Are We Blinded by Science?

It never fails to amaze me that one concept or belief can be so obvious to some people and then considered nonsense or incorrect by others. Another thing that puzzles me is that science can be considered to be so truthful and precise, even though it has not always drawn the right conclusions.

For all one has to do is study the history of science and see the vapour trail of miscalculations and down right incorrect conclusions. This is not a bad thing, for the very nature of science is based on trial and error. Science is designed to constantly be in a state of flux, and the reinventing of itself.

What is a bad thing is when science is sacrificed by the obsession to be right or better yet, prove the other side wrong! It has become appalling to me, to see either the Intelligent Design folks or the evolutionist present things in a mad attempt to prove their point, not caring if the facts that seem to not fit into their agenda are brushed aside. By the way, both sides of the fence are guilty of this!

So what we got here is a failure to communicate, and I believe this comes from the perspective one has taken. What were our influences in life that directed us to come to the conclusions we have in the first place? What happened to us that put us on one side or the other of “the fence” when it comes to our belief about how life began?

Yes perspective is the key, when trying to reach any conclusion....perspective and context. Do we simple reach our conclusions because of some knee-jerk reaction form by our education and experience in life? For we either evolved or were created to question things, that is a trait that I believe can be seen as either a blessing or curse, or maybe both! The saying goes, at least the way I heard it is that “curiosity killed the cat, but information brought it back!"

I will use my own life as a example of how one can be driven by curiosity and be lead on a wild goose chase that in the end had positive results. For I survived my own obsession with “pushing the envelop” and taking things to the very edge of “lunatic fringe” only to now embrace what some may consider a somewhat conservative view of life.

I do not believe in creation because “the bible tells me so” or from what I was taught in school. The fact is, I have never been very good at playing “follow the leader.” For after exploring many options I came to believe nothing else but creation makes since. I reached that conclusion in part by my extensive study of Metaphysics and the Occult. The main premise I drew from all the years of allowing myself to be my own “lab rat” so to speak, is that everything is energy and connected.

This is what is expressed by those who hold the notion that the universe is “somewhat” holographic! The string theory is actually presented in a lot of so called "secrete knowledge" cults and science is just now catching up with this ancient view that the true reality is that everything is energy and connected. The videos that I have downloaded go into this on a deeper level and yet, I only downloaded two in a five part series because I felt that they took off in a direction that would distract from the message I want to convey. The main message I want to put forth is that what we think we know is NOT the true reality or better yet, the only reality.

The argument some evolutionist make, is that the stars could have not been created for it is proven that they are millions of light years away from earth. The fact that it takes their light so long to reach the earth, would prove creation to be wrong! Unless, the stars and everything else is indeed a part of us! I know some dyed in the wool evolutionist who would say that this statement is just a cop out! My response is that, I am just getting warmed up here...for in this article I will touch on many concepts presented by science that just plan does not hold water!

If we really take a hard look at the history of our world we will see a overwhelming amount of evidence that what we now perceive as dinosaurs have co-existed with man! Evolution keep saying this is ludicrous for creationist to say such things and yet....they close their eyes to the STRONG possibility that the myths about dragons are in fact true! Another thing that mystify me is that blood and soft tissue has been discovered in bones of dinosaurs that are claimed to be 65 MILLION YEARS OLD! I am not a scientist, but like a lot of other “Hubers” I play one on HubPages (just kidding) but I do see the problem with this!

I have recently found much more evidence to load my gun so to speak, in regards to raising some serious questions about the age of dinosaur bones. It seems that there has been even more discoveries, not just the T-Rex, that seem to laugh in the face of dinosaurs being as old as it is claimed. Even so, science still have a death grip on the notion that the bones are as old as they say they are. In fact there was a mummified dinosaur found in North Dakota, which to me proves without a shadow of a doubt that dinosaurs are not as old as science claims.

