Have we outgrown religion, or god (the idea of a god/God, or any deity of some sort)? Has science successfully rendered such views baseless? And by that token, has Creationism or Creation Science (the anti-evolutionist view if you will, or those who believe in the Biblical account of Creation) provided any worthwhile rebuttal? Or has Creation Science, described in a recent article I read as a ‘pseudo science’, become the so called ‘laughing stock of the Science world'? The short answer is of course: no… Simply put, the above questions and implications is another form of propaganda – promoted by the secular mindset, which is essentially an atheistic one. The scientific community is rife with it, as many respected scientists (who are also Christians, or religious in some way) quietly go about their work whilst retaining their creationist views without broadcasting it, because to do so would bring about prejudice against them for their beliefs. Ben Stein, a high school science educator, in his DVD “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” highlights the discrimination in the (American) education institutions if you do not believe in the naturalistic evolutionary world view. Is there any merit to the claim that truly intelligent (scientific) people cannot believe in God? The idea that any person with an education, an advanced degree, doesn’t believe in the Bible (or have any religious beliefs) because (specifically) the Bible is unscientific? Bill Nye (famous as ‘Bill Nye the Science Guy’) in a Youtube video for theBigThink.com said “And I say to the grown-ups: If you want to deny evolution and live in your, in your, uh, world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the Universe, that’s fine. But don’t make your kids do it… Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and tax payers for the future” [taken from the article "Bill Nye: the (Pseudo-)Science Guy" by Dr. Jeff Miller] – more than implying or stopping short of saying that to believe in God and/or the Biblical account of creation (or any religion) will hamper your progress in science. In other words, creation scientists or those who share those beliefs cannot offer anything worthwhile/credible because their beliefs taint their findings. Also that anyone with these beliefs are living in a dream world. Of course his statement and what it implies is false. Agnostic Niel Degrasse Tyson stated that nearly half of the practicing scientists in America are religious and believe in/pray to, a god, yet it does not adversely affect their work. If we were to apply this view to history (bearing in mind that the Big Bang Theory has only been around for 35 years) we’d have to fudge out many contributions by so-called ‘creation-scientists’ who, based on Nye's intimation, seem to lack credibility. Men like
I could add a lot more names that are less famous. (I must add that this does not mean I agree with all of their personal views; for one, Newton did not believe Jesus was God, while it’s reported that Einstein – born a Jew – believed in a pantheistic god) but it can be said that they all accepted the Biblical account of creation as Truth. Now you might claim that modern science has unearthed the universe's true origins (minus God), but in fact, everything they have (against the Bible) is actually speculation. Pseudo Science An "old-earth ministries" article I read, labeled Creationism as a Pseudo Science since it cannot be empirically proven, and based on their definition, in this writers opinion, Creation Science can then rightly be described as Pseudo Science as it does not abide by the clinical definition of Science (it cannot be tested and proven in a lab via observational experiments… this being observational or practical and physical science). One can only observe the universe/nature to see if there are indications that are consistent with the Biblical explanation. That is to say, does anything we observe in nature or the universe scientifically contradict the Bible’s account or not? Conversely, Cosmology, with its presiding model of evolution and the Big Bang Theory, also cannot be proven… in fact its for this reason that it remains a theory and nothing more. Scientists have failed to provide any empirical proof, nor can they. What we can do is speculate and simulate, but even if (by way of an example) they do locate the much vaunted “god-particle”, it does not disprove God, nor does it prove the evolutionary theory, nor does it disprove creationists. (FYI, they’re not sure whether or not they’ve found the Higgs-Boson particle but they think that they have. One Scientist described it as recognizing a familiar face in a crowd as it passed by. It could be what they think it is, but it also may not be. So they think they’ve found it but it’s hard to tell because the process occurs so quickly in the Hadron Collider, so the ‘Find’ is yet to be verified). The reason they cannot prove the theory, is because they're speculating about something that happened in history (with no human witnesses), so all the experiments in Cern are speculative simulations of what scientists think happened in or near the beginning, but no one can say for sure. (FYI, In my email response to that article, I highlighted that according to their definition of 'Pseudo Science', they may as well add Cosmology into the mix as well since it fits the