There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. —Soren Kierkegaard. "…truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it. That is why truth does not yield to opinion, fashion, numbers, office, or sincerity–it is simply true and that is the end of it" – Os Guinness, Time for Truth, pg.39. “He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright.” – Blaise Pascal. "There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily" – George Washington letter to Edmund Randolph — 1795. We live in a “post-truth” world. According to the dictionary, “post-truth” means, “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Simply put, we now live in a culture that seems to value experience and emotion more than truth. Truth will never go away no matter how hard one might wish. Going beyond the MSM idealogical opinion/bias and their low information tabloid reality show news with a distractional superficial focus on entertainment, sensationalism, emotionalism and activist reporting – this blogs goal is to, in some small way, put a plug in the broken dam of truth and save as many as possible from the consequences—temporal and eternal. "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." – George Orwell “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Soren Kierkegaard
Will the elite soon be able to order “designer babies” that are free from all genetic abnormalities and all genetic diseases because they have been created in a lab using “synthetic human DNA”? I realize that this may sound absolutely crazy to many of you, but we are dangerously close to such a scenario becoming a reality. Mad scientists that are extremely well funded are trying to “play God” by inserting large sections of “synthetic human DNA” into skin cells “to observe how they function”…
Scientists have taken a bold and controversial step toward creating synthetic human DNA from scratch, a move some critics liken to ‘playing God.’
The research aims to unlock new treatments for autoimmune disorders, heart failure, viral infections, and age-related diseases.
To do so, scientists are developing tools to build large, complex sections of human DNA in the lab and insert them into skin cells to observe how they function.
The ultimate goal is to construct entire human chromosomes, a foundational step toward assembling a fully synthetic human genome.
This is scary.
Once they are able to create a fully synthetic human genome, they will theoretically be able to create a fully synthetic human.
If you doubt this, you should consider the fact that scientists have already been able to create a fully synthetic bacterium…
Making synthetic genomes isn’t an entirely novel endeavor. Back in 2010, scientists managed to make from scratch the whole genome of a simple bacterium, and then plugged its genetic material inside an empty cell of another bacterium, making something entirely new that they cleverly dubbed Synthia. Scientists have also synthesized viral and yeast cells in other research.
Just because scientists are capable of doing something does not mean that they should actually do it.
Yes, maybe scientists can “play God” and make “perfect” synthetic humans that have no genetic diseases at all.
But would such creatures even be human?
Would they have souls like we do?
There are so many unanswered questions.
Unfortunately, nobody is going to hold these scientists back. In fact, many will eagerly embrace strange new technologies as the solution to the existential fertility crisis that we are now facing.
Hagai Levine, an epidemiologist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and his colleagues published an analysis in 2017 and an update in 2022 that evaluated a combined total of more than 200 studies that used a counting chamber. These two papers found about a 50 percent decrease in sperm concentration—most notably in Western countries—since the 1970s.
So what happens if we see another 50 percent decline over the next five decades?
Theoretically, average concentrations could eventually get so low that the majority of the male population is simply no longer capable of fathering children.
What would we do then?
As you will see below, there is concern that the accumulation of microplastics in our bodies could be one of the factors that is causing our fertility crisis.
Since 1950, over nine billion tons of plastic has been produced, and all of that plastic is constantly breaking down into smaller and smaller pieces…
More than nine billion tons of plastic are estimated to have been produced between 1950 and 2017, with over half of that total having been produced since 2004. The vast majority of plastic ends up in the environment in one form or another, where it breaks down, through weathering, exposure to UV light and organisms of all kinds, into smaller and smaller pieces, becoming microplastics and then nanoplastics.
Within our homes, microplastics are mainly produced when synthetic fibres from clothes, furnishings, carpets and other plastic objects are shed. They accumulate in large quantities in dust and float around in the air, which we then inhale.
If you are like most people, you literally use thousands of plastic products on a yearly basis.
A painstaking review of 103 scientific studies on microplastic food contamination found actions as simple as opening a plastic drink bottle or using a plastic chopping board can shave off tiny particles of common polymers.
Even glass bottles that use a plastic gasket, plastic-lined pizza boxes, plastic-lined disposable coffee cups, plastic tea bags, plastic wrappings, and microwaveable plastic containers shed microplastic like a Persian cat sheds fur in spring.
History will look back on us as the “crazy plastic people”.
The Mediterranean has long been a crossroads of trade and tourism, yet its deepest pocket, the Calypso Deep, seemed beyond the reach of day-to-day pollution.
That hope ended earlier this year when researchers reported plastic bags, glass shards, and crumpled cans resting 16,770 feet beneath the waves in the Ionian Sea.
The researchers didn’t just find a few plastic items down there.
The team used the submersible Limiting Factor to reach the bottom of a kidney-shaped trench roughly 12.4 miles long and 3.1 miles across.
During a 43-minute trek near the seafloor of the Calypso Deep, cameras captured thousands of objects per square mile, mostly plastic waste discarded by humans.
A single straight-line pass of 2,130 feet was enough to confirm that human trash blankets large stretches of the basin. Most pieces were flexible plastics; glass, metal, and paper rounded out the list.
All of that plastic will continue breaking down forever.
And once plastic particles get small enough, it is easy for them to get into the human body.
The human brain may contain up to a spoon’s worth of tiny plastic shards—not a spoonful, but the same weight (about seven grams) as a plastic spoon, according to new findings published Monday in the journal Nature Medicine.
Researchers detected these “almost unbelievable” levels of microplastics and nanoplastics in the brains of human cadavers, says study co-author Andrew West, a neuroscientist at Duke University, to Science News’ Laura Sanders. “In fact, I didn’t believe it until I saw all the data.”
Based on their analysis, the amount of microplastics in the human brain appears to be increasing over time: Concentrations rose by roughly 50 percent between 2016 and 2024.
Our heads are literally filling up with plastic.
This may be one of the primary reasons why most people can’t seem to think straight these days.
Tiny bits of plastic no wider than a human hair have turned up in some unexpected places, including the human bloodstream.
Now, data presented at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology meeting shows that these fragments have breached the fluids that surround eggs and travel with sperm.
The research team led by Dr. Emilio Gómez‑Sánchez of Next Fertility Murcia in Spain scanned follicular fluid from 29 women and seminal fluid from 22 men.
The experts found microplastics in 69 percent of the women and 55 percent of the men they studied. According to Dr. Gómez‑Sánchez, the team was surprised to find that the particles were so widespread.
It is going to take time for scientists to determine exactly how these microplastics are affecting our reproductive health, but at this point they are not optimistic at all…
The impact these microplastics — defined as plastic particles under 5 millimeters in size — have on reproductive health is unclear, but it’s unlikely to be anything good.
“What we know from animal studies is that in the tissues where microplastics accumulate, they can induce inflammation, free radical formation, DNA damage, cellular senescence and endocrine disruptions,” Gomez-Sanchez said.
Of course even if microplastics did not exist, there are so many other threats to our reproductive health these days.
The constant levels of electromagnetic radiation we are being bombarded with and the poisons in our food are just two of them.
Nobody can deny that we are in a crisis, because that is what the numbers are clearly telling us. This is something that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. commented on recently during an interview with Fox News…
“We have fertility rates that are just spiraling. A teenager today, an American teenager, has less testosterone than a 68-year-old man. Sperm counts are down 50%,” he told Fox News’ Jesse Watters in April, adding: “It’s an existential problem.”
I fully agree.
Humanity really is facing an existential fertility crisis.
But creating “synthetic human DNA” from scratch is not the solution.
“Playing God” never works out well in the end.
Hopefully our scientists will realize this before it is too late.
Photo: U.S. Forest Service firefighters battle a California wildfire. Text added by Antonio Graceffo. Original image in the public domain.
As justification for their climate crisis hysteria, liberals keep insisting that average global temperatures have risen, with the most commonly cited figure being a 1.1°C to 1.3°C (2.0°F to 2.3°F) increase since the pre-industrial era (1850–1900). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), however, begins its “reliable” records in 1880 and reports an increase of about 1.1°C (2.0°F) since then. Even NOAA acknowledges the limitations of early data, stating, “Earth’s surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the start of the NOAA record in 1850.”
But these claims rest on flawed foundations. Ninety-six percent of U.S. temperature stations fail to meet NOAA’s own siting standards and are often surrounded by development, resulting in inflated readings from the urban heat island effect. The transition from mercury thermometers to digital sensors between the 1980s and 2000s introduced discontinuities in the data, right during the period of supposed accelerated warming. Early measurements were geographically concentrated in Europe and North America, ignoring vast regions, especially the 71% of the planet covered by oceans.
Measurement errors of ±0.5°C often exceed the very climate signals being used to justify sweeping policy changes. Worse still, much of the raw data has been adjusted or “homogenized” using subjective assumptions that can introduce as much bias as the trends being studied. These problems, taken together, undermine the precision required to detect the small temperature changes that underpin today’s aggressive climate agenda.
Approximately 96 percent of temperature stations used to measure climate change fail to meet the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s own standards for “acceptable” and uncorrupted placement. This finding comes from Anthony Watts’ Surface Stations Project, documented in multiple studies including “Corrupted Climate Stations: The Official U.S. Surface Temperature Record Remains Fatally Flawed.”
Watts and his team of volunteers found stations “located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat.” Even more troubling, data from properly sited stations show “a rate of warming in the United States reduced by almost half compared to all stations.” This suggests that a significant portion of reported warming may be artificial, created by poor measurement practices rather than actual climate change.
One of the most persistent flaws in the temperature record is the urban heat island effect. Many weather stations originally placed in rural areas during the 1800s and early 1900s are now surrounded by urban development. Cities generate heat through concrete absorption, reduced vegetation, and dense human activity, producing temperature readings that are consistently 2–5°F warmer than nearby rural areas. This is not speculation, it’s basic physics.
Urban surfaces retain heat differently than natural landscapes, and as development grew around these stations, they began measuring the heat of human expansion rather than natural climate conditions. The result is an artificial warming trend unrelated to global climate change.
Economist Ross McKitrick’s peer-reviewed research, published in journals like Climate Dynamics, exposes another troubling trend: socioeconomic signals in temperature data. If these measurements were purely reflecting climate, no such patterns should exist. Instead, McKitrick found correlations between economic growth and recorded warming, indicating that long-term temperature trends may be partially driven by the development occurring around measurement sites, not by the climate itself.
Perhaps the most damning analysis comes from Stanford researcher Patrick Frank, whose statistical analysis reveals that “the average annual systematic measurement uncertainty is ±0.5°C, which completely vitiates centennial climate warming at the 95% confidence interval.” In practical terms, this means the measurement errors are larger than the climate changes being measured. Frank concludes that “we cannot reject the hypothesis that the world’s temperature has not changed at all.”
The transition from analog mercury thermometers to digital electronic sensors is one of the most significant discontinuities in the 150-year global temperature record. Before digitalization, temperatures were measured using mercury-in-glass thermometers, read manually by observers at specific times each day. In contrast, modern digital systems use electronic sensors that continuously sample temperatures, have different thermal response characteristics, and rely on automated data processing. This means the measurements taken with digital systems are dramatically more accurate and more complete than those collected manually using mercury thermometers.
In the United States, digital sensors began replacing analog instruments in the 1980s, rendering direct comparisons with earlier U.S. records unreliable. Globally, digital systems weren’t widely adopted until the 1990s and 2000s, making comparisons between U.S. and international temperature data invalid prior to full global standardization.
Early temperature records suffered from severe geographic bias. Measurements were heavily concentrated in Europe and North America, with vast regions including most oceans, polar areas, Africa, and Asia having sparse or no data. Ocean temperatures, covering 71% of Earth’s surface, were particularly poorly measured before the 1950s. This creates a fundamental sampling problem. Scientists attempting to calculate “global” temperature averages were actually working with data from a small fraction of the planet, then extrapolating to represent the entire Earth. The assumption that well-documented European and North American weather patterns represent global conditions is scientifically questionable.
To address acknowledged measurement problems, scientists apply extensive “corrections” and adjustments to raw temperature data through a process called homogenization. However, these adjustments involve assumptions and subjective decisions that can introduce their own biases.
Different research groups using different adjustment methods arrive at different temperature trends from the same raw data. The magnitude of these adjustments is often comparable to the climate signals being studied. When the corrections applied to data are as large as the trends being measured, the measurements lose all meaning.
Regardless of accusations that “climate deniers” are rejecting science, the implications of these flaws are serious. Trillions of dollars in policy decisions are being based on temperature records in which measurement errors exceed the very climate trends they claim to show.
Millions of people worldwide are concerned about climate change and believe there is a climate emergency. For decades we have been told by the United Nations that Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activity are causing disastrous climate change. In 2018, a UN IPCC report even warned that ‘we have 12 years to save the Earth’, thus sending millions of people worldwide into a frenzy.
Thirty-five years ago, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the (World Meteorological Organization) WMO established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide scientific advice on the complex topic of climate change. The panel was asked to prepare, based on available scientific information, a report on all aspects relevant to climate change and its impacts and to formulate realistic response strategies. The first assessment report of the IPCC served as the basis for negotiating the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Governments worldwide have signed this convention, thereby, significantly impacting the lives of the people of the world.
1. Very few people actually dig into the data, they simply accept the UN IPPC reports. Yet many highly respectable and distinguished scientists have done exactly that and found that the UN-promoted manmade climate change theory is seriously flawed. Are you aware that almost 2,000 of the world’s leading climate scientists and professionals in over 30 countries have signed a declaration that there is no climate emergency and have refuted the United Nations claims in relation to man-made climate change? See https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/
2. I have also signed this declaration. How can I make such an assertion? I have experience in the field as a former scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK Government; and as former staff member at United Nations Environment, where I was responsible for servicing the Pollution Release and Transfer Register Protocol, a Multinational Environmental Agreement, involving the monitoring of pollutants to land, air, and water worldwide. Real pollution exists, but the problem is not CO2. Industrial globalisation has produced many substances that are registered as pollutants, including thousands of new man-made chemical compounds, toxins, nano-particles and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that are in violation of the scientific pre-cautionary principle.
3. Next, I will mention the Irish Climate Science Forum (ICSF) website, a valuable resource founded by Jim O’Brien. I am grateful to the ICSF for their excellent work in highlighting the scientific flaws in the UN climate narrative. The ICSF provides a comprehensive lecture series from renowned international scientists providing much evidence, analysis, and data that contradicts the UN assertions. The lectures are available at: https://www.icsf.ie/lecture-series
The ICSF scientific view coincides with those of the Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy. CLINTEL was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok. Based on this common conviction, 20 Irish scientists and several ICSF members have co-signed the CLINTEL World Climate Declaration “There is No Climate Emergency” (see https://clintel.org/ireland/).
4. The reality is that the climate has always been changing, the climate changes naturally and slowly in its own cycle, and CO2 emissions (and methane from livestock, such as cows) are not dominant factors in climate change. In essence, therefore, the incessant UN, government, and corporate-media-produced climate hysteria in relation to CO2 emissions (and also methane from cows) has no scientific basis. It appears to me the UN narrative is yet another example of fake science being used to drive an ulterior agenda, see also the book Godless Fake Science.
In truth I am against ‘real’ pollution, and the reality is that the CO2 component is not a pollutant. Unfortunately, many misinformed environmentalists are driving around in electric cars, the battery production for which has caused vast amounts of ‘real’ pollution via the industrial mining and processing of rare earth metals, and the consequent pollution to land, air and water systems. See also this article. Note that the UN does not focus on the thousands of real pollutants that corporate industrial globalisation creates.
5. The conclusions of the Climate Intelligence foundation include the following
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming: The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted: The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models: Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth: CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters: There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent.
It also appears to me that various catastrophes attributed to “CO2-induced climate change” are nothing of the sort. I note the following articles:
6. In the above book I reference the relevant work and scientific presentations of some of the world’s leading climate scientists. Let us examine some of the work and testimonies of these scientists:
“deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that Co2 from human industry was a dangerous plant destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that Co2 the life of plants was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.” – Professor Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT.
Dr Nils-Axel Mörner was a former Committee Chairman at the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He was an expert involved in reviewing the first IPPC documents. He says the UN IPPC is misleading humanity about climate change. He tried to warn that the IPPC were publishing lies and false information that would inevitably be discredited. In an interview, he stated: “This is the most dangerous and frightening part of it. How a lobbyist group, such as the IPPC, has been able to fool the whole world. These organised and deceitful forces are dangerous” and expressed shock “that the UN and governments would parade children around the place at UN Climate summits as propaganda props”. He states:
“solar activity is the dominant factor in climate and not Co2… something is basically sick in the blame Co2 hypothesis… It was launched more than 100 years ago and almost immediately excellent physicists demonstrated that the hypothesis did not work.
I was the chairman of the only international committee on sea levels changes and as such a person I was elected to be the expert reviewer on the (UN IPPC) sea levels chapter. It was written by 38 persons and not a single one was a sea level specialist… I was shocked by the low quality it was like a student paper… I went through it and showed them that it was wrong and wrong and wrong…The scientific truth is on the side of the sceptics… I have thousands of high ranked scientists all over the world who agree that NO, CO2 is not the driving mechanism and that everything is exaggerated.
In the field of physics 80 to 90% of physicists know that the Co2 hypothesis is wrong… Of course, metrologists they believe in this because that is their own profession – they live on it.… I suspect that behind-the-scenes promoters… have an ulterior motive… It’s a wonderful way of controlling taxation controlling people” – Dr Nils-Axel Mörner, a former Committee Chairman at the UN IPPC, and former head of the Paleo Geo-physics and Geo-dynamics department in Stockholm
Another climate scientist with impeccable credentials that has broken rank isDr Mototaka Nakamura. He asserts: “Our models are mickey-mouse mockeries of the real world”.Dr Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from MIT, and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University. Dr Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on and that:“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data”.
Professor John R. Christy, Director of Atmospheric and Earth Sciences, University of Alabama, has provided detailed analysis of climate data. I summarise the main points from his analysis below:
“The established global warming theory significantly misrepresents the impact of extra greenhouse gases; the weather that affects people the most is not becoming more extreme or more dangerous; temperatures were higher in the 1930s than today; between 1895 and 2015, 14 of the top 15 years with the highest heat records occurred before 1960; the temperatures we are experiencing now in 2021 were the same as 120 years ago…
the number of major tornadoes between 1954 and 1986 averaged 56/year, but between 1987 and 2020 the average was only 34/year; between 1895 and 2015 on average there has been no change in the number of very wet days per month, and no change in the number of very dry days per month, and the 20 driest months were before 1988. Between 1950 and 2019 the percentage of land area experiencing droughts has not increased globally – the trend is flat; the incidence of wildfires in North America between 1600 and 2000 has decreased substantially. Sea levels rose 12.5 cm per decade for 8,000 years and then it levelled off, now it rising only 2.5 cm per decade… worrying about 30 cm rise in sea level in a decade is ridiculous, in a hurricane the east coast of the U.S. gets a 20 foot rise in 6 hours, so a 30 cm rise will be easily handled!”
