Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality

 Nikola Tesla’s statement about the modern methods of scientists like Einstein is revealing. “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”538

Nikola Tesla was the most brilliant scientist and inventor of his time. So advanced were his discoveries that upon his death in 1943 his research papers were seized by the FBI and classified “Top Secret” at the request of the U.S. War Department. One of Tesla’s most notable discoveries was alternating electrical current (a/k/a AC) that is today used to power most homes and businesses.

Tesla understood true science and knew a scientific scam when he saw one. In 1935, Tesla called Einstien’s theory of relativity “[a] magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king..., its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.”539
Professor Herbert Dingle was once an eminent proponent of the theory of relativity. He later realized that it was simply a myth, supported not by scientific experiments, but rather by false math formulae. He discovered that the theory of relativity is held to be true, not because it is true, but because mathematical formulae were devised and held up as evidence of its truth. “Not only are hypotheses held to contain the 'real truth'; it is now claimed that any (mathematical) hypothesis is necessarily true.”

(parenthetical in original)540

The problem with basing proof for a scientific theory solely on mathematics is that a mathematical equation may not correspond to reality. A mathematical formula may only prove something that is imaginary and not real. Professor Dingle explains:

[T]he symbols that compose a mathematical expression may, with equal mathematical correctness, correspond both to that which is observable and that which is purely imaginary or even unimaginable. If, therefore, we start with a mathematical expression, and infer that there must be something in nature corresponding to it, we do in principle just what the pre-scientific philosophers did when they assumed that nature must obey their axioms, but its immensely greater power for both good and evil makes the consequences of its misapplication immensely more serious.541

The experiments supporting the theory of relativity were “thought experiments” performed completely through complicated math formulae designed to bedazzle ignorant laymen. Professor Dingle stated:

[M]athematics has been transformed from the servant of experience into its master, and instead of enabling the full implications and potentialities of the facts of experience to be realised and amplified, it has been held necessarily to symbolise truths which are in fact sheer impossibilities but are presented to the layman as discoveries.542

Dr. Dingle reveals the key point that is the cornerstone of the theory of relativity. Many highfalutin scientists do not seem to know this one simple fact. “[I]n the language of mathematics we can tell lies as well as truths, and within the scope of mathematics itself there is no possible way of telling one from the other.”543 That is the dirty secret behind the theory of relativity. Einstein used mathematics to tell lies. The only way to determine if a mathematical formula has any validity is to test it in the real world. Dr. Dingle explains that “[w]e can distinguish them only by experience or by reasoning outside the mathematics, applied to the possible relation between the mathematical solution and its supposed physical correlate.”544 Physical experiments are not something that have been done with much success in proving the theory of relativity. Consequently, scientists resort to thought experiments, using mathematical formulae, which have no correlation to reality.

How can math be used to tell lies, as alleged by Professor Dingle? A simple example will illustrate how math can be used to support a falsehood. If one were to say that a glass that is half-empty is the same as a glass that is half-full, that would be true.

One can use mathematics, however, to make that simple truth be the foundation for a falsehood. Let’s put the half-full glass equaling a half-empty glass into an equation, where “E” represents an empty glass and “F” represents a full glass: ½E = ½F. That equation (½E = ½F) is accurate as it is presented; a half empty glass is equal to an half full glass. Now, in basic algebra, if one multiplies both sides by the same number, it does not affect the accuracy of the equation. Thus, to multiply both sides of the equation by two, one would get the result of E = F. Under the rules of algebra, that is supposed to be a true statement. We know, however, that in reality an empty glass does not equal a full glass (thus, in reality E ≠ F). However, mathematics can be used to present a falsehood as truth (E = F). That is the type of unreal reasoning that permeates the theory of relativity, where the scientific testing is done in thought experiments, using mathematics. This creates a fantasy world of relativity. The theory of relativity is not science, it is mysticism, supported only by mathematical models.

Physicists gave up trying to understand the absurd results of the formulae used to explain the theory of relativity, and simply capitulated without much of a fight. They accepted the mathematical formulae of Einstein, even though they often gave inaccurate and incongruous solutions. Dingle explains that “with the apparent success in 1919 of Einstein's general theory with its then quite new and terrifying mathematical machinery of tensor calculus, came the fatal climax. ... [Physicists] gave up trying to understand the whole business, surrendered the use of their intelligence, and accepted passively whatever apparent absurdities the mathematicians put before them.”545

Einstein’s biographer, Ronald Clark, reports that Einstein’s friend, Janos Plesch, suggested to Einstein that there seemed to be some connection between mathematics and fiction, Einstein replied: “There may be something in what you say. When I examine myself and my methods of thought I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge.”546

The theory of Relativity is not science; it is fantasy, conjured by mathematical formulae in the minds of Einstein and his followers. The blind faith of the scientific community in the supposed truth of the theory of relativity, and its intolerance for any evidence of its invalidity, is akin to adherents in a religious cult. When one realizes that relativity is more a religion than it is science, it explains why the ascension of relativity is in direct proportion to the descent of Christianity in society. It seems that there is more tolerance in religion than there is in the scientific community toward heterodoxy, especially when it comes to the theory of relativity. Indeed, Professor Dingle said as much:

It is ironical that, in the very field in which Science has claimed superiority to Theology, for example — in the abandoning of dogma and the granting of absolute freedom to criticism — the positions are now reversed. Science will not tolerate criticism of special relativity, while Theology talks freely about the death of God, religionless Christianity, and so on (on which I make no comment whatever). Unless scientists can be awakened to the situation into which they have lapsed, the future of science and civilisation is black indeed.547 (parenthetical comment in original)

Charles Lane Poor, Professor of Celestial Mechanics at Columbia University, and the author of a number of standard textbooks on astronomy, stated that “the Relativity Theory strikes directly at our fundamental concepts as to the structure of the universe; its conclusions are startling and completely upsetting to our common-sense way of looking at physical and astronomical phenomena.”548 Dr. Louis Essen, a distinguished mathematician, and Fellow of the Royal Society, stated that the theory of relativity was not truly a physical theory but rather simply a number of sometimes contradictory assumptions. Lord Ernest Rutherford is considered the father of nuclear physics; so eminent was he that chemical element 104 was named rutherfordium after him. Lord Rutherford has called the theory of relativity, simply “nonsense.”

In 1922, Professor Herbert Dingle wrote Relativity for All, one of the first standard textbooks on the theory of relativity. His second book on the subject, written approximately 20 years later, The Special Theory of Relativity, remained for a long time the standard work in English and American universities on the theory of relativity. Indeed, Professor Dingle was one of the foremost experts on the theory of relativity in the world. During a span of fifty years, he studied the theory intensively and conferred about it with all the physicists who were experts in it (e.g., Einstein, Eddington, Tolman, Whittaker, Schroedinger, Born and Bridgman). So renowned was Dingle’s expertise on the theory of relativity, that when Einstein died in 1955, the BBC chose Professor Dingle to broadcast a tribute to Einstein.

In 1959, after years of believing and promoting the theory of relativity, Dingle realized that something was wrong. He found a paradox in the theory of relativity. He spent 13 years canvassing his large network of scientists to try to find an answer to the paradox. Nobody could answer the paradox. He tried to publish the paradox, but was refused all access to scientific journals.

Finally, in 1972, Dingle decided to publish his conclusion in a book titled: Science at the Crossroads. He explained in his book that he only published it because he was denied access to scientific journals to present his evidence. In that book, Professor Dingle presents unimpeachable proof that the theory of relativity is invalid.

In order to understand the paradox with which Professor Dingle was faced, some explanation should be given. The coup de grace to the Michelson/Morley experiment results showing that the earth does not move is the central maxim of relativity theory that there is no way to tell which of two bodies is in motion. The theory of relativity provides that motion is relative to the observer.

Thus from earth it would appear that the sun is moving. However, from the perspective of the sun, the earth is moving. According to the theory of relativity there is no way to establish which is the case, because the movement of the two bodies is only movement relative to the other body. This maxim of relativity effectively kills the null result of the Michelson/Morley experiment, since according to the theory of relativity, the null result was only a matter of relative perspective. Under the theory of relativity, if you were to fall on your face, it cannot be said that you fell to the ground, as it is equally likely that the earth rose up to meet your face. That is the kind of silly conclusion brought about by the theory of relativity.

In addition to the above relativity of motion, Einstein theorized that time slows down, the faster one travels. For example, if a twin (Paul) takes a trip on a spaceship at near the speed of light and he returns to earth ten years later, his twin brother (Peter), left back on earth, will have aged ten years, but the twin on the spaceship would only have aged very little. The problem with that postulation from Einstein is that under the theory of relativity, the movement of each brother is relative. Each twin sees the other as moving, and therefore each brother should have aged more slowly than the other brother. The conclusion under the theory of relativity is that Peter has aged more slowly than Paul and at the same time Paul has aged more slowly than Peter. Of course, it is impossible for each twin to age more slowly than the other twin.

