Response to Lawrence Krauss and His Materialistic Vision

4 comments

Posted by: Philip Mereton on April 28, 2012

Categories: Failure of Scientific Materialism , Multiverse , New Consciousness , Scientific Revolution

In a recent article on Scientific American’s website, entitled Consolation of Philosophy, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-consolation-of-philos&page=2, Professor Lawrence Krauss expounds on some of the themes in his book, A Universe from Nothing, and concludes that philosophy has nothing of importance to tell us about the real world, and that only physics can lead us to truth.

Professor Krauss, in rejecting philosophy, fails to acknowledge that he is promoting his own brand of philosophy known as scientific materialism.  So what he really seems to be saying is that scientific materialism is the final truth, and we should not bother considering any other alternative.

But scientific materialism – the view that a real world of matter exists independently of consciousness – has a number of fatal flaws.  Two of them are (1) several great thinkers, such as Bishop George Berkeley, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant, showed that we can never prove that such a real world of matter actually exists outside of the mind; rather, as Hume said, this is a belief humankind takes on faith; and (2) in the scientific realm, quantum theory shows that consciousness plays an unmistakable role in forming the world of experience.  (F. Kuttner & B. Rosenblum, The Quantum Enigma (http://quantumenigma.com/).   Quantum theory teaches that an objective world of particles does not exist.  (D. Lindley, The End of Physics .http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Of-Physics-Unified/dp/0465019765)  The fact that quantum theory gives a role to consciousness in experience may be taken as a sign of a developing convergence between science and other fields of thought, and as evidence that the philosophical idealists were on the right track after all.

It is time for the scientific thought leaders to open their minds to the real possibility that there may very well be a fundamental synergy between mind and the physical world, and that this fact will not destroy science but perpetually energize it.  Science deals only with models, and the evidence, from quantum theory to the placebo effect to the unavoidable fine-tuning of the universe, shows we are due for a change-over  in model lines.

With science unable to bring themselves to accept mind or intelligence in the make-up of the physical world, it is forced to fall back to the multiverse and string theory to explain such things as the physical constants and the conflict between gravity and quantum theory.  But neither of these two theories can be proven or falsified, so their role as “scientific” theories is doubtful.  (See George Ellis,  Does the Multiverse Really Exist?, Scientific American (Aug. 2011)http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-the-multiverse-really-exist ; L. Smolin, The Trouble with Physics, http://www.thetroublewithphysics.com/.)  So why is all of this important?  Because if consciousness in fact plays a role in the formation of the world, then it is time we take more responsibility for the world we live in, rather than pass off the task to some external force, and fanciful notions of multiple universes and hidden dimensions.

Materialism’s Straw Man — and a New Opponent Rising

one comment

Posted by: Philip Mereton on April 5, 2012

Categories: Failure of Scientific Materialism , New Consciousness , Scientific Revolution

In books such as The God Delusion (Richard Dawkins), Knocking on Heaven’s Door (Lisa Randall), and The Grand Design (Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow), our modern science writers set up an easy straw man when promoting materialistic orthodoxy.  Modern scientists believe that their only opponent to control the debate over the origin and evolution of the cosmos is organized religion.  They are wrong.  Another opponent is rising, and they will soon have to deal with it.

Materialism is the view that the entire physical universe can be reduced to mindless particles in motion.  It holds to the belief that there is an objective world, independent of perception and independent of mind.

The great mystery of materialism is how this material world sprang from the void and evolved itself into a picture-perfect universe.

Material scientists have the mathematical laws of nature, the scientific method, and a lock on all of the professorships in the leading universities to argue their case.

But their argument is made much easier because they believe they have only one opponent in the debate to control the discourse on the origin and evolution of the cosmos: organized religion.  In the standard religious worldview, God replaces the laws of nature as the source for the universe.  But the physical universe of religion is the same as the universe of modern science: it is a world of dead matter independent of the human mind.  Therefore, materialists ask the obvious question: what is the source of God and through what mechanism does it influence and create the world?

By a wave of the hand?  His daily whims? His great mind?  So religion cites to “God” as the ultimate explanation for the universe, order, and life, but what is the explanation for God?

Most western religions are themselves materialistic in that they accept part of the scientific story – such as the Big Bang, dark matter, and dark energy – but fall back upon God as the original and final cause.

