The American Crisis: Origins-
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Parts 9 & 10
Journal Entry #25
Our study proceeds according to the premise that there exists in democracy a philosophical threshold, beyond which we can no longer ensure free institutions and a stable society. –abstract, The Failure of Modern Science...

...my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. –Hosea 4:6

The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma

Part 9
Initially, the worldview that said all the observable and measurable things in the universe are material phenomena began life as a useful assumption. In short order it was promoted to a scientific article of faith. Ultimately, it would graduate into the unshakeable belief that all that exists in the universe are material objects. It was a bold, yet philosophically unwarranted scientific presumption.

As a result, particular hypotheses of material development, embodied in the theories of Darwinian evolution and the Big Bang singularity, now receive widespread acceptance and are said to satisfactorily account for the origin of biological life and the universe in which we live. Ironically, the practical effect of this erroneous reasoning is the frustration of the legitimate pursuits of science: the comprehension of the universe, and the general advancement of human knowledge and understanding.

Specifically, these are the destructive consequences to the body of human knowledge from such fallacious reasoning: First, an erroneous scientific theory is immediately produced. Second, this logically erroneous conclusion serves as an "established" theory according to which future scientific investigation is organized and to which subsequent hypotheses are compared and “validated”.* Third, the status of this inductive reasoning illicitly acquires the authority and force of deductive reasoning, though the conclusions of the former are by no means certainly and necessarily true, as are those of the latter.

Fourth, the overall standard for judging empirical evidence loses objectivity, admitting finally only data that support preferred or cherished hypotheses, and therefore commit the fallacy of petitio principii. Eventually, the scientific method becomes arbitrary, while the true nature of the universe is conceptually distorted. Ultimately, the entirety of human thought becomes likewise skewed and arbitrary, and through the extended philosophical corruption that follows, human reason becomes at once narrow, uncertain and unreliable.

We need look no further than the morning newspaper to see evidence of the consequences of the faulty reasoning that sustains philosophic materialism. In a recent Associated Press report, we are told of the Federal judge who ordered an Atlanta suburban school system to remove from their high school biology textbook a provocative sticker warning that evolution is “a theory, not a fact.” In this most remarkable ruling, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper states that…

“By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories…While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, the sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community.”**

To be sure, by judicial fiat- which is just a nice way of saying government coercion- the students in this Atlanta community will no longer underestimate the “significance and value of evolution” to science (nor to the legal profession as well, one might suppose). Unfortunately these same students will henceforth misunderstand the significance and value of the scientific method, at the core of which is the responsible evaluation and application of the empirical evidence manifested by the natural world (evidence as an issue is likewise at the core of a legitimate system of jurisprudence- or was, until this Federal ruling).

Indeed, the very fact that an otherwise exclusively academic controversy is now subject to arbitration in courts of law, rather than resolved as they once were through logical debate and the free play of ideas, strongly indicates the speculations of a 19th century English naturalist have now gone well beyond the confines of science. Even as the philosophical implications of this quarrel now largely exceed the boundaries of the scientific method.

It’s no coincidence therefore, that what began as a logical departure in scientific thought according to the fallacy of petitio principii, should then require reinforcement in generalized thought by means of the fallacy of argumentum ad baculum- or the appeal to force. The latter fallacy is committed “when one appeals to force or the threat of force [whether legal or otherwise] to cause acceptance of a conclusion…[and is] usually resorted to only when evidence or rational arguments fail.”***

Generally speaking, if we were to offer any explanation which fails to take into account all aspects of the phenomena under observation, we know that explanation would be incomplete and therefore, unacceptable. Scientifically, if we similarly advance a strictly material explanation (evolution) which fails to account for a nonmaterial ingredient- the presence, the existence of biological life- we know such a scientific conclusion would also be incomplete and unacceptable. In either case, it is an undeniable fact one simply cannot expect to accurately explain a complete thing (in the Atlanta school case, biological life) by reference to only one of its parts- matter, while ignoring the nonmaterial fact of its presence, its existence.

To remedy this erroneous habit of mind, we need to recognize the inadequacy of material explanations, whether of biological life or of the universe as a whole. Now the three main monotheistic religions are all in agreement with modern science that there was a beginning to both the universe and biological life. This would imply that at one time the universe was nonexistent. In order for the universe to gain material existence therefore, a measure of being was needed upon which to build. Since matter did not exist however, the necessary existence had to come from elsewhere, and therefore, could only have come from being which must already have been in existence.

Apparently, the universe and the biological life we observe possesses an unrecognized, though actually existing ingredient. That ingredient I have termed transmaterial existence, which is being. Such being sustains and occurs in, but is not confined to- nor defined by- matter or material existence. We shall see that transmaterial existence is the primary condition for material existence and that, were the reverse true- that material existence is the main condition for being- it would not be possible for us to discuss this subject, for neither we nor the universe could exist.

