Back to Basics

​

The best place to begin an examination of modern scientific philosophical flaws is in its very own definition. What science has become is far removed from its original definition.

In the beginning, it was easier to trust the conclusions of science when it defined itself as the empirical study of all things, based on repeatable, observable phenomena and careful record keeping of the results. Today’s science is rife with wild speculation, overworked theory, and just plain authoritarian guesswork. If a scientist said it, it has to be true, but is that true?

There are plenty of reasons that science is never questioned and not the least of these is because most scientific disciplines don’t want a hint of possible error being attached to them. Like all areas of modern life, accountability to the creator, God, must never be openly acknowledged. Religion is a highly doubtful area of substandard sources and subtexts, in the eyes of many scientists, who think it is largely for those who are squeamish and the fearful who haven’t got any savvy, cool or real brains to start with.

The wherewithal to account for the huge amount of loan money needed to pursue a higher education, limits the willingness to question. Who would dare to admit that they are paying for a farce at about 50k or more per year on average? With fees like that, how could the curriculum possibly be wrong?

Other reasons are peer pressure, as in, what student wants to be laughed out of class for questioning the instructors. Party time pressure, as in, what student would chance missing the drinking and carousing by getting lousy grades and risking failure and dismissal?

A much lesser known reason is for the spiritually mature alone, and it has to do with a failure on Satan’s part to prep an entire generation in secularism, to lead them to receive the world’s last dictator known as, the antichrist. Sadly, according to scripture, he does not fail in that effort. (Rev 13: 7)

The kinds of science that are open to endless speculation are assuming that discovery and research will uncover proof for their assertions, but that is all too much just like the claims of religion, which they, (scientists) so obviously despise.

It is known as ‘prior philosophic postulation’ and while it is a term I am forced to use more than I like, it is without doubt exactly what is going on in the best schools and universities of the day. It is science that disregards the limitations of its own stated definition and thus, is not science at all. It is religion but without a deity, unless man is the deity, or more accurately, the imagination of man. It is something the Apostle Paul saw coming over twenty centuries past and warned about.

Paul said, “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor 10: 5)

Leaving God out of academia actually limits the possibilities of many young minds to discover and grow. Examples of scientific disciplines that have reached a plateau and remained stunted would start with modern psychiatry.

Secular psychiatry sees man as a body and a mind.

The pre–Labor Day holiday run up was a good week for stating the obvious in the Washington Post.

An area high school student, who shall remain nameless, concluded that outsourcing her science project to the parents was passé, so she decided to see if it would be possible to recruit an actual scientist to do the work.

The enterprising young lady emailed “three or four chemistry professors” to see if they would be interested in analyzing how much of the chemical used to dry–clean clothes remained in the clothing after it was returned to the customer.

Most of her targets ignored her — possibly because they believe in ‘global warming’ and their cleaning involves going down to the river to beat cargo shorts on the rocks — but one recipient at Georgetown University agreed.

Sure enough, after extensive cleaning and testing, the brainiacs at Georgetown discovered that dry–cleaned sweater wool retained a perchloroethylene (PERC) level “as high as 126 parts per million.”

As my lovely wife, Janet, said, “Why wouldn’t it and so what?”

For that matter, sometimes my pants return from the dry–cleaners with crumbs in a pocket and I don’t make a federal case of it. (Although after reading about this science project I doubt I’ll be eating them again.)

I’d rather have that new dry–cleaned smell on my pants than the gravy stain that was there when I dropped them off.

To add a bit of context, the feds allow wine makers a sulfite level of 350 parts per million and people are intentionally drinking vino; to say nothing of asparagus makers who cool the crop in water containing 125 parts per million of chlorine — 41 times the amount you’ll find in your neighborhood pool.

But don’t get me wrong — I’m not criticizing our girl scientist. Her idea was simple and achievable — once she recruited a major university to do the heavy lifting. It reminds me of a project my engineer roommate was assigned in college. The professor told them to improve the design of an existing product, but to keep it simple. So students were redesigning Saturn rockets, gas spectrometers and racecars. Lester, on the other hand, showed how drilling four holes in dorm soap dishes would keep the Irish Spring from turning into mush. He received an ‘A.’