The twin paradox is chosen by this author, because it very simply illustrates the issue. Professor Dingle, however, never actually used the twin paradox, because there is an alleged quirk in that example that gives the supporters of the theory of relativity an out (or so they allege); they assert that there is no symmetry, since the twin on the spaceship is traveling outbound and inbound, which involves two inertial frames. Of course, that is pure sophistry, and addressing such nonsense is beyond the scope of this book. Professor Dingle was too well versed in the theory of relativity to allow the promoters of relativity such an easy out, so he steered clear of using the aging twins example. He, instead, used an example of two clocks moving in the same trajectory at different speeds.
Professor Dingle asked scientists all over the world to assist him in finding an answer to the paradox using speeding clocks, with one clock traveling faster than the other, in the same direction. Every scientific journal in the world refused to even address the paradox that Dingle raised. No one could resolve the paradox, and the scientific community seemed to think it was impolite to even discuss it. “I can present the matter most briefly by saying that a proof that Einstein's special theory of relativity is false has been advanced; and ignored, evaded, suppressed and, indeed, treated in every possible way except that of answering it, by the whole scientific world.”549 In science, a paradox is a self-
contradictory conclusion that is logically impossible. A theory that causes a logically impossible result is necessarily wrong. A paradox in the theory of relativity simply had to be suppressed by the high priests of science.

Professor Dingle laid out the paradox, which has never been resolved to this day, as follows:

According to the theory, if you have two exactly similar clocks, A and B, and one is moving with respect to the other, they must work at different rates ..., i.e. one works more slowly than the other. But the theory also requires that you cannot distinguish which clock is the 'moving' one; it is equally true to say that A rests while B moves and that B rests while A moves. The question therefore arises: how does one determine, consistently with the theory, which clock works the more slowly? Unless this question is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A --which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible. Now, clearly, a theory that requires an impossibility cannot be true, and scientific integrity requires, therefore, either that the question just posed shall be answered, or else that the theory shall be acknowledged to be false.

But, as I have said, more than 13 years of continuous effort have failed to produce either response.550

Professor Dingle concludes that “[t]he magical influence of this word [relativity] has transformed science in this field into a superstition as powerful as any to be found in primitive tribes.”551 We have it on the authority of Professor Dingle, one of the foremost experts on the theory of relativity that the theory of relativity is false.

The theory of relativity is more than just false; it is nonsense. It is based upon the premise that motion is not absolute, but rather it is relative to the frame of reference of the observer.

Einstein’s motive in constructing such a theory was to explain away the Michelson/Morley null result for the motion of the earth.

According to the theory of relativity, there is no way to tell the difference between an object that is at rest and an object that is moving at a constant velocity in an inertial reference frame.

According to Einstein, all motion is relative to the frame of reference of the observer. For instance, according to the theory of relativity, it is equally valid to say that the railroad track is moving under a train as it is to say that same train is traveling at a constant speed over a stationary track. A person standing next to the track would perceive the train moving as it passed by him. But a passenger on the same train moving at a constant speed, who is inculcated in the school of relativity, would perceive the person standing next to the track and the landscape speeding by the train and conclude that it is equally possible that the train is standing still and the earth is moving beneath him as it is that the train is moving on the track. We know, however, that is nonsense. The train is in fact moving. The motion of the train can be detected and measured. The theory of relativity is not based upon true science and measurable observation; it is based upon religious superstition that is propped up by deceptive mathematical models that contradict reality.

The World Heritage Encyclopedia describes the importance of Einstein’s theory of relativity in explaining away the null result of the Michelson/Morley experiment.

This [Einstein’s 1905 theory of special relativity] allows a more elegant and intuitive explanation of the Michelson-Morley null result. In a comoving frame the null result is self-evident, since the apparatus can be considered as at rest in accordance with the relativity principle, thus the beam travel times are the same. ... Special relativity is generally considered the solution to all negative aether drift (or isotropy of the speed of light) measurements, including the Michelson–Morley null result.552

Very simply, the theory of relativity explains that the null result of the Michelson/Morley experiment was because the instrument doing the measuring was, relatively speaking, at rest, as that was its frame of reference, and not because it was actually at rest. Einstein asks us to ignore the reality as actually measured and accept in its place the mathematical postulates of relativity.

The theory of relativity postulates that no motion of the earth was detected in the Michelson/Morley experiment not because the earth is in fact motionless but rather because the measurement was performed from the earth. According to Einstein’s theory, if the Michelson/Morley experiment would have been done from say the moon, then the moon would have been detected to be motionless and the earth would have appeared to be in motion. Under the superstitious religion of relativity, motion is all relative to the frame of reference of the observer.

Lest you think I am overstating the fact, please make your own judgement after reading the explanation of the theory of relativity by Albert Einstein himself during an address he gave at Princeton University:

What we mean by relative motion in a general sense is perfectly plain to everyone. If we think of a wagon moving along a street we know that it is possible to speak of the wagon at rest, and the street in motion, just as well as it is to speak of the wagon in motion and the street at rest. That, however, is a very special part of the ideas involved in the principle of Relativity.553

The sad thing is that scientists believed him! And they still believe him today! They do not perceive that relativity is not true science, it is a religious deception clothed in scientific lingo. It is based on belief in mystical principles, which contradict common observation. Gerrard Hickson accurately describes Einstein’s theory of relativity as the very negation of reason. Referring to the above quote from Einstein, Hickson states:

That would be amusing if we read it in a comic paper, or if Mutt and Jeff had said it; but when Professor Einstein says it in a lecture at the Princeton University, we are expected not to laugh; that is the only difference. It is silly, but I may not dismiss the matter with that remark, and so I will answer quite seriously that it is only possible for me to speak of the street moving while the wagon remains still— and to believe it— when I cast away all the experience of a lifetime and am no longer able to understand the evidence of my senses; which is insanity. Such self-deception as this is not reasoning; it is the negation of reason; which is the faculty of forming correct conclusions from things observed, judged by the light of experience. It is unworthy of our intelligence and a waste of our greatest gift; but that introduction serves very well to illustrate the kind of illusion that lies at the root of Relativity.554

Nevile Martin Gwynne describes the irrationality that is woven through the warp and woof of the theory of relativity.
The concept of relativity attached to his [Eintstein’s] name and propagated by him represents an attack on human reason so insidious and diabolical, and so successful, that no opportunity of demonstrating its falsity, and not only its falsity but, to anyone prepared to believe his own powers of reason, its blatantly obvious falsity, should be allowed to pass.555

Gwynne proves that most of the elements of the theory of relativity were not the discoveries (Gwynne properly describes them as inventions) of Einstein. Indeed, if one examines the historical record, the only reasonable conclusion is that Einstein plagiarized the entire theory of relativity. Gwynne states that “Einstein’s works can be searched from beginning to end without revealing a single original thought of real importance.”556 Gwynne documents the little known historical facts that Einstein stole ideas from other scientists and passed them off as his own. He plagiarized their work. He gave no attribution to the other scientists.

Curved space, for instance, was thought of by Riemann; adding a fourth dimension, that of time, to geometry to create the new concept of space-time, by Minkowski; the doctrine that objects contract in proportion to the speed at which they moved, by Fitzgerald; and the idea that the velocity of light in a vacuum was constant irrespective of the notion of any object connected with the light ray, by Lorentz. ... Did he [Einstein] first assert the impossibility of detecting the velocity of the earth through the ether? No, this was done by J.H. Poincaré and H.A. Lorentz. ... Did Einstein coin the name Relativity? No, Poincaré did. ... It was Poincaré too, who first asserted that no velocity can exceed that of light. Einstein was not the first to assert that a clock in motion runs slow. This was done by Sir Joseph Larmor. Einstein was not the first to assert that matter is crinkles in curved space. Professor W.K. Clifford advanced this quaint notion in 1870, nine years before Einstein’s birth. ... Did Einstein even invent the famous equation, E=mc², which has become almost synonymous with his name the equation from which nuclear energy and nuclear destruction capability are supposedly derived? Not even that. In 1881 J.J.Thompson had produced a formula, E=¾mc², in respect of a charged spherical conductor moving in a straight line. In 1900 Poincaré suggested that electromagnetic energy might possess mass density in relation to energy density, such that E=mc², where E is energy and m is mass.557

Plagiarization is intellectual theft. The unimpeachable record proves that Einstein was not a genius, but was simply a very clever con man, with powerful backers. Gwynne concludes that “[t]he truth about Einstein is that he was no more than a puppet.”558 Gwynne presents compelling evidence that Einstein was selected to play the specific role of refuting the Michelson/Morley experiment and reestablishing the rotating globular earth.

[I]f Einstein had not existed another would have been selected to fill his place, for he possessed no qualities which are not available in profusion in almost any place in any age. ... The obstinate truth about Einstein is that in mathematics he was no more than competent and that among the so-called discoveries presented to the world under his name one can search in vain for one that was original. Had Einstein not been selected, for reasons which had nothing to do with intellectual ability, to act out a role which was deemed necessary for the furtherance of the war against God and civilisation, his claim to immortal fame would have been that of a talented and not-undistinguished physicist, a life-long Zionist, an occasionally enthusiastic admirer of Stalin’s Russia.559

Einstein was a front-man for very powerful interests behind the theory of relativity. That theory was simply an amalgamation of theories propounded by many scientists over many years. As Gwynne points out the global elite needed to have a single front-man for their theory to be popularly accepted.

