A quick note to the more secular followers of our We Must Unite! movement: You, also, are welcome here and are a 
member in good standing. I write this not to convert everyone. As it has been said before “For those who believe in God, 
no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe in God, no explanation will suffice.”
   And I accept this with no hostility towards anyone but simply write this out of a sense of duty. For there are some 
elite sectors of society that now hold traditional values in utter contempt. "Science" now somehow justifies every new 
radical, brainless notion of the Far Left. And that hostility towards basic, traditional values has taken on a more and 
more militant turn. Despite being a country founded on freedom of religion, I even fear that religion is turning into a 
critical fault line in today’s society/cultural wars.
   It should not happen that way, I am against it happening that way, but I fear that it is still going to happen that way 
anyway. Thus, my article: I simply choose to defend the reasonableness of belief in God - and the reasonableness of still 
getting along with each other even if we hold different beliefs about God. With this said, I now present the following 
article to all our readers – both the religious and less religious equally alike.

                                               IN THE BEGINNING … GOD!

   For those of you with just a little Bible knowledge: The Bible opens with Genesis 1:1 – “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” So, a simple test: are there things that we can trace, all the way back to their beginning point? And, if so, would we wind up back at God? If God was at the beginning – and you trace something back to the beginning – do you wind up back at God?

 

A GENERAL TEST FOR OUR PROPOSITION

   I, as a believer, say yes – and that there are many things that can take us down this path. For the moment, however, let us just start with a general test of this matter. For how, precisely, could our universe even have a beginning – and then be where we are at right now? It is not as straightforward a process as one might assume. For example:

   We have entropy. What this means is that, if the universe is around long enough then it will eventually burn out. And thus, we will all wind up being nothing but exhausted bits of (former) energy. I will call this the Existential Deadline. After a certain amount of time, everything burns out and is done doing anything for ever after.

   But here is the problem when you reject God and can only work with natural processes. We know that the universe has not been around long enough (at least in its present form) to hit this deadline. We can be sure of this because I am not writing this article to you as a permanently inert heat ball. And this fact leaves us with only a limited number of possibilities:

   1) The universe has not been around this long (at least in its present form) and therefore had a point where it did not exist. Which means that there must have been some point where it went from not existing to existing. But some people like, say, Carl Sagan want to maintain that science calls for a universe that “Is all there is, or ever was or ever shall be.”

   But then how could it have had a point of non-existence? And then something made it start having existence – when there is nothing else out there (but it) in the first place? Or we now go with a second possibility.

   2) The universe has always existed but not in its present form. Therefore, to solve these problems, ‘science’ (the distorted version) ultimately had to come up with some form of a Big Bang theory. It is simply assumed that the universe used to be a tiny little egg of matter, lying inert for an indefinite duration, that is then acted upon by some quote “perturbation unknown”. This then jump starts the current process – to now have the universe be the way that it is today. But where does this ‘perturbation unknown’, itself, come from? If all of the universe is in an inert state, and the universe is all that there is, then how can there still be a ‘perturbation unknown’ – outside of the universe – so that it could then act upon it to do the jump start?

   Thus, how does the simple use of some verbiage somehow make something become any less ‘religious’? The use of different verbiage (calling it some type of a ‘perturbation unknown’) does not a ‘scientific’ make. But what about the third possible explanation for how the universe is where it is today?

   3) There must be a something – more than just the physical universe – that does not have to act under the constraints of natural law. From before: natural processes can only go back so far, thus, it is ultimately a linear logical reasoning that has to take you the rest of the way. If all you can keep going back with is natural law and a natural universe, you will eventually hit a some point where you simply have to assume that something was there just because it was there. And since there is nothing currently in nature that has this capability (to be there just because it is there) then there must be a Something Else (besides just this) that must exist also.

   This is where, say, the Ancient Greeks started off from. They used to simply refer to this as First Cause or the Unmoved Mover – and accepted that it was just a Something Different. So, the misuse of science does a disservice by simply referencing a ‘perturbation unknown’. Why is it any less religious than, say, the Ancient Greeks – since it is ultimately a distinction but without any real difference? Or, for that matter, what about the Ancient Hebrews?

  The scoffers may not think much of me for saying so but the ultimate reference on this matter that I find to be the most scientific is the Voice that came from out of the Burning Bush. For me this is ultimately the most scientific way of wrapping up this point. You may remember the story: Moses asked how the Children of Israel would know what God he was talking about – when he was to say that God had spoken to him. Do you remember what he was told?

