The American Crisis: Origins-
The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma
Parts 11 & 12
Journal Entry #26
But if scientific atheists are disposed to challenge God’s existence- the party line, after all- they are far less willing to reflect on what His dismissal entails. –David Berlinski, PhD, Mathematics. The Devil’s Delusion; Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions

The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth…he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else…From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth…For in him we live and move and have our being. –The apostle Paul, addressing the Areopagus in Athens, Acts 17:24-26, 28

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. –Hebrews 11:3

The Failure of Modern Science and Our Historical Dilemma

Part 11
Of lesser importance here is the issue of whether the beginning of the universe can be traced to a point of infinite density- a singularity- according to Professor Hawking's calculations, or, as other scientists have speculated, the Big Bang was simply one phase of an endless cycle of universal contraction and expansion. Of greater, indeed of critical importance, is the common ground these conceptualizations share: the resort to infinite matter.

Though the conferring of self-sufficiency to material systems via infinite matter offers the human mind the convenience of excluding the qualitative (non-mathematical) aspects of the universe, it also leads human thought into the chaotic and illogical realm of fallacious thinking by means of Petitio Principi, the Argumentum ad Baculum and the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

Professor Carl Sagan‘s remarks in Part 6 epitomize this last fallacy, which is “committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true. But our ignorance of how to prove or disprove a proposition clearly does not establish either the truth or the falsehood of that proposition.”- Irving Copi, Introduction to Logic, p. 101.

If one hypothesizes only according to material criteria, one essentially "stacks the deck" or "loads the dice" in favor of arriving at a material conclusion. Now, this would be fine if the universe is bound together exclusively by material properties, however, we see also in the universe the distinct presence of transmaterial existence, or being. Unfortunately, in a strictly material interpretation of the universe, the extent and boundaries of being remain largely unexplored by science, leaving the student to wonder whether scientists are aware of it at all.

Consequently, science never resolves the critical issue of whether matter and being are coextensive. The answer to this is of crucial importance to science, though scientists appear quite indifferent to it. Nevertheless, if the boundaries of being exceed the boundaries of matter, then exclusively material explanations- especially about origins- fall woefully short of accurately defining the universe. Phrased another way, the conclusions of strictly material theories become entirely insufficient if the actual evidence shows there exists more to the universe than just material components and properties.

To the extent internal contradictions plague our first two potential explanations of how matter and being might combine, we are left with the third possible way the universe came about: being is the defining and initially occurring ingredient upon which matter is dependent and subsequently founded. If the reverse were true, if matter occurred initially in order to inaugurate being, then matter would be in a state of nonbeing or nonexistence while existing.

Obviously, such a state of affairs contradicts practical experience and empirical observation. Therefore being is first, then comes matter and the material universe. As a corollary we can say this of matter: it should no longer be regarded as the only ingredient composing the universe- nor even the most important, either in the formation of the whole or in the determination of its parts.

Part 12
Because scientists have failed to register all the empirical evidence displayed by the universe and, as a consequence, failed to resolve the critical issue whether matter and being are coextensive, modern science has become entangled in fallacy and error. We are therefore justified in concluding that the current materialist theories of the origin of the universe and of life- the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution- are scientifically deficient.

In fact, a key feature long overlooked and improperly excluded from the body of scientific evidence- the undeniable fact of being- would actually disprove these materialist theories, given the opportunity. The reader should note that some physicists have recently labored to eliminate the Big Bang singularity theory in favor of a physical explanation known as the “quantum vacuum”, which is a fancy way of saying that something (like the universe) could potentially emerge from nothing. How about that??!! If we begin to equate something with nothing, will they eventually become indistinguishable? Can human freedom and self government exist in such a philosophical climate?

In any event, ignoring evidence will ultimately weaken future scientific effort and human thought generally. Though empirically disprovable, the internal contradictions of Darwinian evolution and the Big Bang have not in the least diminished their unchallenged prestige and dominance in Western science and thought. However, the unavoidable philosophic irrationalism fostered by these theories represents a very real threat to the indispensible rationalism necessary for democratic government. Such irrationalism displaces the pursuit and observance of truth so essential to democracy in favor of the much easier political expedience and social utilitarianism characteristic of technocracy and totalitarian states.

In this study I have attempted to make clear the inseparable connection science shares with the entire culture within which it works. Just as practical technology and the products of science (penicillin and Hiroshima, for example) profoundly affect the physical environment of human civilization, we may assume that the philosophical method of modern science similarly penetrates every area of human thought as well. Such philosophical penetration unavoidably extends such methods to influence the general search for knowledge, beyond the range of scientific particularities. If these methods gotten from science are corrupted by fallacy and error, so also will the larger body of human knowledge become corrupted.

Furthermore, these philosophical methods ultimately influence and direct much of humanity's overall worldview. This idea of a worldview, though abstract in its formulation, is in its implementation quite tangible and powerful, and is continuously reinforced by the intellect's interpretation of reality. You will remember in Journal Entry #14 the reader is introduced to the esteemed historian of science and innovation James Burke, through his book and PBS series The Day the Universe Changed.

Mr. Burke explains, “When we observe nature we see what we want to see, according to what we believe we know about it at the time. Nature is disordered, powerful and chaotic, and through fear of the chaos we impose system on it…We need to have an overall explanation of what the universe is and how it functions…we develop explanatory theories which will give structure to natural phenomena: we classify nature into a coherent system which appears to do what we say it does. This view of the universe permeates all aspects of our life. All communities in all places at all times manifest their own view of reality in what they do. The entire culture reflects the contemporary model of reality. We are what we know. And when the body of knowledge changes, so do we.”

So as the scientific method becomes distorted by philosophic materialism, so also will the extended field of human inquiry become distorted, according to the tremendous influence science exerts upon society. As a result, the conceptual status of reality inevitably diverges from- and ultimately rejects- the actually existing status of reality. This process is at the heart of my Disequilibrium Hypothesis, which is a measure of the degree of separation between actual reality and our ideas about that reality. To the extent this divergence increases in a society, so inevitably does that society’s imbalance and instability. As I point out in my book History Remembered, History Forgotten: as human thought goes, so goes human history.

In the preface I write that the human act is the consummation of the thought, even as the thought is the justification for the human act. We have seen the historical impulse to irrationalism conspicuously embodied in the darkest tyrannies of the twentieth century. We can be assured that if we continue to disregard this tendency to irrationalism within current scientific thought, the twentieth century’s Age of the Great Tyrants will be greatly surpassed by a Tyranny of the Intellect in the twenty-first century.

This, of course, would be the most insidious of all tyrannies. Though its illegitimate nature would be real enough- if not readily apparent- it would nevertheless enjoy a mantle of scientific respectability, as it labored to repress dissenting or contrary views. Such a result is unavoidable in that climate where the intellect defiantly determines what reality is, despite reality's counterclaim. But then, that’s the very heart and soul of modern ideology, isn’t it?

What must always be remembered, and forgotten only at our peril- and which obtains whether we are discussing the history of science or general human history- is this salient fact: whatever cannot be sustained by reason must surely be maintained by force. Standing as we are at the threshold of this tyranny, we are compelled to resolve the dilemma into which we’ve placed our civilization. To do less would be foolhardy.

Montag