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed.”—2 Peter 2:12.
[Footnote from earlier]
See Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?, chapter 4; or the relevant videos in the playlist I shared in my first comment concerning “Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories”.
“Propaganda will not lead to success unless a fundamental principle is considered with continually sharp attention: it has to confine itself to little and to repeat this eternally. Here, too, persistency, as in so many other things in this world, is the first and the most important condition for success. . . . The masses . . . will lend their memories only to the thousandfold repetition of the most simple ideas. A change must never alter the content of what is being brought forth by propaganda, but in the end it always has to say the same. Thus the slogan has to be illuminated from various sides, but the end of every reflection has always and again to be the slogan itself.”—Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler.
The Big-Lie Propaganda
“As to the fact of evolution there is universal assent.”—Limitations of Science, 1933.
“Evolution as a historical fact was proved beyond reasonable doubt not later than in the closing decades of the nineteenth century.”—The Biological Basis of Human Freedom, 1956.
“The evolution of life is no longer a theory. It is a fact.”—Julian Huxley, 1959.
“All reputable biologists have agreed that the evolution of life on the earth is an established fact.”—Biology for You, 1963.
“Anyone who is exposed to the evidence supporting evolution must recognize it as an historical fact.”—The New Orleans Times-Picayune, 1964.
“Today, the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority.”—James D. Watson, 1965.
“Evolution has, by now, the status of fact.”—Science on Trial, 1983.
“What we do have is incontrovertible proof of the fact of evolution.”—Ashley Montagu, 1984.
[continued in next comment]
Fraud in Science—The Greatest Fraud of All
Evolutionists say: ‘Evolution is a fact; God is a myth.’ They have proof for neither, but prejudice needs no proof.
PRIVATE PROPERTY. Keep Out. This Means You, God! Evolutionists post the subject of biology and tell God to stay out of it. ‘All competent scientists believe evolution,’ they say. Which also says, in effect: ‘Scientists who do not believe are incompetent; they lack our expertise.’ As for God, they say he has no place in scientific thinking. Moreover, even his existence is not provable.
This glib dismissal of God is the greatest fraud of all.
The New Biology, by Robert Augros and George Stanciu, highlights on page 188 some of the statements of prominent scientists who brush God aside: “The common opinion holds that Darwin rid biology of the need for God once and for all. Eldredge says, Darwin ‘taught us that we can understand life’s history in purely naturalistic terms, without recourse to the supernatural or divine.’ Julian Huxley said: ‘Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as a creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion.’ Jacob writes: ‘The idea that each species was separately designed by a Creator, was demolished by Darwin.’ And Simpson writes of the origin of the first organism: ‘There is, at any rate, no reason to postulate a miracle. Nor is it necessary to suppose that the origin of the new processes of reproduction and mutation was anything but materialistic.’”
‘But does not this leave life on earth without a Creator-Designer?’ you ask. ‘None needed,’ evolutionists answer. ‘It is in the lap of chance. Blind chance is the designer. We call it Natural Selection.’
But the more we learn, the more design we see. The input of intelligence and wisdom is staggering. Is it not too much for blind, unthinking, brainless chance to handle? Consider just a few of the hundreds of devices in nature that reflect creative wisdom—which human inventors have frequently copied.
The aerodynamics of the wings of birds preceded by millenniums the inferior design found in the wings of planes. The chambered nautilus and the cuttlefish use flotation tanks to maintain buoyancy at whatever depth they swim, much more efficiently than modern submarines do. The octopus and the squid are masters of jet propulsion. Bats and dolphins are experts with sonar. Several reptiles and seabirds have their own built-in “desalination plants” that enable them to drink seawater. Some microscopic bacteria have rotary motors that they can run forward and in reverse.