The problem I have is with the coverage of the project, which proves once again you don’t have to be hysterical to report on the environment, but it helps. The Post reporter writes as if she just discovered salmonella in her sprouts.

The story moves from the analysis of PERC remaining in small squares of cloth to discussing potential devastating health effects, particularly CANCER!!!, with the usual chemical alarmists.

One heavy–breathing example: “it was difficult to say how much risk consumers might face from wearing, say, dry–cleaned wool pants for a year or breathing air from a closet full of dry–cleaned clothes.”

I can see it now — edgy high school rebels who are pushing the limits will no longer be found under the bleachers stealing a few puffs. Instead, they’ll congregate inside a walk–in closet sniffing dad’s Brooks Brothers while the au pair wonders why Brittany seems so jittery.

​

After weeks of being pounded by commercials promoting Discovery Channel’s first in a series they call “Curiosity,” it would be hard for anyone with only a little bit of curiosity not to give it a chance and a little look see.

Produced by John Hendricks the founder of Discovery Channel, the show is set to air sixty more episodes each one dealing with different subjects. You will need to find a great deal more curiosity to take in the next fifty nine, if they are anything at all like the first. This is not a mere review of the program but rather it is a purview of the premise on which it is based. The program was well produced and narrated but it is hard not to conclude that it meant to use its science to close minds, not to open them.

In the beginning the show is like a flashback to my days as a college freshman, when eager professors worked feverishly to convince their young disciples, and I, to scrap any notion of God and lay down the false hype learned in the church. Using the well known battle between Galileo and the Catholic Church seemed to mock at times and bordered on insult. As always the argument is about what church fathers said and not about what the Bible says.

Curiosity, along with eager college professors, always leaves out the fact that the Bible always supported the scientific findings of the true relationship of the sun and the planets in our solar system. The Bible never says the earth is the center of the solar system or the universe. For those who walk by scripture alone it can only be repeated once again that, when any Christian sect leaves the Word, be it Catholic or some nascent non-denominational mega church, the secularist will eat it up and such theology will be labeled as, the folly of man and will most assuredly meet its doom under the sword of scientific scrutiny. Then, there is the other side of the coin.

When the single edged sword of the science of man does battle with the double edged sword of the Word of God there is never any contest. God’s word will always stand. Let’s see why.

Curiosity was willing, as might be expected, to use predisposition to arrive at bold pompous and swelling conclusions extracted from un-witnessed, unverifiable so called facts of science. They are based on (once again) prior philosophic postulates. Put simply that means, when describing events that took place billions of years before anyone could witness them, much less submit them to the scrutiny of science, is to delve into the endless realm of conjecture, speculation and perhaps prognostication, but it is not science. What’s worse is that because it leaves the very definition of science, which is the gathering of intelligence from repeatable observable phenomenon, what we have here, is an excursion into the realm known as, ‘faith.’

Since there is no more proof that the universe began with the Big Bang than there is that Christ was resurrected from the dead we have to engage the element of faith to build the hypothesis.

This is pretty neat news.

There is water inside the moon — so much, in fact, that in some places it rivals the amount of water found within Earth. . . .

Those measurements show that some parts of the lunar mantle have as much water as Earth’s upper mantle. . . .

The study also puts a new twist on the origin of water ice detected in craters at the lunar poles by several recent NASA missions. The ice has been attributed to comet and meteor impacts, but it is possible some of this ice could have come from the water released by eruption of lunar magmas. . . .

Back in 1990 when I founded The National Anxiety Center as a clearinghouse for information about “scare campaigns” designed to influence public opinion and policy, I was mainly concerned about the torrent of lies about global warming.

Their beginning is usually dated to an appearance by James E. Hansen before a congressional committee in 1988 in which he claimed that global warming would destroy the earth. To this day Hansen heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and has held that position since 1981. There is no rational reason why he continues to be employed by the U.S. government.

Global warming has been widely discredited thanks to the November 2009 release of thousands of emails between UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “scientists” that revealed their collusion to rig the data that supported the fraud.

GLOBAL WARMING. Climate alarmists are already worrying that the public has grown so tired of their idiotic claims that huge blizzards are caused by “warming” they are beginning to pour money into the education of a new generation of “environmental journalists” to ensure that more such lies make it to the front page of your daily newspaper or via other media.