   He was told to just tell them that “I AM THAT I AM” – has sent you. And this has never been thought through thoroughly by most Bible readers. What he was being told is that they would know what precise God is being talked about by referring to …

 

THAT WHICH IS SIMPLY BECAUSE … IT IS (OR “I AM THAT I AM”)

   We have already seen, just by linear logical reasoning, that no matter how you approach the matter you are still ultimately stuck with some form of “that which is simply because it is”. But are we to assume that if we simply say “God” (rather than, say, a “perturbation unknown”) that we are suddenly less ‘scientific’.

   At the end of the day, whether you call it “I AM THAT I AM”, First Cause or a ‘perturbation unknown’ there is still only so far that the physical sciences can take you. Once you are forced back to this point you have no choice but accept a Something Else behind it that does not have to do natural law and is beyond the natural universe. Or there is nothing to do that initial jump start of the whole process in the first place.

   It is just pure logic that takes you to the point where you have to realize that there must, ultimately, be a something that simply is just because it is. So why should the type of verbiage you use make you any more (or less) ‘scientific’?

   And, thus, I see no logical reason why our Scriptures can’t describe God as THAT WHICH IS SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS – and have it be just as logical a possibility as any other one. And/or just as scientific also. And this would clearly be the most logical way to connect us back to the very beginning point as it relates to our current physical universe. So … what does strictly natural law have to (ultimately) say about this? Just that “We are here simply because we are here and simply because we are here” is the best that it can do.

  But let us now move on to a more concrete discussion. We have talked about the universe itself but what about some of the specific elements that make up our universe? If you trace each of these to a beginning point – do their beginning points also lead us back to God?

 

NOW, LETS TRY OUT A FEW PARTICULARS . . .

   Since this is (hopefully) a basic discussion, I will stick with just a few basic items. I will focus on the following:

      1) The primary building block for all the universe: The Amazing Atom.

      2) The primary building block for all the living universe: The Impossible Existence of the Living Cell (But it still exists?)

      3) There is the ‘jump start’ of the universe (that we have already talked about). But what about the ‘jump start’ that every one of us must go through to start living in this universe? 

      4) There is the ultimate outcome of what you get from all of the living species, that is, – a nature that does not jump. But has still (somehow) left behind a jumped status between every species within nature. And, finally,

     5) The Origin of Order itself– how the whole process itself is an important ‘beginnings’ question. I am leaving this one for last because it is simply a little more lengthy than the others.

 

1) THE AMAZING ATOM

   A repeat of our simple logic. If the universe really is an “In the beginning … God” affair, then each time you take something back to the beginning – it should take you back to God. And it does, e.g., like the Amazing Atom. Starting simply: an atom consists of the heavy nucleus, the protons and the electrons.

   In the nucleus, you have all the protons clustered together with each other. BUT (but, but, but, but, but) they are all also positively charged – and yet still congregate with each other. Do you remember that like charges ALWAYS repel? And since all protons are like charges, they will ALWAYS repel – if, that is, there is nothing but natural law at work. Yet they do not repel so … is it possible that there is more than just natural law at work?

   Outside the nucleus, it is surrounded by all electrons – all bonding together properly to maintain the cohesion of the atom. Except that all electrons are also all negatively charged – and therefore repel each other (if left strictly to natural law). Yet they do not repel so … is it possible that there is more than just natural law at work?

  In short, what would happen if you were to pour out a bag of electrons and a bag of protons into space? How would they configure themselves if things were just left to the natural course of things? It would not form as it is now. In essence, a Something would have to hold the electrons together against their will, then a Something would have to hold the protons together against their will and then a Something would have to activate motions in such a way that a countervailing force would then keep things stable from then on. Which we now have – and this force is given names by scientists; but which would never have happened strictly naturally.

   Now, just for the sake of argument, lets’ say a Scripture passage will be our first foray out of strictly natural law. I will refer to Colossians 1:17 where it reads “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” That is, that the ‘cosmic glue’ (that causes the structure of the atom to defy the physical laws of the universe) is like God’s little finger being in the middle of the atom – and that that is what is holding it all together. Or how “by him all things consist”.