By ingeniously designed nests and by their use of water, termites air-condition their homes. Insects, microscopic plants, fish, and trees use their own form of “antifreeze.” Small fractions of degrees of temperature change are sensed by the built-in thermometers of some snakes, mosquitoes, mallee birds, and brush turkeys. Hornets, wasps, and yellow jackets make paper. Sponges, fungi, bacteria, glowworms, insects, fish—all produce cold light, often in color. Many migrating birds apparently have in their heads compasses, maps, and biological clocks. Water beetles and spiders use scuba gear and diving bells.*
To come up with all this design and instinctive wisdom demands an intelligence far beyond man’s. (Proverbs 30:24) But some of the most amazing examples are to be found in the world of the infinitely small—where evolutionists hoped to see the simple beginning of life to start evolution on its upward climb to the obviously complex designs everywhere—including us. Simple beginning? No such thing! Consider the complexities reflecting intelligent design in the tiniest cells. (again I refer you back to the playlist from my 1st comment and in particular concerning the subject of biomolecular machinery)
The New Biology says on page 30: “The average cell carries out hundreds of chemical reactions every second and can reproduce itself every twenty minutes or so. Yet all this occurs on such a tiny scale: over 500 bacteria could fit into the area occupied by the period at the end of this sentence. [Biologist François] Jacob marvels at the minute laboratory of the bacterial cell, which ‘carries out some two thousand distinct reactions with incomparable skill, in the smallest space imaginable. These two thousand reactions diverge and converge at top speed, without ever becoming tangled.’”
The Center of Life—A Natural History of the Cell, by L. L. Larison Cudmore, says on pages 13, 14: “Just a single cell could make weapons, catch food, digest it, get rid of wastes, move around, build houses, engage in sexual activity straightforward or bizarre. These creatures are still around. The protists—organisms complete and entire, yet made up of just a single cell with many talents, but with no tissues, no organs, no hearts and no minds—really have everything we’ve got.”
The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins, on page 116 comments on the amount of information stored in a single cell: “There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopædia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopædia Britannicas.”
Molecular biologist Michael Denton writes in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, page 250: “Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than [one trillionth of a gram], each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.
“Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells. In terms of their basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.”
George Greenstein acknowledges all this intelligence involved in the earth’s structure. In his book The Symbiotic Universe, he speaks of the mysterious and incredible series of coincidences that are beyond explaining, coincidences without which life on earth would be impossible. The following statements, appearing throughout pages 21-8, reflect his agonizing over conditions that bespeak the need for an intelligent and purposeful God:
“I believe that we are faced with a mystery—a great and profound mystery, and one of immense significance: the mystery of the habitability of the cosmos, of the fitness of the environment.” He sets out “to detail what can only seem to be an astonishing sequence of stupendous and unlikely accidents that paved the way for life’s emergence.* There is a list of coincidences, all of them essential to our existence.” Yet “the list kept getting longer . . . So many coincidences! The more I read, the more I became convinced that such ‘coincidences’ could hardly have happened by chance.” A shattering fact for an evolutionist to face up to, as he next acknowledges:
“But as this conviction grew, something else grew as well. Even now it is difficult to express this ‘something’ in words. It was an intense revulsion, and at times it was almost physical in nature. I would positively squirm with discomfort. The very thought that the fitness of the cosmos for life might be a mystery requiring solution struck me as ludicrous, absurd. I found it difficult to entertain the notion without grimacing in disgust . . . Nor has this reaction faded over the years: I have had to struggle against it incessantly during the writing of this book. I am sure that the same reaction is at work within every other scientist, and that it is this which accounts for the widespread indifference accorded the idea at present. And more than that: I now believe that what appears as indifference in fact masks an intense antagonism.”
What antagonism? Antagonism to the thought that the explanation might lie in a purposeful Creator. As Greenstein expresses it: “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially drafted the cosmos for our benefit?” But Greenstein recovers from such heretical thinking and reasserts his orthodoxy to the evolutionary religion, reciting one of their creedal dogmas: “God is not an explanation.”
Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in his book The Intelligent Universe, on page 9, talks about those, like Greenstein, who fear God’s entering the picture: “Orthodox scientists are more concerned with preventing a return to the religious excesses of the past than in looking forward to the truth [and this concern] has dominated scientific thought throughout the past century.”
In his book he then discusses these same mysterious features that trouble Greenstein. “Such properties,” he says, “seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of happy accidents. But there are so many of these odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them.” Both Hoyle and Greenstein say chance cannot explain these many “accidental coincidences.” Hoyle then says that to account for them, ‘the origin of the universe requires an intelligence,’ an ‘intelligence on a higher plane,’ ‘an intelligence that preceded us and that led to a deliberate act of creation of structures suitable for life.’