[I]t is much easier to impose false beliefs on the world if they are personalised. If a theory is put forward without reference to the person who originated it, there will be a tendency for it to be judged on its merits and then, if it clearly has no merits, for it to be rejected. This is far from being the case if a theory, however ludicrously opposed to common sense, is put forward by a man of universally acknowledged genius. When that happens, the tendency will be for the theory to be examined with respect; if it cannot be understood, this will be ascribed to the incapacity of the person examining the theory; if it appears manifestly illogical, it will be assumed that the originator has grasped a logic which is beyond the reach of lesser mortals. In short, it will gradually become accepted on no better grounds than the authority of the person who has advanced it.560

Why was Einstein, of all people, chosen to be the front man? There are very powerful inter-generational interests behind promoting Einstein. These interests have an occult religious agenda to enslave the world. Martin Gwynne identifies the core of the conspiracy as Jewish. That Einstein was a Zionist Jew was probably the qualifying factor that put him at the top of the list to be the mouthpiece for the Satanic conspiracy to send the scientific world into darkness through the theory of relativity.

From the middle of the nineteenth century onwards, those presented to the world as the modern geniuses marking the turning points in civilisation have been Jews. I do not wish to exaggerate this, and it is certainly true that non-Jews too, such as Darwin at the beginning of the period and Lord Keynes in more recent times, have had their nonsense presented as majestic contributions to human knowledge.

Nevertheless, if asked to name the three men whose writings had the greatest influence in shaping the modern world, few would go beyond Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein.

Explanations for the phenomenon, adequate or otherwise, are suggested elsewhere in other papers that I have written. Here I record only the fact and the inference that can be derived from it. The Jews are entering into what they believe to be their inheritance.

If it be accepted that it was desirable to build up the reputation of a single man for the difficult task of imposing Relativity on the world and that that man should be a Jew, why was Einstein, out of all the other Jewish scientists available, chosen to play the role assigned to him? One can only speculate. Clearly his being a Zionist and a Communist would have recommended him highly to those who selected him; it seems to be agreed by all who came into contact with him that he had much charm, probably indispensable in the task allotted to him; and eyewitness accounts of his lectures provide evidence of considerable abilities as an actor and a showman, which, for the successful accomplishment of the purpose for which he was used, are talents even more necessary than charm. There must, however, have been many other people with similar or better credentials even in a population restricted to people interested in physics. Failing some revelation by those who chose him, all that can be said is that we need have little doubt that he earned his duties and his privilege somehow.

I have given some indication of what Isaac Newton did to earn the rewards that he received and is still receiving in this world. Those who recall this and take seriously verses eight and nine of the fourth chapter of St. Matthew have little alternative to the belief that such fame and adulation as Einstein received in his lifetime and has received since, and which on the face of it were wholly undeserved, must have been earned at the expense of an extremely exacting bargain in respect of his immortal soul.561

After the general acceptance of Einstein’s theory of relativity, science entered into a strange new world where experiments were not done using instruments in the physical world, but instead using mathematics in the mind of the scientists. Einstein was famous for announcing new “mind experiments.”

Einstein claimed that he did not know of the Michelson/Morley experiment prior to coming up with his special theory of relativity in 1905. Robert Shankland published an article in 1963, in which he stated that Einstein told him in 1950 that he only became aware of the Michelson/Morley experiment after he published his paper on special relativity in 1905. Shankland pointed out that indeed Einstein did not mention the Michelson/Morley experiment in his 1905 paper, suggesting by that fact that Einstein did not know about the Michelson/Morley experiment.

Einstein’s claimed ignorance of the Michelson/Morley experiment is contradicted by other statements that he made indicating that in fact he did know about the experiment. Einstein is on record admitting that he did in fact know about the Michelson/Morley experiment and it played a role in his theory of relativity.562 Einstein’s biographer, Ronald Clark, stated that one of the principle issues for science with the Michelson/Morley experiment was that the experimental results proved that the earth is stationary. Clark explained the implications of the Micehlson/Morley experiment meant that the whole Copernican theory had to be scuttled, which was “unthinkable” for the scientific community.563

Einstein never mentioned the Michelson/Morley experiment in his 1905 paper announcing his theory of special relativity.564 In 1942 Einstein claimed to Michelson’s biographer that he had already become “pretty much convinced of the validity of the [relativity] principle before I did know this [Michelson/Morley] experiment and its results.”565 It seems that Einstein was trying to avoid having anyone connect his theory of relativity with the Michelson/Morley experiment. However, the historical evidence suggests that Einstein was lying. Think about it; how could anyone believe that Einstein would be ignorant of the Michelson/Morley experiment, when in fact it was the talk of the entire scientific community? His claim of ignorance simply does not pass the smell test. Regardless, we have proof that Einstein lied when he claimed ignorance of the Michelson/Morley experiment.

Forty-two letters were uncovered between Einstein and his fiancee Mileva Mari. Those letters reveal that in fact Einstein knew about the Michelson/Morley experiment as early as 1899.566 In addition, in a recently uncovered 14 December 1922 speech that Einstein delivered at Kyoto University in Japan, Einstein admitted that he was aware of the Michelson/Morley experiment and the “strange result” of that experiment affected directly his theory of special relativity.
While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson's experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun.567

Notice Einstein reinforces the scientific myth that the earth revolves around the sun, but he claims that fantastic movement “cannot be detected by any optical experiment.” Why can the movement of the earth not be detected by any optical instrument? Because there are no optical instruments that can detect movement that is not there. Indeed, Einstein knows that, which is why he is so certain that no instrument could ever detect the motion of the earth.

537.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 108.
538.Nikola Tesla, http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/nikolates l401270.html (last visited on September 9, 2015).
539.New York Times, 11 July 1935, p23, c.8.
540.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 14, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
541.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 16, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
542.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 5, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
543.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 18, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
544.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 18, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
545.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 64, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
546.Marshal Hall, The Earth is Not Moving, at 117 (1991), (quoting Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, at 87 (1971).
547.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 5, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
548.N. Martin Gwynne, Einstein and Modern Physics, at 11, http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2015).
549.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 6, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
550.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 7, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
551.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 33.
552.Michelson-Morley Experiment, World Heritage Encyclopedia, http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/Michelson-Morley_ex periment (last visited on October 28, 2016).
553.Gerrard Hickson, Kings Dethroned, at 65 (1922).
554.Gerrard Hickson, Kings Dethroned, at 65 (1922).
555.N. Martin Gwynne, Einstein and Modern Physics, at 3, http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2015).
556.N. Martin Gwynne, Einstein and Modern Physics, at 31, http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2015).
557.N. Martin Gwynne, Einstein and Modern Physics, at 31-32, http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2015).
558.N. Martin Gwynne, Einstein and Modern Physics, at 32, http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2015).
559.N. Martin Gwynne, Einstein and Modern Physics, at 3-4, http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2015).
560.N. Martin Gwynne, Einstein and Modern Physics, at 5, http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2015).
561.N. Martin Gwynne, Einstein and Modern Physics, at 5-6, http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (last visited  on October 6, 2015).
562.Malcolm Bowden, Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!, December 28, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxMSL9h2ziY.
See also, Jeroen van Dongen, infra.
563.Malcolm Bowden, Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!, December 28, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxMSL9h2ziY, citing Ronald W. Clark, Einstein, The Life and Times, at 80 (1971).
564.Jeroen van Dongen, On the role of the Michelson-Morley experiment: Einstein in Chicago, Institute for History and Foundations of Science & Descartes Centre, Utrecht University & Einstein Papers Project, Caltech, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4778/1/Einstein_Chicago _Web2.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2015).
565.Jeroen van Dongen, supra (quoting Einstein to Michelson’s biographer, Bernard Jaffe, on 17 March 1942; as in (Holton 1969/1995), p. 340.).
566.Jeroen van Dongen, supra.
567.Albert Einstein, How I Created the Theory of Relativity, Translated by Yoshimasa A. Ono, Physics Today, Vol. 35, No.8, pp. 45-47, August 1982, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.

1.1.451.9501&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

The Greatest Lie on Earth
Proof That Our World Is Not a Moving Globe
Edward Hendrie

Flat Earth or conspiracy theories as a spiritual exercise

A Lesson in Humility

Alchemists stress the importance of humility, because a humble mind is always ready to receive higher truth. If we cling pridefully to false knowledge then truth will flee from us, we must always be ready and willing to have our worldview transformed into something greater and more illumined. We must be able to discern between the true light and the false light, to follow the golden thread.

Back in 2002, my PhD supervisor, a senior professor, told me a story which always stuck with me. There was an international nuclear physics conference back in the 1980s, where all the world’s top researchers gathered annually to share their work. One of the guests of honour was an old professor who had spent his entire career developing an exciting new theory of the structure of the atomic nucleus.
Everyone admired him and was familiar with his work, he was a legend in the international theoretical nuclear physics scene.

During the conference, a young post-doc, fresh out of his PhD and still wet behind the ears, got up on stage to deliver his presentation. In it, he systematically debunked and disproved the professors theory, using sound scientific methodology and reasoning, demonstrating that it could never happen as it was physically and logically impossible.
He showed this beyond any doubt, revealing that the professor had spent his whole life promoting a theory which was inherently flawed and just plain wrong. The professor stood up from his seat, walked down the isle, got up onto the stage and reached out and shook the post-doc’s hand, saying “Thank you, now I know the truth’.

This story is a lesson in humility, and a reminder to all intellectuals that truth should always be the goal, we must be prepared to let go of our beliefs and admit fault the moment we become aware of it, even if we have spent our whole life working on it, its the honourable way.

It can be difficult. embarrassing, humiliating even, as our ego gets attached to the wrong ideas, we may even be successful and financially dependent on perpetuating them. Nobody likes to publicly admit they were wrong, it is vulnerable, a form of surrender, a humbling. Humility is the opposite of pride, its what makes an apology a real apology.
If this professor were full of pride, he would kick and scream and launch ad-hominem attacks, demanding that the post-doc be cast out from the conference and stripped of his honours for daring to question authority.

