Michael Behe

The man who first cracked open Darwinism for the general public has a website worth visiting, Revolutionary. Check it out, and join the revolution against that Establishment Prophet, Darwin!

From Uncommon Descent:

As we know, random changes and undirected natural processes routinely succeed in assembling functional equipment for a range of uses. Wait…it doesn’t work that way?


The Revolutionary Behe website, at http://revolutionarybehe.com/, features more information about Dr. Behe’s research, other molecular machines, and evidence for intelligent design, and the stories of revolutionary scientists changing the evolutionary paradigm. See the documentary now and pass it along!

Behe is the author of Darwin’s Black Box and Edge of Evolution

Ain’t it long past time that Christians started loading up on science again?


New Martyrs Monastery

From Russia Insider

Russia’s “New Martyrs” Monastery: A Forceful and Beautiful Repudiation of Stalinism and Leninism

The land on which the Sretenskii monastery stands used to belong to the Soviet secret services (known successively as the Cheka, OGPU, NKVD, MGB, and KGB), whose headquarters, the Lubyanka, is not far away. During the Great Terror, executions took place on the monastery grounds, our guide told us. Even today, all the buildings around the monastery remain in the possession of the post-Soviet security service, the FSB. The monastery is, therefore, surrounded by the organization which in a previous guise once tried to destroy Christianity in Russia.

The resurrected Sretenskii monastery is devoted to the New Martyrs – those thousands of Christians murdered by communists following the 1917 revolution. The new church’s decoration reflects this. Around the dome, for instance, are depictions of key saints of the Russian Orthodox Church, among whom are Emperor Nicholas II and his family, symbols of suffering at the hands of Bolshevism.

Behind and above the altar, one can see a depiction of Christ’s crucifixion. But around the cross are not merely the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene, but also some more of the New Martyrs. On the far right are a man and his two sons who initially supported the revolution and joined the Red Guards, but who then refused to renounce their Christian faith and were shot. On the left is, among others, Grand Duchess Elizabeth, who became a nun after the assassination of her husband Grand Duke Sergei, and who was murdered by the Bolsheviks in 1918. And on the far left is a woman who during the Great Terror brought food and clothes to those detained by the NKVD, until she in turn was arrested and shot.

You will be waiting a long time for any similar monastery or church to be erected in the West, in regard to those murdered by Communists.

Especially such an explicitly Christian structure.

And note: this is the Russian church, backed by the Russian government, acting in this way. Does anyone here expect the Church of England to erect a church in the name of the Protector of the Unborn, on the largest abortuary in that nation?


Of course in these secularist United States, any such thing is impossible – and has been since the Supreme Court formally declared war on God, in banning Christian prayers in public schools.

(Naturally, the United States has been implicitly at war with Christ since the creation of the Constitution: see Gary North’s Political Polytheism and Conspiracy in Philadelphia for details.

The best response is for every Christian to pull his or her children out of the explicitly anti-Christian public schools immediately…

“But who cares if our children are being taught by a government that despises us? It’s FREE DAY CARE!”

So long as Christians sacrifice their children to Moloch – an act unopposed by every Christian denomination I am aware of – then Christians can expect to lose, and fail, and be defeated, time and time again.

Of course, to the extent that Christian churches (backed by their lay members) support the public schools, to that extent they show contempt to God, and make an enemy of God.

At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! – Matthew 18:1-7

As for the secularist men from whom offenses came, see Rushdoony’s The Messianic Character of American Education

But I must also note the craven Christian Leadership that welcomed the enthronement of the enemies of God over us, explicitly refuses to lead God’s people out of the Satanic schooling system, and merely blather over trivialities and blather indecisively (and with maximum personal safety) as the Kingdom of God shrinks and shrinks in the West, and the slave collars tighten and tighten. For more on these worthless shepherds, see Marinov’s The Celebrity Cult.

And once again, much of our problems today – our gelded church leadership – stems from the seminary – a direct repudiation of Christ’s and Paul’s example of gaining a pastorate by apprenticeship, and not by writing scholastic essays and dead-soul preaching (How is THAT supposed to ‘equip the saints’ in fighting the enemy?) Seminary’s ties to the death of missions can be discovered here, and a more comprehensive discussion of the problem with seminaries is here.