   Next suppose another ‘silly’, non-scientific notion. What would it take for the entire earth to melt away – and with an enormous heat involved? Most scientists would have a difficult time thinking of anything that would cause the earth to simply start melting away – and then, literally, melt into nothingness. For, after all, doesn’t science say that matter can neither be created or destroyed? And, yet this Biblical ‘silliness’ is a matter of sheer simplicity itself.

   Suppose the cosmic glue factor should be allowed (or be caused) to slip apart. Like, say, God removing his little finger from the center of the atom. What would happen is that the atoms would start ripping apart. The outermost layer of the earth’s atoms would be the starting point at simply splintering into nothingness. As the outer layers would vanish, then the inner layers would no longer have any restrains and the process would continue until all the earth would totally ‘melt’ away. And to do so with a ‘fervent heat’.

   And as the apostle Peter writes, “and the elements shall melt with fervent heat.” Note even his precise terminology “the ELEMENTS shall melt …” The reason the earth will melt away “with a fervent heat” is because the very elements themselves will be melting away. And the only way that anything can totally ‘melt’ away (seemingly defying the natural law that matter cannot be destroyed) is through the loosening of the ‘cosmic glue’.

   Thus, you have no logical, scientific explanation for the configuration of the atom – but you have a Scriptural one. And, in step two, if you assume the Scriptural explanation is true then the seemingly absurd spectacle of the very elements “melting with a fervent heat’ is, in fact, quite scientific. That is exactly what would happen, and how it would happen – scientifically – if there was first a cosmic glue (and then there was its removal.)

   Thus, we have gotten back to another beginning point – this time at the main building block of the universe. And it somehow forms in a way that does not seem to be very ‘scientific’ – and yet has still managed to form. It could not form together ‘scientifically’ in the way that it did – and yet it still did. So, what, ultimately, caused it: something ‘scientific’ – or something else? And, again, strictly natural law can only say that “It formed that way simply because it formed that way and simply because it formed that way”. That is the best that it can do.

 

2) THE IMPOSSIBLE CELL

   ‘Scientifically’ the cell is also put together in a way that is not possible – and yet still came together that way anyways. So, just using linear logical reasoning – and being neither ‘scientific’ nor ‘religious’ – is it at least possible that there exists a something else (beyond just ‘scientific’) that made it so it was possible – since it did, in fact, still happen? And I am just asking a logic question – not trying to be ‘religious’.

   Example one of this: say that you are just dealing with the chemical components of living cells (but not inside a living being). They will bond together – in a natural setting – in a way that will ALWAYS form what is called a perfect covalent bond. You look at it under a microscope and you just see one item. But in all actual living cells, under the same microscope, you will see a shadow effect from the bonding ALWAYS happening with a skew angle involved. So how did they bond together this way? All that exists, we are told, are natural processes. And all natural processes would work differently than this and yet … here we still are.

   But then there is the more fundamental problem about our basic cell structures. All scientists, atheists included, acknowledge that DNA can not possibly exist without having RNA exist first. And that RNA cannot possibly exist without having DNA exist first. So, ‘scientifically’ we have neither of them existing. But in actual reality (where something more than just ‘scientific’ could, at least possibly, exist) you have both. So, does actual reality contain more than just ‘scientific’? While strictly natural law just says that “They got here simply because they got here and simply because they got here.” Again, the best that it can do.

 

3) A QUICK SUMMARY – FOLLOWED BY YET ANOTHER JUMP START PROBLEM

   I have already mentioned three instances of this (the beginnings issues) so far. The universe itself needed an initial ‘jump start’ (a fact that even atheists admit). But cannot answer what was (also) there to do the jump starting; their ‘perturbation unknown’.

   The atom had to have an initial happening where it got force fitted into the right configuration. Next, that it got inserted into some type of a containment field. And all as the only way to keep it stable – after forming in a way that it would not (naturally) have formed. 

   The human cell is the third instance. First you must have the one thing (DNA) to have the other (RNA). Then you must have the other before you can even get to the first one. Thus, like all things in science, the process can only take you so far (to a point of beginning?) then you must have a ‘something else’ that takes it from there.

   Otherwise, you would now be reading something being written by an inert heat ball. Plus, even this would still have to have happened in spite of there being no such thing as an atomic structure to have even allowed to it to get that far. And, even it could get that far, there would still be no such thing as living cells getting formed from these (non) atoms to get to any type of a something that could be doing this writing in the first place. And on we could go – if all there was was nothing more than just natural causes only. But now to a fourth one: what about actual life as it lies there in the human womb?