In alecture titled The imaginary climate crisis – how can we change the message? Available on the Irish Climate Science Forum website, see Endnote [ii]. Richard L Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT summarises the battle against the climate hysteria as follows:
“in the long history of the earth there has been almost no correlation between climate and co2… the paleoclimate record shows unambiguously that Co2 is not a control knob… the narrative is absurd… it gives governments the power to control the energy sector… for about 33 years, many of us have been battling against the climate hysteria… There were more important leading people who were objecting to it, they were unfortunately older and by now most of them dead…
Elites are always searching for ways to advertise their virtue and assert their authority. They believe they are entitled to view science as a source of authority rather than a process, and they try to appropriate science, suitably and incorrectly simplified, as the basis for their movement.”
“CO2… it’s not a pollutant… it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis… if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.” – Prof. Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT
Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, and President of Greenpeace in Canada for seven years, states:
“the whole climate crisis is not only fake news its fake science… of course climate change is real it’s been happening since the beginning of time, but it’s not dangerous and it’s not caused by people… climate change is a perfectly natural phenomenon and this modern warming period actually began about 300 years ago when the little ice age began to come to an end. There is nothing to be afraid of and all they are doing is instilling fear. Most of the scientists who are saying it’s a crisis are on perpetual government grants.
I was one of the (Greenpeace) founders… by the mid-80s… we were hijacked by the extreme left who basically took Greenpeace from a science-based organisation to an organisation based on sensationalism, misinformation and fear… you don’t have a plan to feed 8 billion people without fossils fuels or get the food into the cities…” – Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace
Professor William Happer, Princeton University, Former Director of Science at the US Department of Energy, is also a strong voice against the myth of man-made global warming. He states: “More CO2 benefits the Earth”.
The UN climate crisis predictions are not based on physical evidence, rather they are based on complex computer modelling. One has to decode and analyse the modelling process to ascertain whether or not the models are valid and accurate or whether they have obvious flaws. The vast majority of scientists, economists, politicians and the general public have simply assumed that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models are accurate. Very few people have the time or skills to analyse these models, not to mention actually dispute them. Nonetheless, there were many senior and highly distinguished scientists that did exactly that – they claimed the UN narrative was incorrect and that there was no climate emergency. Their voices have been drowned out by a vast money-driven political and media establishment of the globalised ‘system’. The vitally important work of some of these renowned scientists is referenced in the above book.
“The computer models are making systematic dramatic errors… they are all parametrised… fudged… the models really don’t work” – Patrick J. Michaels, Director, Cato Institute Center for the Study of Science
Dr Roger Pielke Jr, University of Colorado, has conducted a detailed scientific review and analysis of the UN IPCC AR6 report, see Endnote [iii]. He describes that in relation to climate modelling, the IPCC detached the models from socio-economic plausibility. In creating the models, instead of first completing integrative assessment models (IAMs), the IPCC skipped this essential step and jumped straight to radiative forcing scenarios and thus these scenarios are not based on competed IAMs. This led much of climate modelling down the wrong track. I quote points from Dr Pielke’s analysis as follows:
“The four IPCC scenarios came from a large family of models so instead of splitting modelling from socio-economic assumptions the models already had the assumptions faked and baked in to them, because they had to have those assumptions to produce the required radiative forcing (to produce a desired climate ‘crisis scenario’ outcome).
In another fateful decision the 4 representative concentration pathways (RCPs) came from 4 different IAMs, which was a huge mistake. These models are completely unrelated to each other, but the impression has been given that they are of a common set, only differing in their radiative forcing, this was a huge mistake. Furthermore, no-one has responsibility for determining whether these scenarios are plausible. The climate community decided which scenario to prioritise and they chose the two most implausible scenarios! There are thousands of climate assumptions, but only 8 to 12 of them are available currently for climate research. The IPCC report even states that “no likelihood is attached to the scenarios in this report”. The likelihood is considered low they admit – This is an incredible admission by the IPCC.
These extreme unlikely scenarios dominate the literature and the IPCC report; therefore, the IPCC report is biased. Bottom line is that there is massive confusion. The IPCCs’ Richard Moss warned that RCP 8.5 was not to be used as a reference for the other RCPs, but 5,800 scientific papers worldwide misuse it like that… The whole process is seriously flawed… Nothing close to the real world is represented by the IPCC scenarios. Climate science has a huge problem! The IPCC currently uses RCP 8.5 as the ‘business as usual’ scenario, but RCP 8.5 is wild fantasy land and not remotely related to current reality at all… climate science has a scientific integrity crisis.” – Dr Roger Pielke Jr, University of Colorado
8. Financialization of the entire world economy is now based on a life-killing ‘net-zero’ greenhouse gas emissions strategy.
The UN Agenda 2030 plan and the Paris Agreement goal to reduce CO2 emissions by 7% per annum until 2030 is in effect a plan that would seemingly disable the current fossil-fuel-based mechanisms of the industrial economy for the food, energy and goods that enable human life and survival. Yet the narrative is quite hypocritical as the production of green energy infrastructure, and mining of rare earth metals for batteries for electric vehicles, is, and will most likely continue to be, very fossil-fuel intensive. Globalisation resulted in much of humanity becoming largely dependent on the trans-national industrial economy rather than on traditional more self-sufficient local/regional economies. Therefore, one has to ask where is this all going to lead if the plug is truly pulled on fossil fuels? Almost all of us are seemingly locked into, and have become dependent upon, the current economic paradigm of globalisation. A system rigged by debt-money created from nothing; created and controlled by private mega-banks and behind the scenes money-masters; and which can induce boom, bust, bailout scenarios that detrimentally effect the populace.
It should be noted that for decades, these same political, government, and corporate powers have rampantly promoted corporate economic globalization and fossil fuel dependency. Whilst, at the same time actively hindering the funding, creation, or government support of, more self-sufficient local communities/regions, and local co-operatives. Most of the world population thus became reliant on the globalized fossil-fuel driven system. I explore this topic in the books Demonic Economics and the Tricks of the Bankers and Transcending the Climate Change Deception Toward Real Sustainability
Zero carbon emissions, in essence, means pulling the plug on current systems of industrial agriculture, transport, goods production, electricity production, etc. This could have terrible consequences, particularly in locations and countries, that are currently unable to produce much food. In Ireland, the deluded greens in government had planned to close the coal-fired power station Moneypoint, in the name of reducing CO2 emissions. However, as the price of electricity increased and the dawn of so-called ‘green energy’ began to evaporate like the Irish morning mist, the government scrapped this plan in 2022, instead deciding to convert the station to an oil-burning facility. The Irish Times newspaper reported:
“With growing concerns over security of the energy supply in the State, the Government is not in a position to decommission Moneypoint as a fuel-burning station in the near future. It was confirmed by the Irish Government in 2022 that Moneypoint will convert to oil generation from 2023.”
The so-called ‘green economy’ (for it is not environmentally friendly in reality) and UN Agenda 2030 are resulting in increased energy poverty and decreased energy independence for the masses, while also developing trillions of dollars for the behind-the-scenes mega-banks. “Stop burning coal and wood logs that causes climate change don’t ya know” my deluded neighbour informed me last year, having threw out her wood burning stove and installed solar panels. Then a typical winter storm in Ireland last month left many thousands of people without electricity or heating for almost a week, shivering and wishing for a wood burning stove, while their solar panels produced little electricity in winter.
9. Central bankers are entirely funding / controlling the advancement of the worldwide climate change ‘project’
The decision to drastically reduce CO2, one of the most essential compounds to sustain all life, is no co-incidence. It should be noted that it is the world’s central bankers that are behind this decision and are entirely funding and controlling the advancement of the worldwide project of ‘combatting man-made climate-change’.
This project involves an attempt to de-carbonise the activities of the entire world population. In December 2015, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) created the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD), which represents $118 trillion of assets globally. In essence this means that the financialization of the entire world economy is based on meeting nonsensical aims such as “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions”. The TCFD includes key people from the world’s mega-banks and asset management companies, including JP Morgan Chase; BlackRock; Barclays Bank; HSBC; China’s ICBC bank; Tata Steel, ENI oil, Dow Chemical, and more.
The fact that the world’s largest banks and asset management corporations, including BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, the UN, the World Bank, the Bank of England and other central banks of the BIS, have all linked to push a vague, mathematically nonsensical ‘green’ economy, is no coincidence. There is another agenda at play that has nothing to do with environmentalism. When the world largest banks, corporations, and institutions, all align to push a climate change agenda that has zero evidence, one can see there is another major agenda going on behind the scenes. This agenda tries to convince the common people of the world to make huge sacrifices under the emotive guise of “saving our planet.”. While all the time the corporations and banks make vast profits, and political institutions implement worldwide technocratic control systems under the banner of combatting, and adapting to, so-called man-made climate change.
“The links between the world’s largest financial groups, central banks and global corporations to the current push for a radical climate strategy to abandon the fossil fuel economy in favor of a vague, unexplained Green economy, it seems, is less about genuine concern to make our planet a clean and healthy environment to live. Rather it is an agenda, intimately tied to the UN Agenda 2030 for “sustainable” economy, and to developing literally trillions of dollars in new wealth for the global banks and financial giants who constitute the real powers that be… “ – F. William Engdahl, strategic risk consultant and lecturer
Back in 2010, the head of Working Group 3 of the UN IPCC, Dr Otmar Edenhofer, told an interviewer, “…one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
To better perceive what is ‘behind the curtain’ of the climate hoax and the UN/WEF agenda it also helps to examine what has happened in the decades beforehand. It is important to perceive the implications of the worldwide fractional-reserve debt-money banking scam and the subtle system of debt-slavery that has existed for decades. If you look at the World Bank website you will see that virtually every nation on Earth is in vast debt. In debt to who you may ask? The answer is to privately owned mega-banks. See also the book Demonic Economics and the Tricks of the Bankers.
For many decades the so-called banking and corporate elites have had full control of the source of money creation and its allocation, via the debt-money system, and have therefore, by default, been able to fund, and increasingly control and manipulate the entire world spectrum of industry, media, government, education, ideological supremacy and war to their own design, agenda and benefit. Mayer Amschel Rothschild (banker) is widely reported to have said:
“Give me control of a nation’s money supply and I care not who makes its laws.”
Psychopaths can utilise any ideology and, change it from within to something that may eventually be entirely different to its original purpose. Meanwhile, the original followers and advocates continue to pursue what they believe is the original ideology, but gradually become mere pawns in the agenda of a self-serving elite. Unfortunately, over the past decades, this is exactly what has happened in the environmental movement.
Whistleblower George Hunt served as an official host at a key environmental meeting in Denver, Colorado in 1987, and states that David Rockefeller; Baron Edmund De Rothschild; US Secretary of State Baker; Maurice Strong, a UN official and an employee of the Rockefeller and Rothschild trusts; EPA administrator William Ruccleshaus; UN Secretary General in Geneva MacNeill, along with World Bank and IMF officials were at this meeting. Hunt was surprised to see all these rich elite bankers at the meeting and questioned what they were doing there at an environmental congress.
In a video recording available here Hunt later provided important evidence from the documents of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3-14 June 1992. This conference was the well-known UN ’92 Earth Summit and was run by UNCED. According to Hunt, via the Earth summit, the UN was setting a net, an agenda, to place the power over the Earth and its peoples into their own hands. The world private banking cartel are the same ultra-rich banking families that had been instrumental in the setting up of the World Bank, the UN, and other international institutions, after WW2. Their political cohorts included Stalin (the leader of a brutal communist regime in the USSR that committed genocide of millions of people), UK Prime minister Churchill, and US President Roosevelt. Hunt refers to these banking families and their financial and international institutional networks as:
“The same world order that tricked third world countries to borrow funds and rack up enormous debts… and purposely creating war and debt to bring societies into their control. The world order crowd are not a nice group of people…”– George Hunt, Whistleblower speaking about the UN Earth summit of 1992
As a consequence of the UN Earth Summit, it appears the genuine environment movement that actually cared about real pollution to land, air and water, was politically hi-jacked by powerful political and financial interests with a different agenda. Maurice Strong, a UN official and an employee of the Rockefeller and Rothschild trusts, had convened the first UNCED congress in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972. Then, 20 years later he was the convenor and secretary general of UNCED. Hunt also provided video evidence from the Fourth UNCED World Congress meeting in 1987 of an international investment banker, stating that:
“I suggest therefore that this be sold not through a democratic process that would take too long and require far too much funds to educate the cannon-fodder, unfortunately, which populates the Earth. We have to take almost an elitist program…”
Thus, the decrees leading to the 1992 UN Earth summit were dictated without debate or opportunity for dissent and would supersede national laws. According to Hunt, the decrees were dictated into existence by the banker Edmund de Rothschild, who got these major decrees into the ’92 UN resolutions without debate or challenge. Hunt asserts that he was denied the opportunity to openly challenge Rothschild’s remarks by the meeting Chairman; and that the Rothschild bank of Geneva is the nucleus of the World Conservation bank and the wealthy elite are integrated into the bank via the Rothschilds private offering of shares.
11. Despite the deceptive and fake environmental facade, it has adopted, the vast institutional entity of the UN has fully endorsed environmentally destructive industrial globalisation for the past 70 years.
This current globalised system involves the promotion of beliefs and fake science that claim to be unchallengeable truths, but are, in fact, ideologies in which evidence is manipulated, twisted, and distorted to prove the ‘governing idea’, and thus promote its worldwide dissemination. They start with the conclusion they want and then wrench and manipulate what scant evidence they can to fit that conclusion. Man-made climate change due to anthropogenic carbon emission is a major example of this.
Institutions, including the UN, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the World Health Organisation (WHO), are privately-motivated unelected unaccountable organisations controlled by the source of debt-money creation, i.e., the world private-banking cartel; and are just clever marketing tools and political mechanisms for implementing and maintaining a corrupt worldwide system, under the clever guise of ‘fixing the problems of the world’.
These powerful special interests have been promoting certain ‘ideologies’ for decades to advance their corporate and political aims. The word “sustainable” was hijacked decades ago, and it is now deceptively used to advance the agendas of globalist mega-corporate interests who couldn’t care less about the environment. The aim is to catapult humanity into the arms of UN Agenda 2030 and the WEF ‘reset’ plan, which are clever marketing plans entirely designed by the so-called elite mega-corporate interests of the WEF Davos group.
12. Furthermore, the current green energy/renewable technologies being promoted by the UN and WEF, are not a viable solution for the world’s energy supply. Although these technologies have some limited viability in certain locations and scenarios, the fact remains that the Energy Returned on Energy Invested is much too low – in essence the entire process is mathematically flawed. This is evidenced by the work of scientists, including Professor David MacKay (1967 – 2016), former Regius Professor of Engineering at Cambridge University, and former Chief Scientific Advisor at the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change.
Summary
In summary, CO2 reduction is the main focus of the UN-promoted climate-change-hysteria that has been rampant among the world’s population.However, the proclaimed climate crisis exists in computer models only. The cult of ‘manmade climate change’ is a media and UN politically-promoted ‘ideology’, that is used for a wider political and corporate agenda. Manmade climate change is not based in fact, and has hijacked real environmental concerns.
Due to incessant UN, government, and corporate-promoted climate change propaganda, many people are, thus, in a media-induced state of confusion, and, thus, blindly assume their pre-determined role in society under this ‘dictatorship of words’ without even being aware of it. The unpalatable reality is that people’s access to energy and resources is being intentionally reduced via bogus climate change policies, inflation, ongoing geo-political theatre and intentionally instigated war.
We cannot understand how to create a truly resilient society unless we correctly perceive the current society we live in and how it came to exist. Unless we recognize the untruths of the current paradigm, even if it is not ‘politically correct’ to do so, then we will not be able to make the correct adjustments to our communities and local/regional networks, or create a truly resilient thriving society. In this spirit of truth, new networks are emerging worldwide.
Scientists have begun work on a controversial project that aims to create human DNA from scratch. World’s largest medical charity, the Wellcome Trust, has donated Rs 117 crore (10 million pounds) to start the project, which involves scientists from universities including Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial College.
Regarded as the building blocks of human life, DNA is made up of repeating units called nucleotides, which contain all the genetic information that physically makes us who we are. Scientists involved in the Synthetic Human Genome Project are now attempting to create a fully synthetic human chromosome, making up about two per cent of human DNA, as proof of concept. The ultimate aim is to maybe one day, create all of it from scratch.
“The sky is the limit. We are looking at therapies that will improve people’s lives as they age, that will lead to healthier ageing with less disease as they get older,” Dr Julian Sale, of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, who is part of the project, told the BBC.
“We are looking to use this approach to generate disease-resistant cells we can use to repopulate damaged organs, for example, in the liver and the heart, even the immune system,” he said.
As per Professor Matthew Hurles, director of the Wellcome Sanger Insititute, studying how genes and DNA regulate our bodies could help us pinpoint when they go wrong and ultimately develop better treatments.
“Building DNA from scratch allows us to test out how DNA really works and test out new theories, because currently we can only really do that by tweaking DNA in DNA that already exists in living systems,” said Mr Hurles.
However, not everyone is seemingly convinced by the idea of humans playing gods. Professor Bill Earnshaw, a genetic scientist at Edinburgh University who designed a method for creating artificial chromosomes, said the technology could be commercialised quickly by healthcare companies.
The “appearance of design” in biological organisms is undeniable. Famed atheist, Richard Dawkins, once wrote, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” In my book, God’s Crime Scene, I offer a template of eight common characteristics of design. When we observe a number of these attributes in any questionable object, we are reasonable in inferring the existence of a designer. I described one of these attributes as the “Echo of Familiarity.” When an object under question strongly resembles another object we know is designed, this “echo of familiarity” should be considered as we try to determine whether a designer was involved in the object we’re investigating. Let me give you an example.
When my sons were young, they each had a police officer costume. As part of their costume, each had a plastic toy pistol shaped to resemble the old revolvers my dad’s generation of police officers used to carry. They weren’t precisely fashioned, but their shapes certainly echoed the design of real pistols, and my boys used them to effectively recreate a number of imaginary “cop and robber” games. These toy pistols were obviously the product of intelligent design, and even my young sons recognized the pattern similarity when compared to the pistols with which they were familiar (the ones used by their father and grandfather).