(Of course, I should mention the crippling focus on the local church, as opposed to the universal Body of Christ – as discussed by Marinov here.)

Filthy Legal Systems

Consider the implications, just on the title of this ProPublica article: What Does an Innocent Man Have to Do to Go Free? Plead Guilty.

The current legal system is filthy and corrupt.

But I believe that most Christians will not act to restore Divine – as opposed to a strictly secular, pointedly anti-biblical code of justice – until their own slave collars are tightened a little too quickly, a little too fast.

And perhaps not even then.

Secret Sins – Japan Editon

From Quora,

“What is the biggest sociological problem of Japanese society?”

(The question was originally asked here.)

I lived in Japan for 3 years in a small town which I will not name.

I worked at two elementary schools, one being a small quiet school in the countryside. The other only a 5 minute drive away towards the city’s outskirts.

I realized very quickly that these schools were completely different for one specific reason.

Majority of people do not know that Japan has a secret underclass called the, “Burakumin” or commonly referred to by the Japanese as the, “Dowa mondai,” which roughly translates to, “assimilation issues.”

They were originally members of outcast communities in the Japanese feudal era, composed of those with occupations considered impure or tainted by death (such as executioners, undertakers, workers in slaughterhouses, butchers or tanners), (wiki article)

All over Japan you can find these segregated neighborhoods/ghettos where the Burakumin exclusively live. The state houses provided are small, dilapidated, and unkempt.

This made me realize why the schools were so different when it came to behavior, attitude and general atmosphere.

I decided to investigate, so I asked one of the teachers at the school to explain to me the situation.

As soon as I mentioned the word, “Burakumin,” the teachers facial expression changed to shock and horror. She told me that it didn’t exist, and to not bring it up again. It was almost as if I said the word, “Voldemort.”

Confused, I seeked advice from my mother who is Japanese. And once again after I mentioned the word they don’t speak of, she became silent, upset and tears began to stream down her checks.

What I learned from teaching at that school.

  1. They do exist ,and so does the discrimination that they face everyday.
  2. They only live in their segregated ghettos.
  3. It is forbidden for them to marry any non Burakumin.
  4. They will never be accepted by society as equals.
  5. It is almost impossible for them to get a regular job.
  6. Most Japanese either don’t know about it, or don’t want to know about it.
  7. Unfortunately their is also a lot of abuse. I witnessed many children coming to school with black eyes, cigarette burns and even a case in which a 6 year old boy was tied to a pole in the house, for several days without food and a bathroom. This later became national news. But of course they did not mention it was in the Burakumin neighborhood.

I really hope Japan changes their way of thinking. Learn to accept their history and not deny the reality of the situation in order to keep their, “good,” image.

Japan is a very proud nation, but I think it is time for a more open minded approach to solving problems in their society.

Please share this so other people can learn the truth about Japan’s secret underclass.

God’s Word was not sent to the Righteous, to the Better Sort: He was sent to the lowest members of society.

God’s Word was not sent merely to “get people into heaven”, but to expand the Kingdom of God right here on earth. To bring forth the blessings of obedience, of joy and hope and cleanliness, inside and out, in time and on earth.

But how can the people be saved, if no one brings the Word to them?


The Small Day of Darkness, the Vast Day of Light

From Joseph Foreman, on Facebook

The day you eat of it you shall surely die.

God has structured creation so that the world of creative opportunity opened up by disobedience is relatively small and insignificant compared to the greater good which Creation is prone toward.

The dysfunctional, evils and sicknesses brought about by disobedience to God’s law tend to eliminate sin and the sinner much the same way that sodomy tends to make genetic continuity unlikely.

That the violation of God’s law is irrelevantly small compared to the greater good which Creation is prone toward is rooted in Creation itself which is not only Created Good root and branch and mechanically designed to lend itself to infinite opportunities for creative goodness when added to what it can do under God’s guidance through his people it has moved even sinful history from better to better.

There are a few areas which need to be mentioned negatively to stay out of but other than that the opportunities to do good creatively multiply limitlessly – be fruitful multiply and fill the earth was not merely written for procreation but for human creativity itself.