   What does the actual jump start in this instance? When we are talking about human life as it exists in the womb? For the basic problem is that a brain is either working or not working. And what causes a brain (that is not working) to be told to start working – and then have it begin working?

   For example, I am injured, and my brain stops working. It never simply restarts itself; some form of CPR is always needed. But this is also the state we start our lives in when we are in the womb. We are brain dead and (were it at any other point in life) we would need an intervention.

   But none is done. So how does the brain first get started if there is nothing there to start it? Look at the example of your car. You give the engine that first kick of electricity, it starts and then (through its operations) it keeps generating its own electricity and sending it back to the battery. This is the self-sustaining process of both automobile engines and human brains.

   The jump start begins the process, the process feeds back to the beginning point and then it is self-sustained through to the next cycle. But we start the engine to the car ourselves (it does not start on its own) and nothing (that we are aware of) starts the brain for that first firing. So how does it still fire?

   Also: why does this process only work that first and only time? If you could have a car that could jump start itself, then why would it work one only time – when you first buy it – and never again? Yet we have a brain that seems to jump start itself – but then can only do it on that first and only time. Why?

   It is because it is APPOINTED that way. That is not the way that it would work ‘scientifically’. Science would say that the one car (the mother) would have to be the one to give the other car (the infant in the womb) that initial jump start that then begins the self-sustaining process. Except that it does not – and nothing else does either. And why does it only work that one time?

   It is because “It is APPOINTED unto every man once to die and after that the judgment.” It works that way that one first time (a self-jump start) by way of an appointment. And it never works that way again (all by itself) because you are only appointed to it but one and only one time. Natural law on all of this: “It starts just because it starts and just because it starts” – and nothing more to say after that.

 

4) OR: BREAK SOMETHING DOWN TO ITS MOST BASIC FORM – AND GOD TAKES IT FROM THERE?

   Said the only intellectually honest Darwinist that has ever lived – a Charles Darwin – “Nature does not jump”. He said this in the context of the future after he would be gone. He meant that if you cannot arrange all of the species into a neat line – and with no “leaps” between them – then you should stop believing in his theory. His one flaw in how he argued it? He assumed that the fossil record would be needed as the way to answer this question.

  But science is now more advanced than he was aware of at that time. We can now observe the configuration of all of the species under a microscope – and that there are many hundreds and thousands of “leaps’ between every species. And that it remains that way no matter how you try to do the arrangement. So, if nature does not jump then what has caused the ‘jumped’ status between all of the species?

  And, if Darwin is not a good enough critic for you on the question of Darwinism, then the final analysis piece of this paper (which follows) will delve more deeply into why he was right that “nature does not jump”. So … again: break something down to its most basic level (or take it back to a point of beginning) and you get jumping species’ (in a natural universe that does not jump), things that make up the building blocks of life that had to have been placed, you see everyone’s first hospital experience where you get ‘jump started’ from something that is not physically present on the premises, etc.  And strictly natural law? “The gaps in species are simply there just because they are there and because they are there.” The best that it can do.

 

5) THE ULTIMATE BEGINNING POINT ARGUMENT: IT’S AN ORDERLY WORLD (BUT WHY?)

   As mentioned earlier, I saved this for last because it is a little lengthy. But it is the most ultimate beginning of the beginning’s questions. For both the skeptics and believers maintain that it is an orderly world. But where does the Order, itself, come from?

   The skeptic says that the Order just naturally ‘evolved’ out of Chaos. On the other hand, the real argument of the believer is not just that there is an Argument-from-Order to be made. It is that we live, not just in an orderly universe, but in a universe where it is an Order-from-Order universe – and not one that became orderly by, say, evolving out of Chaos.

   So, you have two competing ‘beginnings’ involved: does our entire process (of Order) ‘evolve’ out of Chaos? Or does our Order only come from out of Order in the first place? Thus, we have ourselves another ‘beginnings’ issue and we will assume, for the moment, that the skeptics are right: that the world is an Order, but it is an Order from Chaos. But then what would it actually look like?

   Consider: There is a good argument to be made about the absurdity of an Encyclopedia Britannica evolving out of random ink splashes by monkeys. And then making the point about a lot of the universe being equally unlikely. But it is still not the best argument.

   Granted, the arguments of Order through Chaos can wear thin. The argument is that if you just have enough time then even the impossible becomes the inevitable. And, thus, Order will always evolve out of Chaos if you just have enough millennia involved.