Orthodox religion uses faith to make the final step in the explanation, but this sort of faith has no currency in science.

So modern scientists, propping up organized religion as the “usual suspect,” proceed to treat the religious worldview as a rag doll, beating its head upon the anvil of almighty Science.  Religion, scientists argue, relies ultimately upon childish myths and superstition: creation in 7 days; a 6000-year universe; a bearded father in the sky; a savior walking on water and healing the sick; and great religious texts channeled from God to wandering peasants.

Almighty methodical science vs. a child’s storybook; an MIT PhD vs. a matchbook GED; a Formula One car vs. a horse and buggy; Richard Dawkins vs. Jerry Falwell.

But there is another opponent rising to take up the challenge of materialism and of organized religion.  This opponent is of a different kind and is not so easily dismissed.

This new approach is based upon a radical re-orientation of how we look out at the world.  It treats the external world not as a foreign object created by happenstance in the Big Bang, but as a dream powered by the united unconscious mind; the one mind of what Indian philosophy calls Brahman, what new age thinkers call the Source, and others call God.

We see the same sky not because there is one sky resting independently of ourselves but because we are one mind and are participating in the same dream.  With this viewpoint, we find an explanation for how nothing came from something; the order in the universe; the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants and laws.  We see how reports and studies of the paranormal – how minds talk to each other, foretell the future, and see vast distances without a telescope – become part of our worldview.  We see why, when scientists peer into the core of the physical world, they find not tiny things, but the quivering wave function of quantum theory.

And we also find why, despite the overwhelming intellectual power of science, the mind of man will not easily give up its hold on this great being called God; the reason, in the end, will be because man cannot give up on himself, and the unlimited power we know rests inside. Another opponent is rising to accept the challenge of materialism, and this one will be around until the debate is finally over.

Is God in the Particle, the Heavens, or Both?

no comments yet

Posted by: Philip Mereton on March 4, 2012

Categories: Failure of Scientific Materialism , New Consciousness , Scientific Revolution

Looks Like Heaven will Need to be on Earth After All

4 comments

Posted by: Philip Mereton on February 27, 2012

Categories: New Consciousness , New Spirituality , Spirituality

Many religions speak of a better place far off in another spiritual dimension where humankind will find peace and tranquility; where the mind rises to enlightenment, and the soul reaches Nirvana.  Others look to the Second Coming when a messiah will appear on Earth and establish the Kingdom of God.   In this kingdom, presumably, humankind will finally be united as one, brotherhood will reign, and there will be peace throughout the land.

            In each one of these utopian worlds, people will necessarily be the actors in the story.  And the only way for this story to be worthy of a place called heaven is if the actors treat each other with the respect due as if the moral law is as true as the laws of science.

Transporting ourselves to another world, in and of itself, will not make us better people, for we wind up being the same people wherever we go.  Nor will a messiah – even if one appears — wave a magic wand and instantly make everyone a better person, and heal the chasms between the faiths.  No, we will have to earn our place in this better world.

If heaven is to be real, it must involve real people.  So when we pray for a better world, a place “up in the clouds,” aren’t we really praying for a higher state of being, of awareness in this world?  Aren’t we really praying for someone – other than ourselves – to make us better people?

There is one way we know of where people undertake a greater appreciation for the world and other people – this is when we reach higher states of awareness, a global or universal attitude, rather than one fixed on ourselves, our family or religious symbols.

So the goal is the same as it always has been: we must rise to a greater sense of our true identity; perhaps this is the Hindu union of the self with God; the Christian blending with the body of Christ; or the Buddhist release from the wheel of rebirth. But whatever religious doctrine inspires us, we know that the path is up the same mountain: this is the climb toward a higher state of consciousness, of oneness with the root of being that is the source of the world.

Heaven is the climb inside of ourselves, the shining star that draws us upward to be a better person than we were the day before.  There is no way up other than by a life of virtue, open-mindedness, and courage.  When we finally get there it may seem like another place, but it will be a world that was there all along, hidden deep but waiting to shine.