Pride puts ego above truth, humility puts truth above ego. At its most extreme, pride can completely block people from the truth that is right in front of their noses, it’s a form of spiritual blindness and a back-door for demonic influences to enter the mind and take over. Alchemical texts and religious scriptures are replete with warnings about the consequences of pride.

Whereas, humility is said to be a precursor for receiving higher knowledge and for effective healing and prayer, it’s a key component of spiritual development. We must be able to humble ourselves before the eternal truth of the universe, or we are destined to live out our lives in darkness, believing in fables and pseudo-science.

**

I first heard of ‘flat earth’ around 1999, playing the Stephen Jackson Illuminati card game with some friends at university. The cards each represent human groups with different special interests, and on the card for ‘Flat Earthers’ it says “People laugh, but flat earthers know something”.
Of course, my student friends and I all laughed at the idea of people who believe the earth is flat, how could they be so stuck in the past? I kinda dismissed it as a weird joke, and after that I didn’t think about it again for many years.
During 2015-2016 it popped up a number of times online, and eventually by recommendation from a friend, so I decided to see what it actually is these people believe.
I expected it to be some weird cultish thing like scientology, but what I found was just solid, verifiable scientific research that calls into question many of the theories we are taught about our world. For the most part there was no nonsense at all, just straight-shooting facts and hard questions that are thought provoking and irrefutable. As someone coming from a scientific background, I was well impressed by how meticulous and well-reasoned the flat earth research was, it was a breath of fresh air to see the scientific method being used so effectively. I couldn’t understand why I hadn’t learned any of this in university, it’s really fundamental stuff. It took a few months of watching presentations and doing experiments and having many heated conversations with people, but eventually I came to a place of 100% knowing that our world is not a planet spinning through space. I may not know 100% what it is, but I know 100% what it is not, and it’s not a spinning ball. The Illuminati cards were right, flat earthers do know something.

The process of conversion is a one-way street, nobody ever goes back to believing in the ball, there are no ‘ex-flat-earthers’ as far as I know, because there is actually no reason to believe you are spinning once you know that you are not. But how does one get to a place of knowing such a thing?

Well, start by asking yourself, how do you know that you're on a spinning ball flying through space? You have to set about trying to prove the globe, something that seems like it should be quite an easy task (especially for a boffin such as myself) but it turns out is actually quite impossible.

Many will tell you the same story, becoming a ‘flat earther’ is the result of having tried to prove the globe and failed. The irony is flat earthers are treated as the most stupid people in society, a proper fool in the negative sense, a symbol of ignorance, madness and wrong-think, a group of people not even worth listening to. The globe is so entrenched in the collective consciousness that it is generally deemed to be an unquestionable fact of reality.

To do the work it requires a position of neutrality, no attachment to any particular outcome, just simply to look at all the evidence for and against the spinning ball earth.
In doing this we have to be comfortable being ‘the fool’, people will call you a fool for even looking into it, so we must be open minded, curious, humble, and ready to have our worldview challenged.

Going in with a hard head and a zealous attachment to the globe will get you nowhere. Eventually, once the various proofs are understood, and the beliefs and assumptions of the globe model have been overcome from every conceivable angle, it all just clicks into place.

I remember vividly the day I realised I wasn’t spinning through space, it was the most profound awakening of my
life, a true enlightenment experience, a new dawn, finally getting ‘out of the mind’ and ‘coming to the senses’. The globe earth is often called the mother of all conspiracies, and for good reason, it’s a conspiracy about the nature of our mother, Earth! And when you internalise this it is like a master key that makes all other conspiracies very transparent and easy to spot.

The topic has been presented and debated very thoroughly for a long time now, there are literally hundreds of verifiable scientific experiments to consider’ and some amazing resources and dedicated people’ devoted to giving you all the best information on every question you might have.

In general it is a topic best discussed by video presentation, since the globe is largely an image promulgated through the medium of video. However, if you really wish to try and prove the existence of the globe for yourself, let me save you some time, there are only two tests that really matter:

1) proof of spinning,
2) proof of curved horizon.

Here’s the catch: you can’t use images from NASA as your ‘proof’ because NASA has been shown to be a fraudulent organisation that lies to the world and fabricates fake imagery, many times over. Plus, it’s unscientific and logical fallacy to ‘appeal to authority’, you have to prove it using the scientific method, techniques that can be repeated by independent people. All NASA imagery is unverifiable and unfalsifiable, so it’s useless as evidence for anything (the ‘space program’ will be covered in the next chapter).

When I set about trying to prove this back in 2016, I thought it would be child’s play, with my trusty PhD and advanced mathematical skills, and since I was flying ‘around the globe’ in planes all the time, I could undoubtedly prove it, easily! But the more I looked and the harder I tried, I just couldn’t, I searched for globe evidence every single day for many years, it was an obsession, I kept thinking maybe there was something I overlooked, some test that proves it, I soured many relationships due to broaching the subject, and I followed the debate online closely, but I have never found a single reason to believe in the globe in all the years since. The case for the globe gets weaker with each passing year, while ‘flat earthers’ grow in number constantly.

What’s clear is that academics don’t engage with it on a sincere level, they either completely ignore it, or use ad-hominem attacks to slander and belittle the researchers, as if the whole topic is beneath them, an insult to their intellect, a conversation not worth having. This is intellectual bypassing, they just block you and smear you and carry on as normal.
From 2015 through to 2018, a golden era for the free flow of information online, almost every single day I found more reasons to doubt the globe model of earth, and almost every time I tried to talk to someone about it, I was shutdown, dismissed as a fool.

I eventually opted to keep it out of social conversation as it’s far too much of a thankless labour trying to re-educate people in cosmology during the short windows of time we have together, especially when most don’t even want to learn. All the alchemy texts I was reading warned against trying to share higher knowledge with people who are not ready or willing for it, plus I felt like there was no reason why anyone would believe me, in the eyes of the world I was a professional fool, not a serious scientist.

Nevertheless, I knew in my heart of hearts that the globe is a lie, I could find no real evidence for the existence of this giant spinning ball we call “planet earth”, and all the theories it was based upon were crumbling under scrutiny, it became clear as day that the whole thing is very a clever fabrication.

Steven A. Young
Science Conspiracies & The Secret Art of Alchemy

***
Photograph of Chicago taken by Joshua Nowicki, as he stood at Grand Mere Park, Michigan, 57 miles away.
If the earth were a globe Chicago would be below the horizon. The only way that Chicago could be seen from the western shore of Michigan is if the world is flat. Below is a map showing the 57 mile distance across lake Michigan from Grand Mere Park, Michigan to Chicago, Illinois.

Let us calculate the position of Chicago in relation to Grand Mere Park, assuming that the earth were a globe. Grand Mere Park is 600 feet above sea level. Lake Michigan is 577 feet above sea level. Therefore, Grand Mere Park is 23 feet above Lake Michigan (600 − 577 = 23). Let’s assume that the photographer was at the highest point in Grand Mere Park. We will add six feet for the height of the photographer. We come up with an estimate that the camera was, at most, 29 feet above the level of the water on Lake Michigan (23 + 6 = 29). We will subtract seven miles from the distance of 57 miles to account for the 29 foot elevation of the camera above Lake Michigan (29 foot drop to horizon = approximately 6.6 miles, which is rounded up to 7 miles) (29 feet = 6.62  × 8 inches).

Calculating the curvature of the earth using the 50 mile distance, we find that the street level of Chicago should be 1,644 feet below the horizon. The tallest building in the picture is the Sears Tower (it has been recently renamed the Willis Tower). The Sears Tower was, from 1974 to 1998, the tallest building in the world. It stands 1,450 feet above the street. However, the antennae on top of the tower brings the total height to 1,729 feet above the street level. In coming up with the 1,644 feet drop below the horizon, it must be understood that it was necessary to subtract 23 feet from the total drop of 1,667 feet (502 × 8 inches = 1,667 feet) to account for the fact that the Sears Tower is 23 feet above the level of Lake Michigan. The Sears Tower is 595 feet above sea level. Lake Michigan is 577 feet above sea level. That puts the Sears Tower 23 feet above Lake Michigan. Therefore, the base of the Sears Tower would be 1,644 feet below the horizon (1,667 − 23 = 1644). That means that if the earth were a globe, none of the buildings, including the Sears Tower, would be visible. They would all be below the horizon. The top of the Sears Tower would be 194 feet below the horizon (1,644 − 1,450 = 194). The only thing that would be visible in the entire Chicago skyline would be the uppermost 85 feet of the antennae on the top of the Sears Tower.
In fact, however, the entire Sears Tower and all of the other buildings along the shore in Chicago can be seen in the Nowicki photograph. (...)

Joshua Nowicki’s photograph created such a sensation that it was necessary for the media powers to explain how Chicago could be seen from the Michigan shore, 57 miles away, which is an impossibility if the earth were a globe. Tom Coomes, a weatherman for ABC News argued that it was impossible to actually see Chicago from 57 miles away. Coomes stated that “Chicago is beyond the horizon; you should not be able to see it.”47 However, it can be seen; it is clearly revealed in Joshua Nowicki’s photograph. How does Coomes explain this apparent impossibility? Coomes explained away Nowicki’s photograph by averring that the Chicago skyline wasn’t really there at all.48 He claimed that Nowicki’s picture was depicting what is called a “superior mirage.” Coomes showed an amazing display of self control, as he kept a straight face throughout his ridiculous explanation.