their bill... they have yet to respond.) "Concerning the term “pseudo-science,” we’d use that term differently than you’re suggesting. We’d use it to mean, basically, “false science.” Science based, for example, on faulty assumptions. With regard to science that involves unobserved events, we’d probably use the term “historical science” (as opposed to observational science), rather than pseudo-science, to describe those events. Much of geology, biology (notice that evolutionary biology is historical science, since no one has seen one type of creature give rise to a completely different type of creature, crossing a phylogenic boundary; we’d also call it a pseudo-science though, since it hinges on the flawed assumption that naturalism is correct), and cosmology are based on unobserved events, but would still be deemed science. Forensic science is another good example of science using indirect, rather than direct evidence—the scientists didn’t directly witness the event, but instead, are assessing what happened based on indirect evidence." But as I’ve said, what does this prove? If in fact the particle is verified (and I for one think that even if they haven’t found it yet, the particle probably does exist) what does it say about the origins of the universe. Practically, the particle can be ‘used’ by both evolutionists and creationists, but of course it doesn’t explain much. What do I mean? - Well, how did the particle come about in the first place? If it is the catalyzing particle to create all the others, then how was it created, or what catalyzed its formation? What or who created the Higgs-Boson particle? Additionally, this particle does not validate anything in the Big Bang Theory or the evolutionary model. It’s a link in a chain. Unfortunately for evolutionists, that chain is very incomplete. In fact the evolutionary chain has no beginning. As one scientist put it; Evolution and The Big Bang Theory have not made it to the starting line yet to compete with Creationism, because they cannot account for the origin of life/ the veritable “In the beginning” moment. Currently, this model has no beginning, apart from “Spontaneous generation and Abiogenesis” which contradict Scientific law. Where does the Higgs-Boson particle “fit” in the timeline of creation/development of the universe? One could say it was merely a tool God created to make the universe. Its like an artists tool - used not to shape the clay, but rather to make the clay required for the sculpture. If one were to apply it to the evolutionary model, then it would be integral to what came before the Big Bang… In other words it doesn’t explain what occurred to incite the implosion/explosion/expansion of the original mass to create the big bang. This of course is another bone of contention, with evolutionary scientists divided as to the origin of the theorized big bang, because some say that it must have had a center, while others disagree (ie. there is no center of the universe). The most preposterous notion though is that the entire universe comes from a “cosmic egg”, or cosmic dot (no bigger than a full-stop on this page) – a “single point” from which everything – you and I, earth, The Milky Way etc… evolved. This by the way, violates scientific law, echoed by Agnostic Scientist and former (he passed away in 2006) NASA astronomer: “But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science—the principle of the conservation of matter and energy—which states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever. It is difficult to accept a theory that violates such a firmly established scientific fact” --- Robert Jastrow (1977, p. 32). Dating [and the Geologic timetable] A major issue of course is dating methods. There are quite a few methods out there, the most famous being Carbon Dating (which is based on several major assumptions, and can only be used for previously living matter with a limit of measuring only up to 40 000 years – meaning any fossil found and measurable using this method is by default, younger than 40 000 years old… thus it cannot be applied to the Prehistoric timescale for Dinosaurs which measures in the millions of years. For this, they instead rely on rocks around the fossil to date the specimen). Hence the need for other methods to suit and somehow aid the evolutionary theory and geologic timescale --- some of which are the Potassium-Argon, Uranium 238 and Fision-Track methods, all of which render vastly different dates for the same geological samples. Here’s a link detailing 20 different dating methods and the assumptions that are needed for ALL of them (they list 7 basic general assumptions and then further outline specified flaws of each individual dating method.) – Science vs evolution – Why non-historical dating techniques are not reliable To give you an idea of how dating works: an archaeologist will take a fossil he’s found, and before testing it, the scientists will ask him for an assumed/estimated date based on his expert opinion (i.e. how old does he think it is, based on his research and experience?) he’ll offer an estimate, and then they’ll search for a date that suits his theory. "Why do the radioactive ages of lava beds, laid down within a few weeks of each other, differ by millions of years?"