History of the Destruction of Science
Deism had become popular in the 18th century which taught that God had set up a simple universe that worked like a clock works, dependent upon the laws of nature, and thus thereafter it did exactly as he had designed it to do. Deists didn’t believe in miracles, answers to prayers, prophecy, incarnation or resurrection of Christ because they didn’t believe God could or would interrupt the laws of nature. It is a view that puts God very distant in the past. With the false science theories being propagandized as fact during the time, many Christians, theologians, and apologists adopted the deist philosophy over time. Historians discovered that most theologians throughout Europe had the English Deism books in their libraries and implemented the deist ideas in their theological preaching and teaching thus popularizing deistic ideas into Christianity.
Nevertheless, deistic ideas took root and spread into the 19th century, often hidden in works on natural theology which were so prevalent in the early decades. (Natural theology considers the theological/moral truth about God that can be gleaned from the study of His creation, i.e., nature.) Brooke notes:
“Without additional clarification, it is not always clear to the historian (and was not always clear to contemporaries) whether proponents of design were arguing a Christian or deistic thesis. The ambiguity itself could be useful. By cloaking potentially subversive discoveries in the language of natural theology, scientists could appear more orthodox than they were, but without the discomfort of duplicity if their inclinations were more in line with deism.”
One Anglican clergyman wrote in 1836 that as a result of the growing influence of natural theology and German neology “a large portion of what passes as Christianity is but deism in disguise!”
In Germany and France deism flourished, especially in biblical scholarship, where the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) and Spinoza had great influence. Reventlow concludes his thorough study by saying:
“We cannot overestimate the influence exercised by Deistic thought, and by the principles of the Humanist world view which the Deists made the criterion of their biblical criticism, on the historical-critical exegesis of the 19th century; the consequences extend right down to the present. At that time a series of almost unshakeable presuppositions were decisively shifted in a different direction.“
As critical biblical scholarship gained the upper hand on the continent in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, its penetration into the British (and North American) churches was hindered, no doubt partly because of lasting effects of the evangelical revival led by the Wesley’s and Whitefield. So a revolution in theological and philosophical worldview was in full bloom by the early 19th century. Its development can also be traced in the history of geology and cosmogony.
Atheism also began to be introduced following the French Revolution and extending out from France to other parts of the world. This viewpoint was that there is no God. (Source)
In the early 19th century, the old-earth proponents believed that, prior to the work of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo, it was quite natural for Christians to take various verses in the Bible to imply an immovable earth surrounded by the revolving heavenly bodies because they had no philosophical or observational reasons to think otherwise. But once the new mathematical descriptions and telescopic observations had been made known, they were forced to reinterpret those verses so as to remove the apparent contradiction between the (scientific theories) revealed by Scripture and the truth revealed by God’s creation. In exactly the same way, the old-earth proponents reasoned, geology has brought forward (seemingly) observational proof that the earth is much older than previously thought and so Christians must interpret Genesis 1 and 6–9 differently, so as to harmonize Scripture with this newly discovered teaching of creation. This thinking developed in stages in geology generally and in the minds of individual geologists. At first only Genesis 1 was reinterpreted, while the Flood of Genesis 6–9 was seen as a global, geologically significant event. After 1830, Genesis 6–9 was reinterpreted to mean a local and/or geologically insignificant flood.
Since Bacon’s scientific method had advanced knowledge of how things work and the science behind them for more than a century, people had begun to accept everything that came from the scientific world as fact, in spite of any conflicts with the Bible. Clergy would just adjust thief teachings.
How did this science for truth turn to science for propaganda? As Anthony B. Sutton explained in his excellent expose’ How the Order Controls Education (1985):
First, the take-over of the Sheffield Scientific School at Yale. After returning from Europe Daniel Coit Gilman spent the next 14 years “in and around Yale, consolidating the power of the Order.”