In a similar way, we’ve discovered biological micro-machines that resemble other known designed objects. One such machine has become the icon of the Intelligent Design movement. Biochemist Michal Behe wrote about the bacterial flagellum twenty years ago in his famous book, Darwin’s Black Box. The flagellum bears a striking resemblance to the rotary motors created by intelligent designers. University of Utah Biology Professor David Blair describes the amazing similarities: “An ensemble of over forty different kinds of proteins makes up the typical bacterial flagellum. These proteins function in concert as a literal rotary motor. The bacterial flagellum’s components stand as direct analogs to the parts of a man-made motor, including a rotor, stator, drive shaft, bushing, universal joint, and propeller.”
Illustration from God’s Crime Scene
Humans were building rotary engines for generations before we ever discovered the rotary design of flagella. We recognize the form of this rotary engine when we see it in bacteria; the shapes of flagella echo the designed engines we use in tools and vehicles. If our rotary engines are the product of intelligent design, it’s reasonable to infer a designer is responsible for other similarly shaped and constructed machines, even the micro-machines we find in cellular organisms. As Biochemist Fazale Rana, observes, “The contrast between . . . synthetic molecular motors designed by some of the finest and most creative organic chemists in the world and the elegance and complexity of molecular motors found in cells is striking . . . Is it really reasonable to conclude that these biomotors are the products of blind, undirected physical and chemical processes, when they are far beyond what the best human minds can achieve?”
The “echo of familiarity” demonstrated by the bacterial flagellum is one of eight attributes pointing to the existence of a Designer. By itself, this characteristic of design may not conclusively prove the case, but when coupled with the other seven attributes, the inference is overwhelming. To make matters worse, naturalistic evolutionary processes simply cannot account for the appearance of design we see in biology. For a complete cumulative case related to the bacterial flagellum, please refer to God’s Crime Scene, Chapter Four – Signs of Design: Is There Evidence of An Artist?
“The biggest news story of our century is happening right now—but is never mentioned in the press,” says cultural critic Ted Gioia. It’s a shift on the scale of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. In such movements, “the whole entrenched hierarchy of truth and authority gets totally reversed. The old experts and their systems are discredited, and completely new values take their place.”
This new cultural phase doesn’t have a name yet. So Gioia says, “Let’s call it The Collapse of the Knowledge System.”
The knowledge structure that has dominated everything for our entire lifetime—and for our parents and grandparents—is collapsing. And it’s taking place everywhere, all at once. If this were just an isolated situation—a problem in universities, or media, or politics—the current hierarchy could possibly survive. But that isn’t the case. The crisis has spread into every sector of society that relies on clear knowledge and respected authority.
Ted Gioia, the brother of poet Dana Gioia, is described by the Free Press as “one of the sharpest observers of the warp speed changes underway in our culture.” He goes on in that webzine to list 10 bits of evidence for his thesis (to which I will add a few of my own):(1) Scientific studies don’t replicate. Gioia points out that 40% or more of published scientific research cannot be replicated by other researchers. By the canons of the scientific method, that means they are invalid. Not only that, according to a study he links to, non-replicable research is cited 153 times more often than verifiable scientific research, reportedly because the phony findings are more interesting than valid findings!
(2) Public distrust of experts has reached an intensity never seen before. What with what we were told about COVID, the constantly changing pronouncements about what is good for us and what isn’t, the flagrant bias of academia, and the conflicting messages of our online authorities (my examples), people just don’t trust the professional class of experts. Gioia observes,
The only experts who still possess authority are blue-collar ones. The public still wants to hire the best plumber or car mechanic or hair stylist, and will pay more if these workers have established a reputation for expertise. But the expertise of white-collar professionals is derided at every turn.
(3) The career path for knowledge workers is breaking down—and many have only unpaid student loans to show for their years of training and preparation. We blogged about this in this week’s Monday Miscellany, with our item entitled, “Unemployment Rate for Computer Engineering Grads Is Double That of Art History Majors.”
(4) Funding for science and tech research is disappearing in every sphere and sector. This is not just a matter of the Trump administration cutting grants to woke universities. It is happening more broadly. Private funding sources for scientific research is also drying up. Observes Gioia, “Even the huge corporations that fund their own research programs are now investing in AI data centers, not scientists.” But science and technology require ongoing research.
(5) Universities have lost their prestige, and have made enemies of their core constituencies. As tuition soars, the value of a degree plummets. And all sides of the general public are angry at universities, with their bloated bureaucracies, elitist attitudes, self-serving curricula, and indifference to students.
(6) Plagiarism is getting exposed at all levels, from students to corporations—and all the way to Harvard’s president. But the authorities just take it for granted. “A healthy knowledge system requires honesty and accountability, and not long ago this was taken for granted,” observes Gioia. “But plagiarism is now everywhere and taken for granted.”
(7) AI is imposed everywhere as the new expert system. But when it hallucinates and generates ridiculous responses, the authorities (again) take this for granted. “The people running the knowledge system complacently accept all the deceit, lies, and hallucinations. They do so without any ethical qualms or even anxiety.” The public recognizes this irresponsibility of the experts who control this new knowledge system. Thus,” the very speed and intensity with which new tech is implemented actually accelerates the collapse of the entire knowledge hierarchy.”
(8) Science and technology are increasingly used to manipulate and exploit, not serve. Gioia gives an abundance of examples that we could all no doubt come up with ourselves.
(9) Scandals are everywhere in the knowledge economy (Theranos, Sam Bankman-Fried, collapsing meme coins, Covid, etc.). “Tech start-ups were once admired, praised, and emulated. But they are now treated with intense scrutiny and skepticism. There have been too many scandals, too many frauds, too many cover-ups. These are so common that the media hardly even reports on them anymore. . . .But nobody is shocked anymore. [The public] lost trust in knowledge tech industries long ago.”
(10) We hear constant bickering about “fake science”—from all political and ideological stances. Nobody talks about “true science.” Gioia uses a Google word frequency graph to show that the phrase “fake science,” which we now hear all the time and all sides use it against each other, didn’t really exist until the 21st century. In the 20th century and before that, if information was “fake,” it wasn’t science. “In those days, science was considered emblematic of truth.”
But when the knowledge structure collapses, science loses its privileged access to truth. At the final stage, it gets harder and harder to distinguish science from propaganda. We are now living in that nightmare scenario.
Let me add a few items to this “nightmare scenario” of the collapse of our knowledge scenario:
—The failure of our public schools. Gioia thinks our higher education as practiced in our leading universities is bad, and he is right. But our primary and secondary education, as practiced in our public school system, is far worse and impacts a broader sector of our population. In many cities and communities, despite a huge, expensive, and entrenched educational establishment, children are just not getting educated.
—The dead end of contemporary thought. If truth is relative, knowledge is impossible. If the true, the good, and the beautiful are nothing more than impositions of power on the part of the privileged class in order to oppress marginalized groups, the only meaningful pursuit is politics, by which your group can seize power so that it can oppress the former oppressors. These principles explain why the whole range of our educational institutions has replaced the acquisition of knowledge with political indoctrination. Such axioms of contemporary thought–which have been busy challenging and subverting our traditional knowledge system– are intellectual, moral, and aesthetic dead ends.
—“True science” is leading to less understanding rather than more. There is, in fact, true science as well as fake science, which is making huge advances. But what quantum physics is disclosing about nature is that reality is far more complex, mysterious, and unfathomable than Enlightenment-era rationalism and materialism ever expected. This is not a fault of our knowledge system but a demonstration that our former assumptions about the explanatory power of science was naive and incomplete. We are in need of a larger worldview.
So is Gioia right, that our knowledge system is collapsing? If he is, what comes next? Let’s talk about that tomorrow.
As unlikely and unexpected as it may be, life exists in our universe, and just as researchers stipulate to the appearance of fine-tuning in the cosmos, scientists also stipulate to the appearance of design in biological organisms. Richard Dawkins would be the first to agree: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Many other scientists affirm this observation and extend it to include the larger ecosystems in which many symbiotic organisms are dependent on one another for their survival. Smith College professor of biological sciences, Robert Dorit says, “The apparent fit between organisms seems to suggest some higher intelligence at work, some supervisory gardener bringing harmony and color to the garden.” For scientists looking for an explanation within the “garden” to avoid the inference of an external “supervisory gardener,” this appearance of design is difficult to explain.
Dawkins believes, however, the power of natural evolutionary processes can explain “the illusion of design and planning.” If the appearance of design and planning is purely illusory, it is an impressive illusion indeed. The examples of apparent design are plentiful and varied. Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe describes a number of inexplicable biological systems and micro-machines in his ground-breaking book, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Behe challenges the scientific community to explain the appearance of design in cellular cilium (microscopic oar-like filaments), the interconnected molecular processes involved in blood clotting, the specified complexity of cellular protein delivery systems, and more. He describes these systems in detail and identifies a number of design features similar to those we observed in the garrote.
Behe and other scientists, such as biochemist Fazale Rana, believe the interaction of an intelligent agent “outside the room” (of the natural universe) is the best explanation for the appearance of design in these microscopic structures and processes “inside the room.” In fact, Rana believes the design inference is reasonable in even the simplest life forms: “The incredible complex nature of minimal life, likewise, makes it difficult to envision how natural evolutionary processes could have produced even the simplest life-forms . . . it is super-astronomically improbable for the essential gene set to emerge simultaneously through natural means alone.”
Illustration from God’s Crime Scene
In my latest book, God’s Crime Scene, I describe eight attributes of design and explain how the presence of these attribute is best explained by the activity of a designer. When these eight design characteristics are present in objects we observe in our world, we quickly infer a designer without reservation. As it turns out, the same attributes of design (dubious probability, echoes of familiarity, sophistication and intricacy, informational dependency, goal direction, natural inexplicability, efficiency/irreducible complexity, and decision/choice reflection) are present in even the most primitive biological organisms, making them prohibitively difficult to explain on the basis of chance mutations and the laws of physics or chemistry alone. Life at its simplest and most foundational level demonstrates a staggering level of complexity. According to biochemist Michael Denton, cooperative, interactive, cellular factories appear purposefully designed: “That each constituent utilized by the cell for a particular biological role, each cog in the watch, turns out to be the only and at the same time the ideal candidate for its role is particularly suggestive of design. That the whole, the end to which all this teleological wizardry leads—the living cell—should be also ideally suited for the task of constructing the world of multicellular life reinforces the conclusion of purposeful design. The prefabrication of parts to a unique end is the very hallmark of design. Moreover, there is simply no way that such prefabrication could be the result of natural selection.”
Michael Behe’s numerous biological examples provide an insurmountable challenge to naturalistic theories appealing to causes from “inside the room”. The cumulative design features present in these organisms simply cannot be explained by naturalistic processes. The sheer number of parts required to work together simultaneously for each of these systems to function incline us toward an external explanation: “As the number of required parts increases, the difficulty of gradually putting the system together [through mutations and natural selection] skyrockets, and the likelihood of indirect scenarios plummets . . . As the number of systems that are resistant to gradualist explanation mounts, the need for a new kind of explanation grows more apparent.”
The most obvious and reasonable inference seems to be elusive to naturalists who try to account for the appearance of design in biological organisms. No explanation employing the laws of physics or chemistry from “inside the room” of the natural universe is adequate. The appearance of design in biology is yet another evidence demonstrating the existence of an “external” Divine Designer. This brief summary of evidence for design is excerpted from God’s Crime Scene, Chapter Four – Signs of Design: Is There Evidence of An Artist?
The most obvious and reasonable inference seems to be elusive to naturalists who try to account for the appearance of design in biological organisms Share on X
You have seen it on social media or even books. Someone gambling his head that faith impedes the progression of science. Faith, they say, is believing something without evidence or in spite of, and science relies on evidence to reach at truth. This gives the false impression that the majority of scientist are atheist, or at least non theist. It’s even considered conventional wisdom for many (maybe you thought it too).
But in reality… this is just plain doodoo.
Faith vs. Science?
First, because it starts with a false definition of faith like the one mentioned above. Pistis, the Greek word for faith, means trust and is the word used in the Bible. Trust cannot be conceived without reasonable justification. The biblical faith doesn’t shy away from doubt. Doubt and faith aren’t mutually exclusive.
Second, if you start with scientism or naturalism as your worldview, by default you will reject any argument or evidence that points to the existence of the supernatural.[1] There is no objectivity there. It’s just closed minded.
Third, this is not just factually wrong. The opposite is factually true.
Pie Chart distributing the religion of nobel prize winners between 1901 and 2000.
[This Chart depicts the] “Distribution of Nobel Prizes by religion between 1901–2000, the data tooks [sic] from Baruch A. Shalev, 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (2003), Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, p.59 and p.57: between 1901 and 2000 reveals that 654 Laureates belong to 28 different religion. Most 65.4% have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference. Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace, 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics and 49.5% of all Literature awards.
Atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers comprise 10.5% of total Nobel Prize winners; but in the category of Literature, these preferences rise sharply to about 35%. A striking fact involving religion is the high number of Laureates of the Jewish faith — over 20% of total Nobel Prizes (138); including: 17% in Chemistry, 26% in Medicine and Physics, 40% in Economics and 11% in Peace and Literature each. The numbers are especially startling in light of the fact that only some 14 million people (0.2% of the world’s population) are Jewish. By contrast, only 5 Nobel Laureates have been of the Muslim faith-0.8% of total number of Nobel prizes awarded — from a population base of about 1.2 billion (20% of the world‘s population).”[2]
Before We Proceed
Before getting into the cognitive-dissonance-inducing quotes, let me make some caveats.
The experts quoted here have different religious beliefs and affiliations.
This list does not prove the existence of any God or truthfulness of any particular religion any [given] scientist professes.
This also does not disprove atheism or any non-theist worldview, since, as mentioned at the beginning, there is a small percentage of non-theists that were and are Nobel prize winners.
This list does not prove the opposite, namely, that the majority of scientist in these fields are religious. It might be the case that religious people are a minority.
Finally, it just disproves the false assumption that faith in God and the supernatural impedes the progression of science (when in fact, it gave birth to science, but that might be a future post) or that science and faith are incompatible.
The list will be divided by fields for easy search with their respective sources. The experts range from different nationalities and times with no specific order. This list only composes the fields of chemistry, physics and medicine. Literature, economics and peace are not included. Without further ado, enjoy the quotes.
Chemistry
“God did create the universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and of necessity has involved Himself with His creation ever since. The purpose of this universe is something that only God knows for sure, but it is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned to enable human life. We are somehow critically involved in His purpose.” — Richard Smalley. Chemist. — Nobel Prize: For the discovery of fullerenes. — Source:Remarks by Richard Smalley at 2005 Alumni Banquet, Hope College.
“Well, we are supposed to love the Lord our God with all our heart with all our mind and with all our strength. But that is separate from loving our neighbor as ourselves. It means that nature is God’s creation. So we should love nature and understand nature the best we can in order to show our love for the creator.” — John B. Goodenough. Materials scientist, a solid-state physicist. — Nobel Prize: For the development of lithium-ion batteries — Source:Transcript of an interview with John B. Goodenough.
“God is Truth. There is no incompatibility between science and religion. Both are seeking the same truth. Science shows that God exists.” — Dereck Barton. Organic chemist. — Nobel Prize: For his contribution to the development of the conformational analysis as an essential part of organic chemistry. — Source: Barton, as cited in Margenau and Varghese 1997, Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo sapiens, 144.
“I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.” — Christian Anfinsen. Biochemist. — Nobel Prize: For his work on ribonuclease, especially concerning the connection between the amino acid sequence and the biologically active conformation. — Source: Anfinsen, as cited in Margenau and Varghese, ‘Cosmos, Bios, Theos’, 1997, 139.
“Certainly science, especially physics and chemistry, is a very important part of my identity. But I also consider myself a religious person, and in two senses: one, based on my liberal Jewish upbringing which I have passed on to my children; the other, a kind of nondenominational deism which springs from my awe of the world of our experiences and is heightened by my identity as a scientist. It also includes a conviction that science alone is an insufficient guide to life, leaving many deep questions unanswered and needs unfulfilled.” — Walter Kohn. Physicist. — Nobel Prize: For his work on the development of the density functional theory. — Source:Reflections of a Physicist after an Encounter with the Vatican and Pope John Paul II (April 20, 2001, University of California, Santa Barbara)
Physics
“This much I can say with definiteness — namely, that there is no scientific basis for the denial of religion — nor is there in my judgment any excuse for a conflict between science and religion, for their fields are entirely different. Men who know very little of science and men who know very little of religion do indeed get to quarreling, and the onlookers imagine that there is a conflict between science and religion, whereas the conflict is only between two different species of ignorance.” — Robert A. Millikan. Experimental physicist. — Nobel prize: for his work on the elementary charge of electricity and on the photoelectric effect. — Source:Autobiography (1950). Chapter 21: “The Two Supreme Elements in Human Progress”. p 279.
“If we count the galaxies of the universe or demonstrate the existence of elementary particles, in an analog way we can’t probably have proof of the existence of God. But as a researcher, I’m deeply moved by the order and beauty I find in the cosmos and the interior of material things. As an observer of nature, I can’t help thinking there is a higher order. The idea that all this is the result of fortune or pure statistic diversity for me is completely unacceptable.” — Carlo Rubbia. Physicist and director of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) — Nobel Prize: For work leading to the discovery of the W and Z particles at CERN. — Source: C. Rubbia, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, March 1993.
“Science, with its experiments and logic, tries to understand the order or structure of the universe. Religion, with its theological inspiration and reflection, tries to understand the purpose or meaning of the universe. These two are cross-related. Purpose implies structure, and structure ought somehow to be interpretable in terms of purpose.” — Charles H. Townes. Physicist. — Nobel Prize: For fundamental work in the field of quantum electronics. — Source: “Logic and Uncertainties in Science and Religion,” in Science and the Future of Mankind: Science for Man and Man for Science, pp. 296–309.
“As we conquer peak after peak we see in front of us regions full of interest and beauty, but we do not see our goal, we do not see the horizon; in the distance tower still higher peaks, which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects, and deepen the feeling, the truth of which is emphasized by every advance in science, that ‘Great are the Works of the Lord’.” — Joseph John Thomson. Physicist — Nobel Prize: For the discovery of the electron. — Source: Thomson 1909, Nature, vol. 81, p. 257
“If there are a bunch of fruit trees, one can say that whoever created these fruit trees wanted some apples. In other words, by looking at the order in the world, we can infer purpose and from purpose we begin to get some knowledge of the Creator, the Planner of all this. This is, then, how I look at God. I look at God through the works of God’s hands and from those works imply intentions. From these intentions, I receive an impression of the Almighty.” — Arno Penzias. Physics. — Nobel Prize: For the discovery of the cosmic background radiation which substantiated Big Bang theory. — Source: Penzias, as cited in ‘The God I Believe in’, Joshua O. Haberman editor, New York, Maxwell Macmillan International, 1994, 184
“One way to learn the mind of the Creator is to study His creation. We must pay God the compliment of studying His work of art and this should apply to all realms of human thought. A refusal to use our intelligence honestly is an act of contempt for Him who gave us that intelligence.” —Ernest Thomas Sinton Walton. Physicist. — Nobel Prize: for his pioneering work on the transmutation of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles — Source: V. J. McBrierty (2003): Ernest Thomas Sinton Walton, The Irish Scientist, 1903–1995, Trinity College Dublin Press.