—*Glen R. Morton, Electromagnetics and the Appearance of Age. Another article I read recently, on LiveScience.com, outlined the history of the feud between Evolutionists and Creationists, written by a (supposedly) unbiased author. One of the points she highlighted was the Creationist belief that the world came into being in 6 days and the earth is younger than 10 000 years old… She then stated “when in fact it is 4.5 Billion years old” – this of course is an outright lie. It’s odd that a learned scientist, or science writer would make such specious statement. What is a fact is that based on a flawed dating system, the earth appears to be billions of years old, or "according to some scientists, the earth is believed to be...". Why are so many scientists so afraid of accepting that “Earth changes can happen in catastrophic leaps” as we’ve witnessed with floods, earthquakes, tsunami’s etc. "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." "Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view." Some general questions I have:
Summing up – This is an article that can spawn volumes of work, and has for many an individual investigating these sorts of topics in earnest or tackling the philosophical dynamism which starts where science ends. Labeling Creation Science as a 'laughing stock' merely demonstrates the accusers ignorance and brand of bias. It strikes me as odd though that many people in the field do not earnestly want answers, but have rather settled on their own preconceived conclusions. Many (non-Christian) scientists dismiss outright the creation model of the Universe (and God/the Bible etc), before even considering it or investigating it. This in my opinion is unscientific (though scientists have covered themselves in this regard… according the University of California, Berkeley, “the scientific process only applies to the natural world. Hence, anything considered supernatural does not fit into the definition of science”). One can claim that you’ve considered something and found it to be a joke, but in reference to Christianity you’re only expressing your ignorance. The fact is that many people evade the Biblical explanation because it means facing some serious personal issues. Because once you’ve decided to investigate the Bible and its claims seriously, it then means you have to open yourself up to the possibility of being accountable to God... in other words it means confronting the truth of God, and that means realistically facing our rebellious nature. Most people in the world don’t want to do this. What it also means is wrestling with the notion of the supernatural, and this plays on one of mankind's most primal fears... the fear of the unknown. "Astronomers try not to be influenced by philosophical considerations. However, the idea of a universe that has both a beginning and an end is distasteful to the scientific mind. In a desperate effort to avoid it, some astronomers have searched for another interpretation of the measurements that indicate the retreating motion of the galaxies, an interpretation that would not require the universe to expand. If the evidence for the expanding Universe could be explained away, the need for a moment of creation would be eliminated,and the concept of time without end would return to science. But these attempts have not succeeded, and most astronomers have come to the conclusion that they live in an expanding world" --- Robert Jastrow - Until the Sun dies (1977, p.31) "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way..." --- Isaiah 53:6 [Image credits: youtube.com, cern.ch, iconqal.com, quoteinsta.com]
0 Comments
Wallpaper from cyberdyne-systems.fr article by Steven Benjamin (2012) When Terminator was released in the mid-eighties, it was hailed and would later prove to be a trend setting film, re-establishing the thought process of science fiction films. A key element in it's success, was the plausibility, or perceived plausibility of some of the events. It wasn’t that people thought “Robots from the future will send terminators back in time to kill off our future resistance fighter leaders, effectively winning the war before it begins”, but everyone recognized the distinct possibility that sometime in the future, if technology continued on the progressive path it was, and still is on, artificial intelligence and ‘robots’, could bite back eventually. In other words, it wasn’t that difficult to connect the proverbial dots, much like the thought provoking film ‘Children of Men’ – chronicling a near future wherein women are unable to give birth – an occurrence that has been noted and experienced in various areas for a variety of different reasons. So, how close are we to developing a system that mirrors that of the fictional ‘SkyNet’ or ‘Cyberdyne Systems’? The truth is, we’re not that far off… Tesla book cover. The first thing that might come to mind when you hear “Killer Robots”, is most likely Drones, aka UAV’s (Unmanned aerial vehicles), scout machines, drone boats etc. which are developed and used by several countries including the USA, Israel, China, Russia, Germany, et al. Basically very large remote controlled airplanes in military use. Nicola Tesla (the man/genius who gave us the AC motor, neon lights and the remote control, among many other inventions) spoke of unmanned aerial fleets as early as 1915, so the idea is anything but new. Killer Robots though, are something quite different. Whereas Drones always have a person