The Scientists Supporting Obama’s Iran Agreement are Puppets

The scientists supporting the Iran agreement have immense skill in their areas of expertise, but foreign policy is not one of those. When the New York Times trumpeted the support of 29 “scientists” for Obama’s nuclear Iran rajast62agreement, a number of facts were misrepresented. However, this misrepresentation of scientific expertise as political expertise, accomplished by omission, is especially illuminating; for it not only shows how scientists can be made puppets, but it highlights a number of 20th century fallacies that are turning the West to into similarly enslaved wooden dolls.

It doesn’t matter how many times we find scientists whose entire life work is dependent on government grants, we just can’t believe that scientists are puppets. That’s because we have been virtually brainwashed into connecting the word “scientist” to both objectivity and wisdom. One wonders if “honest scientist” is about to become as much a laughing stock as “honest journalist” or “honest politician.”  One recent expose by the New York Times highlighted a connection between a clear conflict of interest and extraordinarily dubious scientific research finding that consumption of Coke and other soft drinks does not lead to obesity. Sadly, the objectivity of the Times was just a veneer covering over its failure to expose the backgrounds of the scientists supporting Kerry’s deal with Tehran.

Leaving the notion of objectivity among scientists who have been part of governmental bodies in the past, or who have had labs funded by government in the past (as many of these signers did), consider their wisdom. In fact, the slightest bit of honest journalism by the Times would have easily dispensed with the notion that, scientists or not, the key signatores to this letter of support are wise in matters of foreign policy.

For instance, one of the key signers, Frank Von Hippel, has been a proponent of unilateral denuclearization for decades. His understanding of the workings of nuclear devices may be excellent, but his policy application of this scientific knowledge has been extremely unwise.

Again, a second big name scientific signatore, Sidney Drell, believes nuclear weapons do not deter Drellmilitary aggression in the modern world. Such a presupposition might lead Drell to think that a failure of a nuclear treaty with Iran is a lesser evil than the military or financial actions needed to neutralize Iranian nuclear capability. Again, Drell’s scientific knowledge concerning the details of the Iranian agreement may be immense, but his policy application of his knowledge is extraordinarily inadequate.

Yet another big name scientist signing the letter in support of President Obama’s treaty with Iran, Freeman Dyson, also once favored unilateral American nuclear disarmament (p. 245). These three are among the four top names and typify the 29 signatores. In other words, when it comes to the subject of American foreign policy, this list of highly skilled scientists is basically another collection of far left radical liberals. If they are not financial puppets of the big government left, they are certainly ideological puppets: unseeing, lightweight, painted faces dragged about by the dark, hidden powers of liberalism as they are made to to dance in a false light of policy expertise and objectivity.

A comparison of Senator Schumer’s press release to the letter signed by the 29 leftist scientists clearly demonschumer-flag-pin-jpgstrates where science meets policy. For instance, Schumer carefully explains the weaknesses of the twenty-four day “waiting” period, despite the administration’s “innovative” approach of searching for tell tale radioactive isotopes. Schumer is fully capable of rebutting the “scientific consensus” of the 29 because of his policy and political expertise. Indeed, any dime store philosopher could go even further than Schumer in asking why on earth a regime would even ask for a twenty-four day waiting period if it was negotiating in good faith.

The cabarets of Western life are really only puppet shows. We’ve become enslaved to darkness and inhuman in our reckoning perhaps, in part, because we have been far too haphazard in drawing the lines between science and philosophy. Just as it is so easy to imagine that a consensus of 29 scientists must be right about the Iran agreement, so also, far too frequently, in every area of modern expertise we blur the lines and, in so doing, we drink falsehood with facts and madness with science. There is absolutely no logical reason to connect a knowledge of science with an expertise in foreign policy, but these random appeals to authority are so frequent in our culture that making the assumption has become second nature. The hollow callousness of the West has come from the sorcery of those who, often not being experimental scientists themselves, tell us that science teaches blind, materialistic atheism. That’s just a lie.fathers

Tragically, in the fields of archaeology, paleontology, in historical analysis, in public policy, in legal analysis, in psychology, in ethics, in virtually every aspect of modern society, we have, without blinking, allowed a person’s scientific or specific expertise in a branch of study to cover for an atheistic philosophy. We’re being blinded. It is imperative that educational institutions understand and teach the demarcation among the kinds of science, the limits of each category of science, and, once again, reach into our own American history to return to the philosophical logic that once made our institutions and our culture great.