“Can a good scientist believe in God? I think the answer is: Yes. In the first place, a scientist, more than other scholars, spends his time observing nature. It is his task to help to unravel the mysteries of nature. He comes to marvel at these mysteries. Hence, it is not hard for a scientist to admire the greatness of the creator of nature. From this it is only a step to adore God.” —Victor Franz Hess. Physicist — Nobel Prize: For the discovery of cosmic rays. — Source:The American Weekly. “My Faith”. November 3, 1946.
“The book of nature which we have to read is written by the finger of God.” —Michael Faraday. Scientist. — Nobel Prize: For establishing the existence of the magnetic field, discovered electrolysis, diamagnetism, electromagnetic induction and benzene. — Source: Seeger, Raymond. 1983. “Faraday, Sandemanian,” in The Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 35 (June 1983): 101.
“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.” —Max Planck. Physicist. Founder of quantum physics. — Nobel Prize: In recognition of the services he rendered to the advancement of Physics by his discovery of energy quanta. — Source:Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers as translated by F. Gaynor (1949), p. 184 — Religion and Natural Science (1937)
“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.” —Albert Einstein. Physicist. — Nobel Prize: for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect. — Source: Statement to German anti-Nazi diplomat and author Prince Hubertus zu Lowenstein around 1941, as quoted in his book Towards the Further Shore : An Autobiography (1968) — Attributed in posthumous publications.
“Overpoweringly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie all around us; and if ever perplexities, whether metaphysical or scientific, turn us away from them for a time, they come back upon us with irresistible force, showing to us through Nature the influence of a free will, and teaching us that all living things depend on one ever-acting Creator and Ruler.” —William Lord Kelvin. Physicist and mathematician. Founder of Thermodynamics and Energetics — Nobel Prize: his achievements in thermodynamics. — Source: Address of Sir William Thomson, Knt., LL.D., F.R.S, President,” in Report of the Forty-First Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, held at Edinburgh in August 1871, pages lxxxiv-cv., 100–101.
“I believe in God, who can respond to prayers, to whom we can give trust and without whom life on this earth would be without meaning (a tale told by an idiot). I believe that God has revealed Himself to us in many ways and through many men and women, and that for us here in the West the clearest revelation is through Jesus and those that have followed him.” —Nevill Francis Mott. Physicist. — Nobel Prize: For his work on the electronic structure of magnetic and disordered systems, especially amorphous semiconductors. — Source: Mott, as cited in Nevill Mott: Reminiscences and Appreciations, E.A. Davis — editor, London, Taylor & Francis Ltd, 1998, 329.
“I believe in God. In fact, I believe in a personal God who acts in and interacts with the creation. I believe that the observations about the orderliness of the physical universe, and the apparently exceptional fine-tuning of the conditions of the universe for the development of life suggest that an intelligent Creator is responsible. I believe in God because of a personal faith, a faith that is consistent with what I know about science.” —William D. Phillips. Physicist. — Nobel Prize: For development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light. — Source: Phillips, William D. 2002b. A letter to the compiler T. Dimitrov. May 19.
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist, must be rather silly people.” —Max Born, Physicist. — Nobel Prize: For his fundamental research in quantum mechanics, especially for his statistical interpretation of the wavefunction. — Source: Frederick E. Trinklein, The God of Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971), 64.
[When asked if he believed in God as a natural scientist] “Naturally, yes. I grew up as a strict Catholic, and I think that I benefited from that.” —Peter Grünberg. Physicist. — Nobel Prize: For his discovery with Albert Fert of giant magnetoresistance. — Source: Cicero: Magazin für Politische Kultur, December 2007.
“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence. An orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered: ‘In the beginning God. . . ” — Arthur Compton. Physicist. — Nobel Prize: for his discovery of the effect named after him. — Source: “Why I Believe in Immortality,” This Week, (Sunday supplement to the New Orleans’ The Sunday Item-Tribune; April 12, 1936), 5 ff. Reprinted in Christian Science Sentinel, 62: 32, (August 6, 1960), 1411.
“In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.” — Werner Karl Heisenberg. Theoretical physicist. — Nobel Prize: For the creation of quantum mechanics. — Source: Heisenberg, Scientific and Religious Truth (1973)
“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . I find a need for God in the universe and my own life.” — Arthur L. Schawlo. Physicist. — Nobel Prize: for their contribution to the development of laser spectroscopy. — Source: H. Margenau, Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientist Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens (1992).
“I think both science and religion are necessary to understand our relation to the Universe. In principle, Science tells us how everything works, although there are many unsolved problems and I guess there always will be. But science raises questions that it can never answer. Why did the big bang eventually lead to conscious beings who question the purpose of life and the existence of the Universe? This is where religion is necessary.” — Antony Hewish. Radio astronomer — Nobel Prize: For their pioneering research in radio astrophysics: Ryle for his observations and inventions, in particular of the aperture synthesis technique, and Hewish for his decisive role in the discovery of pulsars. — Source: Antony Hewish, “A letter to the compiler T. Dimitrov. May 27” (2002).
Medicine
“I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts.” — Ernst Boris Chain. Biochemist. — Nobel Prize: for the discovery of penicillin and its curative effect in various infectious diseases. — Source: Chain, as cited in The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond by Ronald W. Clark, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1985, 147–148.
“Only the scientist manages to understand something of that mysterious language that God has written in Nature; and it has only been given to him to unravel the marvelous work of Creation in order to render to the Absolute the most pleasant and accepted cult, that of studying his portentous works, in order to know, admire and revere him in and through them.” [Translated by me from Spanish to English] — Santiago Ramon y Cajal. Neuroscientist, pathologist, and histologist. — Nobel Prize: In recognition of his work on the structure of the nervous system. — Source: Reglas y consejos sobre la investigación científica. Los tónicos de la voluntad.
“…[N]o scientific discovery was so fraught with significance as the revelation of the law of love by Jesus the Crucified. For this law is, in fact, that of the survival of human societies.” — Alexis Carrell. Surgeon and biologist. — Nobel Prize: For his work on vascular suture and the transplantation of blood vessels and organs — Source:Reflections on Life, 1952, Chap. 3, Part 6
“Science and religion are very much alike. Both are imaginative and creative aspects of the human mind. The appearance of a conflict is a result of ignorance. We come to exist through a divine act. That divine guidance is a theme throughout our life; at our death the brain goes, but that divine guidance and love continues. Each of us is a unique, conscious being, a divine creation. It is the religious view. It is the only view consistent with all the evidence.” — Sir John Carew Eccles. Neurophysiologist and philosopher. — Nobel Prize: For his discoveries concerning the ionic mechanisms involved in excitation and inhibition in the peripheral and central portions of the nerve cell membrane. — Source:The Intellectuals Speak Out About God: A Handbook for the Christian Student in a Secular Society (1984). p 50.
“Is the Church inimical to science? Growing up as a Catholic and a scientist — I don’t see it. One truth is revealed truth, the other is scientific truth. If you really believe that creation is good, there can be no harm in studying science. The more we learn about creation — the way it emerged — it just adds to the glory of God. Personally, I’ve never seen a conflict.” — Joseph Murray. Professor of Surgery at Harvard Medical School; chief plastic surgeon at Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Boston. — Nobel Prize: For work that “proved to a doubting world that it was possible to transplant organs to save the lives of dying patients.” — Source: National Catholic Register (December 1–7, 1996) (Murray, as cited in Meyer 1996)
“When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!” — George Wald. Professor of Biology at Harvard University (1948–1977). — Nobel Prize: For his work on the biochemistry of vision. — Source: George Wald, 1954, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191 [2]: 48. [It should be noted he was an atheist when he said this. He later become a deist.]
“This day relenting God Hath placed within my hand A wondrous thing; and God Be praised. At His command, Seeking His secret deeds With tears and toiling breath, I find thy cunning seeds, O million-murdering Death. I know this little thing A myriad men will save. O Death, where is thy sting? Thy victory, O Grave?” — Ronald Ross. Professor of Tropical Medicine at Liverpool University (1902–1912); Vice President of the Royal Society (1911–1913). —Nobel Prize: For his remarkable work on malaria. This poem was written on August 20, 1897, the same day he made his landmark discovery that malaria is transmitted to people by Anopheles mosquitoes. — Source: Ronald Ross, Memoirs, London, John Murray, 1923, 226.
Hopefully, these quotes are sufficient to convince you that such conflict is nonexistent. Therefore, keep believing. Keep inquiring.
Am I missing someone? If you know any Lauret scientist in any of these categories that is not in the list, but you think it should, comment his/her name with title, why it was given the prize and a verified quote with source.
[1] Editor’s Note: “Scientism” is the idea that science is the sole arbiter of knowledge, everything is else is subjective opinion, fiction, or foolishness. “Naturalism” is the idea that the only thing/s that exist is nature; there is no supernatural realm.
Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Miguel Rodriguez is the founder of Smart Faith, a platform dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith with clarity and confidence. After experiencing a miraculous healing at 14, he developed a passion for knowing God through study and teaching. He now serves as the Director of Christian Education and a Bible teacher at his local church while also working as a freelance email marketer. Living in Orlando, Florida, with his wife and two daughters, Miguel seeks to equip believers with practical and intellectual tools to strengthen their faith. Through Smart Faith, he provides apologetics and self-improvement content to help Christians live with wisdom and integrity.
There are many ways to deceive, and the Left seems to be adept at all of them. Separating lies from truth is an everyday task. Whether it’s social media, news reports, or daily interactions with the public, an intercessor must investigate, pray, and discern. Only then will he/she understand the truth.
This week, the Left delivered all sorts of lies. Some were bold-faced, while others were hidden or omitted. Nevertheless, the truth has a way of coming out, no matter how many lies are told.
Fluoride Push-Back Goes Nationwide
The first lie told by the Left involves the recent bans on fluoride. In May, Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill, making Florida the second state to ban fluoride from its water system. The bill, which will take effect in July, is part of what some are calling a fluoride push-back revolution. In March 2025, Utah became the first state to ban fluoride in public drinking water, but currently, as many as five more states have pending anti-fluoride bills, such as Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, and South Carolina. States such as Tennessee, Arkansas, Montana, and New Hampshire have bills that have either stalled or failed while in committee. New Jersey, Hawaii, and Oregon already have low water fluoridation rates.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is taking action to remove ingestible fluoride prescription drug products for children from the market. The press release states, “These products are swallowed and ingested by infants and toddlers. They have also never been approved by the FDA. Ingested fluoride has been shown to alter the gut microbiome, which is of magnified concern given the early development of the gut microbiome in childhood. Other studies have suggested an association between fluoride and thyroid disorders, weight gain, and possibly decreased IQ.” For background, dentists sometimes prescribe these products for children who live in fluoride-free areas.
The Left Believes Fluoride is “Safe and Effective”
The Left was quick to sow doubts about the dangers of fluoride. The New York Times ran a story headlined, The FDA Says Fluoride Pills May Harm Children’s Health. Researchers Disagree, leading readers to believe that concerns about fluoride were unfounded. The lie of omission in this article was quite apparent as the New York Times conveniently did not mention that they had already published a piece in January 2025 titled, Study Links High Fluoride Exposure to Lower IQ in Children, where they reported on a JAMA Pediatrics study that showed the link between fluoride and lower IQ rates in children.
MSNBC jumped on the fluoride-defending bandwagon by publishing an article that blamed the MAGA movement for the demonization of this once-treasured additive. They contend, “Experts, including at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and major medical associations, have touted the benefits of fluoride in water for decades, particularly in children, to help reduce cavities and prevent tooth decay. In fact, you can read this link for information about the benefits for rural communities, many of which have voted heavily for Donald Trump and other Republicans in past elections.” The article adds, “And that behavior is giving Republicans at the state level the green light to engage in similar health-related delusion.”
It’s certainly NOT a health-related delusion when one study after another has been published that points to the toxic effects that fluoride can have on children, as well as adults. Unfortunately, this appears to be more of a political issue, rather than about health.
FDA Commissioner Marty Makary states, “The best way to prevent cavities in children is by avoiding excessive sugar intake and good dental hygiene, not by altering a child’s microbiome.”
COVID-19 mRNA Shots Damage Fertility–Where is the Media Coverage?
A second lie told by the Left this week involves the COVID-19 mRNA shots. In this case, the lie is one of omission because the legacy media refuses to cover the dangers the injections can cause to women’s fertility. Instead, their newsfeeds parrot the same lie that they are “safe and effective.”
A recent study was published in the journal Vaccines which found that the Covid-19 vaccines “decreased the number of primordial follicles–‘the foundation of fertility’–in female rats by up to 60%.” The authors of the study suggested “further investigations into the vaccines’ effects on human ovarian reserve.”
Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher warned, “If these findings indeed apply to humans, the implications for global fertility rates are profound,” adding, “This kind of damage—to a woman’s lifelong egg supply—is biologically irreversible. The loss of primordial follicles is permanent—they do not regenerate. If this applies to humans, it means early menopause, infertility, and plummeting birth rates.”
For several years, gynecologists and obstetricians such as Dr. James Thorp have been gathering data from around the world that illustrate the devastating effects of COVID-19 vaccination on pregnant women and their babies, as well as the harms the shots cause to fertility. Despite the mountains of evidence that Dr. Thorp and others have shared, the legacy media refuse to report the information accurately.
Medical freedom advocate Dr. Naomi Wolf has worked tirelessly to document the plethora of studies that prove that the COVID-19 shots can impair fertility. Her comprehensive book, The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer’s Crimes Against Humanity, is loaded with scientific data and medical investigations.
When studies are released that reveal the dangers of the COVID-19 vaccines, the liberal media do not update articles or write new ones to inform the public. Instead, it’s as if a truckload of crickets descended upon the newsfeeds. Regardless of the evidence, liberal news agencies will continue promoting COVID-19 vaccines or lament that more rigorous testing must be completed to approve new ones.
Unfortunately, the Left is not interested in the truth. They prefer to hide the inconvenient facts from public view so they can push the same narrative.
Hunger Strikes for Gaza
The third lie told by the Left this week revolves around hunger strikes that are taking place at UCLA and other universities such as Stanford and Yale. Students are protesting what they call “the university’s complicity in the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza.” Yahoo News reports, “At the core of their demands is a call for schools like UCLA to cut financial ties with companies and institutions that support or profit from Israel’s ongoing blockade and military operations.”
Instead of telling the truth about what’s really happening in Israel, the Left fuels the fire, suggesting that Palestinians are being mistreated and deliberately starved. The horrifying reality of what happened on October 7, 2023, where innocent people in Israel were butchered, raped, tortured and kidnapped is glossed over. Instead, sympathy is garnered for terrorists and their advocates.
Purposefully Omitted
The Left never covers the reports about Hamas stealing aid packages meant for the people of Gaza. When Palestinians are used as human shields for terrorists, it is brushed aside. Even though Israel does everything in its power to evacuate Gaza residents from dangerous war zones, the Left continues to push the narrative that Israel is guilty of genocide.
Sadly, many protesters are uninformed and simply listening to their leftist professors or the latest liberal newsfeed. These students can continue to go on hunger strikes, but what they really need is to be fed the truth. No, Israel isn’t perfect, but the Left likens the nation’s citizens to Nazis who murdered Jews during the Holocaust.
The Left continues to hide the truth that Hamas and Islamic ideology are the real reasons why the Palestinians are suffering. A hunger strike cannot reveal or solve this problem.
Propagating lies, hiding the facts, or omitting the truth never leads to anything good or fruitful. Every time we read or hear a lie, we should be quick to pray that the truth will be revealed and that those who are part of the deception will be enlightened by The Way, the Truth, and the Life–Jesus Christ.
Lord, you are the ultimate truth-teller. As your disciples, help us live our lives the same way You do. May the truth shine through us like a beacon, blocking out the darkness that comes with deception.
These are just a few of the lies that the Left told this week. How are you praying for truth to be revealed?
Angela Rodriguez is an author, blogger, and former teacher who studies the signs of the times, as well as the historical and biblical connections between Israel and the United States. You can visit her blogs at 67owls.com and 100trumpets.com. She is also the author of Psalm 91: Under the Wings of Jesus and Hallelujah’sGreatRide. Photo Credit: Danny Butlin-Policarpo on Unsplash.
Why is the mainstream media in the United States being so quiet about what is happening on the Sun? The giant ball of fire that we revolve around makes life on this planet possible, and it has started to behave very erratically. This should definitely be getting a lot more attention, because the link between solar activity and seismic activity has been well established by now. Some scientists still try to dispute this, but the truth is that when the Sun becomes more active we tend to see more large earthquakes and more volcanic eruptions. And of course if a large enough solar storm erupts, it could fry our power grids and throw our entire society into a massive state of chaos.
The sun has unleashed the strongest solar flare of the year, triggering strong radio blackouts across the globe. Just after 11:30 a.m. ET, a massive X2.7-class solar flare erupted from a newly emerging from a cold, dark region known as AR4087. X-class flares are the most intense in the solar storm scale — capable of disrupting communications, damaging satellites, and even threatening power grids on Earth.
Subsequently, there was another very large solar flare on Wednesday…
Just before 7:20am ET Wednesday morning, sunspot AR4087 emitted yet another solar flare: an M7.74.
Sunspot AR4087 is absolutely enormous, and there is concern that more solar flares could be unleashed as it “rotates into direct alignment with Earth in the coming days”…
Experts warn that more flares may be on the way as sunspot AR4087 rotates into direct alignment with Earth in the coming days, increasing the chances of further solar storms.
What we are witnessing right now is definitely not normal.
A solar filament that erupted from the Sun’s northern hemisphere earlier this week was more than 600,000 miles long.
That made it over twice as long as the distance from the Earth to the moon…
On Tuesday, astronomers watched as a vast ‘bird wing’ eruption sent waves of superheated plasma surging across the sun’s northern hemisphere.
At over 600,000 miles long (one million km), the filament of solar material was more than twice as long as the distance from the Earth to the moon.
Nobody can deny that the Sun has been extremely active this month.
So have we seen a corresponding increase in seismic activity?
A powerful earthquake has struck off the southern coasts of Chile and Argentina, triggering a tsunami warning.
The 7.4 magnitude quake struck 136 miles off the coast of the city of Ushuaia, Argentina on Friday afternoon, according to the United States Geological Survey (USGS).
Authorities in Chile issued an evacuation alert for the entire coastal section of the Strait of Magellan in the country’s south.