None of this is to be taken as saying that Hoyle is thinking of the God of the Bible, but he does see that behind the universe and the earth and life on it, there must be a tremendous supernatural intelligence. While he does say that “‘God’ is a forbidden word in science,” he allows that we might “define an intelligence superior to ourselves as a deity.” He speculates that “through our own minds’ pre-programmed condition,” there might be “a connecting chain of intelligence, extending downward . . . to humans upon the Earth.”
“There are plenty of indications,” he says, “that this might be so. The restlessness within us is one such hint. It is as if we have an instinctive perception that there is something important for us to carry out. The restlessness comes because we have not been able to discover as yet exactly what its nature is.” Elsewhere he says: “The religious impulse appears to be unique to man . . . Stripped of the many fanciful adornments with which religion has become traditionally surrounded, does it not amount to an instruction within us that expressed rather simply might read as follows: You are derived from something ‘out there’ in the sky. Seek it, and you will find much more than you expect.”
Man is groping. What he gropes for without realizing it is the Biblical truth that we are created in the image and likeness of God, meaning we have a measure of such attributes of God as wisdom, love, power, justice, purpose, and other qualities that account for the great gulf between people and animals. Our minds are preprogrammed for such divine attributes and for the true worship of God. Until these several attributes are in proper balance and a connection is made with God through prayer and his true worship, the restlessness will remain. When these spiritual needs we were created with are fulfilled, the restlessness will give way to “the peace of God that excels all thought.”—Philippians 4:7; Genesis 1:26-28.
Acts 17:27, 28 recommends this groping, namely, “for them to seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us. For by him we have life and move and exist.” It is by him, the Creator of the universe, including earth and us upon it, that we live and move and exist. Shedding the adornments and false doctrines of orthodox religions—which religions have turned millions away from God, including many scientists—and following the true worship of Jehovah God, we will gain life everlasting in a paradise earth, which was Jehovah’s purpose in creating the earth in the first place.—Genesis 2:15; Isaiah 45:18; Luke 23:43; John 17:3.
It takes tremendous credulity to think that intelligence of this magnitude resides in blind, brainless chance. It is a faith comparable to that of the pagan religionists of the prophet Isaiah’s time: “But you men are those leaving Jehovah, those forgetting my holy mountain, those setting in order a table for the god of Good Luck and those filling up mixed wine for the god of Destiny.” (Isaiah 65:11) Evolutionists look to millions of “lucky” chances to produce man from rock, but they haven’t got off the ground to reach the first rung of their evolutionary ladder. Their “god of Good Luck” is a bruised reed.
Fred Hoyle feels an ominous foreboding in all of this: “Another point nagging me is a conviction that the window of opportunity for the human species may be very narrow in time. High technology is necessary to open the window, but high technology on its own, without establishing a relation between our species to the world outside the Earth, may well be a path to self-destruction. If on occasions in this book my opposition to the Darwinian theory has seemed fierce, it is because of my feeling that a society oriented by that theory is very likely set upon a self-destruct course.”
Alice, in the tale Through the Looking-Glass, incredulous at the strange logic of the White Queen, could only laugh. “There’s no use trying,” she said. “One can’t believe impossible things.” The queen responded: “I dare say you haven’t had much practice. When I was your age I did it for half an hour a day. Why sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
Evolutionists are the White Queens of today. They have had infinite practice in believing impossible things.
[Footnotes]
See chapter 12 of Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?.
Distances between stars; resonance of subatomic particles and atoms to form carbon; equal and opposite charges of electron and proton; unique and anomalous properties of water; frequencies of sunlight and absorption frequencies required for photosynthesis; the separation between sun and earth; three dimensions of space, no more, no less; and others.
Evolutionists say: ‘Evolution is a fact; God is a myth.’ They have proof for neither, but prejudice needs no proof.
PRIVATE PROPERTY. Keep Out. This Means You, God! Evolutionists post the subject of biology and tell God to stay out of it. ‘All competent scientists believe evolution,’ they say. Which also says, in effect: ‘Scientists who do not believe are incompetent; they lack our expertise.’ As for God, they say he has no place in scientific thinking. Moreover, even his existence is not provable.
This glib dismissal of God is the greatest fraud of all.