You don’t need positive commands in the 10 commandments to bring out the good or force it, the whole creation was made to foster the good all you need to do is keep a few bad things out.


Goodness, Godliness, and Godlessness

From On Atheism and Morality, Study Confirms Voltaire?

[the actual results of the study snipped here 😉   ]

The issue is simple, though. The answer to the question we started with hinges on what you mean by “without God.” Let’s take a look.

  1. If God does not exist, you cannot be good. You cannot be evil. You can’t conform or fail to conform to any transcendental standard, because if there is no God, there are no transcendental standards. There is no Moral Law if there is no Moral Lawgiver. If there is no God, there are merely opinions and consequences of acting on opinions. We may label certain opinions “good,” but that’s just our opinion. What we really mean by calling something “good” is that we like it. Which is fine, as long as we understand that “good without God” is just a metaphor for “something I (or we) like.” If there is no God, all of our “moral” decisions are just opinions — perhaps opinions we like, or opinions we don’t like — but neither good nor bad.
  2. If God does exist, but you don’t believe in Him, then of course you can be “good without God”, in the sense that you can be good without believing in God. It is central to the moral theology of all the great faiths that non-believers may act in accordance with Moral Law without belief in God and even without knowing Moral Law in any formal sense. The Moral Law is written in our hearts, theists universally agree, and we feel the weight of morality whether we believe in God or not.

Now of course an additional question can be asked: Do theists actually behave better than atheists? I think this is the question that ticked off the atheists in the essay. If theists do, on the average, behave better than atheists, there are certainly many exceptions on both sides, and arguments can be made that particular groups of theists/atheists behave better/worse than other groups of atheists/theists. Mankind is a confusing mess.

Atheists, however, are on quicksand when they argue about “goodness” and “evil,” given that their metaphysics, if taken seriously, utterly rules out the existence of either. Also, it would seem to me that atheists could be a bit more contrite in light of the fact that whenever they have assumed state power — from the Reign of Terror to the gang currently launching missiles from North Korea — atheism has brought hell to earth.

The godless would garner more respect if they took their own metaphysics seriously, and if they showed at bit of contrition for what real atheists have done when in power.

Naturally, this was the whole point of Darwinism: no natural law, so the Right Sort could determine what is right and wrong for themselves.

It’s pretty much certain that the Right Sort is mainly interested in sensual pleasure, comfortable living standards today (regardless of what it cost future generations tomorrow), and building an echo chamber so they can here their opinions – and ONLY their opinions – reflected back to themselves in law, media, business, and academia.

(Earlier versions of the Right Sort were far more honest in their desire to kill and oppress: but the Nazis and the Soviet Union is dead, and the West is aging quite quickly. No more dreams of racial supremacy or the limitless power of the Leader: just comfortable beds, and then comfortable graves.)

The godless are on their way out.

Time for the godly to step up!

The Multiverse, the Destruction of Evidence, and a Response

First, the original article:

Question for Multiverse Theorists: To What Can Science Appeal if Not Evidence?

Philosopher of religion Mary-Jane Rubenstein asks at Nautilus, “Why is the universe so well suited to our existence?” She answers herself:

The weakest answer is that it’s just a brute fact. If the constants of nature were any different, then we wouldn’t be here to ask why we’re here. The strongest answer verges on theism: The cosmological constant is so improbably small that a godlike fine-tuner must have fashioned it into existence.

She doesn’t like that  “strongest answer” at all. She suggests cosmic pantheism intertwined with the multiverse instead.

When evidence points people away from what they want to believe, they often respond by undermining the evidence. That strategy is particularly difficult in science. Readers may remember the slogan popularized nearly half a century ago by Carl Sagan, to discredit miracles: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” But that won’t work here. As David Deming writes at Philosophia, “Extraordinary evidence is not a separate category or type of evidence — it is an extraordinarily large number of observations.” Fine-tuning of our universe for life easily meets that standard.

