Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

Stephen Hawking has recently suggested that the danger to the world of a rogue, all-power Artificial Intelligence (AI) could be mitigated if nations would go in for one-world government.  His comments appear in a recent article in the U.K. Independent:

[Hawking] suggests that “some form of world government” could be ideal for the job [of controlling malice and aggression and the danger of an AI’s response to them], but would itself create more problems.

“But that might become a tyranny,” he added. “All this may sound a bit doom-laden but I am an optimist. I think the human race will rise to meet these challenges.”

Hawking is a brilliant theoretical physicist and a lousy philosopher.  As a modern Humanist / Atheist he refuses to admit to the selfish nature of mankind and believes in the altruism of social planners.  But every attempt at Humanist utopias in the past 220 years has proven such projects not simply unworkable, but downright hellish and lethal.  The push among those on the Left for a one-world government is just another such attempt.

A better plan for mitigating mankind’s darker proclivities comes from James Madison in Federalist Paper #51:

….Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself….

Madison had formerly explained the reasons a one-world government could never work – it is impossible to give all people the same opinions, passions and interests.  Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #10:

….There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests….

Hawking doesn’t understand mankind’s selfish nature because he has been indoctrinated into the flawed utopic philosophy of the Left.  He doesn’t realize that any attempt at a one-world government could, even if only partially successful, be what winds up paving the way for something like an all-powerful AI. One which could – in the mold of the Marxist government it serves – unwittingly destroy humans in an attempt to make it’s own little utopia.

Read Full Post »

In a recent headline scientists are now hopeful that a new experiment happening at a large collider may give them a glimpse into a parallel universe. The story is at: http://secondnexus.com/technology-and-innovation/large-hadron-collider-scientists-hope-make-contact-parallel-universe

Multidimensional theories of self-generating universes (and theories of self-generating life) are at this point not science but philosophy attached to science.  For example, the theoretical work of Hawking is entirely philosophical, not scientific, in so far as it proposes things beyond science and beyond detection or proof.  Hawking’s work is also philosophical in that it arbitrarily projects a single religious world view – blind-faith Metaphysical Naturalism – onto evidence and facts which could equally (and arguably better) be considered support for Design.  It is also philosophical because it deals with singularities – events which only occur once and can therefore only be directly (scientifically) understood in terms of evidential proof and historical proof. We have only ever observed a single universe, appearing to be governed by principles of relativity and finely tuned to support the existence of stars, galaxies and life.

What scientists are doing in making a prediction of observing parallel universes would be directly analogous to proposing in 1977 that if Pluto had a moon it would be proof of the existence of green unicorns, and then when Charon was proven to exist in 1978 saying, “Hah, we were right! Green unicorns do exist!”

There’s definitely more we need to understand about the quantum world of physics but I tend to reject the basic Copenhagen “spooky” view of matter because that view still has it’s roots in belief about measuring equipment and not about matter itself. Obviously particles interact at a distance but the mechanism is entirely unknown at this point.  And string theory up to this point has really just amounted to a bunch of conflicting hearsay, as any honest quantum physicist will tell you.

The bottom line is that part of the reason many modern quantum physicists want to have blind faith in alternate universes is because they desperately want the findings in their field to match their Socialist, Metaphysical Naturalist intellectual ideology.

And the findings simply don’t.

Read Full Post »

NASA predicts that we will find extra terrestrial life in the next 20 years.  Who knows, we may.  But there is a problem with their motivation.  In terms of NASA’s current position, this is not science, it’s philosophy based on blind faith in an ex nihilo self-generating universe or multiverse and in random abiogenesis, neither of which has ever been observed.

If you bring this up, they would probably respond with two philosophical propositions, both of which are logic fallacies.

“Well, we’ve never seen God directly so therefore there is no God.” This is a non-sequitur. As I point out above, we’ve never observed multiverse or abiogenesis.  We’ve also never observed phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium; neither in nature, the fossil record or the lab.  Bacteria becoming bacteria, moths becoming moths and finches becoming finches are all simply examples of trait dominance shift within existing genetic pools.

“There are multiple mutually exclusive explanations for God (such as “Spaghetti Monster”), therefore none is correct and there is no God.” This is argumentum ad logicam- assuming that just because one theory is spurious therefore every theory is spurious.