The New Biology, by Robert Augros and George Stanciu, highlights on page 188 some of the statements of prominent scientists who brush God aside: “The common opinion holds that Darwin rid biology of the need for God once and for all. Eldredge says, Darwin ‘taught us that we can understand life’s history in purely naturalistic terms, without recourse to the supernatural or divine.’ Julian Huxley said: ‘Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as a creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion.’ Jacob writes: ‘The idea that each species was separately designed by a Creator, was demolished by Darwin.’ And Simpson writes of the origin of the first organism: ‘There is, at any rate, no reason to postulate a miracle. Nor is it necessary to suppose that the origin of the new processes of reproduction and mutation was anything but materialistic.’”
‘But does not this leave life on earth without a Creator-Designer?’ you ask. ‘None needed,’ evolutionists answer. ‘It is in the lap of chance. Blind chance is the designer. We call it Natural Selection.’
But the more we learn, the more design we see. The input of intelligence and wisdom is staggering. Is it not too much for blind, unthinking, brainless chance to handle? Consider just a few of the hundreds of devices in nature that reflect creative wisdom—which human inventors have frequently copied.
The aerodynamics of the wings of birds preceded by millenniums the inferior design found in the wings of planes. The chambered nautilus and the cuttlefish use flotation tanks to maintain buoyancy at whatever depth they swim, much more efficiently than modern submarines do. The octopus and the squid are masters of jet propulsion. Bats and dolphins are experts with sonar. Several reptiles and seabirds have their own built-in “desalination plants” that enable them to drink seawater. Some microscopic bacteria have rotary motors that they can run forward and in reverse.
By ingeniously designed nests and by their use of water, termites air-condition their homes. Insects, microscopic plants, fish, and trees use their own form of “antifreeze.” Small fractions of degrees of temperature change are sensed by the built-in thermometers of some snakes, mosquitoes, mallee birds, and brush turkeys. Hornets, wasps, and yellow jackets make paper. Sponges, fungi, bacteria, glowworms, insects, fish—all produce cold light, often in color. Many migrating birds apparently have in their heads compasses, maps, and biological clocks. Water beetles and spiders use scuba gear and diving bells.*
To come up with all this design and instinctive wisdom demands an intelligence far beyond man’s. (Proverbs 30:24) But some of the most amazing examples are to be found in the world of the infinitely small—where evolutionists hoped to see the simple beginning of life to start evolution on its upward climb to the obviously complex designs everywhere—including us. Simple beginning? No such thing! Consider the complexities reflecting intelligent design in the tiniest cells. (again I refer you back to the playlist from my 1st comment and in particular concerning the subject of biomolecular machinery)
The New Biology says on page 30: “The average cell carries out hundreds of chemical reactions every second and can reproduce itself every twenty minutes or so. Yet all this occurs on such a tiny scale: over 500 bacteria could fit into the area occupied by the period at the end of this sentence. [Biologist François] Jacob marvels at the minute laboratory of the bacterial cell, which ‘carries out some two thousand distinct reactions with incomparable skill, in the smallest space imaginable. These two thousand reactions diverge and converge at top speed, without ever becoming tangled.’”
The Center of Life—A Natural History of the Cell, by L. L. Larison Cudmore, says on pages 13, 14: “Just a single cell could make weapons, catch food, digest it, get rid of wastes, move around, build houses, engage in sexual activity straightforward or bizarre. These creatures are still around. The protists—organisms complete and entire, yet made up of just a single cell with many talents, but with no tissues, no organs, no hearts and no minds—really have everything we’ve got.”
The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins, on page 116 comments on the amount of information stored in a single cell: “There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopædia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopædia Britannicas.”
Molecular biologist Michael Denton writes in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, page 250: “Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than [one trillionth of a gram], each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.
“Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells. In terms of their basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.”
George Greenstein acknowledges all this intelligence involved in the earth’s structure. In his book The Symbiotic Universe, he speaks of the mysterious and incredible series of coincidences that are beyond explaining, coincidences without which life on earth would be impossible. The following statements, appearing throughout pages 21-8, reflect his agonizing over conditions that bespeak the need for an intelligent and purposeful God:
“I believe that we are faced with a mystery—a great and profound mystery, and one of immense significance: the mystery of the habitability of the cosmos, of the fitness of the environment.” He sets out “to detail what can only seem to be an astonishing sequence of stupendous and unlikely accidents that paved the way for life’s emergence.* There is a list of coincidences, all of them essential to our existence.” Yet “the list kept getting longer . . . So many coincidences! The more I read, the more I became convinced that such ‘coincidences’ could hardly have happened by chance.” A shattering fact for an evolutionist to face up to, as he next acknowledges:
“But as this conviction grew, something else grew as well. Even now it is difficult to express this ‘something’ in words. It was an intense revulsion, and at times it was almost physical in nature. I would positively squirm with discomfort. The very thought that the fitness of the cosmos for life might be a mystery requiring solution struck me as ludicrous, absurd. I found it difficult to entertain the notion without grimacing in disgust . . . Nor has this reaction faded over the years: I have had to struggle against it incessantly during the writing of this book. I am sure that the same reaction is at work within every other scientist, and that it is this which accounts for the widespread indifference accorded the idea at present. And more than that: I now believe that what appears as indifference in fact masks an intense antagonism.”