“His first task in 1856 was to incorporate Skull & Bones as a legal entity under the name of The Russell Trust. Gilman became Treasurer and William H. Russell, the co-founder, became President. It is notable to note that there is no mention of the Order, Skull & bones, the Russell Trust, or any secret society activity in Gilman’s biography, nor in open records. The Order, so far as its members are concerned, is designed to be secret … The Order has been remarkably adept at keeping it’s secret. The Order fills the first requirement for a conspiracy – IT IS SECRET.” (Pages 6-7)
“The Sheffield Scientific School, the science departments at Yale, exemplifies the way in which the Order came to Control Yale and then [all of the higher educational institutions of] the United States.
“In the early 1850s, Yale science was insignificant, just two or three very small departments. In 1861 these were concentrated into the Sheffield Scientific School with private funds from Joseph E. Sheffield. [Daniel Coit] Gilman went to work to raise more funds for expansion.
“Gilman’s brother had married the daughter of Chemistry Professor Benjamin Silliman. [A member of the Order since 1837.] This brought Gilman into contact with Professor Dana, also a member of the Silliman family, and this group decided that Gilman should write a report on reorganization of Sheffield. This was done and entitled “Proposed Plan for the Complete Reorganization of the School of Science Connected with Yale Collage.” (Page 7).
Using members of the Order in Washington and Connecticut a plan was hatched to get Federal funding. The Morrill Land Bill was first introduced in 1857 and vetoed by President Buchanan in 1859, but later signed by President Lincoln.
“This bill now known as the Land Grand Collage Act donated public lands for State collages of agriculture and science … and of course Gilman’s report on just such a collage was ready”. (Page 8)
As Sutton explains, this was a crucial move in the Orders plan to gain control of all of the schools of higher learning in the States.
“The legal procedure was for the Federal government to issue land script in proportion to a state’s representation, but state legislatures first had to pass legislation accepting the script. Not only was Daniel Gilman first … to get Federal land script … [he] grabbed all of Connecticut’s share for Sheffield Scientific School … no other School in Connecticut received even a whisper until 1893… Of course it helped that a member of the Order, Augustus Brandegee [Initiated into the Order in 1849] was speaker of the Connecticut State legislature in 1861 when the state bill was moving through … Other member’s of the Order, like Stephen W. Kellogg [Initiated in 1846] and William Russell [Initiated in 1833], were either in the State Legislature or had influence from past service.” (Page 8)
The Order next moved on the State of New York’s share of Federal money and was able to do the same thing for Cornell University.
“Andrew Dickson White, a member of our trio, was the key activist in New York and later became the first President of Cornell. Daniel Gilman was rewarded by Yale and became Professor of Physical Geography at Sheffield in 1863.” (Page 8)
From this beginning the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all collages and institutions of higher learning. For the complete documented, diagrammed understanding of the steps that were taken and the people involved in this takeover I urge you to locate a copy of Sutton’s explosive book and read it.
In medical science, archaeology, space science, food science, and many others, the scientist can only research what is funded at the university they are affiliated with unless they are able to find outside funding, and those universities only get funding for areas of science that the establishment allows and funds through their front organizations. And there are plenty of rented white coats available for hire when Big Pharma or Big Ag need a scientific study to get a new product out that is unsafe by all reasonable means.
More and more studies simply cannot be replicated, so any false theories are not thrown out, but left floating as acceptable ‘fact’ in the hallowed scientific ethers, when they are nothing more than studies paid for and promoted by the companies who have a marked interest in proving their personal hypothesis.
See also ‘Is Science Reliable’ video by Scishow, and John Ioannidis: “Reproducible Research: True or False?”
Take for example a recent review of 67 blockbuster drug discovery research findings published in prestigious journals. A review of the studies found that three-fourths of them weren’t right. Bayer simply couldn’t replicate findings that were published in more than 75 percent of their drug trials. Another study of cancer research found that only 11 percent of preclinical cancer research could be reproduced, In 2017, Springer, the publisher of Tumor Biology, retracted 107 papers from one journal after discovering they had been accepted with fake peer reviews. – but the problem isn’t just in the pharmaceutical industry.