Meanwhile, billions of taxpayer’s dollars have been flushed down the federal government rat hole to fund “research” guaranteed to support the hoax. It gets worse. Despite the defeat of the Cap-and-Trade bill based on the Big Lie that carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases cause global warming, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is attempting an end-run around Congress to impose limits on the carbon dioxide emissions of utilities and every form of manufacturing and business in America.

The EPA is engaged in a perversion of science, but what else is new? Americans have been ill-served by the alphabet soup of government agencies supposedly in place to protect the food we eat, medicines we take, the air and the water. In the process they are just as often stripping Americans of the protection afforded by pharmaceuticals and beneficial chemicals.

VACCINES v. AUTISM. A case in point is an article in the British Medical Journal that “accused a disgraced British doctor of committing an ‘elaborate fraud’ by faking data in his studies linking vaccines with autism.”

The result of that fraud was to convince thousands, if not millions, of parents that vaccines to protect their children against measles and mumps were a threat to their health. The ancillary question is why Andrew Wakefield’s paper was published in 1998. Science journals are expected to peer review such papers and determine if the data presented is valid. If it cannot be reproduced, it fails that test.

DDT. Starting in 1972, an EPA ban essentially ended its use anywhere in the nation and other nations followed suit. A year later a court upheld the EPA and that is an object lesson in what happens when matters of science are decided by men and women, lawyers, with no training or background in science. The DDT hoax continues to cause malaria deaths, particularly in Africa and mostly affecting women and children.

The U.S. is experiencing an outbreak of the bed bug population, eliminated decades ago, because the EPA has banned or limited the use of virtually every pesticide to exterminate them.

Intense terahertz (THz) radiation is generated by mixing an ultrafast laser pulse at its fundamental wavelength (800 nanomaters, near infrared) with its second harmonic pulse (400 nm, violet), generated from a frequency-doubling beta-barium-borate crystal, in a noble gas. The spark generated in the gas cell results from the sum of the two optical fields simultaneously ionizing the gas and producing a nonlinear asymmetric electron plasma current which is responsible for the generated coherent THz beam (invisible).

While the application of scientific knowledge creates technology, sometimes the technology is later redefined by science. Such is the case with terahertz (THz) radiation, the energy waves that drive the technology of the TSA: back scatter airport scanners.

Emerging THz technological applications

THz waves are found between microwaves and infrared on the electromagnetic spectrum. This type of radiation was chosen for security devices because it can penetrate matter such as clothing, wood, paper and other porous material that’s non-conducting.

This type of radiation seems less threatening because it doesn’t penetrate deeply into the body and is believed to be harmless to both people and animals.

THz waves may have applications beyond security devices. Research has been done to determine the feasibility of using the radiation to detect tumors underneath the skin and for analyzing the chemical properties of various materials and compounds. The potential marketplace for THz driven technological applications may generate many billions of dollars in revenue.

Because of the potential profits, intense research on THz waves and applications has mushroomed over the last decade.

Health risks

The past several years the possible health risks from cumulative exposure to THz waves was mostly dismissed. Experts pointed to THz photons and explained that they are not strong enough to ionize atoms or molecules; nor are they able to break the chains of chemical bonds. They assert—and it is true—that while higher energy photons like ultraviolet rays and X-rays are harmful, the lower energy ones like terahertz waves are basically harmless. [Softpedia.com]

While that is true, there are other biophysics at work. Some studies have shown that THZ can cause great genetic harm, while other similar studies have shown no such evidence of deleterious affects.

Boian Alexandrov at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico recently published an abstract with colleagues, “DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field” that reveals very disturbing—even shocking—evidence that the THz waves generated by TSA scanners is significantly damaging the DNA of the people being directed through the machines, and the TSA workers that are in close proximity to the scanners throughout their workday.

From the abstracts own synopsis:

“We consider the influence of a terahertz field on the breathing dynamics of double-stranded DNA. We model the spontaneous formation of spatially localized openings of a damped and driven DNA chain, and find that linear instabilities lead to dynamic dimerization, while true local strand separations require a threshold amplitude mechanism.