The View From 1776

Boson Bozos

Scientists seeking ultimate answers to the origin, nature, and future of the cosmos have pursued a long series of mutually exclusive, speculative theories.  Liberals embrace these speculations as scientific truth, even though they have less basis in verifiable fact than 5,000 years of faith in God recorded in the Bible.

Every attempt to date to unify cosmological and nuclear particle theories has foundered on newly observed, unreconcilable, opposing sets of facts.  Seeking to bridge these gaps, cosmologists, nuclear particle physicists, and mathematicians have drifted far into the realm of abstract speculation. 

Science at the outer limits of knowledge, both at the cosmological and sub-atomic levels, has come increasingly to resemble the speculations of medieval scholastic philosophers dealing in doctrinal abstractions. 

Subatomic particles, found and unfound, and cosmological theories with strange names abound: bubble universe, worm holes, cold dark matter, big bang theory, string theory, superstrings, domain walls, great attractors, mini-black holes, Higgs fields, inflationary universe theory, leptons, bosons, muons, neutrinos, quarks, supergravity, tauons, supersymetry, etc. 

Existence of some of these is verifiable.  In other cases they are abstract theoretical concepts that attempt to explain inconsistencies in other theories, concepts that cannot be verified in the world we inhabit because the accelerators needed to produce sufficient energy would be larger than the earth, or because the predicted phenomena have never been found.

In their own fields scientists see no contradiction between such speculation and the supposedly fact-based, empirical, inductive, scientific methodology that they project to taxpayers who fund their research.  Nor do they recognize the hypocrisy in championing these contradictions while denouncing 5,000 years of documented historical experience that supports the existence of God and the human soul.

There is nothing wrong with speculative thinking in science.  But let’s be consistent.  Stop dismissing as ignorant superstition God and the verifiable difference that religious faith makes in people’s lives.  Both science and religion are efforts of human intuition and Divine revelation to understand as much as possible of the reality underlying the material phenomena perceptible by the limited range of human senses.

Science, since Francis Bacon’s Novum Organum (1620), has aimed at what used to be called “conquering nature” via the scientific, inductive method of experimentation.  A large part of scientific research since the mid-18th century has been energized by the conviction that all phenomena can be explained by natural processes.  Implicit is the rejection of God and the presumption that the cosmos is entirely controlled by mechanical, materialistic forces. 

Humans have an instinct to believe that they have created and can control anything that they can describe and name.  Humans aspire to becoming God by acquiring knowledge. 

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ “

“You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman.  “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 1:1-5)

Many scientists believe that they can penetrate the Mind of God and thereby become immensely powerful, or that there is no God.  Christopher Marlowe’s Tragical History of Doctor Faustus exemplifies the former in the character of the man who sells his soul to the Devil for power and knowledge.  The French philosophers of the Revolution exemplify the latter.

Among other things, the vast multiplicity of cosmological and nuclear particle theories violates the principle of Ocham’s razor: the simplest explanation in a welter of possibilities is the preferred one.  The simplest answer to what has stumped the best physics, mathematical, and cosmological minds is God.  The universe was designed and created by God, a Being outside of and predating the universe, a Being whose nature is so multi-dimensional as to be utterly beyond the comprehension of human minds.

Darwin’s evolutionary biology depicts the world as an amoral domain governed by material influences that are without design or purpose, a world in which all life forms are the cumulative products of chance.  Cosmologists and physicists, at the same time, take the opposite view, that the origin and ultimate end of the universe is the product of design inherent in mathematics and the laws of physics and chemistry, a universe therefore that had a precise, identifiable beginning and a foreseeable end.

Liberals, priding themselves on their tough-minded rationality, have no trouble in swallowing whole both of these mutually exclusive world views.  It seems to be necessary only to label something scientific for their uncritical acceptance.

Liberals readily accept the intuitively impossible quantum phenomenon of photons, at a distance from each other, responding to impulses on only one of the photons.  But, because their professors told them that religion is ignorance, they are unwilling to consider the truth recounted by eye witnesses to Jesus Christ’s miracles, people who willingly died excruciating deaths to attest to those miracles.

Ironically, mathematical and theoretical abstraction is leading theoreticians in the physical sciences into a realm of impenetrable complexity, ever closer to the religious and philosophical realm in which the Bible is the paramount authority, a realm in which one cannot escape a world of Divine intelligent design.