Here in the United States, California has been rattled by hundreds of earthquakes over the past week, and that includes three sizable earthquakes right along the San Andreas fault…
California has experienced three earthquakes in the last 24 hours in an area being closely monitored for a major quake.
The US Geological Survey (USGS) detected the seismic activity along the San Andreas Fault, which spans 800 miles from Cape Mendocino in the north to the Salton Sea in the south.
Scientists warn this fault is overdue for a ‘Big One’ — a magnitude 7.8 earthquake or higher.
Of course it isn’t just the state of California that has been getting shaken.
Nevada was rocked by a 4.0 magnitude earthquake on Wednesday in a region where the Earth’s crust is slowly tearing apart.
The US Geological Survey (USGS) detected the tremor at 5:35 am local (8:35am ET) near Valmy that sits on top of the Basin and Range Province, which stretches across much of the western US.
In this area, the Earth’s crust is gradually being pulled apart, causing faulting and frequent earthquakes.
A 3.9 magnitude earthquake hit just outside of Utah’s capital city Thursday morning.
The US Geological Survey (USGS) detected the tremor at 6:11am ET, with the epicenter located in Independence, about 43 miles southeast of Salt Lake City.
More than 2,200 people within a 45-mile radius reported feeling the shaking.
Meanwhile, we continue to see unusual volcanic activity all over the globe as well.
In fact, scientists are warning that a mile-wide volcano near the coast of Oregon could literally erupt at any moment…
Scientists have issued a stark warning about the most active volcano in the Pacific Northwest, cautioning that it could erupt as soon as tomorrow.
The Axial Seamount is a mile-wide underwater volcano that sits 300 miles off the coast of Oregon and more than 4,900 feet below the surface of the Pacific Ocean.
Researchers with the National Science Foundation’s Ocean Observatories Initiative say there has been massive uptick in the number of earthquakes under the seamount, caused by magma pushing to the surface.
Fear in Campi Flegrei where since 12:07, as reported by the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, a seismic swarm has been underway. The most intense event had a magnitude of 4,4 and an epicenter 3 kilometers deep in the port of Pozzuoli. Following the event, the Italian Situation Room of the Civil Protection Department contacted the local structures of the National Civil Protection Service. An uninhabited building in Via Campana collapsed. There is a lot of fear in Pozzuoli where citizens have poured into the streets for fear of being surprised at home by another strong shock. Over ten shocks have been recorded since this morning, two of which with a magnitude greater than 3, following the strongest.
If a full-blown eruption of the Campi Flegrei supervolcano were to happen, it could cause a nuclear winter which would devastate global food production and plunge us into a multi-year worldwide famine. For much more on this, please see my previous article entitled “Is One Of The World’s Largest Supervolcanoes About To Erupt?”
I expect that the Sun will continue to behave erratically in the months ahead, and I also expect to see plenty of major natural disasters.
So buckle up and hold on tight, because it is going to be a bumpy ride.
The “appearance of design” in biological organisms is rather uncontroversial, even amongst atheists who reject the existence of a Designer. Richard Dawkins would be the first to agree: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Many other scientists affirm this observation and extend it to include the larger ecosystems in which many symbiotic organisms are dependent on one another for their survival. Smith College professor of biological sciences, Robert Dorit says, “The apparent fit between organisms seems to suggest some higher intelligence at work, some supervisory gardener bringing harmony and color to the garden.” For scientists looking for an explanation within the “garden” to avoid the inference of an external “supervisory gardener,” this appearance of design is difficult to explain.
One cellular micro-machine remains the iconic “poster child” for an external intelligent cause related to the design we observe in molecular organisms. Some bacteria swim by rotating a long filament in a whip-like fashion. This spinning motor assembly is called a flagellum. Bacterial flagella are incredibly difficult to explain for scientists who recognize them as a marvel of machine-like precision. Harvard biophysicist Howard Berg has publicly described the bacterial flagellum as “the most efficient machine in the universe.”
Illustrations from God’s Crime Scene
In an effort to nullify the powerful design inference from the irreducible complexity of the flagellum, some have offered a “short cut” of sorts. Philosopher Robert T. Pennock believes the complex flagellum can be formed through an evolutionary process whereby a less complex micro-machine is borrowed from within the cell and used to build something new. Some scientists have suggested Type III secretion systems (T3SS) as a perfect example of one of these borrowed micro-machines. T3SS are needle-like sensory probes used by bacteria. They detect the presence of organisms the bacteria can infect and secrete proteins to aid the infection process. T3SS share many common proteins and are constructed similarly to bacterial flagella.
Scientists sometimes offer these T3SS in an effort to explain how evolutionary processes could jump the divide from a single protein to the complexity of flagellum. By borrowing the T3SS, flagella have a significant head start in their construction. This approach is problematic, however:
The Borrowed Micro-Machine is Also Irreducibly Complex T3SS are just as remarkably irreducible as flagella. The T3SS is constructed from approximately 30 different proteins; it’s one of the most complex secretion systems observed in biology today. Like the flagellum, T3SS requires the minimal configuration of these proteins to function. It cannot be offered as an ultimate explanation for irreducible complexity because its own irreducible complexity requires an explanation.
William Dembski describes it this way: “What you have here is not a fully articulated path but an island (the Type III secretory system) and a huge jump to the next island (namely, the flagellum). If evolution is going to try to explain how you can island-hop from Los Angeles to Tokyo, basically what the evolutionist has found is the Hawaiian Islands and nothing else. What the evolutionist has not found is the entire archipelago [group of connected islands] that will take you across.”
The Pathway To and From the Borrowed Micro-Machine is Evidentially Unsupported Dembski has correctly identified the problem facing those who deny the design inference from irreducible complexity. There is no evidence to explain the gradual evolutionary progression to the irreducibly complex T3SS (from a single protein), nor any evidence to explain the gradual evolutionary progression from the T3SS (to the flagellum). While many naturalists offer the T3SS as a beacon of hope, they are unable to describe the step by step evolution from a protein to the complex T3SS.
University of Rochester biologist, H. Allen Orr, recognizes the deficiencies in evolutionary explanations dependent upon wholesale borrowing: “We might think that some of the parts of an irreducibly complex system evolved step by step for some other purpose and were then recruited wholesale to a new function. But this is also unlikely. You may as well hope that half your car’s transmission will suddenly help out in the airbag department. Such things might happen very, very rarely, but they surely do not offer a general solution to irreducible complexity.”
The proposals offered by scientists attempting to account for the flagellum by borrowing from the T3SS are fanciful but unsupported. When examining these proposals, look carefully at the intermediate constructions required to get from one micro-machine to another. When these pathways are carefully examined, they reveal critical dilemmas and obstacles.
The Borrowed Micro-Machine May Not Be Available for Borrowing To make matters worse, naturalistic evolutionists are increasingly skeptical of the alleged evolutionary contribution TS33 might make to the flagellum. Many experts recognize the structural similarities between the two micro-machines but reject any particular evolutionary hierarchy, order or pathway. Several scientists believe the T3SS is not an evolutionary precursorto flagella, but is more reasonably a product of devolution from flagella.
If the T3SS was unavailable prior to the existence of flagella, it cannot be offered as an explanation for flagella. Researcher Jonathan Witt summarizes the resulting multifaceted problem: “One, the micro-syringe at best accounts for only ten proteins, leaving thirty or more unaccounted for, and these other thirty proteins are not found in any other living system. Second, as a wider body of literature suggests, the system probably developed after the more complicated flagellum, not the other way around. Finally, even if nature had on hand all the right protein parts to make a bacterial flagellum, something would still need to assemble them in precise temporal order, the way cars are assembled in factories. How is such a task presently accomplished?”
Would having your brain connected to the Internet 24 hours a day be heaven, or would it be hell? Today, a very large portion of the population is seemingly glued to their phones or their computers much of the time. But soon implantable brain-computer interfaces will allow those people to stay connected to their devices all the time. Apple has partnered with a shadowy tech company known as “Synchron” to develop a “brain implant that allows users to operate digital devices by thinking”…
Imagine controlling an iPhone or MacBook with nothing but thoughts. It may sound far-fetched, but Apple’s latest partnership suggests it could be closer than we think.
The tech giant has teamed up with neurotechnology firm Synchron, developing a brain implant that allows users to operate digital devices by thinking — no typing, tapping or swiping required.
Interestingly, it is being reported that Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates are both involved with Synchron…
According to the Wall Street Journal, Apple is partnering with Synchron—a privately held, New York City-based company backed by Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates—on the in project. The brain-computer interface, or BCI, industry is projected to grow significantly over the coming decades. Perhaps the best-known player in the space is Elon Musk’s Neuralink, which, as of January, has successfully implanted its devices in three people.
Unlike Neuralink’s brain-computer interface, Synchron’s device is not actually implanted inside the brain.
Unlike Neuralink’s N1 implant, Synchron’s stent-like device, called the Stentrode, is implanted on top of the brain, not inside of it, which allows users to avoid an invasive open brain implant procedure. Once placed, the Stentrode works by using its electrodes to read brain signals and translate them into on-screen navigation and icon selection.
At the core of this breakthrough is a technology known as a Brain-computer interface (BCI). This system allows a person to control a device using their brain activity, without the need for muscle movements. Synchron’s device, called the Stentrode, is implanted via the jugular vein and navigates into a blood vessel near the brain’s motor cortex.
“This is transformative,” said Synchron CEO Tom Oxley. “We use the blood vessels as a natural highway into the brain, lacing them with electrodes that record activity. That platform becomes like Bluetooth for your brain, letting you control a device without needing a keyboard or mouse.”
A lot of people will find this preferable to having the sort of open brain surgery that is required for other brain-computer interfaces.
Of course I will never be allowing anyone to implant anything inside of me under any circumstances, and I am sure that most of you feel the exact same way.
But this is where things are going.
The goal is to create a dystopian “digital prison” society in which as many people as possible are connected to the Internet for as long as possible.
Even if you choose not to participate, you will not be able to escape it.
We are being told that soon millions of people will be wearing AI glasses that will be constantly gathering information on everyone and everything that they are pointed at…
The real revolution — and the real threat — lies in what comes next: Meta’s AI glasses. Sunglasses, spectacles, whatever you want to call them — they look like something out of a sci-fi flick. But they’re real, and they’re here. Very soon, millions or perhaps tens of millions of people will be walking around with them on. And you might not even know it.
These aren’t just toys. They’re tools — and weapons. They comprise a camera, microphone, an AI interface and internet access, all embedded discreetly in eyewear. They are capable of recognizing faces, interpreting language, overlaying information in real-time and collecting vast swaths of data as their owners simply walk down the street. They can whisper comprehensive summaries about the stranger across the subway, translate foreign speech in real time, suggest pickup lines, record interactions without consent and overlay reviews of a restaurant before you’ve even looked at the menu.
All this is done without lifting a phone or typing a word. These glasses are not just watching the world. They are interpreting, filtering and rewriting it with the full force of Meta’s algorithms behind the lens. And if you think you’re safe just because you’re not wearing a pair, think again, because the people who wear them will inevitably point them in your direction.
Can you imagine what our society will be like once we get to that stage?
Cameras and microphones that are connected to the Internet will constantly be pointing at everyone and everything all the time.
Privacy will essentially be a thing of the past.
Of course that is exactly what the elite want.
They envision a time when the “digital world” will be more important than the “real world”.
And they also envision a time when basically all commerce will be conducted using digital currencies…
Philip Lane, chief economist of the European Central Bank, recently expressed urgency for the need to develop a digital euro—also known as a central bank digital currency (CBDC)—to compete against stablecoins such as Tether and electronic payment systems developed by U.S. tech firms, such as Google Pay and Apple Pay. Not content with eliminating cash, now the goal of central banks is to eliminate any competing electronic payment system.
We’re sleepwalking into a world with digital currencies without any government coercion whatsoever. As a 51-year-old Generation Xer, I carry lots of cash in my wallet. I teach personal finance at the local university and recently asked a class of about 30 students if any of them had any cash. Not one of them had a single bill or coin on them. They use debit cards, credit cards, Venmo, and Apple Pay. As it turns out, cash usage among the 18–24 age cohort has declined from 28 percent to 13 percent over the last five years. Most like the convenience of electronic payments, even though studies show that people spend 12 percent to 18 percent more when using credit cards than cash. If the government does attempt to implement a digital dollar, there will be little resistance to it.
In such a system, tyrannical governments would be able to watch, track, monitor and control all transactions.
If you are a troublemaker, you could have your “digital privileges” suspended or you could even be banned from the system entirely.
So how would you survive if you were unable to buy, sell, get a job or have a bank account?
We are living in very strange times, and the “digital prison” that they are constructing all around us is becoming more suffocating with each passing day.
In 1964, two American physicists and radio astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, made an important discovery. They were unable to eliminate the radio signal “noise” from their large antenna at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey, regardless of where in the universe they tried to point their instrument. They consulted with colleagues to determine the cause of this noise. Another physicist suggested the noise might not be coming from the antenna at all. Instead they might be detecting the residual background radiation caused when the universe first came into being. Penzias and Wilson proved this to be correct, winning a Nobel Prize for their discovery in 1978.
Numerous additional experiments and observations have since established the existence of cosmic background radiation, including data from the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite launched in 1989, and the Planck space observatory launched in 2009. For many scientists, this discovery solidified their belief the universe had a beginning.
An illustration may be helpful. I served for three years on our SWAT unit, and during that time, we were repeatedly asked to flush out barricaded suspects. We employed a “flashbang” grenade in nearly all these SWAT entries. These are designed, of course, to “flash” and “bang”; they make a lot of noise, light and heat. We typically threw a grenade in the room where the suspect was barricaded (usually through a window). When the grenade hit the ground, it exploded violently, lighting the room, deafening the suspect, and filling the space with debris and heat. In that instant, as the suspect was distracted, our team came in from the opposite corner. Flashbangs are excellent distraction devices because they leave a lingering impact in the space where they are deployed.
Illustrations from God’s Crime Scene
In a similar way, if the universe leapt into existence, expanding from a state of tremendous heat, density and expansion, we should expect find evidence of lingering impact. The cosmic background radiation is the residual evidence of this cosmic “flashbang.” The pervasive radiation testifies to the extreme environment at the earliest moments of the universe.
The pervasive radiation testifies to the extreme environment at the earliest moments of the universe. Share on X
Of course the Cosmic Background radiation, in and of itself, doesn’t demonstrate conclusively the universe had a beginning. But when this single piece of evidence is assembled with other important pieces of evidence I’ve described in God’s Crime Scene, the cumulative case is overwhelming:
If the universe (all space, time and matter) did, in fact, come into existence from nothing, the consequences are important. Share on X
Transhumanism and AI promise a tech utopia but risk a dystopian nightmare, warns Aaron Kheriaty. From surveillance to control, explore the ethical dangers shaping our future.
My friends, let me introduce you to Yuval Noah Harari, a man chock full of big ideas. He explained during the covid crisis: “Covid is critical because this is what convinces people to accept, to legitimise, total biometric surveillance. If we want to stop this epidemic, we need not just to monitor people, we need to monitor what’s happening under their skin.” In a 60 Minutes interview with Anderson Cooper, Harari repeated this idea: “What we have seen so far is corporations and governments collecting data about where we go, who we meet, what movies we watch. The next phase is the surveillance going under our skin.” He likewise told India Today, when commenting on changes accepted by the population during covid:
We now see mass surveillance systems established even in democratic countries which previously rejected them, and we also see a change in the nature of surveillance. Previously, surveillance was mainly above the skin; now we want it under the skin… Governments want to know not just where we go or who we meet. They want to know what’s happening under our skin: what is our body temperature; what is our blood pressure; what is our medical condition?
Harari is clearly a man who wants to… get under your skin. He just might succeed. Another recent interview finds him waxing philosophical: “Now humans are developing even bigger powers than ever before. We are really acquiring divine powers of creation and destruction. We are really upgrading humans into gods. We are acquiring, for instance, the power to re-engineer human life.” As Kierkegaard once said of Hegel when he talks about the Absolute, when Harari talks about the future, he sounds like he’s going up in a balloon.
Forgive me, but a few last nuggets from Professor Harari will round out the picture of his philosophy, and his lofty hopes and dreams: “Humans are now hackable animals. You know, the whole idea that humans have this soul or spirit, and they have free will and nobody knows what’s happening inside me, so, whatever I choose, whether in the election or in the supermarket, that’s my free will—that’s over.”[i] Harari explains that to hack human beings you need a lot of computing power and a lot of biometric data, which was not possible until recently with the advent of AI. In a hundred years, he argues, people will look back and identify the Covid crisis as the moment “when a new regime of surveillance took over, especially surveillance under the skin—which I think is the most important development of the 21st Century, which is this ability to hack human beings.”
People rightly worry that their iPhone or Alexa have become surveillance “listening devices”, and indeed, the microphone can be turned on even when the device is turned off. But imagine a wearable or implantable device that, moment-to-moment, tracks your heart rate, blood pressure, and skin conductance, uploading that biometric information to the cloud. Anyone with access to that data could know your exact emotional response to every statement made while you watch a presidential debate. They could gauge your thoughts and feelings about each candidate, about each issue discussed, even if you never spoke a word.
I could go on with more quotes from Professor Harari about hacking the human body, but you get the picture. At this point you may be tempted to dismiss Harari as nothing more than an overheated, sci-fi obsessed village atheist. After years binging on science fiction novels, the balloon of his imagination now perpetually floats up somewhere above the ether. Why should we pay any heed to this man’s prognostications and prophesies?
It turns out that Harari is a professor of History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His bestselling books have sold over 20 million copies worldwide, which is no small shake. More importantly, he is one of the darlings of the World Economic Forum and a key architect of their agenda. In 2018, his lecture at the WEF, “Will the Future Be Human?” was sandwiched between addresses from German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron. So he’s playing in the sandbox with the big dogs.
In his WEF lecture Harari explained that in the coming generations, we will “learn how to engineer bodies and brains and minds,” such that these will become “the main products of the 21st Century economy: not textiles and vehicles and weapons, but bodies and brains and minds.”[ii] The few masters of the economy, he explains, will be the people who own and control data: “Today, data is the most important asset in the world,” in contrast to ancient times when land was the most important asset, or the industrial age when machines were paramount. WEF kingpin Klaus Schwab echoed Harari’s ideas when he explained: “One of the features of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is that it doesn’t change what we are doing; it changes us,” through gene editing and other biotechnological tools that operate under our skin.[iii]
Even the dreamy-eyed Harari admits there are some potential dangers with these developments: “If too much data is concentrated in too few hands, humanity will split not into classes but into two different species.” That would not, one supposes, be a good thing. But all things considered, he is more than willing to take these risks and forge ahead with this agenda. To be fair, Harari does not advocate for a future totalitarian state or rule by all-powerful corporations, but hopes to warn us of coming dangers.