Not a War But a Revolution: Materialism is Wrong

2 comments

Posted by: Philip Mereton on December 6, 2011

Categories: Failure of Scientific Materialism , Scientific Method , Scientific Revolution

             He writes that “For while metaphysics is fixed and guided by personal belief and wish fulfillment, science progresses and is inspired by the excitement of discovery.  The scientist’s dream is to make new discoveries, especially when they mean that established theories must be revised.”

             But here’s the problem: materialism itself is a metaphysics.  And, indeed, this metaphysics is fixed for most modern scientists who are guided by their personal belief and wish fulfillment in adopting materialism as their guiding principle.  Scientists do not practice their craft in a rarefied place where no-one engages in metaphysics; instead modern scientists almost uniformly adopt the metaphysics of materialism, and proceed as if no other way of looking at the world, — or being rationale — has any credibility. 

            So let’s first define a few terms.  Metaphysics “is the branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.”  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/metaphysics.           

            “Materialism” is the “theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/materialism So the metaphysics of materialism holds that matter wins, mind loses; if mind exists it will some day be found to be an emergent property of matter.  Materialism follows from “naïve realism,” or as its proponents prefer, “realism.”  “Realism” is the position that what appears to exist really does exist in the same manner as its appearance, external to the mind.  Mr. Mlodinow writes that “scientists deal only with phenomena we can see, hear, smell, detect with instruments, or measure with numbers.”  Nobel prize-winning physicists Steven Weinberg speaks directly to this point in his book, Dreams of a Final Theory.  He writes that “Physicists do of course carry around with them a working philosophy.  For most of us, it is rough-and-ready realism, a belief in the objective reality of the ingredients of our scientific theories.”  (p. 167).           

            And the problem is two-fold: First, scientists, as typified by Leonard Mlodinow and Steven Weinberg, do in fact follow a metaphysics known as materialism or naive realism.  Second, this metaphysics is called naive realism for a reason. 

             The reason naive realism is naive is because, as thinkers have shown for several centuries, not only do our senses sometimes deceive, but we all have experiences, such as dreams and hallucinations, where we do not need our physical senses to experience an outside world: our mind itself is capable of conjuring a real-seeming world as if from nothing.  These experiences put into question not only whether some of the physical world is mind-created, but whether it all is.      

            Naïve realism ignores an entire series of important findings by philosophers in the 17^th and 18^th century.  In short order, it goes like this: John Locke (1632-1704)  concluded that some qualities of an external object, such as color, taste, and sound, or secondary qualities, are subjective and added to experience by the mind.   If this were not true, then everyone would like the taste of beer and enjoy the same music, and there would be no such thing a color-blindness.   But other qualities of object, such as number and shape, or primary qualities, Locke believed really did exist outside in the world apart from the mind.   This is similar to the view currently held, at least in theory, by modern science, which holds that certain physical qualities in external objects create the experience of reality in our brains. 

             George Berkeley (1685-1753) then took the next logical step.  He reasoned that since color, taste, and sound are inseparable from a physical object (such as an apple), it makes no logical sense to say that some parts of the object are in the mind and rest are actually outside of the mind.  This led Berkeley to conclude that all physical reality resides in the mind of an eternal spirit. 

             David Hume (1711-1776) adopted Berkeley standpoint in concluding that we have no logical or empirical reason to believe that a world existed independently of the mind; rather, he said, most people, including the “vulgar” and the philosopher, simply take a mind-independent world for granted.  He writes that even though an objective, studied inquiry into the subject shows that nothing is ever present to the mind but its own perceptions and ideas, the belief in a world outside of the mind “has taken such a deep root in the imagination, that ’tis impossible to ever eradicate it, nor will any strain’d metaphysical conviction of the dependence of our perceptions be sufficient for that purpose.” (Treatise of Human Nature, Bk. I, Pt. IV, Sec. II). 

             So why is this little detour into the thoughts of great philosophers important?  Because it shows that the existence of a mind-independent world is an assumption based neither on reason nor empiricism.  In other words, science, using the methods of empiricism, cannot prove a mind-independent world exists; rather this is an assumption that scientists take for granted in developing their theories.

             So what is wrong with this?  A few things. Modern scientists convey an air of invincibility when discussing their theories, as if no other approach to understanding the world will ever have credibility.  But when we look deeper, we find that scientists have based the scientific enterprise upon a metaphysical framework — materialism —that not only can never be proven true but, as scientists themselves know, does not accurately describe the physical world.  (See quantum theory.)   Thus, scientists practice the highest form of intellectual investigation within the most naive of frameworks. 