Top Evolutionary Scientists Concede Darwin Makes About as Much Sense as Space Aliens

The theory is called “directed panspermia.” It was first proposed by Nobel Prize winning evolutionary

Crickscientist Francis Crick in a 1973 paper he co-authored with biochemist Leslie Orgel. Basically, these two say that man didn’t come from apes (well not entirely); mankind came from space aliens!

The question is, why did these top scientists reject the gradualism of neo-Darwinism in favor of a theory that sounds, well, silly?

Crick was a thorough, dedicated scientist and mathematician who was, with James Watson, one of the co-discoverers of the DNA molecule. Crick, though, realized that the DNA molecule was too perfect to have arisen by chance. Even given the eons of time postulated by the big bang theory of the origin of the universe, the complexity of a single cell makes its appearance by chance combinations of inert chemicals and proteins utterly impossible.

Thirty years after his discovery of DNA Crick wrote this about the most plausible explanation of the spontaneous generation of DNA from RNA: “What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely (my emphasis) sequence of events.”

If gradualism, one of the theoretical elements of evolutionary change in the reconstructed Darwinism of the 1960’s, is inadequate in explaining the origin of life, then another force, besides undirected materialistic ones, must be in play throughout the history of life on earth. If there is another, non-materialistic, force involved in the history of life, the Darwin theory is incomplete, and, therefore, inadequate. But wait! What if there were aliens who seeded earth with life? This theory solves the origin of life issue and accounts for the missing non-materialistic force that would, otherwise, render neo-Darwinism utterly incoherent.

Likewise, Leslie Orgel, the co-author of the theory of “directed panspermia” and a pioneer in the study of RNA as the evolutionary precursor toaliens DNA, was also not satisfied with any contemporary theory of life’s origin. Orgel’s last comment on the subject was that “almost everything else about the origin of life (except a timeline) remains obscure.” For Orgel and Crick, space aliens were as likely an explanation for life on earth as the reconstructed Darwin theory of the 1960’s that we teach our kids.

Essentially, in supposing extra-terrestrial sources for human life, Crick and Orgel threw in the towel on Darwinism and the neo-Darwinism of the 1960’s. In other words, for those who care little for scientific jargon, over thirty years ago, two top scientists, Crick and Orgel blew off the scientific theories of cellular origin found in virtually every high school textbook word-wide. If you haven’t been in school for a while, see this very same debunked theory is proudly spun on page 31 of this international biology textbook.

While there are a number of “fringe” groups that bring this inconvenient truth up before the public once in a while, for the most part all of this breaking news three decades later!

Even more amazingly, guess what the buried lead is? Sure, Crick and Orgel decided that space aliens provided a more likely scenario for the origin of cellular life than our kids’ evolution-based science curricula, but the real headline is that, in contrast to the random selection involved in the Darwin theory, these two top scientists chose Intelligent Design as the best possible explanation for life on earth. Here is the abstract from Crick and Orgel’s original paper:

“It now seems unlikely that alien01extraterrestrial living organisms could have reached the earth either as spores driven by the radiation pressure from another star or as living organisms embedded in a meteorite. As an alternative to these nineteenth-century mechanisms, we have considered Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately (my emphasis) transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings (my emphasis) on another planet…”

That’s correct. The intelligent designer these top scientists postulate isn’t God… No… no…. it’s space aliens… But the buried lead is that these scientists endorsed an intelligent design theory for the development of life on earth over thirty years ago, and no one has said a word. Instead, scientists have been fired and or vilified for proposing such a scandalous notion. Courts have broken their gavels decrying any curriculum that even suggests an intelligent designer for life.

In the end, no one makes fun of the audacity of suggesting that space aliens designed life on earth as opposed to the traditional world wide belief in a Creator. That’s because modern Western culture prefers to believe in space aliens than in an Omnipotent Creator.

It hasn’t always been this way. Western culture for victorious generation after victorious generation with eyescientists as bold as Francis Bacon, as ingenious as Gregor Mendel, and as magnificent as Sir Isaac Newton, accepted and extolled a munificent Creator. The West has become a tragically perfect illustration of that which was written: “professing themselves to be wise they became fools.”  Today, from the Hubble telescope to the electron microscope, we can see the wonders of creation as no other people ever dreamt and what do we choose to believe in? Space aliens.