In an exceptionally naïve proposal, however, Harari believes that the obvious problems posed by a tyrannical biosecurity state can be solved with more surveillance, by having citizens simply surveil the government: “Turn it around,” he said in a talk at the Athens Democracy Forum, “Surveil the governments more. I mean, technology can always go both ways. If they can surveil us, we can surveil them.”[iv] This proposal is—not to put too fine a point on it—incredibly stupid. As most of us learned in kindergarten, two wrongs don’t make a right.
The WEF made waves a few years back by posting on their website the slogan, “You will own nothing. And you will be happy.” Although the page was later deleted, the indelible impression remained: it provided a clear and simple description of the future envisioned by Davos Man. As the WEF savants predict, at the last stage of this development, we will find ourselves in a rent-only/subscription-only economy, where nothing really belongs to us. Picture the Uberisation of everything.
To get a sense of this future, imagine the world as an Amazon warehouse writ large: a mandarin caste of digital virtuosos will call the shots from behind screens, directing the masses below with the aid of ever more refined algorithmic specificity. The prophetic Aldous Huxley foresaw this Brave New World in his 1932 novel. These changes will challenge not only our political, economic, and medical institutions and structures; they will challenge our notions of what it means to be human. This is precisely what its advocates celebrate, as we will see in a moment.
Corporatist arrangements of public-private partnerships, which merge state and corporate power, are well suited for carrying out the necessary convergence of existing and emerging fields. This biological-digital convergence envisioned by the WEF and its members will blend big data, artificial intelligence, machine learning, genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics. Schwab refers to this as the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which will follow and build upon the first three—mechanical, electrical, and digital. The transhumanists—who we will meet in a moment—have been dreaming of just such a merging of the physical, digital, and biological worlds for at least a few decades. Now, however, their visions are poised to become our reality.
Mechanisms of Control
The next steps in hacking human beings will involve attempted rollouts—which we should vigorously resist—of digital IDs, tied to fingerprints and other biometric data like iris scans or face IDs, demographic information, medical records, data on education, travel, financial transactions, and bank accounts. These will be combined with Central Bank Digital Currencies, giving governments surveillance power and control over every one of your financial transactions, with the ability to lock you out of the market if you do not comply with government directives.
Using biometrics for everyday transactions routinises these technologies. We are conditioning children to accept biometric verification as a matter of course. For example, face IDs are now used in multiple school districts to expedite the movement of students through school lunch lines. Until recently, biometrics such as fingerprints were used only for high-security purposes—when charging someone with a crime, for example, or when notarising an important document. Today, routine biometric verification for repetitive activities from mobile phones to lunch lines gets young people used to the idea that their bodies are tools used in transactions. We are instrumentalising the body in unconscious and subtle, but nonetheless powerful, ways.
Those with economic interests in creating markets for their products (whether vaccines, digital surveillance hardware and software, or harvested data) will continue to deploy the carrots and sticks of access to medical care and other services to strongarm acceptance of digital IDs in underdeveloped nations. In developed nations they will initially use a velvet glove approach of nudges, selling digital IDs as convenience and time-saving measures that will be hard for many to turn down, like skipping long TSA security lines at airports. The privacy risks, including the possibility for constant surveillance and data harvesting, will fade into the background when you’re about to miss your flight if you can’t skip to the front of the line.
Unless we collectively decline to participate in this new social experiment, digital IDs—tied to private demographic, financial, location, movement, and biometric data—will become mechanisms for bulk data harvesting and tracking of populations around the globe. We should resist—including by opting out of the new face ID scans at TSA airport screening checkpoints, which we can still legally do.
Once fully realised, this surveillance system will offer unprecedented mechanisms of control, allowing the regime to be maintained against any form of resistance. This technocratic dream would entrench the most intransigent authoritarian system the world has ever known—in the sense that it could maintain itself against any form of opposition through monopolistic technological and economic power. The suppression of dissent will happen in large part through the system’s financial controls, especially if we adopt Central Bank Digital Currencies. Try to resist or step outside the system’s strictures and the doors to markets will simply close. This means that once this system is in place, it could prove almost impossible to overthrow.
Microwaved Eugenics
Harari—who I cited extensively at the beginning of this talk—is among the more prominent members of a new species of academics, activists, and “visionaries” that refer to themselves as transhumanists. These folks aim to use technology not to alter the lived environment, but to fundamentally alter human nature itself. The goal is to “upgrade” or “enhance” human beings. This is both possible and desirable, as Harari explains, because all organisms—whether humans or amoebas or bananas or viruses—are at bottom just “biological algorithms.” This is the old materialist, social Darwinist ideology turbocharged and techno-upgraded with the tools of gene editing, nanotechnology, robotics, and advanced pharmaceuticals. Transhumanism is microwaved eugenics. There is nothing new under the sun.
The 20th-century eugenicists referred to disabled persons as “useless eaters.” Echoing this rhetoric on multiple occasions, Harari has puzzled over the question of what to do with people in the future who will refuse AI-mediated enhancement—folks he refers to as “useless people.” “The biggest question maybe in economics and politics in the coming decades,” he predicts, “will be what to do with all these useless people?”[v] He goes on to explain, “The problem is more boredom, what to do with them and how will they find some sense of meaning in life when they are basically meaningless, worthless.”
Harari suggests one possible solution to the problem of what to do with useless people: “My best guess at present is a combination of drugs and computer games.” Well, at least we have a head start on that, a fact that does not escape Harari’s attention: “You see more and more people spending more and more time, or solving their time with drugs and computer games, both legal drugs and illegal drugs,” he explains. This is where Harari predicts those who refuse to be hacked for AI-enhancement purposes will find themselves.[vi]
Encountering Harari’s thought was not my first brush with the transhumanist movement. Several years ago, I spoke on a panel at Stanford University sponsored by the Zephyr Institute on the topic of transhumanism. I critiqued the idea of “human enhancement,” the use of biomedical technology not to heal the sick but to make the healthy “better than well,” i.e., bigger, faster, stronger, smarter, etc. The event was well attended by several students from the Transhumanist Club at Stanford.
We had a cordial discussion, and I enjoyed chatting with these students after the talk. I learned the symbol of their student group was H+ (“humanity-plus”). They were exceptionally bright, ambitious, and serious young men and women—typical Stanford students. Some of them had read their Plato in addition to their Scientific American. They sincerely wanted to make the world better. Perhaps there was a closet authoritarian or two among them, but my impression was that they had no interest in facilitating world domination by oligarchic corporatist regimes empowered to hack human beings.
Nevertheless, I got the impression that they did not comprehend the implications of the axioms they had accepted. We can choose our first principles, our foundational premises, but then we must follow them out to their logical conclusions; otherwise, we deceive ourselves. These Stanford students were not outliers, but representative of the local culture: transhumanism is enormously influential in Silicon Valley and shapes the imagination of many of the most influential tech elites. Proponents include the Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom, Harvard geneticist George Church, the late physicist Stephen Hawking, Google engineer Ray Kurzweil, and other notables.
The Transhumanist Dream
Returning to Harari’s 2018 talk at the WEF, he admits that control of data might not only enable human elites to build digital dictatorships, but opines that hacking humans may facilitate something even more radical: “Elites may gain the power to re-engineer the future of life itself.” With his Davos audience warmed up he then waxes to a crescendo: “This will not just be the greatest revolution in the history of humanity, it will be the greatest revolution in biology since the beginning of life four billion years ago.”
Which is, of course, a pretty big deal. Because for billions of years, nothing fundamental changed in the basic rules of the game of life, as he explains: “All of life for four billion years—dinosaurs, amoebas, tomatoes, humans—all of life was subject to the laws of natural selection and to the laws of organic biochemistry.” But not anymore: all this is about to change, as he explains:
Science is replacing evolution by natural selection with evolution by intelligent design—not the intelligent design of some god above the cloud, but our intelligent design, and the design of our clouds: the IBM cloud, the Microsoft cloud—these are the new driving forces of evolution. At the same time, science may enable life—after being confined for four billion years to the limited realm of organic compounds—science may enable life to break out into the inorganic realm.
The opening sentence here perfectly echoes the original definition of eugenics from the man who coined the term in the late 19th Century, Sir Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s cousin: “What nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly [evolution by natural selection], man may do providently, quickly, and kindly [evolution by our own—or by the cloud’s—intelligent design].” But what is Harari talking about in that last sentence—life breaking out into the inorganic realm?
It’s been a transhumanist dream from the dawn of modern computing that someday we will be able to upload the informational content of our brains, or our minds (if you believe in minds), into some sort of massive computing system, or digital cloud, or other technological repository capable of storing massive amounts of data. On this materialist view of man, we will then have no more need for our human body, which, after all, always fails us in the end. Shedding this mortal coil—this organic dust that always returns to dust—we will find the technological means to… well, to live forever. Living forever in the digital cloud or the mainframe computer in the sky constitutes the transhumanists’ eschatology: salvation by digital technology.
This project is physically (and metaphysically) impossible, of course, because man is an inextricable unity of body and soul—not some ghost in the machine, not merely a bit of software transferable to another piece of hardware. But set that aside for now; look instead at what this eschatological dream tells us about the transhumanist movement. These imaginative flights of fancy have obviously moved well beyond the realm of science. Transhumanism is clearly a religion—indeed, a particular type of neo-Gnostic religion. It attracts adherents today—including educated, wealthy, powerful, culturally influential adherents—because it taps into unfulfilled, deeply religious aspirations and longings. It is an ersatz substitute religion for a secular age.
That Hideous Strength
I cannot emphasise enough the importance for our time of C.S. Lewis’s book, The Abolition of Man. Lewis once remarked that his dystopian novel, That Hideous Strength, the third instalment in his “space trilogy,” was The Abolition of Man in fictional form. Those who have learned from Huxley’s Brave New World and Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four would do well to also read That Hideous Strength, an under-appreciated entry in the dystopian fiction genre. Back in 1945, Lewis foresaw Yuval Harari and his transhumanist ilk on the horizon. He brilliantly satirised their ideology in the novel’s character of Filostrato, an earnest but deeply misguided Italian scientist.
In the story, a cabal of technocrats take over a bucolic university town in England—think of Oxford or Cambridge—and go to work immediately transforming things according to their vision of the future. The novel’s protagonist, Mark Studdock, is recruited away from the university to the technocrats’ new institute. Mark desires above all to be part of the progressive set, the “inner ring” that is steering the next big thing. He spends his first several days at the N.I.C.E (National Institute for Coordinated Experiments) trying in vain to ascertain exactly what his new job description entails.
Eventually, he figures out that he has been retained mainly to write propaganda explaining the Institute’s activities to the public. Somewhat dispirited—he is a scholar of the social sciences, after all, and not a journalist—he sits down at lunch one day with Filostrato, a member of the N.I.C.E. inner circle, and learns a bit about this scientist’s worldview.
It happens that Filostrato has just given orders to cut down some beech trees on the Institute’s property and replace them with trees made of aluminum. Someone at the table naturally asks why, remarking that he rather liked the beech trees. “Oh, yes, yes,” replies Filostrato. “The pretty trees, the garden trees. But not the savages. I put the rose in my garden, but not the brier. The forest tree is a weed.” Filostrato explains that he once saw a metal tree in Persia, “so natural it would deceive,” which he believes could be perfected. His interlocutor objects that a tree made of metal would hardly be the same as a real tree. But the scientist is undeterred and explains why the artificial tree is superior:
“But consider the advantages! You get tired of him in one place: two workmen carry him somewhere else: wherever you please. It never dies. No leaves to fall, no twigs, no birds building nests, no muck and mess.”
“I suppose one or two, as curiosities, might be rather amusing.”
“Why one or two? At present, I allow, we must have forests, for the atmosphere. Presently we find a chemical substitute. And then, why any natural trees? I foresee nothing but the art tree all over the earth. In fact, we clean the planet.”
When asked if he means that there would be no vegetation at all, Filostrato replies, “Exactly. You shave your face: even, in the English fashion, you shave him every day. One day we shave the planet.” Someone wonders what the birds will make of it, but Filostrato has a plan for them too: “I would not have any birds either. On the art tree I would have the art birds all singing when you press a switch inside the house. When you are tired of the singing you switch them off. Consider again the improvement. No feathers dropped about, no nests, no eggs, no dirt.”
Mark replies that this sounds like abolishing pretty much all organic life. “And why not?” Filostrato counters. “It is simple hygiene.” And then, echoing the rhetoric of Yuval Harari, we hear Filostrato’s soaring peroration, which would have been right at home in World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos:
“Listen, my friends. If you pick up some rotten thing and find this organic life crawling over it, do you not say, ‘Oh, the horrid thing. It is alive,’ and then drop it?… And you, especially you English, are you not hostile to any organic life except your own on your own body? Rather than permit it you have invented the daily bath…. And what do you call dirty dirt? Is it not precisely the organic? Minerals are clean dirt. But the real filth is what comes from organisms—sweat, spittles, excretions. Is not your whole idea of purity one huge example? The impure and the organic are interchangeable conceptions…. After all, we are organisms ourselves.
“I grant it… In us organic life has produced Mind. It has done its work. After that, we want no more of it. We do not want the world any longer furred over with organic life, like what you call the blue mold—all sprouting and budding and breeding and decaying. We must get rid of it. By little and little, of course. Slowly we learn how. Learn to make our brains live with less and less body: learn to build our bodies directly with chemicals, no longer have to stuff them full of dead brutes and weeds. Learn how to reproduce ourselves without copulation.”[vii]
Someone interjects that this last part does not sound like much fun, but Filostrato responds, “My friend, you have already separated the Fun, as you call it, from fertility. The Fun itself begins to pass away…. Nature herself begins to throw away the anachronism. When she has thrown it away, then real civilisation becomes possible.” Keep in mind that this was written decades before the invention of in vitro fertilisation and other assisted reproductive technologies, as well as the sexual revolution that brought widespread acceptance of the oral contraceptive pill. As Lewis reveals at the end of the novel, however, the N.I.C.E is not controlled by brilliant men of science but is ultimately under the sway of demonic forces.
In both the real character of Harari and the fictional character of Filostrato we find men who embrace, indeed celebrate, the idea that human beings can shed the messy business of organic life and somehow transfer our bodily existence into sterile inorganic matter. We encounter in both characters the kind of man who wants to bleach the entire earth with hand sanitiser. Were we not nudged, perhaps a bit too far, in the direction of Filostrato’s dream during covid, as we attempted to fully disinfect and sanitise our lived environments, and transfer all our communications to the digital realm? Have we not also moved in this direction by spending more waking hours glued to screens in a virtual world than interacting with people in the real world, while reams of behavioral data are extracted from our every keystroke and click for predictive analysis by AI?
Organic matter is alive, whereas inorganic matter is dead. I can only conclude that the transhumanists’ dream is, in the last analysis, a philosophy of death. But we must grant that it has become an influential philosophy among many of today’s elites. In one way or another, all of us have been seduced by the mistaken notion that by massively coordinated vigilance and the application of technology, we could rid our lived environments of pathogens and scrub our world entirely clean—perhaps even thwarting death.
As the Italian philosopher Augusto Del Noce pointed out, philosophies that begin from faulty premises not only fail to achieve their purpose, they inevitably end up producing the exact opposite of their stated goals. Transhumanism aims at superior intelligence, superhuman strength, and unending life. But because it is grounded in an entirely false notion of what it means to be human, if we recklessly embrace the transhumanist dream, we will find ourselves instead in a nightmare dystopia of stupidity, weakness, and death.
There’s an interesting article posted at Universe Today by Dr. Paul M. Sutter. Although he does accept unguided evolution after the origin of life, he doesn’t think that naturalism can account for the origin of life. On this blog, I’ve talked about three problem’s with life’s origin: 1) getting the right building blocks, 2) getting the right information, and 3) irreducible complexity. Let’s take a look.
Paul M. Sutter is a theoretical cosmologist, award-winning science communicator, NASA advisor, U.S. Cultural Ambassador, and a globally recognized leader in the intersection of art and science. Paul is a research professor at the Institute for Advanced Computational Science at Stony Brook University and a visiting professor at Barnard College, Columbia University.
[…]Paul earned his PhD in physics in 2011 as a Department of Energy Computational Science Graduate Fellow at the University of Illinois. He then spent three years as a research fellow at the Paris Institute for Astrophysics followed by two years at the Trieste Observatory in Italy. Prior to his current appointment, he held a joint position as the chief scientist at the Center of Science and Industry in Columbus, Ohio and as a cosmological researcher at the Ohio State University.
Now let’s turn to his article.
It’s always good to remind people what is required for the simplest kind of life, and he does that:
To succeed at evolution and separate itself from mere chemical reactions, life must do three things. First, it must somehow store information, such as the encoding for various processes, traits, and characteristics. This way the successful traits can pass from one generation to another.
Second, life must self-replicate. It must be able to make reasonably accurate copies of its own molecular structure, so that the information contained within itself has the chance to become a new generation, changed and altered based on its survivability.
Lastly, life must catalyze reactions. It must affect its own environment, whether for movement, or to acquire or store energy, or grow new structures, or all the many wonderful activities that life does on a daily basis.
I remember listening to lectures about the origin of life by Dean Kenyon, Charles Thaxton, and Walter Bradley in my younger years. If I remember correctly, the minimal functions of a living system are capture energy, store information, and replicate. Sutter does a nice job of describing an even longer list.
So what’s the problem with appealing to chance and necessity to create all that? Well, in order to do all that, we need to have three components in place: DNA, RNA and molecular machines.
He writes:
Put exceedingly simply (for I would hate for you to mistake me for a biologist), life accomplishes these tasks with a triad of molecular tools.
One is the DNA, which through its genetic code stores information using combinations of just four molecules: adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine. The raw ability of DNA to store massive amounts of information is nothing short of a miracle; our own digital system of 1’s and 0’s (invented because it’s much simpler to tell if a circuit is on or off than some stage in-between) is the closest comparison we can make to DNA’s information density. Natural languages don’t even earn a place on the chart.
The second component is RNA, which is intriguingly similar to DNA but with two subtle, but significant, differences: RNA swaps out thymine for uracil in its codebase, and contains the sugar ribose, which is one oxygen atom short of the deoxyribose of DNA. RNA also stores information but, again speaking only in generalities, has the main job of reading the chemical instructions stored in the DNA and using that to manufacture the last member of the triad, proteins.
“Proteins” is a generic catch-all term for the almost uncountable varieties of molecular machines that do stuff: they snip apart molecules, bind them back together, manufacture new ones, hold structures together, become structures themselves, move important molecules from one place to another, transform energy from one form to another, and so on.
Proteins have one additional function: they perform the job of unraveling DNA and making copies of it. Thus the triad completes all the functions of life: DNA stores information, RNA uses that information to manufacture proteins, and the proteins interact with the environment and perform the self-replication of DNA.
