Introduction
In this article, I’ll try to rock the boat of Science with the aim of sinking her. It seems doubtful that I can singlehandedly present sufficiently convincing material to cause Science to sink, but it seems highly likely that I can make an attempt of sinking her – and that I will have lots of fun in the process . So here we go.
Background
Contemporary Science is a religion more than anything else. Few Scientists are willing to acknowledge this fact, but it is trivial to prove:
- Religion is based on mostly unproved claims.
- Science is based on mostly unproved claims.
- Hence Science is a religion.
Furthermore, most adherents of Science are so vehement and insisting on them having sole claim on the Truth that they act, react, and non-act in a way that resembles a religious believer much more than a true scientist. For instance, given the very convincing and sensible arguments of Intelligent Design, the typical scientist reacts with scorn, despise, and even hate. Are these scientific traits? I think not. Science is all about remaining open to the possible and understanding that everything is basically possible. Science is not about rejecting, attacking, and persecuting. And that’s precisely what contemporary Science does: Rejects, attacks, and persecutes. Hence contemporary Science is not really Science at all. Contemporary Science is nothing more than yet another religion, albeit a godless one of the sort (like Buddhism).
Oh, you thought Science was about proving things? Well, it isn’t. And it hasn’t been for centuries. Contemporary Science is largely about claiming all sorts of unfounded things and then enforcing these things through the indoctrination done by the scientific outlets known as public schools. Yes, that’s right: The public schools are mostly vehicles of scientific “understanding”, not open-minded, frank, laid-back schools that instill an open, accepting sense of curiosity in its pupils.
Ever so often, even Science realizes that it has been wrong on an account. But Science has not yet realized that this is the common case, not a rare case: Most scientific discoveries throughout the past 250 years have eventually been refuted and replaced by other scientific discoveries. There’s a pattern here: If a friend of you almost always is wrong about what he says and later on patches it up to reflect new discoveries, wouldn’t you gradually come to expect of him that he’d most likely be wrong in whatever he claimed? Yes. And Science has an excellent track record of only one thing: Failing. Oh, yes, there’s been a few correct things in there (nobody has refuted the fact that apples fall to the ground yet), but the vast majority of what Science now believes is the result of previous views being refuted. If almost all the previous views were wrong, then what stops almost all the current views from being wrong?
Proving the Unproven
Now I’ve said that Science is not about proving things. I guess I should prove that claim:
- Science claims that God does not exist. Nobody has ever proven that God does not exist. (On the contrary, the very existence of the Creation (the universe) proves that God is.)
- Science claims that everything came into existence by random chance. Nobody has ever proved that anything at all came into being by random chance. (On the contrary, All is nearly infinitely as complex as a space shuttle and nobody in their right mind would claim a space shuttle was the result of a random incident.)
- Science claims that all forms of life are the result of evolution: Nobody has ever proved this. To this day, not a single piece of evidence exists that really suggests that evolution is a fact. (On the contrary, pretty much everything in Nature screams of intelligent design and a maker behind it.)
- Science claims that Earth is the only inhabited world in cosmos: Nobody has ever proved this. (On the contrary, Drake’s Equation proves that there are numerous inhabited worlds in space.)
- Science claims that telepathy does not work. Nobody has ever proven that telepathy doesn’t work. (On the contrary, we are all subject to divine telepathy in the form of inner spiritual battles.)
- Science claims that magic does not work. Nobody has ever proven that magic does not work. (On the contrary, the very Creation is itself a continued example of a very prolonged magical act.)
- Science claims (implicitly) that chaos creates. Nobody has every proven this. (On the contrary, anybody can play with dices and come to the conclusion that chaos does not create anything at all.)
There’s a pattern here: Whenever Science cannot prove X, it claims –X to be the Truth. I hope you can see how gross this is. Science ought to state clearly and frankly that it has not yet managed to prove or disprove X, but instead it claims that X does not exist. As such, Science teams up with ignorance and perhaps even with idiocy: Things that Science cannot afford if it truly wants to discover the Creation. The Creation was and is created for us to explore, understand, and cherish – not for us to define and postulate.