The problem with Coomes’ explanation is that a superior mirage is a mirage of an object that is usually inverted above the actual object. Sjaak Slanina explains that “[a] superior mirage occurs when an image of an object appears above the actual object.”49 The drawing below is from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and illustrates the inversion of a superior mirage. (...)

Mountains of Proof

Jon McIntyre was troubled by the evidence of the flat earth and simply could not bring himself to accept that such a massive conspiracy to hide the very nature of the earth could exist. He came up with an ingenious way to determine, once and for all, whether the earth was a sphere or flat. He concluded that if the earth were flat then two equally high mountains separated by many miles would appear to the observer to be the same height if the observer was stationed at a vantage point that was equal in height to the peak of the two mountain tops.

All he needed to do was to move perpendicular to the alignment of the mountains, thus creating a parallax between the mountains, and he could then see both mountains side-by-side. If, however, the earth were a globe, then the more distant mountain top would drop below the height of the nearer mountain top by the distance in miles squared multiplied by eight inches (miles2 × 8 inches = distance of drop on the supposed spherical earth).

McIntyre searched and found three mountains that met his criteria. The three mountains were found in the Black Mountain Range in North Carolina. He positioned himself with his camera at an elevation of 5,385 feet on the ridge of Tennent Mountain. He then trained his camera at Fryingpan Mountain, six (6) miles in the distance from his position on the ridge at Tennent Mountain. The peak of Fryingpan Mountain has an elevation of approximately 5,380 feet above sea level. Thirty four (34) miles beyond Fryingpan Mountain was Graybeard Mountain, with an elevation of approximately 5,395 feet.

McIntyre’s position was to the side of Fryingpan Mountain, which created a parallax between it and Graybeard Mountain. This allowed him to view both the mountains juxtaposed to one another, although they were separated by 34 miles. He discovered that in fact the mountain tops were almost the same height, just as indicated by their official reported elevations.

If the earth were a globe, then the curvature of the earth would cause Graybeard Mountain to drop 770 feet and be out of the sight of the observer. But that is not what we see.

Such a configuration as depicted in McIntyre’s photograph would be impossible on a spherical earth. His picture is compelling evidence that the earth is flat.

It should be noted that McIntyre is not a believer in the flat earth. The most he can bring himself to say on the issue of whether the earth is flat is: “I don't know.” But he cannot otherwise explain the phenomenon of the mountain peaks being the same height in relation to one another as officially reported, although they are separated by 34 miles. He states that he can “find no way to interpret this data other than to say that it clearly supports the conclusion that the earth is flat.” Yet, he cannot bring himself to believe it. The implications for him are just too disturbing.

This shot I find to be completely bizarre. Do I believe that the earth flat? That’s a big leap to make. A really big leap to actually believe in a conspiracy theory of that size. It is craziness! But what am I supposed to do with this evidence? I don’t really know. Honestly, I don’t really know.

But I felt compelled to make this video. I felt compelled to collect irrefutable evidence one way or the other, so I could end the internal debate I was having about it and answer the questions I was having regarding flat earth, because I did find the debate interesting.87

It seems that McIntyre finds the evidence in his experiment that proves that the earth is flat to be compelling. He put a lot of work and study into conducting his experiment, but when the results pointed clearly and irrefutably toward a flat earth, McIntyre could not fully believe that the earth is flat. To do so would be to make “a really big leap to actually believe in a conspiracy theory of that size.” He has been thoroughly conditioned to ignore his senses and view the results of his test as “craziness” no matter how convincing is the evidence. McIntyre admits that, although the evidence in his experiment is compelling proof that the earth is flat, he cannot bring himself to accept it, because he cannot overcome his conditioning from “a lifetime of being told that I live on a globe flying through space.”

My love of truth and love of the pursuit of truth compelled me to conduct this experiment and produce this video. I find the evidence I collected to be very convincing. In fact I find no way to interpret this data other than to say that it clearly supports the conclusion that the earth is flat. Yet if you were to ask me if I believe the earth is flat my answer would be “I don't know” because at this point I truly do not know what I believe. I am fully aware of what this evidence is pointing to and yet my mind seems unable to firmly settle on the belief that the earth is flat. Maybe this is due to a lifetime of being told that I live on a globe flying through space.88

McIntyre’s video and photographic proof of a flat earth has been attacked by deceptive debunkers.

They use sophistry, obfuscation, and lies to confuse readers and conceal the truth of the flat earth. One example is the purported debunking website, Metabunk.com, which was so full of errors and misrepresentations that McIntyre called the deceptive posters: “liars.” The whole purpose of the heliocentric posters is to deceive the unwary and ignorant who the posting charlatans know will not truly dig into the details. It is an age-old strategy of befuddling people with misleading details so they will just throw up their hands in frustration and reject the otherwise convincing evidence that would upset the mythology of the status quo.

Below is a quote from McIntyre about the supposed debunking of his video on the forum at Metabunk.com. Keep in mind when reading McIntyre’s reaction to the deceptive posts that he, to this day, does not accept that the earth is flat. That means he agrees with the viewpoint of the debunkers that the earth is a sphere, but he nonetheless calls them liars. He calls them liars, because he knows his facts and understands how they are twisting the evidence to mislead others. McIntyre will not tolerate misrepresentations of the evidence. McIntyre strives to find and accurately report the truth and will not allow his work to be maligned by liars who have an agenda to deceive people into believing that the earth is a sphere; even though he, himself, believes the earth is a sphere. Indeed, he pulls no punches and describes the so-called debunkers as “liars.”89 McIntyre states:

Look, this is exactly what I'm not going to deal with. I spent many, many days hiking around those mountains trying to locate the perfect position to get the shot. The whole entire time I was intermittently seeing Fryingpan and Graybeard.

And I've been up there probably more than twenty times since and I still see them all of the time. I hike over Tennent regularly. Guess what? I see Fryingpan and Graybeard and they look exactly the same as in my shot because guess what??? They are the same mountains. How in the world do I go up there and spend all of this time up there and hike all of these mountains. I've been to the top of all of these peaks. I know these peaks. I see them all the time. And then somehow when I need to find a shot on my line of sight and at the right elevation I suddenly forget what they look like.

I quite seriously do not appreciate this. Not you bringing this to my attention but a liar lying and the trying to force me in some way to pay attention to these lies as though they are worthy of attention.

The assertions by that page you sent me are.... I don't know... absurd, outright lies, inanity. I verified those peaks. I live near those peaks. I hike those peaks. I was directly on that line which is obvious to anyone who can think because it looks exactly like the image on Peakfinder.

Furthermore, just take a look at the mountain range in the distance that includes Graybeard. LOOK AT IT. To the left of Bald Knob you sea steady incline all the way up to the hogback of Mount Mitchell.

It's obvious. Look at it. then look at Peakfinder and examine the way it looks. That ridge of mountains is unique and completely identifiable to anyone willing to think.
I hike up there all the time. I drive up the Blue Ridge Parkway all of the time. And I've hiked down the ridge to Graybeard from the road. When I'm driving up the Blueridge I have Mt. Mitchell on my left and I'm looking to the right and guess what I see... to the furthest left: Graybeard, slightly closer: Pinnacle, then even closer: Bald Knob. I've sat on top of those peaks. I know them. I've hiked that trail and been up there. I've used my topo maps for navigation. I've seen them from multiple angles and multiple mountain tops.

... I hate liars. I've seen those peaks from many angles and and made sure to be thorough and yet I have some guy making up lies about me and my test. Look, you are free to read that trash and believe it. You are being lied to. [If] you bring it to my video again, sincere or not, I [will] delete [your] comments and I [will] block you.

Why? Very simple. I will not allow lies and deception to be promoted along with my video on my channel. I won't have it. I'm done. Bring legitimate, honest debunking to my comments or don't bring anything. Stop being lazy.

Go to Peakfinder. Take a look at how that mountain range looks and then watch my video. It is obviously the same mountain range. I should not have to spend my time explaining something to you that is so completely obvious. Instead of checking with me to see if some debunker has made a point just go spend an hour and look for yourself. It is easy. And you will see they are lying.90

McIntyre’s tirade against the liars on Metabunk would also apply to Jesse Kozlowski, who portrays himself as an expert in land surveying. Kozlowski states that he has been land surveying for many decades. Jesse Kozlowski has posted videos and other information on the internet that he alleges proves that McIntyre was wrong and that the earth is a globe. Kozlowski was first introduced to this author by Dr. Jim Fetzer. Dr. Fetzer is professor emeritus of the philosophy of science at the University of Minnesota Duluth, who believes the earth is a spinning sphere. Dr. Fetzer engaged in an email discussion with True Ott, Alex Studer, and this author about flat earth. Dr. Fetzer explained his view of the flat earth thusly:
As a professional philosopher, I offered courses in epistemology and the philosophy of science as well as in logic and critical thinking. My first book, SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE (1981), focuses on the nature of scientific knowledge. The belief in a flat Earth is a manifest absurdity in contradiction to thousands of years of scientific research.91

Dr. Fetzer followed up that email by calling upon Jesse Kozlowski as one of his experts to address the evidence with which Ott, Studer, and this author had presented Fetzer that proved the earth was flat. Dr. Fetzer introduced him as “the brilliant Jesse Kozlowski.”92 So, here we have an eminent professor in turn bringing forth his “brilliant” expert to once-and-for-all put to rest the flat earth nonsense. Let us examine the effort closely, because the refutation of their evidence does nothing but prove the earth is flat. (...)