operating it via satellite from some military base, ‘Killer Robots’ are autonomous – meaning there is little or no human involvement when the machine does inevitably pull the trigger. The Iron Dome, Israel’s missile defense system is one such machine/program which operates autonomously, ‘sensing’ incoming rocket fire and relaying messages to operators (human) who then take action. Many human and civil rights watches have led inquiries and protests of such weapon use, calling for greater care and conducting further intensive investigations, stating that in a few decades, the global military scene could be largely autonomous… And how safe would we all feel then? Here's a look at some, albeit crude looking, robots from DARPA - think of them as today's version of SkyNet... I suggest you Google DARPA on look for their videos on youtube, such as the Big Dog, humanoids and the Sand Flee (an small autonomous robots that can jump onto rooftops or scale fences)... Special Forces on tumblr This is simply natural progression. Military's have sought and trained the veritable perfect soldiers, legions of Special Forces, then they sought to create ideal weapons to kill with minimum risk to human life (on the side of the ones doing the killing anyway)… meaning the highly contested chess match of the world’s super powers can now make their moves and issue their action orders – to be carried out almost instantaneously… And that, without even the touch of a button, because ‘autonomous’ means the machines will pre-empt the decision, practically eliminating the human power game and guidance. Effectively this will not only redefine war, but it will redefine what constitutes an act of war, infringing on the rules of engagement, and removing much of the element of accountability in the inevitable transgression of the parameters of said war. - “If you have an autonomous robot then it’s going to make decisions who to kill, when to kill and where to kill them. The scary thing is that the reason this has to happen is because of mission complexity and also so that when there’s a problem with communications you can send a robot in with no communication and it will decide who to kill, and that is really worrying to me.” – Noel Sharkey (2008) – Prof. of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics at the University of Sheffield. Many, if not all of the world’s super powers have committed war crimes, including the very initial (catalyst) act of war itself – Vietnam, Iraq… yet they’ve gone unpunished and largely unnoticed by an uninformed or misinformed public. So how much can the powers-that-be get away with in the future… and what happens when that power is taken from them by the very things they created… It could be called the ‘Frankenstein complex’… Man, we’ve always been our own worst enemy. It’s not all doom and gloom though. Autonomous Robots have also been deployed in disaster relief efforts, and let’s not forget bomb disposal robots. DARPA (the USA’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is often associated with such projects. Many robots are developed with humble and often good intentions, but governments more often than not take those designs, concepts and prototypes and inevitably weaponize them. From humble beginnings, SkyNet was born… Welcome to the bizarre, and the creepy of modern robotics, and think to yourself; if this is what they publicise, what they let us know about, what don’t we know, and what the heck is already in use today? In any event, however crude these 'bots may look, give them 10/15 years... “We build but to tear down. Most of our work and resource is squandered. Our onward march is marked by devastation. Everywhere there is an appalling loss of time, effort and life. A cheerless view, but true.” - Nikola Tesla For a list of 10 inventions by Nikola Tesla, click here Amendment (20/12/2012): Skynet does exist... ... and by that very name too! It is in actual fact a series, or "family", of satellites, the first of which, Skynet 1 was launched in 1969 (the series, which was last updated, or shall I say the youngest addition was welcomed to the family just a few days ago with the launch of Skynet 5 - *report TBC) - predating the fictional Terminator version by a decade and a half. FYI, the Brits and NATO 'owns' the family... Of course we all know about satellites and the technology they possess - being able to look into your backyard, powerful enough to detect the color of your eyes etc... and that actual privacy is a remnant idea of the past - it is amazing however, just how powerless we are to this encroachment. This is the type of information most people know about without actually truly knowing about it, though it was highlighted for me quite recently, and quite plainly, by a highly qualified industry insider, opening my eyes a bit wider to the devious ways of 'Big Brother'. Predictions are widely set at 2060 - the time whereabouts the existence of a Technological singularity will emerge (a self aware AI supercomputer) - though I do have my own opinions and misgivings about this - beyond that date, experts believe the future to be, well, 'an unpredictable crapshoot' (my words)... In man's continuous attempts to create an independent artificially intelligent entity, I keep asking myself "Why? For what purpose?" and "to what end?" |
[Banner illustration by Joel Kanar]
WRITING
|