The Harmful Science
Now why is Science so harmful? Because Science instills people wrong notions and persecutes those who have the right notions
1. For example, believing scientists often go very quiet about their faith – or at the very least accept the wrong, flawed premised of their Atheist colleagues. People who are seriously interested in taboo topics such as God, Satan, magic, telepathy, angels, devils, etc. are persecuted intensely and offered very little in terms of payment and a base of support. Science is also harmful because it indoctrinates billions of youngsters into believing wrong, incorrect, harmful things. For instance, Materialism (the scientific-political version of Atheism) is currently harming Earth so severely that it is getting doubtful whether she’ll survive. This is a direct result of the Atheism that Science stands for.
Science is harmful because it indoctrinates billions of innocent youngsters with wrong views. For instance, the existence of telepathy and magic are largely suppressed by humanity, even if intelligent people have spent the majority of their lives exploring and documenting these things (ref. Aleister Crowley). The current “scientific” atmosphere is so that people who dabble with, or even seriously research, taboo topics are seen as and treated as mad, insane, lunatic, unintelligent, and outright stupid. Even if these people are clearly very intelligent and are also very clearly not mad. The whole thing about dismissing a possible topic simply because of the inherent dangers to one’s professional career as a scientist shows that there is a lot wrong with contemporary science. Ideally, anyone would be free to research whatever he or she fancied, with proper financial support and a reasonable amount of resources.
Science is harmful because it denies the factual existence of God and as a result of that draws a large number of directly harmful conclusions:
- “God does not exist” =>
- “Nothing really matters” =>
- “It is okay to brutalize innocent animals in schools and laboratories all over the world” AND
- “It is okay to pollute in the name of scientific and societal advancement” AND
- “It is okay to harvest money off scientific discoveries” AND
- “It is reasonable to indoctrinate the youngsters (to give them only one view)” AND
- “It is sensible to fight those who hold other opinions”.
God and Science¶
God
is. This simple, basic, eternal fact is trivial to prove: All is. The universe exists. The universe is not merely an infinitely large empty room with absolutely nothing in it. “It” (God) is full of stuff. We are, hence we were (are) created. Just like a cell phone is, hence it was created.
You may have trouble following me here, but think of this:
- A one-celled organism is about a billion times more complex than a space shuttle.
- Nobody in their right mind would claim that a space shuttle had appeared by random chance.
- So why does Science claim that one-celled organisms have appeared by random chance?
The answer is a small word that Science definitely does not like having attached to itself: Ignorance! Alternatively: Idiocy. Even though Science is far off, I prefer to believe that Science mostly is made up of sensible, intelligent persons who very deep down sincerely want to know the Truth. So I think “idiocy” is too harsh a word to use about what’s going on here. So the answer is that the scientists of today are largely ignorant of the Truth. That God is. That one-celled organisms were, and are, created by God. That everything makes endless sense once you have accepted that God is, that God creates, and that God enforces the so-called Laws of Nature.
How do we mend Science? By teaching all scientists that God is, that God continuously creates the Creation, and that God is identical to the infinitely large empty space that houses the Creation. And how do we do that? Well, given my experience with the thick headedness of humans, there’s probably no chance of teaching current scientists these things. What we could do, however, is to teach every pupil in every school all around the world these things. And that way mend the future scientists so that they won’t be as harmful as they are today.
As a matter of fact, it is outright bizarre that contemporary schools are so scientifically (Atheistically) inclined; five out of every six humans believe in God so democratically speaking, the schools ought to teach their pupils (including the aspiring scientists) that God is.