Twelve hallmarks of good science theories, noted in Michael Keas’s recent summation at Synthese, are “evidential accuracy, causal adequacy, explanatory depth, internal consistency, internal coherence, universal coherence, beauty, simplicity, unification, durability, fruitfulness, and applicability… ”

The multiverse meets causal adequacy only by sacrificing evidential accuracy (voiding the significance of evidence altogether). It offers explanatory depth by voiding the value of consistency or coherence. It offers unification by voiding the meaning of applicability (the entities to which the concepts are to be applied may or may not exist and it does not matter whether they do). Multiverse theory is perhaps best seen as a bid for an alternative science. Its theories display quite different hallmarks from those of traditional good theories and it can only succeed by undermining those hallmarks.

The multiverse advocates’ project is not to undermine the evidence base as such. There just isn’t any evidence for a multiverse. Their project is rather to undermine the idea that evidence, as used in normal science, should matter in cosmology. String theory, we are told, is useful even if unconfirmed (Quanta). Supersymmetry is beautiful, lacking only supporting evidence (The Economist). The multiverse is a done deal anyway (ScienceBlogs).

It bears repeating: Advocates do not merely propose that we accept faulty evidence. They want us to abandon evidence as a key criterion for acceptance of their theory. Here are some strategies we encounter.

Questioning the importance of testability. Philosopher of science Massimo Pigliucci puts the question squarely at Aeon: Must science be testable, as it has been since the time of Galileo? “Are we on the verge of developing a whole new science, or is this going to be regarded by future historians as a temporary stalling of scientific progress?” Whatever, many now prefer  “non-empirical science.” If the new approach takes hold, the stall will hardly be temporary. For one thing, as Natalie Wolchover and Peter Byrne explain at Quanta, “Testing the multiverse hypothesis requires measuring whether our universe is statistically typical among the infinite variety of universes. But infinity does a number on statistics.” One outcome is that, even though string theory has routinely failed empirical tests, it remains a major branch of cosmology because its “mathematical insights continue to have an alluring pull” that might “unify physics.” But it does not appear set to unify physics around evidence.

Eliminating falsifiability as a criterion. Falsifiability, a principle developed by philosopher of science Karl Popper (1902–1994), offers this test: A theory is scientific if evidence could disprove it. If a theory is so general as to be consistent with any state of evidence or is constantly undergoing revision to deal with contrary evidence, it is not scientific. Popper was impressed by Einstein’s theories because evidence could disprove them, but didn’t. In 2014, cosmologists George Ellis and Joe Silk warned, citing Popper, that some of their colleagues have begun to argue explicitly that “if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical” (Nature). Theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli agrees. When science writer John Horgan asked him, “Do multiverse theories and quantum gravity theories deserve to be taken seriously if they cannot be falsified?” he replied, “No” (Scientific American). But it is becoming clear that Popper defenders like Ellis, Silk, Horgan, and Rovelli are gradually being sidelined (along with Peter Woit and Sabine Hossenfelder) as questionable “Popperazi,” and even “falsifiability police,” on account of their concern that colleagues are succumbing to “wishful thinking.” Indeed, take away traditional science criteria and how do we even distinguish between wishful thinking and raw demands for public assent?

To accomplish the revolution, the new cosmologists must uproot longstanding principles like Occam’s razor. Scholastic philosopher William of Ockham (1285–1347/49) popularized the idea that elements that are not material to an explanation can be discarded. Jason Rosenhouse’s “done deal” multiverse, noted above, relies on an attack on the razor: “It is the people who claim there is only one universe who have some explaining to do. Multiverse proponents are simply saying that whatever created our universe, a quantum fluctuation or whatever, created other universes as well.” But that is like saying that whatever created horses created unicorns as well.

Some pretend not to understand (or perhaps genuinely do not understand) what Occam’s razor means. Harvard physics post-grad Tom Rudelius informs us at the Harvard Ichthus that Occam’s razor cannot shave off the multiverse because it “does not say that the simplest idea is usually the right one — it says that the simplest explanation is usually the right one.” Barry Arrington responds at Uncommon Descent:

Yes, the razor is often shaved down to the “simplest explanation is usually the right one,” but that is not the classical formulation, which speaks of multiplying  “entities” beyond necessity.

Now I ask you, is there any greater multiplication of entities than the multiverse?  If “infinite universes” does not multiply entities beyond necessity, it is hard to imagine what would.