             Metaphysics is as important to science as a foundation is to a skyscraper.  And yes, our modern scientists do follow a metaphysics, as they have build the scientific enterprise upon the foundation of materialism. 

             It is this foundation that is in doubt, not the scientific method.

Scientific American Article Puts the Multiverse in its Place

no comments yet

Posted by: Philip Mereton on July 27, 2011

Categories: Failure of Scientific Materialism , Multiverse

To begin with, the multiverse is important because it is the product of today’s scientific thought leaders, which is to say the people that write the textbooks, present the lectures, and give the interviews that tell us about our place in the universe.  So if you care about where science placed us in the grand cosmos you might want to spend a little time grappling with the multiverse.

The multiverse is science’s latest approach for explaining the undeniable order in the universe without having resort to God. Specifically, if a near-infinity of other universes exist, then the odds increase that one of these universes would have turned out to have the unique conditions necessary to support life, much like if you deal enough poker hands, one will come up to be a royal flush.  

A further reason we should care about the multiverse is that it reflects the scientific belief that the creation of the universe was a random event without cosmological meaning or purpose.  As Stephen Hawking writes in the Wall Street Journal Article, universes are just things that now and then spontaneously appear from nothing.  This is an important position because if the universe is just one of those things that now and then pops out of the vacuum, we are more likely to treat it lightly, and without the reverence due a miracle.

So in the face of all the hype over the multiverse, the article by George Ellis brings a needed dose of sense and reason to the concept. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe  Professor Ellis notes that the currently observable universe is 42 billion light years, what he calls the cosmic visual horizon. The multiverse is imagined to exist outside this cosmic horizon, with each variant universe possessing a different set of physical laws.

But how can one ever empirically prove the workings of an imagined universe that by definition lies beyond experience? He writes, “All the parallel universes lie outside of our horizon and remain beyond our capacity to see, now or ever, no matter how technology evolves.  In fact, they are too far away to have had any influence on our universe whatsoever.  That is why none of the claims made by multiverse enthusiasts can be directly substantiated.”  Nor can anyone prove the multiverse wrong since it lies beyond our ability to prove anything.

Brian Greene, in his Wall Street Journal interview, makes the argument that “if a theory offers the most accurate and complete predictions about our own universe and also requires the existence of other universes, then confirmation of its predictions gives us confidence that other universes are out there.”

The problem with this argument, as Ellis points out, is the bedrock principle known as Occam’s razor. This principle holds that a theory should be as simple as possible and that the fewer assumptions the better the theory.  Clearly, relying on an infinity of unknowable universes to explain features of our one known universe must be considered to be a flagrant violation of Occam’s razor.  A theory that explains our current universe without imagining a multiverse would be superior to one that does.  In the end, the multiverse may give materialistic scientists cover for a time, but the concept is so highly speculative and cumbersome that it is destined to gradually fade away.  All it will take is a theory that does not assume an infinity of other universes to explain this one.

Heaven is the Better Bet

no comments yet

Posted by: Philip Mereton on June 26, 2011

Categories: Failure of Scientific Materialism , Multiverse

           As widely reported, Stephen Hawking announced in a recent interview with the Guardian newspaper that there is no heaven, and that any such notion is simply a fairly tale.

           At the same time Mr. Hawking holds this negative thought in his mind, he also concludes that the body is a machine, the brain is a decaying computer, the universe mysteriously arose from background vibrations, and our universe is simply one of roughly 10⁵⁰⁰ other ones. The only distinguishing feature of our universe is that it just so happens to possess exactly the right conditions and physical laws to support life.  The other 10⁵⁰⁰ – 1 universes are not so lucky.

          So Mr. Hawking, like so many materialists, trades a world of hope for one of dire speculation.  What evidence does Mr. Hawking have for the multiverse? None.  What evidence does he have for universes popping out of spatial fluctuations? None.  Does your mind feel like a computer, your body, a machine?

           To Hawking this does not matter: he does not think he can be scientific and at the same time leave the slightest room for spirit, God, or hope.  But are science and God mutually incompatible? If Hawking spent more time trying to reconcile science with humankind’s deep belief in God perhaps he would not need all those extra universes to explain the one standing before us. 