The reason why this so clear to me, is that the oldest case of mummification, is the “Ice Man” discovered in Italian Alps. “He” is considered to be about 5,300 years old. The Ice Man marveled scientist on how well he was preserved after this length of time. Now remember, he is “only” 5,300 years old and yet, these dinosaurs have managed to be preserved fairly well for what? SIXTY FIVE MILLION YEARS?

Another important point is, that sciences says that the only way that this dinosaur could have become mummified is that he was buried quickly IN A FLOOD! By the way, there are five other dinosaur mummies which must have also been killed in a flood. Is it just a quiescence that these mummies were caught in a flood to preserve them?

Another thing that seems to point to one MASSIVE flood is the location of fossils. Does it not seem strange that fossils are found all over the world in mountain ranges? Were talking about the Himalayas, the highest mountain range in the world! Or in the walls of the Grand Canyon 7,000 to 8,000 feet high! Let me make another important point, and that is that fossilization can only happen when the remains of a animal is immediately covered with sediment and then the minerals gradually replace the living tissue. This is the only way it works, ask any scientist and they will have to agree with this!

Of course there are all the petrified forest with trees uprooted by some tremendous force, which scientist explain as being “trees growing by a river or some other water way that flooded.” This seems funny to me, because I have done a lot of backpacking and camping which has exposed me to some nasty flash-floods. In all the years I spent out in wilderness areas in the South and North West, I have yet to experience a flood that had enough power to embed a tree like the ones I show in the photographs. Another key discovery is a petrified beehive found in one of the trees that is said to be 200 million years old. The problem that this presents, is that bees were not suppose to evolve for another 100 million years after this time!

Many scientist insist that their claims are true, and that if you choices to disagree with their supposition you are disillusioned. Even though, some of things that were once considered absolute fact, is now considered false. Take Alchemy for example, at one time it was believed that lead could be transformed into gold. This of course has been proven to not be the case.

So in a world where everyone has their point of view, how can we identify the truth? What is it in us, that prevents us as humans from “getting on the same page” as far as what the evidence shows us? Well in the next section of this hub, we are going to examine some of the insights of actual scientist, and get a better understanding on their perspective.

From his wheelchair view of the universe, Stephen Hawkins has reached the conclusion that God is not necessary for our existence. Instead, he states that, “the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow the universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

This to me, begs the question, were then did Gravity come from? How can these laws be set in motion and applied within the universe without a law giver? For evolutionist have been confronting the belief that God is the the beginning and the end, demanding to know were God has come from. However, Mr. Hawkins can make a statement like this and all the evolutionist seem cool with it!

Even though they are okay with Hawkins concept of “spontaneous creation” which to me seems just as sensational and hard to swallow as god as The Creator! I am not alone in thinking this reasoning is absurd, and I will now quote another scientist that totally disagrees with with the assumption brought forth by Stephen Hawkins.

This is Professor John Lennox who has this to say on the subject; “For me, as a Christian believer, the beauty of the scientific laws only reinforces my faith in an intelligent, divine creative force at work. The more I understand science, the more I believe in God because of my wonder at the breadth, sophistication and integrity of his creation. The very reason science flourished so vigorously in the 16th and 17th centuries was precisely because of the belief that the laws of nature which were then being discovered and defined reflected the influence of a divine law-giver.”

Hawkins has been wish-washy with some of his prior convictions concerning the nature of black-holes. He even lost a bet because he changed his mind. Of course, being human he has a right to rethink his hypothesis and yet, does it not make one wonder if it is possible for him to do this again in the future,recanting from what he now believes? Because of the fact that I do not wish to become distracted by a subject that I plan write about in another hub, I will provide a link to a article about Hawkins changing his mind.You can find that here.

What I do want to talk about briefly, is this M Theory that Hawkins claims makes it possible to have a whole universe instantly appear. This complicated concept that is said to tie everything together, is a theory that is nothing new, for the beliefs about alternative universes has been explored in many New Age practices! That is why I purpose that the M in this theory stands for Magic Wand, that once waved allows all these universes to pop in and out of existence.