Still, the idea is catching on. Recently, we learned that physicists can now explain quantum theory by discarding Occam’s razor. One struggles to think of anything that could not be explained that way.

Meanwhile, widespread questionable beliefs enable cosmology’s war on evidence by preventing sober evaluation of the issues, for example.

Theory in science arises from masses of evidence. The National Academy of Sciences says that the term “theory” “refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” If only that were true. String theory and the multiverse do not rely on evidence at all.

The Academy had directed its collective statement about “theory” noted above to evolution. Acceptance of specifically Darwinian evolution, promoted and defended as an article of faith, probably softened up the public to accept other science claims for which zeal has long since outrun evidence. The very language of Darwinism finds its way into undemonstrable cosmology. We are told that a “cosmic version of Darwinian natural selection could apply, in which the most common universes will be those most suitable for producing black holes” (Science Focus.) Elsewhere we learn that we need not consider such a multiverse if we will accept that the laws of nature evolve (Guardian). It’s challenging to contemplate the damage that would be done to our concept of the laws of nature if they were assumed to evolve, but never mind. We also hear that “’Survival of the fittest’ is bigger than just evolutionary biology,” it embraces quantum mechanics (Inverse Science). There is at least some evidence that explanatory value is becoming more valued in biology these days than defending Darwinism. In that case, Darwinian theorists may find current multiverse cosmology a more natural home. It feels right.

Science is inherently self-correcting. A more honest appraisal can be had from Douglas Allchin at the Minnesota Center for the Philosophy of Science:

First, some errors persist for decades, wholly undetected. Second, many errors seem corrected by independent happenstance, not by any methodical appraisal. Third, some errors have been “corrected” in a cascade of successive errors that did not effectively remedy the ultimate source of the error. Fourth, some errors have fostered further serious errors without the first error being noticed. Finally, some corrections to erroneous theories have themselves been rejected when initially presented. In all these cases, scientists failed to identify and correct the errors in a timely manner, or according to any uniform self-correcting mechanism. These historical perspectives underscore that error correction in science requires epistemic work. We need deeper understanding of errors, through the emerging field of error analytics.

Self-correction is essentially a human moral choice; it is not inherent in any enterprise in principle. If scientist have decided on the multiverse for non-evidence-based philosophical reasons, we need not anticipate self-corrections.

Consensus in science should be accepted because it is based on shared knowledge. This approach appeals to people who want to avoid a troublesome issue. Consensus  can certainly be based on shared knowledge but it can also be based on shared ignorance or shared self-interest. Boaz Miller has noted in Synthese:

The existence of agreement in a community of researchers is a contingent fact, and researchers may reach a consensus for all kinds of reasons, such as fighting a common foe or sharing a common bias. Scientific consensus, by itself, does not necessarily indicate the existence of shared knowledge among the members of the consensus community.

The word “consensus,” after all, only means “shared.” The messages from group members, however prominent or eminent, will sound the same to the uninitiated, irrespective of what mainly holds the group together.

Post-modern science is not a blip. It’s part of a general trend toward de-emphasizing fact, evidence, and truth in favor of narrative, spin, and talking points.  Plus, proponents have a weapon that defeats all objections: Human beings did not evolve so as to perceive reality correctly anyway. Astrophysicist Adam Frank explains at NPR that he finds that logic, as advanced by cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman, “exciting and potentially appealing” though probably “wrong.”

But wait! Why must Hoffman’s logic be wrong? If naturalists are right about the nature of our universe, the logic can be neither right nor wrong. We are all animals, and animals are never wrong. Or even absurd. As Cathal O’Connell says, citing David Wallace’s The Emergent Multiverse, “our sense of absurdity evolved to help us scratch a living on the savannahs of Africa. ‘The Universe is not obliged to conform to it’” (Cosmos). Which leads us to examine the parallel developments in the study of human consciousness.

Then, the reply:

“To what can science appeal if not evidence?” Rob Sheldon responds

September 9, 2017


Re the ENV post, Question for multiverse theorists: To what can science appeal, if not evidence?, from experimental physicist and our physics color commentator Rob Sheldon:

It is part of the 21st century deconstruction, that it is not enough to oppose the truth, but it is necessary to undermine even the possibility of holding the truth.