If they further said God cannot be proven, that is equally true of all the theories I mention above.

The fact is ~any~ position regarding God or unknown questions of origins is philosophical at this point, ~not~ scientific.

But Secularists in our government continue to promote and outright legislate the world view of Metaphysical Naturalism (the blind faith assertion that, “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be”) and Humanism, never seeing that to the degree they have unthinking devotion and blind faith in a mythical, self-creating universe and self-generating life, they are not pursuing science but philosophy.

Every observation or fact offered up as evidence for those two beliefs (speed of light, red-shift, similarity of features and re-use of DNA among life forms, etc.) could just as easily be interpreted as supporting a belief in design.

The Secularist push to promote Metaphysical Naturalism and Humanism within government is also directly responsible for the recent rise in paganism, the occult and animism among our youth, because what passes for modern science these days – at least in terms of cosmological and ontological theory – is nothing more than a step backwards to looking at nature and life as being mythical and self creating.

This Secularist view of the world informs an indoctrinee’s thoughts in origins, daily decision making and morality, which means it inherently ~is~ a form of religion. It effectively constitutes an officially sanctioned religious paganism in our schools and government funded scientific circles.

We’ve been searching the skies for 30 years for a binary radio signal from space which could be taken as a sign of intelligence.  And yet to this day most scientists refuse to consider the possibility that a quaternary programming language capable of coding everything from a blade of grass to Gisele Bundchen could have been the product of intelligence.

I say we don’t have to wait 20 years to see a sign of extra terrestrial intelligence.

The news story regarding NASA’s prediction of finding intelligent life is at:


Read Full Post »

Just watching Episode 1 of the new “Cosmos” series. The first words of the series is a faith-based statement by Carl Sagan.  “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.”  The statement is based in blind-faith regarding an unobserved singularity, the beginning of the universe.  It is purely philosophical, not scientific, because evidence is inconclusive and we cannot go back to the beginning of the universe and treat it with the scientific model:  Observe it several times, record data, and then use the data to test theories.  Carl’s voice trails off and says, “Come with me…”  The very next words in the new Cosmos series are from the narrator.  He says, “A generation ago the astronomer Carl Sagan stood here and launched hundreds of millions of us on a great adventure, the exploration of the universe revealed by science.”  Did you catch that?  The new series begins with a statement based on blind faith which sums up the message of the original Cosmos series.  But it calls this position “science.”  There are two logic fallacies that naturalists fall into when insisting that non-theism is a rational position for science.  The first is non-sequitur (something which does not logically follow).  “We’ve never observed God directly, therefore there is no God.”  Well, we’ve never observed abiogenesis or spontaneous, ex nihilo universe formation.  The second logic fallacy is argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic, assuming a theory is false just because one proof put up on it’s behalf can be proven false).  “There are multiple, mutually exclusive explanations for what God could be, like the ‘Spaghetti Monster’ theory, so therefore no theory is correct.”  The sad thing is that the philosophical position these logically flawed statements support is unquestionably accepted in many modern academic circles and then incorrectly labeled as being “science”.  This matters.  A blind-faith belief about one’s origins informs a person’s day to day decision making and their perception of morality.  It ultimately ~IS~ their religious world view of the universe.  In the case of Naturalism, it is the worship of nature as the self-creating whole.  Consider Carl Sagan’s words again.  “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.”  That blind-faith belief has huge implications regarding the sanctity of life, belief in individual rights to life, liberty and property and personal moral conduct.  In a word, it is inherently religious.  And yet this position is being taught to our children in public schools as the unquestionable truth, after all the proponents say, “it’s science.”  If you watch the new Cosmos series enjoy it.  I’m sure there will be lots of cool mind-blowing facts, and a lot of truth.  But just as much as that – if the previous series was any indication – there will be a host of philosophical, faith based positions and beliefs incorrectly presented as also being facts.  If you want to be objective, you’ll want to keep that in mind.

Read Full Post »

Bill Nye The Science Guy recently posted an impassioned plea on YouTube, entitled “Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children“, in which he says that belief in evolution is fundamental to human progress.  He goes on to say, ” [if grownups want to] deny evolution and live in your 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.” 