To highlight my point, I will quote Marcus Cordey, who wrote a paper called Magical Theory and Traditions .“any division that is perceived to exist between science and magic is but an illusion. Both are true and proper natural philosophies, inseparable and intertwined, physics, chemistry, and medicine all draw upon these natural forces, as does magic, alchemy, and the Occult arts.”

Wait a gosh darn minute here! I thought the whole purpose of science is to step away from the superstitious practices like “magic”! But now this M Theory that Mr. Hawkins embraces, is using the same principles that the Metaphysics has promoted for who knows how long! Some of the famous New Age writers like Carlos Castaneda, Jane Roberts, and even Allister Crowley, has presented information that seems to agree with this M Theory. This of course, opens up a colossal can of worms that I have already spoken of somewhat in my Luciferian Doctrine series, so I will not go into much detail in this hub. Instead I will now focus on those scientist that has been outspoken on the whole philosophy of evolution.

For the facts are, that there are many scientist that DO NOT agree with evolution, as it is being presented. I will not quote all I can, but instead will supply links so this hub does not get larger than it needs to be.

Dr. Etheridge, world-famous paleontologist of the British Museum, has remarked:

“Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species.”

Dr. Albert Fleischmann, of the University of Erlangen,

“I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundation-less, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long-deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rotted in the hearts of man.”

Dr. Austin Clark, F.R.G.S., of the American Geophysical Union, opposes evolution by saying, "The great groups of animal life do not merge into one another. They are and have been fixed from the beginning."

Dr. Albert Fleischman, Professor of Zoology at the University of Erlangen in Germany, says, "The Darwinian theory of evolution has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of the imagination."

The astronomer George Greenstein wrote:

"As we survey all the evidence, the thought instantly arises that some supernatural agency, or rather Agency, must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit? "

" An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the Origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going" (Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, Futura, London 1982).

Dr. Michael Denton, an agnostic but a decided non-evolutionist compiled a chart on "The Adequacy of the Fossil Record" in his book, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by comparing the number of living types to fossil types, gleaning information from Romer's classic book, Vertebrate Paleontology. He found that 97.7% of living orders of terrestrial vertebrates are found as fossils. (Orders are larger groupings of families which are larger than genera which are larger then species.) Many creationists consider the groupings family or genus to best approximates the Genesis kind. Of living families of terrestrial vertebrates, 79.1% are represented, a number which jumps to 87.8% if birds (hardly ever preserved) are excluded. Thus, the fossil record of even terrestrial vertebrates is seen to be remarkably complete.

In fact, the bible makes it clear, that those in this world will never understand the wisdom of God. 1 Corinthians 1:20-21 is one verse (or verses) that does not pull any punches in this regard, here let me quote for you from the New Living Translation: “God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him though human wisdom.”

Before I close this editorial, I would like to take a quick look at the words of Einstein, for it is only fair that we “hear” from one of the greatest minds of science.

“I want to know how God created this world. I'm not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.”

• From E. Salaman, "A Talk With Einstein," The Listener 54 (1955), pp. 370-371

No, I am not implying that Einstein was a Creationist, for he makes it clear in many places, that he did not buy into a personal God when he declares.. “I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it . (Albert Einstein, 1954)

“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”

Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.

I include Ernestine's view for he is often perceived as a Atheist, which was not the case. It would be interesting to see what he would say about the ways that science today is heading. Personally, I think he would be dismayed by some of the same things that bother me!

Some may say it is not important what one believes, what is the important is the actions we take in a world that is in danger of being destroyed by our carelessness. I agree that action needs to be taken in regards to preserving life on this planet, but I also feel it is important to know what we do believe, if for no other reason than to better know ourselves. Then again, I also believe it matters for the salvation of our soul! That is my story and I am sticking to it!