The Greatest Lie on Earth
Proof That Our World Is Not a Moving Globe
Edward Hendrie

[One bhikkhu introduced me to the idea, which previously was ignored by me. Indeed, things aren't as simple as I thought, good exercise in thinking against acquired set of assumptions]. But one should remember the Sutta:

“Now recluses and brahmins of the third kind reckoned thus: ‘Those recluses and brahmins of the first kind, by acting as they did without precaution, failed to get free from Māra’s power and control. Those recluses and brahmins of the second kind, by reckoning how the recluses and brahmins of the first kind had failed, and then planning and acting as they did with the precaution of going to live in the forest wilds, also failed to get free from Māra’s power and control. Suppose we make our dwelling place within range of that bait that Māra has laid down and those material things of the world. Then, having done so, we shall eat food not unwarily and without going right in amongst the bait that Māra has laid down and the material things of the world. By doing so we shall not become intoxicated; when we are not intoxicated, we shall not fall into negligence; when we are not negligent, Māra shall not do with us as he likes on account of that bait and those material things of the world.’ And they did so.

“But then they came to hold views such as ‘the world is eternal’ and ‘the world is not eternal’ and ‘the world is finite’ and ‘the world is infinite’ and ‘the soul and the body are the same’ and ‘the soul is one thing and the body another’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata exists’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata does not exist’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist’294 [158] That is how those recluses and brahmins of the third kind failed to get free from Māra’s power and control. Those recluses and brahmins, I say, are just like the deer of the third herd. MN 25

The LGBT community wants the right to sodomize children

 The government-protected privileges granted to sodomites is only the first step toward the degenerative goal of the evil occultists who control the governments of the world, which is to legalize sex with children. The powerful elite of the world today secretly engage in all manner of pederasty, which this author details in his book, Antichrist: The Beast Revealed. Indeed, the elite have plans to normalize pedophilia.

The allegation that there is a move afoot to normalize pedophilia is not hyperbole. In a 60 Minutes Australia documentary about pedophiles, they focused on a progressive theory by Dr. James Cantor, whom the presenter introduced as a neuroscientist specializing in atypical sexuality. 197 The theory that Dr. Cantor promotes is that pedophiles are born with their perverse predilection toward children. He argues that it is not their fault, they are made that way. He presents a distinction between a pedophile and a child molester. He claims that there are many pedophiles who do not act on their urges. He labels them “virtuous pedophiles.” That is an oxymoron if there ever was one.

Dr. Cantor is just one of many in a phalanx of perverts who have been let loose to degenerate and demoralize countries. For example, Marjan Heine advanced the same argument during a 2018 TEDx Talk at the University of Wurzburg. Heine’s presentation was titled: Why Our Perception of Pedophilia Has to Change. 198 Heine defined pedophilia as a person’s inborn sexual preference for pre-adolescent children. She argued that nobody is responsible for their feelings, and so pedophiles are not responsible for their feelings of sexual attraction toward pre-adolescent children. As with Dr. Cantor, Heine argued for acceptance of and inclusion within society of pedophiles. Heine claimed that it is social isolation that drives pedophiles to sexually abuse children. Heine suggested that if the shame of pedophilia was removed, and pedophiles were welcomed into society, they would not act out their impulses to sexually abuse children. Heine’s argument parallels Dr. Cantor’s scheme. She argues, as does Dr. Cantor, that a person's proclivities can be dissociated from his actions. Thus, she maintains that a pedophile is not necessarily a child molester.

Heine’s and Cantor’s evil sophistry is that a person’s proclivities can be dissociated from his actions. They reason that a pedophile is not necessarily a child molester. They ignore the reality that a person is identified by what he does, not by what he feels or thinks. For example, a football player is a football player because he plays football. He is identified by what he actually does. A person may feel like playing football, but until he actually plays football, he is not a football player. A robber is a robber because he robs. He is identified as a robber because of what he does. He is not a robber if he only desires to take someone else’s property from them, but does not actually take it. A pedophile is a pedophile because he sexually abuses children. He is identified as a pedophile because that is what he does. Heine and Cantor ignore that reality.

To make a distinction between pedophiles and child molesters is to make a distinction without a difference. It is a false dichotomy. Heine and Cantor think they can get away with making that misleading distinction because most people do not know that recidivism among pedophiles is very high. Show me a pedophile who denies he molests children and I will show you a liar. Research has proven that pedophiles do not control their impulses to sexually molest children. For example, an Emory University Study conducted by a leading child abuse researcher, Dr. Gene Abel, found that the average child molester (i.e., pedophile) claims 380 victims in a lifetime. 199

We can take a lesson from the fable of the scorpion and the frog. In that famous fable, a scorpion asks a frog to carry him over a river. The frog tells the scorpion he will not do it because he is afraid that the scorpion will sting him. But the scorpion pleads with the frog and argues that he would never sting the frog while crossing the river because if he did so, both he and the frog would sink and drown. The frog was convinced by that reasoning and agreed to take the scorpion across the river. The scorpion hopped on the back of the frog, and off they both went across the river. But midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog, dooming them both to drown. When the frog felt the scorpions sting, he asked the scorpion why he stung him since now they would both drown. The scorpion explained, “I am a scorpion; that is what I do.”

Scorpions sting because that is their nature; that is what scorpions do. So also, pedophiles molest children because that is their nature; that is what pedophiles do. A “virtuous pedophile” makes about as much sense as a virtuous scorpion. To welcome pedophiles as accepted members of society is to doom children to destruction, just as the frog was unwittingly doomed as soon as he agreed to give the scorpion a ride on his back. Parents are given a precious gift when God bestows them with children. They are charged with protecting those children from danger. They should not be putting scorpions on their backs and hoping for the best. “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.” Luke 17:2.

Cantor and Heine are simply fronting for powerful evil forces who are trying to normalize pedophilia in much the same way that clinicians have normalized sodomy. Once you decouple morality from God's standard, it becomes a slippery slope. What the 60 Minutes Australia program did not reveal is that Dr. James Cantor is a sodomite. He presented a paper about his personal experience as a sodomite: "Being gay and being a graduate student: Double the memberships, four times the problems", at the Ninety-Ninth Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association in San Francisco. 200

Of course, Dr. Cantor is going to argue that pedophiles are born that way. He has an agenda. The lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (a/k/a LGBT) communities have an evil agenda, which they keep secret from the public at large. Michael Swift's 1987 Gay Manifesto reveals the dirty secret of the LGBT rights movement. The LGBT community wants the right to sodomize children.

Former California State Assemblyman Steve Baldwin researched the connection between homosexuality and pederasty. He published his findings in the Spring 2002 Regent University Law Review. Baldwin found that “[s]cientific studies confirm a strong pedophilic predisposition among homosexuals.” 201 One 1988 study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, reported that 86% of pedophiles who victimized boys “described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.” 202 Research statistics further show that homosexuals, as a population, molest children at a rate that is ten to twenty times greater than heterosexuals. 203 Those facts are well known in the homosexual community. San Francisco’s leading homosexual newspaper, The Sentinel, bluntly states that “[t]he love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality.” 204

Homosexual publications openly promote pederasty and are often populated with travel ads for sex tours to Burma, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and other countries infamous for boy prostitution. Baldwin reveals that “[t]he most popular travel guide for homosexuals, Spartacus Gay Guides, is replete with information about where to find boys for sex and, as a friendly warning, lists penalties in various countries for sodomy with boys if caught.”

Baldwin found that “the mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children.” 205 He determined that one of the principal aims of the LGBT rights movement is the legalization and promotion of child molestation. Mainstream LGBT organizations such as the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) and the National Coalition of Gay Organizations have passed many organizational resolutions calling for lowering or eliminating age of sexual consent laws, as a way to legalize pedophilia. 206

Such sin creates a violent and chaotic society. This chaos gives rise to new restrictive laws, which ultimately brings about a police state to reestablish order. Under the new police powers granted to the state, the exercise of God-given rights is suppressed by the government.

It is through orchestrated chaos that the people clamber for order, which brings the public acceptance of government tyranny. One of the principal subversive missions of secret societies is to covertly foment chaos in order to bring about the reaction of oppressive government crackdowns, which they have planned in advance from behind the scenes. The minions of Satan control the government, the reigns of which are in their hands, to steer its course to oppress the people.

The motto ORDO AB CHAO (order out of chaos) is an occult maxim often found in the rites of secret societies. For example, according to Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, ORDO AB CHAO, is “[a] Latin expression, meaning Order out of Chaos. A motto of the Thirty-third Degree, and having the same allusion as lug e tenebris, which see in this work. The invention of this motto is to be attributed to the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish petite at Charleston.” 207 Mackey’s reference to lug e tenebris is probably an allusion to be LUX E TENEBRIS, which is Latin phrase commonly found on Mason documents, that means “light out of darkness.” 208 Jackie Jura of Orwell Today explains:

The puppetmasters create "dis order" so the people will demand "order". The price of "order" always entails a handing over of control and loss of freedom on the part of the citizenry. Out of "chaos" comes "order" - THEIR order - their new WORLD order. ...