What antagonism? Antagonism to the thought that the explanation might lie in a purposeful Creator. As Greenstein expresses it: “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially drafted the cosmos for our benefit?” But Greenstein recovers from such heretical thinking and reasserts his orthodoxy to the evolutionary religion, reciting one of their creedal dogmas: “God is not an explanation.”
Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in his book The Intelligent Universe, on page 9, talks about those, like Greenstein, who fear God’s entering the picture: “Orthodox scientists are more concerned with preventing a return to the religious excesses of the past than in looking forward to the truth [and this concern] has dominated scientific thought throughout the past century.”
In his book he then discusses these same mysterious features that trouble Greenstein. “Such properties,” he says, “seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of happy accidents. But there are so many of these odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them.” Both Hoyle and Greenstein say chance cannot explain these many “accidental coincidences.” Hoyle then says that to account for them, ‘the origin of the universe requires an intelligence,’ an ‘intelligence on a higher plane,’ ‘an intelligence that preceded us and that led to a deliberate act of creation of structures suitable for life.’
None of this is to be taken as saying that Hoyle is thinking of the God of the Bible, but he does see that behind the universe and the earth and life on it, there must be a tremendous supernatural intelligence. While he does say that “‘God’ is a forbidden word in science,” he allows that we might “define an intelligence superior to ourselves as a deity.” He speculates that “through our own minds’ pre-programmed condition,” there might be “a connecting chain of intelligence, extending downward . . . to humans upon the Earth.”
“There are plenty of indications,” he says, “that this might be so. The restlessness within us is one such hint. It is as if we have an instinctive perception that there is something important for us to carry out. The restlessness comes because we have not been able to discover as yet exactly what its nature is.” Elsewhere he says: “The religious impulse appears to be unique to man . . . Stripped of the many fanciful adornments with which religion has become traditionally surrounded, does it not amount to an instruction within us that expressed rather simply might read as follows: You are derived from something ‘out there’ in the sky. Seek it, and you will find much more than you expect.”
Man is groping. What he gropes for without realizing it is the Biblical truth that we are created in the image and likeness of God, meaning we have a measure of such attributes of God as wisdom, love, power, justice, purpose, and other qualities that account for the great gulf between people and animals. Our minds are preprogrammed for such divine attributes and for the true worship of God. Until these several attributes are in proper balance and a connection is made with God through prayer and his true worship, the restlessness will remain. When these spiritual needs we were created with are fulfilled, the restlessness will give way to “the peace of God that excels all thought.”—Philippians 4:7; Genesis 1:26-28.
Acts 17:27, 28 recommends this groping, namely, “for them to seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us. For by him we have life and move and exist.” It is by him, the Creator of the universe, including earth and us upon it, that we live and move and exist. Shedding the adornments and false doctrines of orthodox religions—which religions have turned millions away from God, including many scientists—and following the true worship of Jehovah God, we will gain life everlasting in a paradise earth, which was Jehovah’s purpose in creating the earth in the first place.—Genesis 2:15; Isaiah 45:18; Luke 23:43; John 17:3.
It takes tremendous credulity to think that intelligence of this magnitude resides in blind, brainless chance. It is a faith comparable to that of the pagan religionists of the prophet Isaiah’s time: “But you men are those leaving Jehovah, those forgetting my holy mountain, those setting in order a table for the god of Good Luck and those filling up mixed wine for the god of Destiny.” (Isaiah 65:11) Evolutionists look to millions of “lucky” chances to produce man from rock, but they haven’t got off the ground to reach the first rung of their evolutionary ladder. Their “god of Good Luck” is a bruised reed.