Even in physics, supposedly the most complex and most reliable of all sciences, two of the most flaunted physics results of the past few years — the announced discovery of both cosmic inflation and gravitational waves at the BICEP2 experiment in Antarctica, as well as the supposed discovery of superluminal neutrinos at the Swiss-Italian border — have now been retracted. While some error in studies should be tolerated due to mistakes, most is due to fraud and costs the American taxpayer in excess of $28 billion per year alone.
Only a third of the 100 studies published in three top psychology journals could be successfully replicated in a large 2015 test. Medicine, epidemiology, population science and nutritional studies fare no better, John Ioannidis (professor of medicine at Stanford University who specializes in the study of scientific studies) said, when attempts are made to replicate them.
“Diet is one of the most horrible areas of biomedical investigation,” professor Ioannidis added — and not just due to conflicts of interest with various food industries. “Measuring diet is extremely difficult,” he stressed. How can we precisely quantify what people eat? In this field, researchers often go in wild search of correlations within huge databases, without so much as a starting hypothesis. Even when the methodology is good, with the gold standard being a study where participants are chosen at random, the execution can fall short.
A famous 2013 study on the benefits of the Mediterranean diet against heart disease had to be retracted 3 years later by the most prestigious of medical journals, the New England Journal of Medicine, because not all participants were randomly recruited; the results have been revised downwards.
World renowned pediatrician, DR. ROBERT MENDELSOHN, had a chapter on the subject (The Devil’s Priests) in his 1979 offering Confessions of a Medical Heretic. Dr. Mark Studin stated in the American Chiropractor that, “Evidence-Based Medicine is NOT the trend. A perversion of Evidence-Based Medicine has become the trend and is here for the foreseeable future“. We now have yet another study verifying this fact.
“Invisible and abandoned“. That is how one of the oldest and most prestigious medical journals on the planet —- the British Medical Journal (BMJ) —- described what is taking place in today’s medical research. It is really nothing new, and it is certainly not much different than the revelations made by the New England Journal of Medicine in the late 1990’s that virtually 100% of the peer-reviewed scientific research on pharmaceuticals (drugs) is tainted by serious and usually multiple FINANCIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. That problem was (and still is) so wide-spread that The Journal said that it was impossible to find research that was not conflicted. Now they simply list the conflicts (many studies have slews). Now the impetus is shifting to studies that are considered “INVISIBLE & ABANDONED“. But what does this mean?
Due to Sunshine Laws and the Freedom of Information Act, a group of scientists led by Dr. Peter Doshi of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, recently looked through nearly 200,000 pages of abandoned studies. His group published their results in the latest issue of the British Medical Journal (“Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials: A Call for People to Publish the Findings“). What did the findings reveal? Only what you already knew. That companies with huge names (PFIZER, GLAXOSMITHKLINE, Roche, and others) have altered, doctored, or left out results of trials for popular drugs like Tamiflu, Neurontin, Seroquel, Paxil, Plavix, and numerous others, for decades.
Among the many ways big pharma has had their way with both the American people and the FDA is via “INVISIBLE STUDIES“. These are studies which, when the researchers figure out they are not going the way they want them to go, are either ended prematurely (abandoned is the industry’s term-of-choice) or simply not published (invisible). Either way, the results never see the light of day. As you will notice in a moment, this dramatically skews the study’s results. And guess what? It’s completely and 100% legal, and has been going on for decades.
For more examples of science fraud and answers on why it is so prevalent in science, see this article: ‘Why the epidemic of fraud exists in science today.‘
Scientists can manipulate data almost any way they deem fit. Data can be excluded, included and re-arranged to support the presupposition of any scientist. This was the case in the global warming hoax as exposed in Climategate when hacked emails showed how scientific data had been manipulated to show the earth was warming, a conclusion not supported by real, unblemished data.
Today, we are burdened with the public schools, controlled cable network programs, and other means of information continuing to advance the sacrosanct theories favored by the media and little is known about any science that is banned. Evolution and the big bang continue to be taught in school while creationism is banned, vaccines and pills are pushed from youth up while homeopathic and natural cures are suppressed, 70% of our food contains GMO’s, while all but 5% contains harmful pesticides in the ingredients, and many more frauds are committed for fame and money, or to comply with an agenda necessary for a new world order. Ultimately, its about the social pandering to guys in white lab coats. We’ve made scientists Gods while ignoring that they are people with greed, lust for power, and other very human traits.
Eisenhower in his farewell address warned that a “scientific-technological elite” dependent on government money would exert undue influence on government policy. Today we have the best science money can buy. Most grants to scientists and other academics at the university level come from the elite through their control of their foundations (see section on Philanthropy/NGOs). Because of this, the elite steer the direction of research by giving money for certain projects while not funding other avenues of research. All scientists are dependent on these grants and are thus controlled lackeys for the elite. Further, those projects yielding desirable results are snapped up by the elite’s private interests and used to extend their control and dominance and further particular aspects of their agenda. (GlobalistAgenda.org)
P-Values
Numbers don’t lie, right? Or are scientists intentionally using statistics to mislead us? The American Statistical Association’s (ASA) statement on p-values: context, process,and purpose says that, “Underpinning many published scientific conclusions is the concept of ‘statistical significance,’ typically assessed with an index called the p-value. While the p-value can be a useful statistical measure, it is commonly misused and misinterpreted.”
The JAMA Network gives an “analysis of P values reported in MEDLINE abstracts and in PMC articles from 1990-2015” where they conclude that “…almost all abstracts and articles with P values reported statistically significant results, and, in a subgroup analysis, few articles included confidence intervals, Bayes factors, or effect sizes. Rather than reporting isolated P values, articles should include effect sizes and uncertainty metrics.”
In the video below, Lissette Padilla explains how science manipulates research with P-Value.
Scientism
According to Discovery Institute, scientism is an effort to use the methods of science to explain and control every part of human life, in other words, the misguided effort to apply science to areas outside its proper bounds. C.S. Lewis was sceptical and highly critical of scientism as an ideology which in his view was confused with science and which tried to reduce everything that we can learn scientifically to materialistic blind undirected causes. He argued that scientism has the dehumanizing impact on ethics, politics, faith, reason, and science itself.
Scientism has generally had a close relationship with atheism, as atheism and scientism ideologically support each other. Followers of scientism do not believe in God and therefore use atheism as the base of their religion, and atheists use pseudoscience to support their claims, as well as evidence against God and the Bible. Strict scientism as a worldview is self-refuting since the scientism cannot be proven to be true through science. For other significant problems with scientism as far as its unworkability, please see William Lane Craig’s commentary on scientism entitled Is scientism self-refuting.
Since Scientists have an agenda to use “science” to support their denial of God, their techniques usually rely on pseudoscience. For example, the claim to know that God exists, despite the fact that it is technically scientifically impossible to disprove anything (i.e. negative proofs are impossible). Despite this, they continue to deny the existence of God without any real scientific proof. (Conservapedia)
Scientism, according to historian T.J. Jackson Lears, is the “faith” that “science has discovered (or is about to discover) all the important truths about human life.” Or, as one leading proponent of scientism—the late Stephen Hawking—put it: “The scientific account is complete. Theology is unnecessary.” (Source)
Sources: WakingTimes; How the order Controls Education; Scripture & science
See Also:
- Why Most Published Research Findings are False
- Lies & Truth in the History of Science – A. Martínez – 2/27/2020
Chronological History of Science /Science Frauds
MIT Study Confirms Anti-Maskers Understand Data Better Than Their Opponents
Fake Fact-Checkers label Washington Times Article on Importance of CO2 as False and Misleading
Fraud Study: Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons
Top NATO Scientist With Security Clearance Busted Spying for China
First Lawsuit Against COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Filed In US
John Kerry Defends Taking Gas-Guzzling Private Jet to Accept Climate Award in Iceland, “The Only Choice For Someone Like Me”
MIT Engineers Create Spinach That Act as Sensors and Wirelessly Send Emails
Study: COVID Vaccine Can Worsen Disease. Media Silent
Florida to Become First State to Disclose PCR ‘Cycle Threshold’ Data In COVID Tests