The trick of creating chaos and then seizing power under the pretense of putting things back in order is a tried and true method of deception and manipulation. It's the meaning behind the Latin motto: ORDO AB CHAO meaning ORDER OUT OF CHAOS.

It's also referred to as the Hegelian Dialect after the philosopher Georg Hegel who wrote about its effectiveness. He described it as: THESIS -- ANTI-THESIS -- SYN-THESIS.

Others have described it as: PROBLEM -- REACTION -- SOLUTION in that firstly you create the problem; then secondly you fan the flames to get a reaction; then thirdly (like Johnny-on-the-spot) you provide a solution. The solution is what you were wanting to achieve in the first place, but wouldn't have been able to achieve under normal circumstances.

Orwell described it as REALITY CONTROL. In 1984: he said, "The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, 'just to keep people frightened'."

There are literally HUNDREDS of examples of this method being used effectively throughout the course of history. A well-known example is the bombing of Pearl Harbor which resulted in the United States entering the Second World War. Chaos was required and so chaos was created. That's how it works. 209 (emphasis in original)

The Sphere of Influence

Edward Hendrie 

Marcel-Paul Schützenberger. THE MIRACLES OF DARWINISM

 Marcel-Paul Schützenberger. THE MIRACLES OF DARWINISM

1996 Interview with La Recherche

Q: What is your definition of Darwinism?

S: Darwinists argue that the double action of chance mutations and natural selection explains evolution. This general doctrine accommodates two mutually contradictory schools—gradualists on the one hand and saltationists on the other. Gradualists insist that evolution proceeds by small successive changes; saltationists that it proceeds by jumps. Richard Dawkins has come to champion radical gradualism, [the late] Stephen Jay Gould a no less radical version of saltationism.

Q: You are known as a mathematician rather than a specialist in evolutionary biology …

S: Biology is, of course, not my specialty. But biologists themselves have encouraged the participation of mathematicians in the overall assessment of evolutionary thought, if only because they have presented such an irresistible target. Richard Dawkins, for example, has been fatally attracted to arguments that hinge on concepts drawn from mathematics and computer science—arguments which he then, with all his comic authority, imposes on innocent readers. Mathematicians are, in any case, epistemological zealots. It is normal for them to bring their critical scruples to the foundations of other disciplines. And finally, it is worth observing that the great turbid wave of cybernetics has carried mathematicians from their normal mid-ocean haunts to the far shores of evolutionary biology. There, up ahead, René Thom and Ilya Prigogine may be observed paddling sedately toward dry land, members of the Santa Fe Institute thrashing in their wake. Stuart Kauffman is among them.  An interesting case, a physician half in love with mathematical logic, burdened now and forever by having received a papal kiss from Murray Gell-Mann. This ecumenical movement has endeavored to apply the concepts of mathematics to the fundamental problems of evolution—the interpretation of functional complexity, for example.

Q: What do you mean by functional complexity?

S: It is impossible to grasp the phenomenon of life without that concept, the two words each expressing a crucial idea. The laboratory biologists’ normal and unforced vernacular is almost always couched in functional terms: the function of an eye, the function of an enzyme, or a ribosome, or the fruit fly’s antennae. Functional language matches up perfectly with biological reality. Physiologists see this better than anyone else. Within their world, everything is a matter of function, the various systems that they study—circulatory, digestive, excretory, and the like—all characterized in simple, ineliminable functional terms. At the level of molecular biology, functionality may seem to pose certain conceptual problems, perhaps because the very notion of an organ has disappeared when biological relationships are specified in biochemical terms. But appearances are misleading. Certain functions remain even in the absence of an organ or organ systems. Complexity is also a crucial concept. Even among unicellular organisms, the mechanisms involved in the separation and fusion of chromosomes during mitosis and meiosis are processes of unbelievable complexity and subtlety. Organisms present themselves to us as a complex ensemble of functional interrelationships. If one is going to explain their evolution, one must at the same time explain their functionality and their complexity.

Q: What is it that makes functional complexity so difficult to comprehend?

S: The evolution of living creatures appears to require an essential ingredient, a specific form of organization. Whatever it is, it lies beyond anything that our present knowledge of physics or chemistry might suggest. It is a property upon which formal logic sheds absolutely no light. Whether gradualists or saltationists, Darwinians have too simple a conception of biology, rather like a locksmith misguidedly convinced that his handful of keys will open any lock. Darwinians, for example, tend to think of the gene as if it were the expression of a simple command: do this, get that done, drop that side chain. Walter Gehring’s work on  the regulatory genes controlling the development of the insect eye reflects this conception. The relevant genes may well function this way, but the story on this level is surely incomplete, and Darwinian theory is not apt to fill in the pieces.

Q: You claim that biologists think of a gene as a command. Could you be more specific?

S: Schematically, a gene is like a unit of information. It has simple binary properties. A sequence of gene instructions resembles a sequence of instructions specifying a recipe. Consider again the example of the eye. Darwinists imagine that it requires—what? A thousand or two thousand genes to assemble an eye, the specification of the organ thus requiring one or two thousand units of information? That is absurd! Suppose a European firm proposes to manufacture an entirely new household appliance in a Southeast Asian factory. And suppose that for commercial reasons the firm does not wish to communicate to the factory any details of the appliance’s function, like how it works or what purposes it will serve. With only a few thousand bits of information, the factory is not going to proceed very far or very fast. A few thousand bits of information, after all, yields only a single paragraph of text. The appliance in question is bound to be vastly simpler than the eye. Charged with its manufacture, the factory will yet need to know the significance of the operations to which they have committed themselves in engaging their machinery. This can be achieved only if they already have some sense of the object’s nature before they undertake to manufacture it. A considerable body of knowledge, held in common between the European firm and its Asian factory, is necessary before manufacturing instructions may be executed.

Q: Would you argue that the genome does not contain the requisite information for explaining organisms?

S: It does not, according to the understanding of the genome we now possess. The biological properties invoked by biologists are in this respect quite insufficient. While biologists may understand that a gene triggers the production of a particular protein, that knowledge—that kind of knowledge—does not allow them to comprehend how one or two thousand genes suffice to direct the course of embryonic development.

 Q: You are going to be accused of preformationism …

S: And of many other crimes. My position is nevertheless a strictly rational one. I’ve formulated a problem that appears significant to me: How is it that with so few elementary instructions the materials of life can fabricate objects that are so marvelously complicated and efficient? This remarkable property with which they are endowed—just what is its nature? Nothing within our actual knowledge of physics and chemistry allows us intellectually to grasp it. If one starts from an evolutionary point of view, it must be acknowledged that in one manner or another the earliest fish contained the capacity, and the appropriate neural wiring, to bring into existence organs which they did not possess or even need, but which would be the common property of their successors when they left the water for the firm ground, or for the air.

Q: You assert that, in fact, Darwinism doesn’t explain much.

S: It seems to me that the union of chance mutation and selection has a certain descriptive value. But in no case does the description count as an explanation. Darwinism relates ecological data to the relative abundance of species and environments. In any case, the descriptive value of Darwinian models is pretty limited. Besides, as saltationists have indicated, the gradualist thesis seems totally ridiculous in light of our growing knowledge of paleontology. The miracles of saltationism, on the other hand, cannot discharge the mystery I have described.

Q: Let’s return to natural selection. Isn’t it the case that despite everything the idea has a certain explanatory value?

S: No one could possibly deny the general thesis that stability is a necessary condition for existence. This is the real content of the doctrine of natural selection. The outstanding application of this general principle is Berthollet’s laws in elementary chemistry. In a desert, the species that die rapidly are those that require water the most. Yet that does not explain the appearance among the survivors of those structures whose particular features permit them to resist aridity. The thesis of natural selection is not very powerful. Except for certain artificial cases, we remain unable to predict whether this or that species or this or that variety will be favored or not as the result of changes in the environment. What we can do is establish the effects of natural selection after the fact—to show, for example, that certain birds are disposed to eat this species of  snails less often than other species, perhaps because their shell is not as visible. That’s ecology. To put it another way, natural selection is a weak instrument of proof because the phenomena subsumed by natural selection are obvious. They establish nothing from the point of view of the theory.

Q: Isn’t the significant explanatory feature of Darwinian theory the connection established between chance mutations and natural selection?

S: With the discovery of genetic coding, we have come to understand that a gene is like a word composed in the DNA alphabet. Such words form the genomic text and tell the cell to make this or that protein. Either a given protein is structural, or it works in combination with other signals from the genome to fabricate yet another protein. All the experimental results we know fall within this scheme. The following scenario then becomes standard: A gene undergoes a mutation, one that may facilitate the reproduction of those individuals carrying it; over time, and with respect to a specific environment, mutants come to be statistically favored, replacing individuals lacking the requisite mutation. But evolution cannot simply be the accumulation of such typographical errors. Population geneticists can study the speed with which a favorable mutation propagates itself under these circumstances. They do this with a lot of skill, but these are academic exercises, if only because none of the parameters that they use can be empirically determined. In addition, there are the obstacles I have already mentioned. We know the number of genes in an organism. There are about one hundred thousand for a higher vertebrate. This we know fairly well. But this seems grossly insufficient to explain the incredible quantity of information needed to accomplish evolution within a given line of species.

Q: A concrete example?