           If our universe is instead special and not one of 10⁵⁰⁰ other ones, then perhaps there is a designer behind the scenes; if it did not arise from quantum fluctuations out in space, then perhaps it came from us; if we do not feel like robots, then maybe we are not.  If God is real, then heaven can be real.  Where should we place our bets? On God and heaven, or all those other universes? At the end of the scientific investigation into our world of endless order perhaps we will find not death and gloom but real hope, and a vision of a better world that only we – with unrelenting optimism — can make come true.

The Trouble with Physics and Realism

no comments yet

Posted by: Philip Mereton on June 19, 2011

Categories: Consequences of a Dream World , Failure of Scientific Materialism

                                                                        Lee Smolin, The Trouble with Physics

             In The Trouble with Physics, Lee Smolin presents a powerful critique of the state of modern physics.   http://www.thetroublewithphysics.com/  The cause of the “trouble with physics” is that the two leading theories of physics— quantum theory and the general theory of relativity (i.e., gravity) — are mutually incompatible.  The standard explanation for this incompatibility is that quantum physics, with its wave-particle duality and uncertainty principle, governs the world of the very small, while gravity, which by definition is proportional to mass, governs the very big.  See Vlatko Vedral, Living in a Quantum World, Scientific American  (June 2011).

            But there is only one world, combining the big with the small.  Where does one draw the line?  It seems self-evident that any final theory must explain the world on any scale; the theory must explain both tiny particles and the Milky Way; the quark and the sun.  

            In the world of modern physics, the leading candidate to unite quantum theory and gravity is string theory.  This theory holds that at the base of reality are not tiny particles but quivering strings, vibrating in ways that mimic the mass and movement of particles.  See Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe for a complete discussion of string theory.

            String theory may seem like an esoteric topic except, as Professor Smolin shows, it also dominates the physics departments of the nation’s leading universities and research institutions.  But string theory is riddled with serious problems of its own: its 11 dimensions (that’s 7 more than the 4 we know exist, the three spatial dimensions and time), makes no predictions that are testable and is not even a single theory.  As Professor Smolin explains,  

Much effort has been put into string theory in the last twenty years, but we still do not know whether it is true. Even after all this work, the theory makes no new predictions that are testable by current—or even currently conceivable—experiments. The few clean predictions it does make have already been made by other well-accepted theories.  .  .  Thus, no matter what the experiments show, string theory cannot be disproved. But the reverse also holds: No experiment will ever be able to prove it true.

          He goes on to say that

What we have, in fact, is not a theory at all but a large collection of approximate calculations, together with a web of conjectures that, if true, point to the existence of a theory. But that theory has never actually been written down. We don’t know what its fundamental principles are. We don’t know what mathematical language it should be expressed in—perhaps a new one will have to be invented to describe it. Lacking both fundamental principles and the mathematical formulation, we cannot say that we even know what string theory asserts.

(Kindle, Loc. 167-69; 181-84). Professor Smolin quotes the remarks Nobel Laureate, David Gross, gave in a string theory conference: “We don’t know what we are talking about…. The state of physics today is like it was when we were mystified by radioactivity…. They were missing something absolutely fundamental. We are missing perhaps something as profound as they were back then.”  (Kindle, Loc. 194-98).

            And the problem is broader than that.  As Smolin writes,

It is not an exaggeration to say that hundreds of careers and hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in the last thirty years in the search for signs of grand unification, supersymmetry, and higher dimensions. Despite these efforts, no evidence for any of these hypotheses has turned up. A confirmation of any of these ideas, even if it could not be taken as a direct confirmation of string theory, would be the first indication that at least some part of the package deal that string theory requires has taken us closer to, rather than further from, reality.

(Kindle, Loc. 3243-47). 

            So why is the modern science community so enthralled with string theory?  Well, the answer, as Smolin also skillfully discusses, may be sociological: the string theory freight train is far down the track and anyone who doesn’t jump onboard is thrown aside; no professorships, no grants, no recognition by peers.  Recognizing the powerful conditioning influence of the physics community, Smolin stresses the need for new ideas, a “seer” who can branch off in a different direction and help develop a new approach to explaining the physical world, one perhaps that won’t require 11 dimensions or come in 10⁵⁰⁰ varieties.   

