Philosophy Disguised as Science

Entropy (Disorder) Always Happens. It's the Law.
Entropy (Disorder) Always Happens. It’s the Law.

Progressive philosophy says the entire universe is naturally progressing from simpler to more complex, from disorganized to organized, toward ultimate perfection without any divine influence or a first cause.  Anti-God progressives have distorted true science in many ways to make it fit this scenario.  Previously, science was viewed as a way to discover the workings of the physical universe without excluding God as a first or sustaining cause.

Science is the pursuit of truth about the predictable, repeatable and measurable aspects of the universe with which we can or could conceivably interact.  It must also be verifiable, falsifiable and testable.  The following theories have attempted to do away with the need for a first cause, but fail to qualify as science in some aspects by this definition.

Darwinian Evolution taught others how to present pseudoscientific philosophies as science by using political tactics to unseat established leaders and to exclude any consideration of God as a guiding or formative influence.  Living things are said to only look designed[1]. The process has only been labeled, not explained.  Change certainly has happened, but the causes and mechanisms are still very much undetermined.

Origin of life theories use molecular evolution scenarios to make it seem that life can naturally arise from dead chemicals without any guidance or influence from any overarching force or God.  None have successfully described how proteins, nucleic acids and lipid, all necessary elements, could have been formed together and combined in a way that resulted in a living being.

The Big Bang is evolution writ large; it stopped the infinite series of causes and made it impossible to determine a first cause because nothing could be determined from before that event because “before” is meaningless.  There is no “there” there: no space, no time, no energy, no matter.

Quantum physics is uncaused evolution from nothing.  With its interpretation of subatomic events as indeterminate it removed the need for the first cause.  Suddenly, the entire universe was considered indeterminate and only appeared to be determinate on a macro scale, requiring a first cause.

Catastrophic Climate Change, based almost entirely on computer models, is a modern example of a philosophy disguised as science. It has an immediate socialist agenda to destroy civilization’s real progress based on bad science while ignoring real data.  This is also true of the entire Environmental Movement, which is used to destroy real progress and impose a socialist system of control.

[1] Attributed to Richard Dawkins, an evangelical militant atheist.  Books include The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion.


The problem:

A progressive, anti-God mindset has come to dominate science and many other aspects of our world. Magical thinking, hidden agendas and protection of turf have replaced the need and the pursuit of truth.

The progressive monopoly relies on three things: academia, media and government funding. Academia, rather than being the open forum for discussing diverse ideas it should be, has become a closed priesthood where dissenting opinions are repressed, punished and blocked from funding and from academic publication by biased editors and peer reviewers. The popular press, whether print or electronic, is gullible and all too eager to parrot the standard line of SQR (Status Quo Regurgitators) without question. This includes the entertainment industry. Government funding grants aimed at supporting the standard line and controlled by SQR department heads, control what research can and cannot be done.


A public awareness of the problems is needed, leading to an open debate and holding accountable those blocking the free pursuit of truth. More, not less, research and discovery would result. Daylight is a good disinfectant.

  • It will be very difficult to break through the progressive monopoly and inform the people of the problem so it may take a generation. That is why books like this are important. It is one more way to chip away at the imposing edifice of the progressive monopoly.
  • The public must demand that academic departments allow and encourage questions, debates and alternative research.
  • Peer reviewed publications must be held accountable for bias and advocacy that blocks publication of valid research based on alternative views.
  • The popular press and the entertainment industries must be held accountable by an informed public for biased reporting and propaganda disguised as entertainment.
  • Government funding should be minimized and scrutinized to assure that meaningful research is done and that outcomes reflect the unbiased truth.

Educate yourself so you can use logic and facts, not emotional appeals in the debate. Arguing based on the Bible won’t help your case with those that don’t believe; it will only give your opponents ammunition to claim that you are anti-science and superstitious. Stick to facts and logic. Find and support those publications, websites and blogs that point out bias and give voice to alternative views as one way of educating yourself. Be discerning about internet information sources so you don’t get misled by illogical, unsupported wild speculation on either side. Learn to recognize the difference between opinion and facts. Start blogs of your own to give others an outlet for dissent. Read the books and visit the websites in the bibliography of this book.

Tactics – Direct Confrontation:

This new challenge for each of us to reveal the truth won’t be easy. As a matter of fact, because of the typically harsh and defensive responses of the progressives, it will sometimes be downright unpleasant. Most people will avoid confrontation on those grounds, preferring to avoid conflict and remain silent. Many are aware of the problem, or at least some part of it, but few are bold enough to stand up to the elitist bullies who call them names, disparage their character and engage in hate-filled diatribes. Remember, it’s not about you. It’s about them defending their fragile egos, their territories and their control of the situation.

They will try to make you defensive and emotional like they are by attacking your character and intelligence. The key to discussing anything with them, assuming they are at all willing, is to remain calm and logical, not emotional (offended, hurt, angry, etc.). Don’t let them put you on the defensive. Stand your ground and continue to ask your questions and make your logical points in a relatively nonthreatening manner. As long as they don’t actually hit you, their tantrums and accusations mean nothing. If they manage to get you to address the issue emotionally, you have lost at least half of your argument. Not only will you be mischaracterized, but in any argument (discussion) when emotion enters, logic goes out the window.

For those of you who are confident enough, I would encourage you to enter those very debates without fear or dread with business-like or diplomatic composure. It may be useful to start with quiet discussions on milder aspects of their beliefs in private so they do not feel obligated to defend themselves in public. By all means, don’t try to defend yourself or give them counter examples to illustrate that you are not guilty of whatever their accusations are. You would be wasting your breath, falling into their trap and giving them ammunition to shoot back at you. By putting you on the defensive they have achieved half of their goal of sidetracking the discussion and making you look foolish. Their favorite game is “Got Ya!”

Let the vitriol flow over you without obvious effect. Address the facts and the possibility that their thinking might have some logical flaws or blind spots. When they lose their composure or spew slanderous remarks, that is a sign that you are on the right track because they are attempting to use intimidation to shut you up. Remain calm and repeat your point in a gentle, composed manner. Point out the logic of both points of view without sinking to their emotional level. Whatever the outcome, thank them for being willing to discuss the issue.

If you are a student, you may have to repeat the status quo line and not be too outspoken until after you get your passing grade. Remember, the professor is protecting his image to the rest of the class. In those cases, it is probably best to wait until the class is over to raise your questions in private and in a relatively non-threatening way if at all. You will have to gradually judge their tolerance for dissenting voices to see how far you can go in educating them. Some have such fragile egos that you will not be able to engage them at all. They may be unwilling to discuss their beliefs, so some finesse may be required to keep the door to communication open. Some, however, will be at least somewhat open to discussion of their beliefs.

Department heads or deans need to hear from students about those professors who are abusing their positions to proselytize or indoctrinate instead of teach. If no one complains, these leaders really don’t know what is going on. One complaint may not have any effect, but complaints from numerous students may have some effect in reining in such abuse. Talk among other students and compare notes about the professor’s behavior. Encourage others to also complain, preferably after the course is completed.

Tactics – Indirect Campaigns:

Start contacting those who control the message and the money. Write letters, emails, comment on social media, websites or blogs and phone those who can affect change. Contact members of Congress, heads of government departments, academic deans and heads of academic departments, media producers and editors, as well as advertisers of biased media. Let them know that you do not accept the bias that is exhibited. Give logical arguments for free exchange of ideas and discussions of logical alternatives. One person contacting them may not have much effect, but numerous contacts cannot be ignored. Most of these leaders and politicians assume that one letter from a proactive person represents opinions of many others not willing or able to speak out.

%d bloggers like this: