The scientific establishment own and control the scientific journals which forbid the publication of any scientific law that contradicts their theoretical beliefs. Sacrosanct to the scientific establishment are such theories as evolution, an earth that is billions of years old, naturalistic cosmology (big bang, etc.), the Copernican principle, and Einstein’s theory of relativity, gravity, etc. – none of which have been proven with the scientific method. Banned from publication in the establishment scientific journals are science in favor of creationism, young earth, alternatives to naturalistic cosmology, geocentricism, etc. Ironically, all of the scientific methods to prove the sacrosanct theories have actually proven otherwise – especially that of geocentricism which only rests on the theory of relativity, a theory that cannot be measured and scientifically proven true or false, but gave the dying Copernican principle a crutch.
Sanctions against scientists who challenge those sacrosanct principles or attempt in the slightest way to prove a banned principle may be fired from their job or demoted, have their qualifications annulled, certainly denied publication in the approved scientific journals, denied research grants, and are no candidate for Nobel prizes – that’s for sure. If the find publication in non-establishment journals, then they are typically demonized and discredited by the establishment.
In addition our schoolbooks never admit doubt. You never read in our textbooks such phrases as; “it is the theory of.” Or “the speculation is,” etc. No, everything in the establishment printed “science” books is presented as known facts. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Ben Stein’s “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is a movie about the freedom of speech suppression to which Intelligent Design proponents are being subjected to by the atheistic American academic dictatorship.
Examples include Professor Herbert Dingle who found conclusive evidence that Einstein’s formula of relativity is incorrect. When he tried to get oany of the establishment journals to print his evidence, he was shocked to discover that none of them would. His attempts were blocked at every turn and he became upset at the deliberate efforts to suppress his important information. He eventually wrote a book on the proof, but few have heard of it, titled ‘Science at the Crossroads’.
The same thing happened to Robert Gentry. He is the world’s foremost expert on halo formations found inside of rocks and his study of polonium halos (that have a known radiation emission rate) prove the earth is not millions of years old, but only thousands, 6-10 thousand years old just as the Bible says. This discovery cost him his job. The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.
A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly “effervescing” specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.
An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly “froze” into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation.
The Academy (or establishment) has vehemently opposed Gentry’s radiohalo evidence as with all creation science, even claiming that the evidence for creation has been scientifically invalidated. We have repeatedly challenged the Academy to publicly explain where the polonium-halo evidence for creation has ever been scientifically invalidated. For over 15 years, they have refused to even try, for they know that their statement is insupportable when it comes to the polonium-halo evidence.
Fred Hoyle, considered one of the top 20 astronomers, and although an atheist, still recognized the absurdity of what he coined ‘the Big Bang’ theory and the clear signs of intelligent design in the universe. Hoyle wrote,
“Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
(Fred Hoyle, The Universe: Past and Present Reflections, Engineering & Science, Nov 1981, pp 8-12.)“If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter [Earth-based abiogenesis], without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true.”
(Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space, Omni Lecture at the Royal Institution, London, 1/12/1982.)“Imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik’s cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have a chance of arriving by random shuffling, of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.”
(Fred Hoyle, New Scientist, November 1981.)
Hoyle also derided the fundamentals of evolutionism as a completely inadequate explanation for life:
“The trouble was that in reading widely during my early teens I ran into the Darwinian theory, for a little while with illusions and then with less respect than adults with bated breath were wont to show. The theory seemed to me to run like this: ‘If among the varieties of a species there is one that survives better in the environment than the others, then the variety that survives best is the one that best survives.’ If I had known the word tautology I would have called this a tautology. People with still more bated breath, called it natural selection. I made them angry, just as I do today, by saying that it did nothing at all. You could select potatoes as much as you pleased but you would never make them into a rabbit. Nor by selecting oak trees could you make them into colonies of bats, and those who thought they could in my opinion were bats in the belfry.”
(Fred Hoyle, Mathematics of Evolution , 1999, p. 2.)
One of Hoyle’s most famous metaphors about the origin of life communicates the magnitude of the problem for evolutionists:
“That a living organism emerged by chance from a prebiotic soup is about as likely as that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a 747.”
(Marvin Olasky, Monkey Business: The True Story of the Scopes Trial, p 192.)
Though Hoyle was not a Biblical creationist or even a Christian, he eventually recognized the impossibility of Darwinian evolution. Hoyle regularly took to task the Darwinian establishment for ignoring the complex sources of information and information processing programs (like DNA) needed for the creation and continuation of life. He realised that life couldn’t have arisen by chance in a primordial soup on Earth. First, he tried to solve the problem by saying that if we had the whole universe to work with instead of Earth, then this might overcome the problem. Hoyle favored and popularized a view called panspermia, the notion that life originated somewhere else in the universe and was driven to earth by electromagnetic radiation pressure.
But eventually he realized that even this would be woefully inadequate as a materialistic explanation of life’s origin. In his 1981 book Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), he calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000 (one followed by 40,000 zeroes). Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), even a whole universe full of primordial soup wouldn’t have a chance.
Alas, Hoyle paid for his outright questioning of the materialist paradigm. In the 1950s, Hoyle had some ingenious ideas about stellar fusion, and predicted that the Carbon-12 nucleus would have a certain energy level (called a resonance) to enable helium to undergo fusion.8 His co-worker William Fowler eventually won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1983 (with Subramanyan Chandrasekhar), but for some reason Hoyle’s original contribution was overlooked, and many were surprised that such a notable astronomer missed out. Fowler himself in an autobiographical sketch affirmed Hoyle’s immense contribution:
‘Fred Hoyle was the second great influence in my life. The grand concept of nucleosynthesis in stars was first definitely established by Hoyle in 1946.’
Dr. Stott gives these and several more examples in the first video above. You can continue the video after Hoyle by clicking HERE
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
Chronological History of Science /Science Frauds
Florida to Become First State to Disclose PCR ‘Cycle Threshold’ Data In COVID Tests
Killer Cuomo Admits in Call with Jewish Leaders: Coronavirus “Initiatives Are Not Based on Science but Are Based Out of Fear”
The Doctors for Disaster Preparedness Give Lecture Warning How Medical Technocracy Made the Plandemic Possible
German Committee is Launched to Investigate and Prosecute those Responsible for Devastating Lockdowns
Researchers Retract Botched Anti-Hydroxychloroquine Study Which Was Used To Attack Trump
CDC journal, Emerging Infectious Diseases: “SARS CoV 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, U.S.” Shows they Created
Corman-Drosten Paper is Published describing the Protocol for Applying the PCR Technique to Detecting Covid
11,000 Scientists Sign Order Demanding Globalists Eliminate Billions of Humans
Fake News: Celebrities and Politicians Pass Off Fake Pictures Of Burning Amazon