This statement is astounding to me because evolution is not consistent with everything we observe in the universe; evolution is a theory based on a philosophical position which trys to explain what we observe in the universe.  From that standpoint, evolution is no more or less plausible than belief in an intelligent designer is plausible.  In fact, I have a hard time processing how many intellectuals – people who are smart and well-meaning – don’t make the connection that faith in evolution is just like other type of religious faith.

OK, before you stop reading because you think I’m nuts, let me explain where I’m coming from. 

The scientific method is to formulate a hypothesis, test it several times in a controlled environment, record data and then draw a conclusion. With historical events this isn’t possible and so one must approach things evidentially. Some things we can know directly – there is a trilobite. It’s encased in sandstone. To go too much further though one must start making logical assumptions in order to extrapolate more data. The rub in in which assumptions are considered “scientific”. Remember, science only deals with the known, the observable, the factual. From that standpoint we really concretely have no idea how things happened with the origin of life. All we know is that DNA based life forms have an incredible similarity. What is the origin of the similarity? Frankly any speculation on that point is purely philosophical and not scientific. Again, I would argue that arbitrary faith in no God, or in no intelligent influence on the origin of life or of the universe, is at this point in our understanding just as philosophical of a proposition as the assertion that there is a God or an intelligent designer.  Science should not be concerned with either possibility, period. So as a person of faith it is maddening to hear people call the one assumption “scientific” and the other “not scientific.”

Why do many intellectuals arbitrarily assume no intelligence is at play in cosmology and ontology? I’ve heard two things consistently. One is that with so many theories regarding the nature of God, several of which are mutually exclusive, that therefore none can be true. The other is that we supposedly see no direct evidence of God or intelligence in the universe. On the first point, it is an instance of the logic fallacy “argumentum ad logicam” or “argument to logic” – the assumption that just because one argument put in place for a theory is incorrect, that therefore the theory itself is incorrect. On the second point, it is an instance of the logic fallacy “petition principia” or “begging the question” – assuming that one’s thesis is true as part of the evidence in support of the thesis itself. To know there is no God one would have to know everything in the universe and be in all places at once – omniscient and omnipresent – which would make one’s-self God. But more than this, the assumption is questionable because it is applied so arbitrarily. For example, SETI is searching the skies for a binary radio signal from space as a sign of intelligence. What if I told you I could point towards a quaternary programming language that can be used to program a living organism? If the first is indicative of intelligence, how much more should the second be?

Again, all of this to say that science does not enter into the equation of any proposition based on assumptions about universe that can’t be tested.

And yet the modern scientific community is predisposed towards several unproveable theories that only exist to try to explain away the order we observe in the cosmos. If the ratios of the mass of protons to electrons, or the ratios of strong and weak nuclear forces to themselves and to electro-magnetism, or the rate of expansion of the universe, or the seemingly finely-tuned unevenness of the distribution of matter from the big bang as indicated by cosmic background microwave radiation – if any one of these factors was off by 5% or even less we would not have galaxies and stars to bake heavier elements necessary for life. And so theories considered “scientific” to address these observations include anthropomorphic principle (man will one day be intelligent enough to go back in time and create himself), panspermia (the seeds of life are literally ‘wafted across the cosmos’ by an older and wiser race – never mind the time it would take for two generations of galaxies in order to bake heavier elements), multiverse theory (there are so many random unverses we simply won the lottery with ours), etc.  These theories don’t come across to me as examples of scientific objectivity.  Instead they appear to be philosophical attempts to explain away – not buttress – what we observe in the cosmos.

On a final note, if someone watches Carl Sagan or reads Jean Auel’s Clan of the Cave Bear, and feels a deep wonder and mystery at being a part of so great and long a process of the cosmos – a literal bit of stardust become self-aware in the universe – then I would argue that the experience they are having, given our limitations of knowledge at this time, is innately religious, not scientific or objective. And I think if they are a person dedicated to reason and knowledge, they need to consider this seriously.

As for Bill Nye’s assertion that creationism is not appropriate for children?  Considering  the fact that both creationism and evolution are faith-based propositions, if we ban creationism then we must equally say that evolution is not appropriate for children.

Read Full Post »