            And here we come to the root cause of the problem.  Specifically, modern science is wedded to the notion that any physical theory must “give an account of reality as it would be in our absence.” (Loc. 409-10).  He calls this perspective “realism,” the idea that the “real world out there must exist independently of us.” (Loc. 407).  He ponders the thought that realism as a philosophy might simply die, but deems this event unlikely.  Belief in a real world out there, he says,  and the “the possibility of truly knowing  it motivates us to do the hard work needed to become a scientist and contribute to the understanding of nature.”  (Loc. 456-60). 

            But here is the question that must be asked:  what if this real world out there — the one independent of us — does not in fact exist?  Suppose this notion of a mind-independent world is simply a model, a mental construct laid over experience to help frame it for further study?  Suppose in seeking to work within a “realist framework” scientists have ironically chosen an imaginary world? 

             At this point we must focus in a bit and address the question of what the “us” is in the phrase, independent of “us.”  To some, the answer to this question is that we are fundamentally a collection of mind-independent particles; to others, we are fundamentally a mind. 

             If we are ultimately made out of things, then of course the natural world and our bodies would be independent of our minds, or brains.  To conceptualize this standpoint requires no conceptualization: the natural world appears to exist independently of ourselves —like a grand stage on which we are the actors— and therefore we think it does.

             But if we are fundamentally a mind, then both our bodies and the natural world would be projections of the mind; dream-images existing on the same level and therefore real to each other.

             Rene Descartes, during his famous meditations in the 17^th century, concluded that  he had greater certainty over his own mind than over the independent existence of the external world.  The natural world, he reasoned, might very well be a dream created by the mind.  He then reasoned, however, that because God would not make him believe a world exist outside the mind unless one really did, he convinced himself the world was not a dream.  But Descartes, despite his use of God to restore the real world, nonetheless showed that we possess greater certainty over our own minds than over the independent existence of the physical world.  Put differently, what if Descartes had not appealed to God to cure his doubts about the independent existence of the external world?          

            And now we come to the big question: Is one standpoint more “real” than the other?  Is the imagined theoretical world of today’s scientific realist more “real” than the truly imagined world of the dreamer?  If we insist on defining “reality” before we know what realities are possible, then perhaps one can reach the conclusion that the world of science is more real.  But if we define reality in terms of possible worlds, then we may have no choice but to accept the fact that only dream worlds are possible and that the world we have is as real as worlds get.  

            So the trouble with physics may be that scientists have not yet thought long or hard enough about whether it is their conceptualization of “realism” that is holding them back from reaching a theory of everything. Perhaps it is possible to be both a “dream-realist” and a scientist, but science will never know unless it attempts to re-cast its theories within a different conception of “realism.” And last, scientists may have no choice: if the world is really a dream, then they must either adapt to that reality or someday find that their theories no longer align with the real world.   

Powerful Hallucinations and the Multiverse

one comment

Posted by: Philip Mereton on April 21, 2011

Categories: Failure of Scientific Materialism , Multiverse

Five Good Reasons to Question Darwinism

2 comments

Posted by: Philip Mereton on March 20, 2011

Categories: Darwin , Failure of Scientific Materialism

                                                            Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth

            Understatement — or overstatement —of all time?  That is the question this blog will  explore.

            According to modern evolutionists, Darwin’s theory of natural selection is as “incontrovertible as any fact in science,” supported by evidence at least  as strong as that proving the truth of the Holocaust.  (R. Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, Preface).   If you don’t believe in evolution, according to these modern thinkers, you are “inexcusably ignorant” (D. Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, 46),  insane (R. Dawkins, Ancestor’s Tale, 13), or perhaps some combination of the two.    

             Question Darwinism and these modern writers emit an intellectual force-field that repels any attack. How can anyone be so naive to question the Word of Darwin?

            The purpose of this article is not to convince the reader that Darwin is wrong or incomplete, but to raise five reasons why we should simply not take the word of modern evolutionists when they preach the gospel of Darwin.  Science is the process of questioning theories until one remains standing.   We should not be intimidated into not raising our hands and asking questions because the advocates of the theory are so convinced by their own reasoning that they fail to consider alternative explanations, and wind up replacing one form of fanaticism with another. (more…)