What’s the problem? The problem is that this all has to come together at the start, in order to have life. You can’t build up gradually, from one component, to two components, to three components. All three are needed at the start. This is what Michael Behe calls irreducible complexity, but others have described it as minimal complexity.
Sutter says:
The interconnected nature of DNA, RNA, and proteins means that it could not have sprung up ab initio from the primordial ooze, because if only one component is missing then the whole system falls apart – a three-legged table with one missing cannot stand.
And just to be clear, he would have to provide some evidence of “primordial ooze”. As I’ve blogged about before, life appears almost instantaneously after the cooling of the Earth. He might like to appeal to “billions of years” to get that first replicator, but he doesn’t have billions of years. Molecular oxygen, which is poisonous to origin of life chemistry, was present right after the Earth cooled. And that’s not my opinion – that’s right out of the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Nature.
A recent Nature publication reports a new technique for measuring the oxygen levels in Earth’s atmosphere some 4.4 billion years ago. The authors found that by studying cerium oxidation states in zircon, a compound formed from volcanic magma, they could ascertain the oxidation levels in the early earth. Their findings suggest that the early Earth’s oxygen levels were very close to current levels.
[…]Their findings not only showed that oxygen was present in the early Earth atmosphere, something that has been shown in other studies, but that oxygen was present as early as 4.4 billion years ago. This takes the window of time available for life to have begun, by an origin-of-life scenario like the RNA-first world, and reduces it to an incredibly short amount of time. Several factors need to coincide in order for nucleotides or amino acids to form from purely naturalistic circumstances (chance and chemistry). The specific conditions required already made purely naturalist origin-of-life scenarios highly unlikely. Drastically reducing the amount of time available, adding that to the other conditions needing to be fulfilled, makes the RNA world hypothesis or a Miller-Urey-like synthesis of amino acids simply impossible.
I understand that naturalists want to believe that nature is self-contained, and can do it’s own creating. That belief is practically required in order to have careers in academia. Scientists have to at least claim that “naturalism can do it” or they would draw the unwanted attention of the Darwin mob – the people who got people like William Dembski, Guillermo Gonzalez, Richard Sternberg, etc. fired. However, the scientific evidence doesn’t support naturalism. I wish more people would form their views based on scientific evidence, rather than on the religion of naturalism.
Meanwhile, Australian media is still calling evidence of DNA contamination ‘debunked misinformation’.
Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico warns the mRNA Covid vaccines contain “extremely high levels of DNA” and is calling for further investigation, after an expert report published last month found residual DNA in Slovakia-sourced vials of both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines at up to 100 times higher than the regulatory limit.
In a recorded address shared by Russian news site RT, the populist leader said that responding to this “highly sensitive and serious matter” was an urgent priority.
Slovakia finds ‘UNDISCLOSED substances’ in COVID vaccines
“That’s why I took a shortcut today and tried to find an answer to this gravely serious issue in a serious timeframe,” he said, proposing that the Slovak government immediately initiate further analysis of Covid vaccine vials by the Slovak Academy of Sciences (SAV).
“Secondly, the government should, by resolution, inform Slovak citizens about the serious findings of the expert report, which found exceptionally high levels of DNA and undisclosed substances in the the tested vaccine samples,” said Fico, who has previously called the Covid vaccines “experimental” and is known for his critical stance on pandemic measures such as mandates and lockdowns.
“Although COVID-19 vaccination rates are currently extremely low, people deserve such a warning.”
Fico further urged the Slovak government to halt procurement of almost 300,000 doses of Covid vaccines that former PM Ľudovít Ódor committed the country to purchase, to the value of €5,793,801, until investigation into the issue of DNA contamination has been completed.
“Not everyone had the genuine freedom to decide whether to get vaccinated or refuse it, as I did publicly and repeatedly. However, ignoring what we see in black and white in the expert report would be irresponsible,” said Fico, who is currently serving his third non-consecutive term as PM and survived an assassination attempt in May 2024.
What Was In the DNA Contamination Report?
The report, prepared by Czech biochemist Dr Soňa Peková, was presented to Fico last month by Slovak MP and physician Dr Peter Kotlár, who heads up a government-appointed commission tasked with reviewing Slovakia’s management of the Covid pandemic.
In an explosive press conference on 11 March, Dr Kotlár claimed that all 34 analysed Pfizer and Moderna vaccine batches contained dangerously high levels of DNA, which had the potential to “integrate into human DNA” and possibly transform recipients into “genetically modified organisms.”
The findings of the expert report were forwarded to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jnr., who, despite the media’s characterisation of him as an ‘anti-vaxxer,’ has remained relatively pro-vaccine in his public statements since taking the high-level position in the Trump administration.
In the US, both Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA Covid vaccines are recommended on the childhood vaccination schedule, however Kennedy is weighing pulling this recommendation, reports Politico.
Influential European news site Euractiv called Dr Kotlàr’s presentation “riddled with disinformation,” however its own article was littered with false and misleading claims.
For example, the claim that “mRNA from the vaccine never enters the cell nucleus, where DNA is located” has been scientifically shownto be false. It is a claim for which health authorities hold no evidence, and which is materially irrelevant to the question of whether contaminant DNA (not mRNA) can enter the cell nucleus.
The warning from Slovakia’s PM comes as nine independent investigations have now confirmed excessive levels of synthetic DNA in the mRNA vaccines around the world.
However, Slovakia is the first government to take the issue seriously, tabling discussion of further investigation and other precautionary measures. Conversely, across the board, regulators and media have either ignored the DNA contamination findings, or issued statements characterising the scientific work as unreliable and ‘misinformation.’
Australia’s Reaction to News of DNA Contamination
In Australia, where amounts of DNA contamination have been detected at levels up to 145 times the WHO (World Health Organisation) regulatory limit of 10 nanograms per dose, citizens have taken to petitioning their local councils to raise the matter with state and federal officials in an effort to instigate serious investigation and precautionary action.
Just yesterday, Australia’s state-funded ABCran a smear-piece on the grassroots movement, after several South Australian councils recently agreed to take their constituents’ concerns over contaminated Covid shots to the powers that be.
“Medical experts say motions passed by local councils in South Australia promoting vaccine scepticism are putting the community at risk,” states the article, before going on to quote more experts.
“Health experts say the motions are inspired by misinformation about vaccines, which have been debunked by fact checkers,” it goes on, linking to an out-of-date AAP ‘fact-check’ which simply parrots official denials of independent scientific findings.
Personally, I believe the phrase “experts say” should be scratched from journalism style books everywhere, and if I have ever used this phrase previously, I unreservedly apologise.
The article features Australia’s premier Covid vaccine rent-an-expert, University of Queensland infectious disease physician and clinical microbiologist Professor Paul Griffin — who assures that despite the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) reviewing no patient-level data, having no idea whether the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) contain contaminant DNA, how long spike manufacture continues for, or how many adverse events are actually caused by the injectables — the vaccines have been ‘rigorously’ tested are are perfectly safe.
Professor Griffin said it was irresponsible for elected officials to promote “vaccine misinformation” in council chambers, and that “when it comes to health matters, we should exercise… respect and get our advice from people with sufficient expertise to make comment.”
Presumably, respected scientists like Kevin McKernan, former head of R&D for Human Genome Project at Whitehead Institute/MIT, Dr Phillip Buckhaults, cancer genomics scientist at the University of South Carolina, and virologist Dr David Speicher of the University of Guelph — all of whose scientific findings of DNA contamination in the mRNA Covid vaccines have been presented to councils — aren’t expert enough for Prof Griffin’s liking.
Not mentioned in the article is the fact that TGA staffers admitted via internal emails that several of the concerns brought to councils over the DNA contamination are not ‘misinformation’ at all, but are scientifically justified.
The Grassroots Movement to Warn Australians of DNA Contamination
South Australian activist Roy Rogers is taking the media attention as a sign that the endeavour to raise awareness about the DNA contamination is working. “Good to know we’re making an impact!” he quipped after reading the ABC article.
Rogers played a key role in presenting the DNA contamination evidence to the Alexandrina Council, which subsequently passed a motion to raise the matter with state and federal officials.
Rogers and other volunteers continue to assist Australians in bringing the matter to their own councils, with resources available on the Port Hedland Motion website, named after the Port Hedland Council, which instigated this movement.
Are people still buying the dismissals of media and health authorities on the safety of the Covid shots, and DNA contamination specifically? At large, it would seem so, despite pockets of resistance.
However, a frank discussion of the topic on the world’s number one podcast, the Joe Rogan Experience, is just one ‘crack in the matrix’ of many, which also include personal experience of vaccine-injury, or the innate ability to smell the BS.
Continuing efforts to not let regulators and media brush this issue aside are several international declarations and petitions.
The David Declaration, which has garnered approximately 1,000 signatures of concerned doctors and scientists, demands suspension of the mRNA Covid vaccination program and a moratorium on mRNA technology pending rigorous investigation into excessive levels of synthetic DNA contamination.
Australians Demand Answers, a political campaign led by independent MP for Monash Russell Broadbent, seeks further investigation of DNA contamination findings in the mRNA shots.
And a citizens’ petition to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) calls for the suspension of the mRNA Covid vaccines due to findings of DNA contamination and improper regulatory assessment due to the alleged presence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the shots.
Julian Gillespie, former barrister and author of the FDA petition, said the address by Slovakian PM Robert Fico will galvanise these efforts.
“Now we have a sovereign government that has confirmed the independent lab findings of DNA contamination reaching back to early 2023 with the first discovery by gene sequencing expert Kevin McKernan,” said Gillespie.
“It’s good to see a politician with the balls to finally step up and speak the truth with concern for their people,” said Gillespie, offering congratulations to Fico for “taking this brave step in preventing what could well become an epidemic of disease and cancers as a result of this contamination.”
Will the Slovak government follow through? Or will Fico go the way of Romania’s Calin Georgescu, France’s Marine Le Pen, and other European political figures that do not toe the pro-Euro, pro-globalist, pro-pharma cartel line?
Prior to certain scientific discoveries, most people thought that the universe had always been here, and no need to ask who or what may have caused it. But today, that’s all changed. Today, the standard model of the origin of the universe is that all the matter and energy in the universe came into being in an event scientists call “The Big Bang”. At the creation event, space and time themselves began to exist, and there is no material reality that preceded them.
So a couple of quotes to show that.
An initial cosmological singularity… forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity… On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.
Source: P. C. W. Davies, “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology,” in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag ).
And another quote:
[A]lmost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.
Source: Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 20.
So, there are several scientific discoveries that led scientists to accept the creation event, and one of the most interesting and famous is the discovery of how elements heavier than hydrogen were formed.
Nucleosynthesis: forming heavier elements by fusion
The term nucleosynthesis refers to the formation of heavier elements, atomic nuclei with many protons and neutrons, from the fusion of lighter elements. The Big Bang theory predicts that the early universe was a very hot place. One second after the Big Bang, the temperature of the universe was roughly 10 billion degrees and was filled with a sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons and neutrinos. As the universe cooled, the neutrons either decayed into protons and electrons or combined with protons to make deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). During the first three minutes of the universe, most of the deuterium combined to make helium. Trace amounts of lithium were also produced at this time. This process of light element formation in the early universe is called “Big Bang nucleosynthesis” (BBN).
The creation hypothesis predicts that there will be specific amounts of these light elements formed as the universe cools down. Do the predictions match with observations?
Yes they do:
The predicted abundance of deuterium, helium and lithium depends on the density of ordinary matter in the early universe, as shown in the figure at left. These results indicate that the yield of helium is relatively insensitive to the abundance of ordinary matter, above a certain threshold. We generically expect about 24% of the ordinary matter in the universe to be helium produced in the Big Bang. This is in very good agreement with observations and is another major triumph for the Big Bang theory.
Moreover, WMAP satellite measurements of mass density agree with our observations of these light element abundances.
Here are the observations from the WMAP satellite:
Scientific observations match predictions
And here is how those WMAP measurements confirm the Big Bang creation event:
However, the Big Bang model can be tested further. Given a precise measurement of the abundance of ordinary matter, the predicted abundances of the other light elements becomes highly constrained. The WMAP satellite is able to directly measure the ordinary matter density and finds a value of 4.6% (±0.2%), indicated by the vertical red line in the graph. This leads to predicted abundances shown by the circles in the graph, which are in good agreement with observed abundances. This is an important and detailed test of nucleosynthesis and is further evidence in support of the Big Bang theory.
“An important and detailed test”.
For completeness, we should learn how elements heavier than these light elements are formed:
Elements heavier than lithium are all synthesized in stars. During the late stages of stellar evolution, massive stars burn helium to carbon, oxygen, silicon, sulfur, and iron. Elements heavier than iron are produced in two ways: in the outer envelopes of super-giant stars and in the explosion of a supernovae. All carbon-based life on Earth is literally composed of stardust.
That’s a wonderful thing to tell a young lady when you are on a date: “your body is made of stardust”. In fact, as I have argued before, this star formation, which creates the elements necessary for intelligent life, can only be built if the fundamental constants and quantities in the universe are finely-tuned.
Now, you would think that atheists would be happy to find observations that confirm the origin of the universe out of nothing, but they are not. Actually, they are in denial.
Here’s a statement from the Secular Humanist Manifesto, which explains what atheists believe about the universe:
Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
For a couple of examples of how atheistic scientists respond to the evidence for a cosmic beginning, you can check out this post, where we get responses from cosmologist Lawrence Krauss, and physical chemist Peter Atkins.
You cannot have the creation of the universe be true AND a self-existing, eternal universe ALSO be true. Someone has to be wrong. Either the science is wrong, or the atheist manifesto is wrong. I know where I stand.
The more we learn about the origin of life in our universe, the more reasonable the case for God’s existence. The building blocks of life (proteins, ribosomes, enzymes etc.) are formed at the direction of specific nucleotide sequencing in DNA, the largest molecule known. In humans, DNA contains as many as 10 billion atoms. The adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine bases in DNA are linked in a particular order to form the genetic code containing the master plan for every organism. The information in DNA guides and instructs the formation of proteins; without it, protein formation would be a haphazard, hit-or-miss proposal. The nucleic sequence in DNA is informational.
Physicist Paul Davies expresses it well: “Once this essential point is grasped, the real problem of biogenesis is clear. Since the heady successes of molecular biology, most investigators have sought the secret of life in the physics and chemistry of molecules. But they will look in vain for conventional physics and chemistry to explain life, for that is a classic case of confusing the medium with the message. The secret of life lies, not in its chemical basis, but in the logical and informational rules it exploits.”
Illustration from God’s Crime Scene
Information in RNA and DNA presents a problem for researchers, especially those who propose RNA as the first molecule to appear through some combination of chance and chemical necessity (known as the “RNA World Hypothesis”). Even if RNA is a precursor to DNA, the first RNA molecules would have to be rich in information to replicate. Information must exist first, before any other transformational process can take place. Without the prior genetic information in DNA and RNA, nothing of significance happens within cells.
Nucleotide sequences are more than statistical gibberish. They are semantically, pragmatically, and apobetically significant sources of information (for more information on these categories of information, see my book, God’s Crime Scene). The genetic sequence has meaning and directs action for a specific purpose.
Our personal experience tells us information comes only from intelligent sources. In fact, in the entire history of the universe (and the history of science) a single instance of information arising from anything other than intelligence has never been identified. This presents a problem for those who attempt to stay “in the room” of the universe to account for genetic information. If we limit ourselves to the materials available to us in the universe, information must be explained from matter, chance, the laws of chemistry or physics, and nothing more. Nobel winning biophysical chemist, Manfred Eigen recognized this challenge when he once said, “Our task is to find an algorithm, a natural law that leads to the origin of information.” Efforts to account for information in this way have repeatedly failed. In fact, the information in DNA proves to be the decisive stumbling block for every naturalistic theory offered for the origin of life.
Every geographiclocation proposed—whether in the atmosphere, in the water, on the ground, under the Earth’s crust, or from outer space—requires an explanation for the existence of information in the genetic code.
Every timeframe offered for life’s origin, be it earlier or later in the history of our planet, requires an explanation for this information.
Every description of why life emerges—whether by chance or some form of physical necessity—requires an explanation for information.
And finally, every mechanism proposed for the origin of life—be it through “protein first” models, “RNA first” models, or any other model—requires an explanation for the existence of genetic information. Cambridge education Philosopher of Science, Stephen C. Meyer, says “Proposals that merely transfer the information problem elsewhere necessarily fail because they assume the existence of the very entity—specified information—they are trying to explain. And new laws will never explain the origin of information, because the processes that laws describe necessarily lack the complexity that informative sequences require. To say otherwise betrays confusion about the nature of scientific laws, the nature of information, or both.”
The chance arrangement of information in DNA is prohibitively improbable, and there are no chemical or physical laws at work to dictate its existence. We are left, then, with a paradox: the laws and forces of nature cannot produce information, but information is required for life to begin. As Paul Davies laments, “we are still left with the mystery of where biological information comes from . . . If the normal laws of physics can’t inject information, and if we are ruling out miracles, then how can life be predetermined and inevitable rather than a freak accident? How is it possible to generate random complexity and specificity together in a lawlike manner? We always come back to that basic paradox.”
Given the utter inability of chance or natural law, and our observations related to the origin of information, intelligence is the best explanation. But this requires us to look for an intelligent source transcending the limits of the physical universe. Scientists trying to account for information by staying “inside the room” seem to be rejecting the obvious. In order to create information, the author of this information must have the ability to select between possible alternatives. This ability to choose selectively requires intelligence, will, and purpose. Unguided physical processes simply cannot accomplish the task. German engineer and IT specialist, Werner Gitt summarizes it this way: “A necessary requirement for generating meaningful information is the ability to select from alternatives and this requires an intelligent, volitional entity . . . Unguided, random processes cannot do this—not in any amount of time—because this selection process demands continuous guidance by intelligent beings that have a purpose.”
Given the utter inability of chance or natural law, and our observations related to the origin of information, intelligence is the best explanation. Share on X
The selection process required in the creation of information requires an intelligent, volitional free agent. That’s why the information in DNA most reasonably points to the existence of God. For a much more thorough description of this evidence, please refer to God’s Crime Scene, Chapter Three – The Origin of Life: Does the Text Require an Author?
Prior to certain scientific discoveries, most people thought that the universe had always been here, and no need to ask who or what may have caused it. But today, that’s all changed. Today, the standard model of the origin of the universe is that all the matter and energy in the universe came into being in an event scientists call “The Big Bang”. At the creation event, space and time themselves began to exist, and there is no material reality that preceded them.
So a couple of quotes to show that.
An initial cosmological singularity… forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity… On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.
Source: P. C. W. Davies, “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology,” in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag ).
And another quote:
[A]lmost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.
Source: Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 20.