S: Darwinists say that horses, which once were as small as rabbits, increased their size to escape more quickly from predators. Within the gradualist model, one might isolate a specific trait—increase in body size—and consider it to be the result of a series of typographic changes. The explanatory effect achieved is rhetorical, imposed entirely by the trick of insisting that what counts for an herbivore is the speed of its flight when faced by a predator. Now this may even be partially true, but there are no biological grounds that permit us to determine that this is  in fact the decisive consideration. After all, increase in body size may well have a negative effect. Darwinists seem to me to have preserved a mechanistic vision of evolution, one that prompts them to observe merely a linear succession of causes and effects. The idea that causes may interact with one another is now standard in mathematical physics; it is a point that has had difficulty penetrating the carapace of biological thought. In fact, within the quasi-totality of observable phenomena, local changes interact dramatically. After all, there is hardly an issue of La Recherche that does not contain an allusion to the Butterfly Effect. Information theory is precisely the domain that sharpens our intuitions about these phenomena. A typographical change in a computer program does not change it just a little. It wipes the program out, purely and simply. It is the same with a telephone number. If I intend to call a correspondent by telephone, it doesn’t much matter if I am fooled by one, two, three or eight figures in his number.

Q: You accept the idea that biological mutations genuinely have the character of typographical errors?

S: Yes, in the sense that one base is a template for another, one codon for another. But at the level of biochemical activity, one is no longer able properly to speak of typography. There is an entire grammar for the formation of proteins in three dimensions, one that we understand poorly. We do not have at our disposal physical or chemical rules permitting us to construct a mapping from typographical mutations or modifications to biologically effective structures. To return to the example of the eye: a few thousand genes are needed for its fabrication, but each in isolation signifies nothing. What is significant is the combination of their interactions. These cascading interactions, with their feedback loops, express an organization whose complexity we do not know how to analyze. It is possible we may be able to do so in the future, but there is no doubt that we are unable to do so now. Gehring has recently discovered a segment of DNA which is involved both in the development of the vertebrate eye and which can also induce the development of an eye in the wing of a butterfly. His work comprises a demonstration of something utterly astonishing, but not an explanation.

Q: But Dawkins, for example, believes in the possibility of a cumulative process.

S: Dawkins believes in an effect that he calls “the cumulative selection  of beneficial mutations.” To support his thesis, he resorts to a metaphor introduced by the mathematician Emile Borel—that of a monkey typing by chance and in the end producing a work of literature. It is a metaphor, I regret to say, embraced by Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix. Dawkins has his computer write a series of thirty letters, these corresponding to the number of letters in a verse by Shakespeare. He then proceeds to simulate the Darwinian mechanism of chance mutations and selection. His imaginary monkey types and retypes the same letters, the computer successively choosing the phrase that most resembles the target verse. By means of cumulative selection, the monkey reaches its target in forty or sixty generations.

Q: But you don’t believe that a monkey typing on a typewriter, even aided by a computer …

S: This demonstration is bogus. Dawkins doesn’t even describe precisely how it proceeds. At the beginning of the exercise, randomly generated phrases appear rapidly to approach the target; the closer the approach, the more the process begins to slow. It is the action of mutations in the wrong direction that pulls things backward. In fact, a simple argument shows that unless the numerical parameters are chosen deliberately, the progression begins to bog down completely.

Q: You would say that the model of cumulative selection, imagined by Dawkins, is out of touch with palpable biological realities?

S: Exactly. Dawkins’s model lays entirely to the side the triple problems of complexity, functionality, and their interaction.

Q: You are a mathematician. Suppose that you try, despite your reservations, to formalize the concept of functional complexity.

S: I would appeal to a notion banned by the scientific community, but one understood perfectly by everyone else—that of a goal. As a computer scientist, I could express this in the following way. One constructs a space within which one of the coordinates serves in effect as the thread of Ariadne, guiding the trajectory toward the goal. Once the space is constructed, the system evolves in a mechanical way toward its goal. But look, the construction of the relevant space cannot proceed until a preliminary analysis has been carried out, one in which the set of all possible trajectories is assessed and their average distance from the specified  goal is estimated. Such a preliminary analysis is beyond the reach of empirical study. It presupposes that the biologist (or computer scientist) knows the totality of the situation, the properties of the ensemble of trajectories. Yet in terms of mathematical logic, the nature of this space is entirely enigmatic. It is crucial to remember that the conceptual problems we face in trying to explain life, life has entirely solved. Indeed, the systems embodied in living creatures are entirely successful in reaching their goals. The trick involved in Dawkins’s embarrassing example arises from his surreptitious introduction of a relevant space. His computer program calculates from a random phrase to a target, a calculation that corresponds to nothing in biological reality. The function that he employs flatters the imagination, however, because its apparent simplicity elicits naïve approval. In biological reality, the space of even the simplest function has a complexity that defies understanding, and indeed defies any and all calculations.

Q: Even when they dissent from Darwin, the saltationists are more moderate: they don’t pretend to hold the key that would permit them to explain evolution.

S: Before we discuss the saltationists, however, I must say a word about the Japanese biologist Motoo Kimura. He has shown that the majority of mutations are neutral, without any selective effect. For Darwinians upholding the central Darwinian thesis, this is embarrassing.… The saltationist view, revived by Stephen Jay Gould, in the end represents an idea of Richard Goldschmidt’s. In 1940 or so, Goldschmidt postulated the existence of very intense mutations, no doubt involving hundreds of genes, and taking place rapidly, in less than one thousand generations, thus below paleontology’s threshold of resolution. Curiously enough, Gould does not seem concerned to preserve the union of chance mutations and selection. The saltationists run afoul of two types of criticism. On the one hand, the functionality of their supposed macromutations is inexplicable within the framework of molecular biology. On the other hand, Gould ignores in silence the great trends in biology, such as the increasing complexity of the nervous system. He imagines that the success of new, more sophisticated species, such as the mammals, is a contingent phenomenon. He is not in a position to offer an account of the essential movement of evolution, or at the least an account of its main trajectories. The saltationists are thus reduced to invoking two types of miracles: macromutations as well as the great trajectories of evolution.

 Q: In what sense are you employing the word “miracle”?

S: A miracle is an event that should appear impossible to a Darwinian in view of its ultra-cosmological improbability within the framework of his own theory. Now, speaking of macromutations, let me observe that to generate a proper elephant, it will not suffice suddenly to endow it with a full-grown trunk. As the trunk is being organized, a different but complementary system—the cerebellum—must be modified in order to establish a place for the ensemble of wiring that the elephant will require in order to use the trunk. These macromutations must be coordinated by a system of genes in embryogenesis. If one considers the history of evolution, we must postulate thousands of miracles; miracles, in fact, without end. No more than the gradualists, the saltationists are unable to provide an account of those miracles. The second category of miracles are directional, offering instruction to the great evolutionary progressions and trends—the elaboration of the nervous system, of course, but the internalization of the reproductive process as well, and the appearance of bone, the emergence of ears, the enrichment of various functional relationships, and so on. Each is a series of miracles, whose accumulation has the effect of increasing the complexity and efficiency of various organisms. From this point of view, the notion of bricolage [tinkering], introduced by François Jacob, involves a fine turn of phrase, but one concealing an utter absence of explanation.

Q: The appearance of human beings—is that a miracle, in the sense you mean?

S: Naturally. And here it does seem that there are voices among contemporary biologists—I mean voices other than mine—who might cast doubt on the Darwinian paradigm, which has so dominated discussion for the past twenty years. Gradualists and saltationists alike are completely incapable of providing a convincing explanation of the near simultaneous emergence of a number of biological systems that distinguish human beings from the higher primates: bipedalism, with the concomitant modification of not only the pelvis but also the cerebellum; a much more dexterous hand, with fingerprints conferring an especially fine tactile sense; the modifications of the pharynx, which permit phonation; and the modification of the central nervous system, notably at the level of the temporal lobes, permitting the specific recognition of speech. From the point of view of embryogenesis, such anatomical systems are completely different from one another. Each modification constitutes a gift,  a bequest from a primate family to its descendants. It is astonishing that these gifts should have developed simultaneously. Some biologists speak of a predisposition of the genome. Can anyone actually recover the predisposition, supposing that it actually existed? Was it present in the first of the fish? Confronted with such questions, the Darwinian paradigm is conceptually bankrupt.

Q: You mentioned the Santa Fe school earlier in our discussion. Do appeals to such notions as chaos …

S: What we have here are highly competent people inventing poetic but essentially hollow forms of expression. I am referring in part to the hoopla surrounding cybernetics. And beyond that, there lie the dissipative structures of Prigogine, or the systems of Varela, or, moving to the present, Stuart Kauffman’s edge of chaos—an organized form of inanity that is certain soon to make its way to France. The Santa Fe school takes complexity and applies it to absolutely everything. They draw their representative examples from certain chemical reactions, the pattern of the seacoast, atmospheric turbulence, or the structure of a chain of mountains. The complexity of these structures is certainly considerable, but in comparison with the living world, they exhibit in every case an impoverished form of organization, one that is strictly non-functional. No algorithm allows us to understand the complexity of living creatures. These examples owe their initial plausibility to the assumption that the physico-chemical world exhibits functional properties that in reality it does not possess.

Q: Should one take your position as a statement of resignation, an appeal to have greater modesty, or something else altogether?

S: Speaking ironically, I might say that all we can hear at the present time is the great anthropic hymnal, with even a number of mathematically sophisticated scholars keeping time, as the great hymn is intoned, by tapping their feet. The rest of us should, of course, practice a certain suspension of judgment.

UNCOMMON DISSENT

Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing

Edited by William A. Dembski