Contemporary Scientists
Most contemporary scientists are a bunch of arrogant self-obsessed hard-ass fools: They believe in all of the nonsense of their predecessors and even take the liberty of thinking themselves divinely intelligent as a result of them having memorized the lunacy that their predecessors came up with. This is exactly the same behavior you see in the religious camps around the world: Arrogant self-obsessed hard-ass fools claim to know the entire Truth and nothing but the Truth, while they are busy persecuting dissidents and preserving their own power base in their ongoing orgy of ignorance.
Contemporary Scientists are so cold-hearted and psychopathic that they again and again subject all sorts of innocent, wonderful members of the Creation to horrendous, tragic experiments in the name of Science. Take for instance my pet peeve: The innocent frogs of Earth. All over the planet these peaceful, sedate critters are being subjected to the most horrifying and sadistic scientific experiments because Science has forgotten God. Anybody who truly believes in God can, will, and must deny such experiments. Yet Science has room and time and resources to perform them.
Furthermore, basic school should teach every pupil to openly, frankly, and indefinitely admit to errors. The current mental climate on this planet is so that people are afraid of admitting errors. And hence fight for their wrong views even when they suspect or know that they are wrong. There is no shame in admitting an error: There is lots of shame in not admitting an error. And contemporary Science is largely erroneous in almost every respect. So, Science, step forward and admit that you failed in leaving out God of your views.
Science: The Origin
Let’s quickly revisit the origin of contemporary science: An English girl named Anne. She died at age 10 – all very tragic and very sad. Her death caused her father to denounce God and to create a very famous work that proposed that God was completely extraneous, which again caused many spiritually blind fools to claim that they had been right all along. The girl was Anne Darwin, daughter of Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin was a trained priest and believed in God up until the day that Anne died. Then he renounced God and undertook a gigantic project of trying to eradicate belief in God altogether: He sought revenge upon God for God having “taken” his daughter . He did so by conjuring up a mad tale about all forms of life having evolved from simple one-celled organisms . A mad tale that many saw through, but which the powers-that-be chose to propagate to the youngsters in such a way that the youngsters ended up not believing in God, which is today killing our world at an ever-increasing rate.
All that Darwin did was to tell us that the Bible (aka the Unholy Bubble) was wrong on its fictitious account of how the Creation came into being. Given the Christian (Bible-infected) views of the West, people rapidly jumped to the general conclusion that if the Bible was wrong, then God could not possibly be. This amounts to saying that if there is a spelling error in the local directory then Humanity has never been. There’s no relation between Darwin’s discovery (that God likes to unfold the Creation in an iterative, ever-more refined way) and the existence of God. None, whatsoever. But people assume there is because they make the pathetic mistake of thinking that the so-called “Word of God” (The Unholy Word of Satan) is identical to absolute, sure knowledge about God. The Word of God is in reality identical to the very creation that we live in: God “sings” it out (magically conjures it forth) continuously and everything that happens in the Creation happens because God so has permitted it to happen. Why God permits evil is not the topic of this article, but how would you choose what to do if you could not do evil? Then there’d only be one choice: The absolutely perfect and glorious choice of God. Then we’d be identical to God. And that very severely defeats the purpose of the Creation: To allow us mortals to live, choose, and die.
Epilogue
In short: Science needs to come to terms with God and redo its past Atheists “discoveries” (claims).
Well, this was just the first attempt. I’ll probably expand this article later on as it says a lot of very important things. Stuff that every scientist ought to be confronted with, forced to acknowledge, and then learn to live with. All – God = Ø. Go figure… Hints:
- All without God is the empty set. What correct conclusion can you draw from the empty set?
- All without God is an illusion without merit. What can you use an illusion without merit to?
- Being an Atheist is like being color-blind: Why should I allow you to tell me about colors?
I apologize for the short-comings of this article: I suffer from Schizophrenia and therefore have trouble writing nice, well-ordered articles. I hope somebody can use the gist of this article to write an even better one – preferably with the same title as this article so that people can get the basic idea of what I am saying.
My thoughts and prayers go out to all of the believing scientists out there: I hope you prevail.
Footnotes