In physics it is the multiverse.
In psychology it is the denial of free will or consciousness.
In biology it is denial of teleology, the necessity of naturalism.
In ethics it is not “situational” anymore; it is the desire to see all ethics as “oppressive”.

Consider the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s article on fine-tuning. I tried reading it, and it echoes the same refrain, the same death of philosophy. You can’t do philosophy unless you love the truth. If truth is somehow a product of method, somehow a product of the latest fad in argumentation, then all hope is lost.

Fine tuning is a physicist’s internal debate: Brandon Carter’s definition, John Barrow/Frank Tipler’s “weak anthropic principle”, Victor Stenger’s critique, and Luke Barne’s book are all written by physicists. None of them, I would argue, understand Bayes Theorem and its applicability to fine tuning. Nor did the Stanford article engage them on physics, simply stating that some of them like multiverses/naturalness/inflation and some do not.

Already I see this as a problem. We have become so specialized, that no one feels competent to critique another’s field—despite the glaring fact that m/n/i are not physical theories but metaphysical theories. If a philosopher can’t recognize when physicists are doing metaphysics, then he is failing his training, and might as well let Larry Krauss exterminate them all!

To my delight, the Stanford article does jump into Bayes Theorem, so unlike the physicists, the author has learned something of logic. But to my dismay he totally misses the point of Bayes Theorem. This is a subtle enough point that I will need to write another book on this topic, but the point of probability is not winning card games, nor solving QM problems. The point of probability is to convince us, to affect belief, to subjectively change our conscious behavior. Edwin Jaynes, the physicist who reintroduced the world to Bayes Theorem, kept saying that probability measures the level of our ignorance.

Now pause, and ask yourself—is ignorance an objective property? Can I say confidently, I am 50% ignorant of the results of a test? Or, I’ll trade my ignorance for yours? Rather, is not ignorance a consciousness property, a self-awareness property, a property only humans can understand?

For example, Roy Spencer (a UAH meteorologist who has a blog talking about global warming), said that hurricanes are unpredictable things. He gave the example of a man struck by lightning while golfing, and on his ambulance ride to the hospital, lightning struck the vehicle again, finishing him off. I reply, who, upon hearing that story, doesn’t say “Whoa, what did the man do to deserve that?” Improbable events are events that change our perspective, that speak to our self-consciousness, that appeal to our subjective understanding. The list of sermon illustrations that make this point is endless–I will cite only one. One summer I came within seconds of drowning in a riptide in the Gulf of Mexico–five others died that day, but when 3 rollers failed to materialize, my son was able to dash into the surf and pull me to safety. A few weeks later, I was on the Interstate at 70mph when my driver lost control and skidded over the median strip making a head-on collision with a Suburban. I stepped out of the Camry without a scratch. Then a few weeks after that on Colorado route 84 descending from the top of 12,000 ft Independence Pass approaching a switchback my brakes caught fire and faded away. A few weeks later I asked my wife, “Do you think God is trying to tell me something?”

Probabilities are difficult for scientists (look at the number of interpretations of QM), and are difficult for analytic philosophers (cf this Stanford article), precisely because they are subjective. Everything in Enlightenment objectivity rebels against the thought that “is” might lead to “ought”, that facts produce ethics, that observation leads to teleology. The rebellion against ID is the same rebellion against natural theology, against fine tuning, against the existence of a personal (self-conscious, subjective) Creator. The subjective is bad, is unreliable, is to be avoided at all costs.

Look over the list of objections in this Stanford article on fine-tuning.” They all fall into the category of “So what?”. Only one chance in 10^10^150 that this universe is an accident? So what. Only one chance in 10^40000 that life can accidentally form? So what, I’m here, so impersonal miracles which have nothing to do with God can happen. Other philosophers show that this is a ridiculous argument? So what, there’s no accounting for taste.

The peculiar thing is that such people are very sensitive to the slightest 0.05 change in their investments and retirements, but can’t be bothered with calculating the chances for their eternal destiny. They do understand numbers, they simply refuse to let numbers speak to their conscience. They have performed a frontal lobotomy on the ethical center of their brain, they have stuffed cotton in the ears of their conscience, they have sold their soul for a mess of pottage, and reply like the character in “O brother, where art thou”, “well, I wasn’t using it anyway.” Professing to be wise, they have adopted the logic of fools.

