|Home Page | Subscribe | Archive: 2000 - 2012 | Cut to the Chase Radio | Planet X Town Hall|
|Earth | eBooks | ET | Humanity | Nostradamus | Planet X | SciTech | SCP | Space | War|
The Guardians of Dogma: Part 3 – Defenders of the New Religion
In 1949, J. Robert Oppenheimer observed, "There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors." (Life Magazine, October 10, 1949.) However, there are multitudes of barriers that continuously confront those that dare to think "outside the box." This can range from professional and public humiliation, to loss of livelihood.
Challenging the Big Bang
The idea that the universe, and time itself, originated from a primordial explosion - the Big Bang - has transcended the boundaries of scientific knowledge to become a key part of modern culture. But is this belief completely justified?
Did you know that there are alternative theories, many rooted in recent developments in theoretical physics? However, exposing the contradictions that bedevil the Big Bang theory is not an easy task.
Located at the website maintained by the Orion Foundation (http://orionfdn.org) are ten papers authored by the Los Alamos National Laboratory arXiv staff (now at Cornell Univ) that they maintain overturns Big Bang cosmology and provides evidence for the Genesis record of Creation. According to the authors of the site, "They were posted on the LANL arXiv on February 28, 2001, and prepared for release on the internet with the arXiv number imprinted on the first page of each paper.
However, the arXiv staff, being fearful of the results of the papers supporting the Genesis record of creation and the overturning of Big Bang cosmology, deleted these papers before they were released to the world." This is another example of scientific censorship at the very highest level and as they state, "a very clear abridgement of the First Amendment right of freedom of speech."
To delete a paper from a publication is one thing, and is, quite possibly as the Orion Foundation maintains an abridgement of the First Amendment right of freedom of speech, however not to publish, or restrict it even from being considered for publication is flat out censorship.
In January of 2003, The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) held their annual meeting in Denver, Colorado, and at that meeting, thirty-two of the world's leading journal editors and scientist -authors called for renewed vigilance and personal responsibility among their ranks whenever potentially "dangerous" research is presented for publication.
That statement resulted from a 9-10 January workshop, sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences and the Center for Security and International Studies (CSIS) at the urging of the American Society of Microbiology, on policies for publishing potentially sensitive, peer-reviewed research. The reason for this call for "vigilance" on the part of publications was centered, according to the association, on concerns that potentially dangerous information could very well fall into the hands of "terrorists." However, however you try to twist it, it is very thinly veiled, censorship.
The Public Library of Science (PLoS), a nonprofit organization of scientists and physicians committed to making the world's scientific and medical literature a public resource agrees and was quick to point out in a statement at their website, http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org, "Scientific discoveries have, on occasion, inadvertently contributed to the development of dangerous new weapons and threats to the global environment. It would be comforting to imagine that scientific journals can help protect us from the dangers of the dark side of knowledge.
However, journal editors are not clairvoyant. The benefits and dangers that a new discovery holds are rarely immediately evident, and the discoveries that have brought the greatest benefits to society have often had the most overt potential for danger. The identification of the agent that causes a deadly disease, and the development of methods for culturing the deadly agent, can be viewed as critical steps toward development of a vaccine, or a cookbook for bioterrorists. While it is possible to imagine a research report whose immediate danger is obvious and clearly outweighs the potential benefits, such cases almost never occur.
A policy in which editors base a decision to withhold publication based on their judgment of the balance between the potential harm vs. benefit is simple, arbitrary censorship.
It is naive to imagine that the censorship of scientific ideas and discoveries based on their foreseeable potential for destructive use would significantly diminish the danger of terrorism. Instead, limits on intellectual freedom and the free flow of scientific information would stifle the scientific creativity that is vital to our defense against terrorism and other, greater threats to human welfare."
"You want happy in klazy world? No talk moonbeam to blind man; no talk music to deaf man; and never, not ever you talk sex to eunuch. Him just get angry, sometime violent."