Part 10
In an enormously revealing statement, Stephen Hawking proposes in his book, The Universe in a Nutshell that we should try and “understand the beginning of the universe on the basis of science.”^ Insofar as science, by reason of its language and object of study, is confined to the extended material order, Professor Hawking would naturally propose we take as our initial premise that matter is the defining ingredient in the formation of the universe.

Certainly matter consistently displays specifically definable characteristics, for example its capacity to be handled, weighed and measured, and its distinctive occupation of an area of space. However, the strictly materialist theories which claim to explain the origins of the universe and the living things therein- the Big Bang singularity and Darwinian evolution- necessarily require the material universe must respect these definable characteristics of matter while at the same time exceeding them.

A closer assessment tells us that for these theories to be valid, matter must be a measurable part of an immeasurable universe; a part distributed within boundaries comprising a boundless universe. Nevertheless, because science routinely recognizes only matter- and its derivative energy- then the beginning of the universe must surely have been of material origin. But if it is the case that only matter begets matter, then there must have been infinite matter before the beginning of the universe. But if matter is infinite, its ongoing material presence would have obviated the need for a beginning. Yet modern science asserts matter- as well as space and time- had a beginning.

According to practical experience, we are reasonably entitled to assume matter cannot retain its reputation as a finite, bounded, measurable entity while at the same time promising an infinite potential. Besides matter then, to what other ingredient must science therefore refer in its observations of the universe? To that very observable though mostly immaterial ingredient: being. For science to recognize such an ingredient is not only empirically necessary but quite unavoidable, because being is the fact of existing, of existence as opposed to nonexistence. It would be extremely surprising for anyone, especially within the scientific community, to argue against the existence of both matter and the universe.

These two ingredients- matter and being- comprising the physical universe can only occur in one of three combinations; taken together these explanations may be considered mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. The first possible way matter and being might occur is in a proportional or symmetrical combination; the second way is for matter and being to be in a synonymous or identical relationship; and the third way they might combine is for being to be distinctly in place before matter ever comes into existence.

In the proportional or symmetrical way of combining, matter and being occur in the same place, in the same proportion and share common boundaries and extent. In other words, there is always found the one in the presence of the other. We need not, at this point, entertain any notion of causation in any possible combination of matter and being. Here we merely observe that one component is consistently and proportionally in evidence with every occurrence of the other. The issue of causation is of marginal importance.

From the outset there seems to appear a prominent deficiency with this proportional or symmetrical combination, rendering impossible any chance of it leading to the formation of the entire universe: that deficiency is the concurrent nature of the relationship. Concurrence requires that the components of this relationship of matter and being possess equal authority and jurisdiction, and that they consequently display simultaneity.

Matter seems to be present only as there is being, and being only as there is the presence of matter. And because there is always found the one in the presence of the other, the presence of one implies the presence of both. From this we are entitled to infer the absence of one prohibits the presence of the other. And similarly, the absence of both rules out the presence of either one. Consequently, for both matter and being to first appear (assuming the universe had a beginning), one of them must make a first appearance.

According to the concurrent nature of their relationship, however, if it is the case that neither had yet appeared, it would be impossible for there to be a first appearance of either in the absence of the other. The only way, therefore, matter and being may combine proportionally to form the universe, is for both to have always been in existence- that is, existed infinitely. But the resort to infinity would then place us more properly within the second explanation of the combination of matter and being.

Within the second scheme, matter and being occur in a synonymous, identical combination, in which matter is being and being is matter. In other words, there is never found the one in the absence of the other. Another formulation of this would identify all matter with existence, and all existence with matter, presumably the closest understanding Professor Hawking would have us take on the universe: “The universe would be entirely self-contained; it wouldn't need anything outside to wind up the clockwork and set it going...everything in the universe would be determined by the laws of science and by rolls of the dice within the universe.”^^

Certainly he and Roger Penrose approved such a formulation when they set forth the Big Bang theory in 1970. This theory allegedly proves mathematically that space and time- and by association the physical universe- had a beginning^^^, though the infinite magnitude matter and being must assume as we regard them as identical would not only argue against, but unequivocally contradict any such talk of beginnings as a result of a Big Bang singularity model.

To say matter and being exist infinitely is also to say they exist eternally. With eternities, as with infinities, there are no beginnings nor endings, even as there are no boundaries. We must concede then the first two possible explanations of how matter and being might combine are physically impossible. Which leads us to conclude that being existed initially, and sustained the later emergence of the material universe.

Notes

*Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic: Sixth Edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1982) 470. Cf. 13.3, Evaluating Scientific Explanations.
**The Cleveland Plain Dealer; Friday, 14 January 2005; Section A5. Italics are mine.
***Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic: Sixth Edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1982) 99.
^Stephen Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell (New York: Bantam Books, 2001) 79.
^^Ibid., p.85. Italics are mine.
^^^Ibid., pp. 41, 82.

Montag