Saturday, February 25, 2017

Layers of Belief: Political, Religious, and Scientific Dogma

I have submitted the following comment to the American Thinker site, to an article on the "causes of scientific decline in American academia". The article imputes the decline to Leftist beliefs and actions.:

Left (versus Right) is just the top, political, layer. Underneath that is the atheist (versus spiritual believer) religious belief system. And under that, at bottom (in the context of science and scientists), is an undirected-evolution (versus deliberate design) paradigm (or fundamental, unquestioned assumption) directing scientific research. The underlying cause of scientific decline is the miseducation of scientists, ever since Darwin, that the world as we now observe it came about through undirected physical processes alone (with, in the case of living things, the addition of an all-powerful but basically undefined "natural selection", to supply the obviously necessary direction displayed by it all; note, in the case of non-living things--the world that sustains life--scientists don't even have a "natural selection" deity to "explain" its amazing construction and harmonious working order, of land and ocean, mountains and valleys, rivers, rock of all kinds and sizes--and thus uses--and above all life-nutrient soil).

At bottom, the problem is a failing scientific paradigm, increasingly unnoticed by scientists--pursuing their unquestioned, uniformitarian evolution paradigm--for the past 130 to 160 years. I call this paradigm--which covers the non-living world, in addition to the living--the extended Darwinian paradigm. I don't even know if I invented the term or not, as I have not seen it used by other scientists for as long as I remember (nor have I gone looking for it); it comes naturally out of recognizing that earth scientists--for example, geologists--assume, just as biologists and other life scientists do, that what they observe is the result of undirected physical processes alone. The same guiding assumption, in both the life and earth sciences--and false.

Other critics of evolution can only approach this tangentially, in the context of creationism or "Intelligent Design" theory. I am the only scientist in the world who can confront it head-on, without theory, with new, revolutionary knowledge, independent of any prior belief system known to modern man, gained through dispassionate research, discovery, and verification, to the highest scientific standards for certainty, along every line of study.


  1. I appreciate your work and agree that our earth and everything on it is a result of an intelligent question would be exactly who, i.e, E.T. civilization is responsible..or possibly more than one group of advanced beings...and from where did they come?

    1. Good Evening, Anonymous,

      It is not just "AN intelligent design" (and, by the way, I maintain that "intelligent design" is a redundant description, as a design by definition requires intelligence--although I know my claim would be vehemently denied by many if not most of today's scientists, steeped as they are in the fantasy of undirected evolution; there can be no undirected evolution, for evolution also, by definition, is change in a given direction).

      The Earth involves more than one design, on more than one level of organization, or creation. I continually write that what my personal scientific research first and foremost uncovered--what I call "the Great Design of the 'gods'"--was a late (in the last 20,000 years, roughly), wholesale re-formation, not a creation, of the surface of the Earth and of the entire solar system. That discovery constitutes a new "World Order", or paradigm for studying and uncovering the real history of our world. But it is just the last of the designs imposed upon this world; long before it, was the original creations, of the world and all the things, living and non-living, that are the parts of it. Notice I wrote "creations", also, for it is not necessary to imagine a single "creation"; nor is it necessary to imagine that all of those "creations" occurred originally on our world. It is much more likely than not, that the re-formation done by the "gods" of ancient world myths was only the last in a series of more fundamental re-formations, or more generally re-constructions, of the Earth, not all of them necessarily by the same designers. Indeed, I (and readers of my book, "The End of the Mystery") know this to be the case for the "gods" themselves, as they performed a whole series of re-formations, specifically successive re-orientations of the Earth in space, that I lump together as their "Great Design".

      The many designs shown in the living things on the Earth are of a different order than the re-orientation of the world and solar system in space, or the re-formation or re-construction of these. The "Great Design of the 'gods'" indeed points back to those designs--indeed, its greatest purpose was to do just that, to show mankind that everything was the product of design, by those who came before even the "gods". This includes the ordering principles of living things (down to DNA itself, as I discussed in my book), and to the creation of the elements themselves (the atomic table of elements being thus essentially an outline of the design behind them). The other, equally great, point behind the "Great Design of the 'gods'", was that there is a realm beyond this designed, physical universe, which is the true source of all the designs, and the true home of both intelligence and its eternal subject, meaningfulness. Intelligence, capable of learning and understanding every design that makes up this material realm, is the common inheritance of all mankind.

      The logically-deduced (through the evidence provided by the existence, in Man, of coherent thought itself) existence of that higher realm--known to mankind as the "spiritual" realm--tells us the true origin of everything in the physical universe. This is why there is death: We have to go home--back to the greater reality--when the movie we are each part of here, ends, as it were.

      But that is enough for one comment.