We will neither regain the high ground of philosophy nor the fertile results of physics until we can once again find teleology in the cosmos, once again wed physics to metaphysics, once again find “ought” in “is.”

See also: Post-modern physics: String theory gets over the need for evidence

Cosmic inflation theory loses hangups about the scientific method 

The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide


What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

What does this mean?

It means that atheistic science is entering its death throes.

It will take about a generation for it to be obvious to all, but that day is coming — perhaps a few decades after the bankruptcy of the welfare state.

Note: I said atheistic science is in it’s death throes, not science per se. The fall of the gatekeepers continues: researchers who are not ideologically committed to atheistic materialism will be able to hook up with each other, and support each other in research where evidence actually does matter.

What should Christians do in the meantime? Raise their children to take back the sciences for Christ – who actually does value the need for evidence (see the strong rooting of the Bible in history, or just the direct example of Christ:

The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. — John 20:25-27

And of course, Jesus Christ gave quite a lot of evidence via miracles, for his claims.)

Anyways: back to the raising of a strong and well-rooted generation to retake the land (and the sciences!)

Mabel Tolkien, mother of J.R.R. Tolkien, gives a great example here. To quote from J.R.R. Tolkien’s Destitute Mom Gave Him One Hell of an Education:

J.R.R. Tolkien’s father died when he was just four years old. The famous author, best known for The Hobbit and his Lord of the Rings trilogy, was raised by his mother, Mabel, who took great pains to see that her young son received a proper education.

Mabel did not disappoint.

Authors Philip Zaleski and Carol Zaleski, in a new book titled The Fellowship, detail the education young Ronald (as Tolkien was affectionately called by his family) received from his mother. It’s quite impressive.

“Mabel gave Ronald more than a lovely world in which to grow up; she gave him an array of fascinating tools to explore and interpret it. We know little of her own education, but she clearly valued learning and vigorously set about transmitting what she knew to Ronald. She instructed him in Latin, French, German, and the rudiments of linguistics, awakening in him a lifelong thirst for languages, alphabets, and etymologies. She taught him to draw and to paint, arts in which he would develop his own unmistakable style, primitive and compelling, Rousseau with a dash of Roerich. She passed on to him her peculiar calligraphy; he would later master traditional forms and invent his own. She tried to teach him piano, although that proved a failure.”

Mabel also introduced children’s literature to her son at an early age. Titles included Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, The Princess and the Goblin, Treasure Island, and The Pied Piper of Hamelin. She also shared with her son Andrew Lang’s Fairy Books and the works of George MacDonald, both of which would have a profound impact on young Tolkien.

“…he encountered goblins and, although he did not realize it at the time, Christian mythopoesis; in Lang’s retelling of bits of the Old Norse Volsunga saga he met Fáfnir the dragon, a creature that excited his imagination like no other, and the prototype of Smaug of The Hobbit: ‘The dragon had the trade-mark Of Faerie written plain upon him … I desired dragons with a profound desire.’

It was his first baptism into the enchantments of Faerie, an otherworldly realm just touching the fringes of ordinary life and leading, in its farthest reaches, to the outskirts of the supernatural.”

 One might be tempted to believe that Mabel Tolkien was afforded the opportunity to offer her son this wonderful education because the widow had been bequeathed a healthy estate following her husband’s death. Alas, this was not the case.
Arthur Tolkien had left his family almost nothing. Mabel was so poor that she was compelled to take up residence with her parents. The family’s situation was made worse when Mabel converted to Catholicism, prompting family members to cut her off from the small allowance she had been receiving.

Mabel Tolkien did not long outlive her husband. She died in 1904 at age 34 when Ronald was just 12 years old. Her labors, however, kindled the mind of a child; and that mind would go on to inspire millions more, and create a world of unparalleled beauty and imagination.

Homeschooling for the win!

Mabel Tolkien is an example of the work that we are called to do, the quality of children we must raise up, to retake the world for Christ and see off the delusional intellectuals currently leading us into ignorance and darkness.

Victory takes work and commitment: year after year, life after life.

There is no other way.