So, there are several scientific discoveries that led scientists to accept the creation event, and one of the most interesting and famous is the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation.
Bell Labs radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were using a large horn antenna in 1964 and 1965 to map signals from the Milky Way, when they serendipitously discovered the CMB. As written in the citation, “This unexpected discovery, offering strong evidence that the universe began with the Big Bang, ushered in experimental cosmology.” Penzias and Wilson shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1978 in honor of their findings.
The CMB is “noise” leftover from the creation of the Universe. The microwave radiation is only 3 degrees above Absolute Zero or -270 degrees C,1 and is uniformly perceptible from all directions. Its presence demonstrates that that our universe began in an extremely hot and violent explosion, called the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago.
In 1960, Bell Labs built a 20-foot horn-shaped antenna in Holmdel, NJ to be used with an early satellite system called Echo. The intention was to collect and amplify radio signals to send them across long distances, but within a few years, another satellite was launched and Echo became obsolete.2
With the antenna no longer tied to commercial applications, it was now free for research. Penzias and Wilson jumped at the chance to use it to analyze radio signals from the spaces between galaxies.3 But when they began to employ it, they encountered a persistent “noise” of microwaves that came from every direction. If they were to conduct experiments with the antenna, they would have to find a way to remove the static.
Penzias and Wilson tested everything they could think of to rule out the source of the radiation racket. They knew it wasn’t radiation from the Milky Way or extraterrestrial radio sources. They pointed the antenna towards New York City to rule out “urban interference”, and did analysis to dismiss possible military testing from their list.4
Then they found droppings of pigeons nesting in the antenna. They cleaned out the mess and tried removing the birds and discouraging them from roosting, but they kept flying back. “To get rid of them, we finally found the most humane thing was to get a shot gun…and at very close range [we] just killed them instantly. It’s not something I’m happy about, but that seemed like the only way out of our dilemma,” said Penzias.5 “And so the pigeons left with a smaller bang, but the noise remained, coming from every direction.”6
At the same time, the two astronomers learned that Princeton University physicist Robert Dicke had predicted that if the Big Bang had occurred, there would be low level radiation found throughout the universe. Dicke was about to design an experiment to test this hypothesis when he was contacted by Penzias. Upon hearing of Penzias’ and Wilson’s discovery, Dicke turned to his laboratory colleagues and said “well boys, we’ve been scooped.”7
Although both groups published their results in Astrophysical Journal Letters, only Penzias and Wilson received the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the CMB.
The horn antenna was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1990. Its significance in fostering a new appreciation for the field of cosmology and a better understanding of our origins can be summed up by the following: “Scientists have labeled the discovery [of the CMB] the greatest scientific discovery of the 20th century.”8
It’s the greatest scientific discovery of the 20th century.
In the New York Times, Arno Penzias commented on his discovery – the greatest discovery of the 20th century – so:
The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.
Just one problem with the greatest scientific discovery of the 20th century: atheists don’t accept it. Why not?
Here’s a statement from the Secular Humanist Manifesto, which explains what atheists believe about the universe:
Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
For a couple of examples of how atheistic scientists respond to the evidence for a cosmic beginning, you can check out this post, where we get responses from cosmologist Lawrence Krauss, and physical chemist Peter Atkins.
You cannot have the creation of the universe be true AND a self-existing, eternal universe ALSO be true. Someone has to be wrong. Either the science is wrong, or the atheist manifesto is wrong. I know where I stand.
What is the Christian’s role in the scientific enterprise?1 How do we as Christians live in a culture that has been shaped and influenced by the impact of scientific accomplishments?
Lest we slip into critical attitudes toward science, we must remember that science began with a mandate God gave in creation. God commanded Adam and Eve to have dominion over the earth and to subdue it. There is a sense in which man was created to conquer the universe in which he lives. The scientific enterprise is a part of that task. At the same time, certain restrictions and constraints are placed upon man in creation. We are called not only to be productive, but to dress, till, and keep the earth, and to replenish it. In the initial mandate for the scientific enterprise, there were governing sanctions. The scientific enterprise is to be under the authority of God and restrained by the law of God. Implicit in the mandate is the prohibition against the exploitation of natural resources, the raping of the world over which we have been given dominion.
For centuries, there were broad areas of cooperation between the church and the scientific community. They worked hand in hand. The vocation of the scientist was seen as a calling from God Himself. There was a kind of unity between the spiritual quest of man and the natural quest of science.
Increasingly, it seems, a break is developing between man’s spiritual life and his natural or scientific life. Perhaps we still have not healed the wounds from the Galileo episode in the seventeenth century. In that drama, Galileo was condemned by the Catholic Church for his scientific activity, and his scientific work was banned. Only recently has that ban been removed. This act served to heighten a growing sense that there are two different realms, the realm of faith or religion, and the realm of reason or science. The tension between the two accelerated in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and came to a head in the 1925 Scopes trial involving the issues of teaching evolution.
Galileo: What Really Happened?
The Galileo trial is generally regarded as a black eye for the church. The popular impression is that Galileo’s plight was the result of blind conflict between dogma and fact, between faith and science. A closer scrutiny of the historic debate reveals that the scientists within the church were as hostile to Galileo’s discoveries as were the bishops. Galileo challenged the “orthodoxy” of science as well as the church. It wasn’t merely the bishops who refused to look through his telescope. His fellow scientists were equally reluctant to take a peek.
Though the facts of history show otherwise, the impression that has been passed down to us is that the church and the church alone was guilty of suppressing Galileo’s discoveries. As a result, the church lost credibility and a growing rupture occurred between church and science, a rupture that is utterly foreign to biblical Christianity.
We often hear the assumption that if one is to be a Christian in our modern age, he must be something of an intellectual schizophrenic. He must somehow put his faith on one side of the room and his reason and scientific investigation on the other side, because the two are simply incompatible.
We have been considering throughout our study the dilemma that modern man faces with that wall which divides the metaphysical realm from the physical realm. This great watershed in Western civilization came with the criticism of Immanuel Kant. Kant maintained that our normal methods of knowing man never take us beyond the limits of this world and into the realm of God. The scientific method, therefore, is useful for the study of physics, but not for the study of metaphysics. It is useful for the study of nature, but not for the study of super-nature. The essence of Kant’s critique was that God cannot be known by theoretical thought.
That was a watershed moment in Western history. Since then, multitudes of thinkers have succumbed to skepticism and have said that if we are to have any knowledge of God or any religious truth, that knowledge must be achieved not by reason or by scientific observations. We must conjure up a new way to get over that wall. This is done either through an existential experience or through mystical intuition. The result is that normal avenues of knowing are closed to the things of God.
However, not every Christian has rolled over and played dead at the feet of Immanuel Kant. As soon as we embrace the idea that God is only known mystically and that the world is only known scientifically, we create a kind of personal schizophrenia that is intolerable for the intelligent person. Therefore, as missionaries to our culture, we must deal with this problem.
Is Aquinas to Blame?
Many Protestant scholars venture earlier into church history and lay the blame for this division at the feet of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Among Protestant thinkers, there seems to be a kind of allergy to the work of Aquinas. Francis Schaeffer, for example, is one who would lay much of the blame for today’s schizophrenic view on Aquinas. Schaeffer argued that the root of modern man’s trauma lies in the separation that Aquinas made between the realms of nature and grace. The realm of nature is the daily arena of his visible world, the scientific inquiry. The realm of grace is the supernatural realm of God. If Aquinas did in fact separate nature and grace, then certainly Dr. Schaeffer would be correct in pointing the finger at Saint Thomas for causing a significant part of modern man’s dilemma. I plead for Aquinas, that he was not guilty of the charge. Aquinas did everything in his power to prevent a separation of nature and grace. He labored tirelessly to combat the efforts of philosophers who were making such a separation. Let us briefly consider the historical background.
In Aquinas’s day, the Christian world faced the greatest threat that it had seen in centuries. This threat did not come from existentialism or pragmatism or secularism. The threat to the church in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was the rising tide of Islamic religion and philosophy. The Crusades had attempted to recapture the sacred places of traditional Christianity, which had fallen under the dominion of the Turks. Islam had made an enormous impact in the world and was now reaching into Western civilization.
The greatest philosophical thinkers of the Islamic world had combined Islamic religion with Aristotelian philosophy to produce a system which they called “integral Aristotelianism.” The technical term is not important to remember but the emerging relationship it represented is important. The product of this thought became widespread during this time and it greatly affected Christians. The key idea was called by the Islamic philosophers “double truth.” The concept of double truth was that a notion could be true in theology or religion and, at the same time, false in philosophy or science. A person was expected to go through life holding both views which were, in fact, contradictory. In the twentieth century, this notion of double truth is more widespread than in any other period of civilization, even though we do not call it by that term.
I can illustrate the idea this way: on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, I may say that I believe in chance evolution with no rhyme nor reason for it. Evolution was merely a chaotic result of chance. However, on Sunday I may believe that man was created in the image of God. By faith, I believe that man has dignity and purpose; that he is rooted and grounded in an intelligent act of creation by an Eternal Being. The rest of the week I have to be an honest scientist and believe that man emerged as a cosmic accident. How can I hold those two views at the same time? I am not attempting to raise issues concerning the various viewpoints of evolution and creationism. My purpose is to show that a belief in the two extremes at the same time demands a kind of intellectual schizophrenia. The two viewpoints are utterly incompatible. Yet people today want to be spiritual, and at the same time they want to be scientific. How can we deal with this dilemma?
Aquinas addressed the problem by distinguishing between nature and grace. Notice that he merely distinguished between the two, he did not separate them. He distinguished between those things which could be learned through a study of nature and those things which could only be learned through a study of grace.
Here we face a subtle matter that is often missed even by acute thinkers. There is a subtle difference between a distinction and a separation. Though the difference is subtle, it is vastly important. It has been said that “A woman’s prerogative is to change her mind.” We might add to that the saying, “A theologian’s prerogative is to make distinctions.”
One of the most important distinctions we can make is the distinction between a distinction and a separation. It is one thing to distinguish things; it is quite another thing to separate them. If I distinguish your body and your soul I do you no harm. If I separate your body and your soul, I murder you. If we distinguish the divine and human natures of Christ, we are orthodox; if we separate the divine and human natures of Christ, we are gross heretics.
When we oversimplify theology or oversimplify science we encounter many difficulties between the two.
When Aquinas distinguished between nature and grace, he said that we can learn certain truths only through the study of nature. We can study Scripture and pray all we want and we will not be able to discern the route that is taken by the blood in the human circulatory system. Nor will a close scrutiny of the Bible reveal all the intricacies involved in the Second Law of Thermodynamics or the process of an amoeba’s split and growth. These things we learn through a study of nature. The Bible does not discuss every aspect of knowledge that is available to us.
Aquinas also said that certain things can only be learned by grace, by special revelation. We can study the circulatory system of the body, geometry tables, or any other scientific discipline but we will never discern in them the doctrine of the incarnation of Christ. Through a study of nature, we will never learn of the Atonement of Jesus or the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Such information comes to us from God in Scripture.
All Truth Meets at the Top
Aquinas then insisted that there are “mixed articles,” truths that can be learned from both nature and revelation. An example of a mixed article would be the knowledge that God exists. Aquinas was not separating nature and grace; he was showing us that both nature and grace ultimately lead us to the same place, to God. A study of nature may not teach us everything there is to know about God, but a correct study of nature will certainly teach us that there is a God.
Aquinas was an apostle of the unity of truth. His working assumption was that all truth meets at the top. What is true in science will ultimately undergird that which is true in religion. He is not saying that contradictions will be resolved at the top. He is saying that truth is always consistent and coherent. We may have in the Bible one source of information about reality, and in nature another source of information about reality. The Bible may provide information that is not obtainable from nature and, vice versa, nature may supply data which we have no knowledge of from the Bible. But those two sources of information can never conflict with each other if, indeed, we understand them aright. Does that mean that Aquinas therefore subordinated the Bible to science? Not at all. He affirmed that the highest source of truth is God’s divine revelation in the Scriptures.
Yet the Bible is not the only source of revelation. There is that which we call “general revelation,” and it comes to us from nature. The Bible itself speaks of it. What is known from nature can supplement what is known from the Bible. It can never contradict it. What do we do, however, if sometimes nature seems to contradict the Bible? This was the crucial problem in the case of Galileo. Galileo said, “I can prove that the earth is not in the center of the solar system by means of my telescope. Before now, we were unable to examine this with the eye, but now we can.” Galileo said to the princes of the church, “Look through this telescope and see if I’m not right.” The church leaders refused to look because they had already set in concrete a dogma that said that the earth was the center of the solar system. The princes said, “We don’t care what the telescope says. You must be wrong because the Bible says that the earth is the center.”
If the Bible teaches unequivocably that the earth is the center of the universe, then the center of the universe is the earth. However, we must first examine the Scriptures to see if God indeed says that. If there is absolutely no doubt that God says the earth is the center, then we know that the earth is the center of the universe regardless of what Galileo says. We can applaud to a certain degree the obstinacy of the church leaders because they were convinced that God had said one thing and they heard Galileo say another.
But the Bible does not say that the earth is the center of the universe. The debate was not between God and Galileo, as the Catholic princes insisted; it was between the Ptolemaic astronomers and the Copernican astronomers. Unfortunately, the church rulers had put its blessing upon an earlier scientific model that they should not have blessed. They got egg on their faces when they tied the Ptolemaic system with divine revelation and eventually had to confess that they were wrong. In the final analysis, it was not a conflict between the Word of God and the word of Galileo. It is quite possible for science to correct theology. Understand–it is impossible for science to correct the Word of God, but it is possible for science to correct the word of the theologian. The judicious theologian must be careful to examine knowledge that comes to us from nature as well as knowledge that comes to us from grace, lest in a misguided zeal he establishes false conflicts between the two.
Historically, an example of a healthy attitude toward science and revelation was found in Isaac Newton. He did not live in fear of contradicting his faith through the study of the world. He said that the activity of the scientist is to think God’s thoughts after him. Newton’s was a humble, as well as a careful approach. He understood that all truth meets at the top.
Christians Need Not Fear Scientific Inquiry
There is a sense in which the Christian should be the most passionate scientist of all because he should be rigorously open to truth wherever it is found. He should not be afraid that a new discovery of something that is true will destroy his foundation for truth. If our foundation for truth is true, all other truth can only support it and enhance it. It can’t destroy it. Therefore, Christians ought not to be afraid of scientific inquiry. This does not mean that we should uncritically accept all pronouncements and pontifications of scientists. Scientists are fallible and may occasionally make arrogant statements that go far beyond the realm of their own expertise.
Recently I read an essay by a well-known Nobel Prize winning physicist (whose name will remain unstated so as not to embarrass him) who argued that the idea of “spontaneous generation” be abandoned in science once and for all. Spontaneous generation means that something comes into being with no cause. It comes from nothing. So far, so good. I was pleased to see a scientist debunk the myth of all myths, that something can come from nothing. This myth is still pervasive in the scientific community with respect to “chance.” Chance is given credit for creating the universe. However, such a prodigious feat is beyond the capabilities of chance. Why? Chance can do nothing because it is nothing. Chance is merely a word we use to explain mathematical possibilities. It is no thing. It has no power. It cannot produce, manage, or cause anything because it is nothing. It is spontaneous generation by another name.
I was glad the physicist repudiated spontaneous generation. My gladness abruptly turned to astonishment when the scientist said, “We must have a new model. We must speak in terms of gradual spontaneous generation.” I couldn’t believe what I was reading. “Gradual spontaneous generation”? How can something gradual be spontaneous? How can something spontaneous be gradual?
Our scientist wanted to debunk the myth that something can come suddenly from nothing and replace it with a better myth that something can come gradually from nothing.
I use this illustration only to show that even the most astute scientists can nod. They can fall asleep at the switch and be suddenly very unscientific in their pronouncements. To believe in gradual spontaneous generation of anything is to leap not by faith but below faith to credulity. Such a concept defies both aspects of the scientific method: rational deduction and empirical observation. Not only is the idea in violation of reason (breaking the Law of Contradiction), but it is impossible to observe empirically. What microscope or telescope is strong enough to observe anything doing something gradually spontaneously?
Occasionally, we read an article about why a certain scientist believes in God or why some other scientist does not. I am delighted when a scientist says that he has studied his area of science and is driven to the awesome majesty of God. But he is no more an expert on the existence of God than you are. Why? Because that is a theological question, not a scientific one. Today when somebody steps outside of his area of expertise, people tend to follow and believe him. That is the basis of much advertising. For example, a baseball star may appear on television and promote a particular brand of razors. If that star were to tell me how to hit a baseball, he would be speaking with authority. But when he tells me the best razor blade to buy is a certain brand, then he is speaking outside of his area of expertise. Advertisers understand that most people will easily transfer a person’s authority in one sphere to other spheres. Scientists may be guilty of this fallacy too. We must be wary of scientists who make theological statements outside the boundaries of their discipline.
Our Age Cries for Talented Christian Scientists!
Another important consideration is an assumption that concerns the scientific method. The scientific method of inquiry is based upon a combination of two elements of knowledge: induction and deduction. Induction involves observing, measuring, and checking out particulars. Deduction involves applying formal laws of logic and coherency to those particular pieces that have been found. Both elements are needed in seeking truth. Some people are strong at induction and weak at deduction. Others are strong at deduction but are a little short on their research, experimentation or observation.
Christian science is, in the fullest sense, the responsible, sober, careful, humble investigation of truth using both induction and deduction, yet assuming at all times Aquinas’s principle that truth meets at the top. Our age cries for talented scientists who see the scientific inquiry as a true vocation and as a response to the mandate of God Himself. Rather than flee from the scientific enterprise or embrace intellectual schizophrenia which only destroys, Christians are needed by the thousands to venture into the realm of nature, armed with the knowledge of grace. We can show that a God who exists on the other side of the wall is concerned with life on this side of that wall.
When we oversimplify theology or oversimplify science we encounter many difficulties between the two. Science is a complex enterprise. So is theology. Their relationship is to be studied closely and deeply if we are to discover an ultimate harmony between them.
One of my all-time favorite anecdotes concerns the meeting of a theologian and an astronomer. The astronomer was frustrated with the theologian for making religion too complicated. He said, “Why are you fellows so obscure? You talk about supralapsarian this and traducianism that. You quibble over fine points of predestination and God’s omniscience. For me religion is simple; it’s the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
“I understand your frustration,” replied the theologian. “You astronomers often confuse me with your talk of expanding universes this and exploding novae that. You’re always talking about astronomical perturbations and galactic anomalies. For me astronomy is simple: It’s twinkle, twinkle little star.”
Editor’s Note: This article was previously publihsed in Lifeviews by R.C. Sproul, first published by Revell in 1986.* ↩
Truth2Freedom's Blog 