In my opinion one of the most knowledgeable and eloquent authorities on this New Religion - The Church of Progress is one of its greatest antagonists, Independent Egyptologist, John Anthony West.
John is an American writer, researcher, and independent Egyptologist West is a proponent of the Symbolist view of Egypt, which interprets Egyptian art, architecture, and spirituality as a unified high sacred science rather than a product of superstitious materialism, a view held by many academic Egyptologists, and has been the proverbial thorn in the side of mainstream Archeologists/Egyptologists for nearly two decades. John Anthony West delivered a seismic shock to archaeology in the early 1990's when he and Boston University geologist Robert Schoch revealed that the Great Sphinx of Giza, Egypt, showed evidence of rainfall erosion. Such erosion could only mean that the Sphinx was carved during or before the rains that marked the transition of northern Africa from the last Ice Age to the present interglacial epoch, a transition that occurred in the millennia from 10,000 to 5000 BC.
He is also founder of the Ancient Wisdom Foundation, a not for profit educational foundation designed to help finance research into the big questions of lost knowledge and ancient civilizations.
Entering the Hall of Ma'at
To the ancient Egyptians Ma'at was a concept of truth, justice and balance. To the creators of the website that bares its name, that also was the intent to promote truth, justice and balance.
However, after reading a dozen or so reports that are posted there, while I can't attest to the truth and justice part, after all both are just perceived virtues anyway, I certain can comment on "balance." and that would be to state without malice or without out any reservation, balance was certainly in short supply. I went back to the site's title page, and then I began to sense something interesting.
On the opening page, the website's authors state," The aim of this site is to provide a well-reasoned case for the mainstream version of ancient history. We will present articles that validate our true heritage and that dispute the proposals used to support the belief in a lost civilization that seeded the familiar ancient cultures of the world.
Many readers of alternative literature are interested in the mainstream version of human history so that they can make a fair comparison and draw their own conclusions. Therefore, it is imperative that the established theories be presented in a form that is educational, entertaining and easily available so that they may be more easily understood.
At this site, we seek to challenge the validity of the alternative propositions by reasoned and logical arguments founded in evidence.
Ancient history can sometimes be perceived as dull and uninspiring, so it is not surprising that many readers are attracted by the more exciting version of events provided by the proponents of a lost civilization. However, the conventional reconstruction of our ancient past is founded on historical evidence collected from many years of excavation and subjected to rational analysis. Conventional theories always seek to explain all the available evidence, not selected parts of it.
History cannot be written based on possibilities supported by evidence that may, or may not, turn up at some future time; rather, we are convinced that it must be based on material which is present, checkable, and verifiable or falsifiable. It is therefore essential that people seeking to challenge mainstream theories provide verifiable scientific evidence in support of their claim."
"We will present articles that validate our true heritage." If ever the question of Science viewing itself as not an intellectual discipline but rather as a religion, I think that this pretty well settles that question.
"and that dispute the proposals used to support the belief in a lost civilization that seeded the familiar ancient cultures of the world." I was fascinated to read this as the impression of the overall view of the site was that it was a blanket and all encompassing look at History and ideas, this statement ... in their statement of purpose or existence appears to me to be rather focused.
"Many readers of alternative literature are interested in the mainstream version of human history so that they can make a fair comparison and draw their own conclusions. Therefore, it is imperative that the established theories be presented in a form that is educational, entertaining and easily available so that they may be more easily understood. At this site, we seek to challenge the validity of the alternative propositions by reasoned and logical arguments founded in evidence." When upstarts challenge the one true God/Science, it is important that its clergy be more assertive in bringing forth the message of the doctrine of the Church.
I find absolutely no problem with this, at first reading. However, let's look a bit closer at the "reasoned and logical arguments founded in evidence" that are presented so we the uneducated heathens can easily understand, as we continue our examination of this assault on free and creative thought in the next installment.