Fred Hoyle feels an ominous foreboding in all of this: “Another point nagging me is a conviction that the window of opportunity for the human species may be very narrow in time. High technology is necessary to open the window, but high technology on its own, without establishing a relation between our species to the world outside the Earth, may well be a path to self-destruction. If on occasions in this book my opposition to the Darwinian theory has seemed fierce, it is because of my feeling that a society oriented by that theory is very likely set upon a self-destruct course.”
Alice, in the tale Through the Looking-Glass, incredulous at the strange logic of the White Queen, could only laugh. “There’s no use trying,” she said. “One can’t believe impossible things.” The queen responded: “I dare say you haven’t had much practice. When I was your age I did it for half an hour a day. Why sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
Evolutionists are the White Queens of today. They have had infinite practice in believing impossible things.
[Footnotes]
See chapter 12 of Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?.
Distances between stars; resonance of subatomic particles and atoms to form carbon; equal and opposite charges of electron and proton; unique and anomalous properties of water; frequencies of sunlight and absorption frequencies required for photosynthesis; the separation between sun and earth; three dimensions of space, no more, no less; and others.
originally posted by: whereislogic
...
But the more we learn, the more design we see. The input of intelligence and wisdom is staggering. Is it not too much for blind, unthinking, brainless chance to handle? Consider just a few of the hundreds of devices in nature that reflect creative wisdom—which human inventors have frequently copied.
The aerodynamics of the wings of birds preceded by millenniums the inferior design found in the wings of planes. The chambered nautilus and the cuttlefish use flotation tanks to maintain buoyancy at whatever depth they swim, much more efficiently than modern submarines do. The octopus and the squid are masters of jet propulsion. Bats and dolphins are experts with sonar. Several reptiles and seabirds have their own built-in “desalination plants” that enable them to drink seawater. Some microscopic bacteria have rotary motors that they can run forward and in reverse.
...
Some more examples from the playlist in the 1st comment:
new topics
-
France gives Ukraine license to fire long-range missiles at Russia
World War Three: 30 minutes ago -
Stalker 2 - Review from a Veteran
Video Games: 3 hours ago -
Does anyone have a link to download apple pay for androids
General Chit Chat: 4 hours ago -
Most INSANE internet rabbit hole
Secret Societies: 4 hours ago -
Joe Rogan conspiracy (maybe)
ATS Skunk Works: 8 hours ago -
Results of the use of the Oreshnik missile system in Dnepropetrovsk
World War Three: 10 hours ago
top topics
-
Results of the use of the Oreshnik missile system in Dnepropetrovsk
World War Three: 10 hours ago, 14 flags -
Most INSANE internet rabbit hole
Secret Societies: 4 hours ago, 8 flags -
Nigel Farage now the Most Favoured UK Politician
Regional Politics: 12 hours ago, 4 flags -
Joe Rogan conspiracy (maybe)
ATS Skunk Works: 8 hours ago, 4 flags -
Stalker 2 - Review from a Veteran
Video Games: 3 hours ago, 2 flags -
France gives Ukraine license to fire long-range missiles at Russia
World War Three: 30 minutes ago, 2 flags -
Does anyone have a link to download apple pay for androids
General Chit Chat: 4 hours ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
Post A Funny (T&C Friendly) Pic Part IV: The LOL awakens!
General Chit Chat • 7817 • : underpass61 -
Joe Rogan conspiracy (maybe)
ATS Skunk Works • 7 • : TruthJava -
Results of the use of the Oreshnik missile system in Dnepropetrovsk
World War Three • 165 • : RickyD -
France gives Ukraine license to fire long-range missiles at Russia
World War Three • 0 • : Imhere -
Most INSANE internet rabbit hole
Secret Societies • 3 • : DontTreadOnMe -
Inca stone masonry at Sacsayhuaman, Ollantaytambo and the Sun Temple
Ancient & Lost Civilizations • 10 • : Hansllune -
Jaguar Rebrand Video Causes "WTF?" Moment - Seriously Weird
Automotive Discussion • 28 • : KnowItAllKnowNothin -
Does anyone have a link to download apple pay for androids
General Chit Chat • 8 • : tamusan -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3361 • : xuenchen -
President-Elect TRUMP Picks Former Florida A.G. PAM BONDI to be U.S. Attorney General.
2024 Elections • 59 • : VariedcodeSole
17