   But in the encyclopedia example, is there even enough time available in the entire universe to accommodate it? Eventually, entropy will turn us all into fully exhausted heat balls. And the Encyclopedia example is so extreme it seems that there would not be enough time to get it done to even beat this Existential Deadline: the amount of time in the whole universe before we all become an exhaust product after entropy has done its full run.

   So, there is a point where the “Given enough time” argument is too strained for most reasonable people. But still, there is a much better argument available. For the universe directly declares itself to be a case of Order-from-Order as well as just being a good Argument-from-Order.

   It revolves around two problems for the skeptic – not just one. The first is the more talked about probabilities problem. But there is also what I would refer to as the sorting problem. For, in the encyclopedia example, let’s say someone has asserted that an encyclopedia is now sitting before us that evolved that way. But here are the questions that I would ask – even apart from the questions of probabilities and statistics:

  Where are all the rejects at? If you still want to argue that an Encyclopedia can evolve itself, then what about all the unsuccessful attempts along the way? Where are all of them at right now? And, lastly, since it is siting in front of us in a neat and sterile environment then who did this sorting process? So that you now have an Encyclopedia in a sterile environment in front of us? Arguing that an encyclopedia can evolve doesn’t explain how it came to be sitting on my desk – so there would still need to be something more involved even if it was just someone doing a sorting process and then placing it into a neatly sorted area.

   As to our encyclopedia itself: once a random ink blot got involved with one of the attempted copies then the copy would be no good. (And this is like all natural processes – natural processes don’t work like something being written on a piece of paper. Where you can just erase something out of existence to get a fresh do-over.) This is the basics of the sorting problem. It is a second problem in addition to the probability one.

   Another example: picture, for a moment, a group of twigs with a “MWC” configuration – shaped to make my initials. If it is the result of nature (only), then it would be out in nature. And whatever caused the stirrings that produced the “MWC” twig configurations would be surrounding it with a mass of chaos and randomness. Thus, if a “MWC” configuration was, instead, at the end of my driveway I would still know, and beyond all doubts, that at least that particular “MWC” was not the result of random chance.

   That is, if something is caused by random chance it will be encompassed by randomness and the results of random chance. If it is not encompassed by randomness, then it was not caused by randomness. And all the theoreticals about “Given enough time” become irrelevant. This is another aspect of the sorting problem. How does a random event get neatly sorted out to become a neat line event – even while (presumably) being caused only by randomness?

   That is why I can always out argue someone who points to an encyclopedia on my desk – and talks about how it could have evolved over enough time. Not the one on my desk – because it is neatly on my desk and is in a neat and tidy environment. Therefore, at least that particular one, came about by a neat and orderly process. However, this is what all nature ultimately looks like also.

   So how is all the universe in an orderly and sterile environment – with no surrounding chaos? It is because it is Order that came from Order – and Chaos had nothing to do with it. Similarly, there are also neat and tidy separations between all items in the universe.

   For example (and referring back to “nature does not jump”): Is it possible to arrange all living species’ in a neat line such that Species #1 has only one minor leap to ‘evolve’ into a Species #2, Species #2 has only one minor leap to ‘evolve’ into Species #3 and etc.? No, it is not. Thus, we have another case of a sorting problem for ‘science’ (as some define it).

  If you ‘evolve’ things from, say, a step #1 to a step #10 you still must go through Steps #2 thru 9 along your way there. The problem is that, if enough trials will make even the impossible inevitable, then it must also make everything that is slightly less impossible become the inevitable also. Thus, you can’t get to “the impossible eventually becoming the inevitable” – making it to a Step #10 – without making all that is slightly less than impossible becoming the inevitable too – and thereby also creating Steps #2 through #9 along the way.

   But that is not how things are actually formed. You, again, have a neat sorting of all the species. All are distinctly in their own category, with their own particulars involved and do not, in fact, ‘link’ to other species in a way that shows a strictly natural fusion from one to the other. No matter how you do the arrangement, a Species #2 will still have, say, ten thousand steps between it and Species #1 while there will be, say, ten thousand steps between it and a Species #3 and so on one could go. But what happened to the intervening steps?

   But we need to come to the final step of reasoning here. As laid out, there are two problems – not just one – in trying to stick with an orderly world but maintaining that it all arose out of chaos. There are not just the probabilities involved but what I would refer to as a sorting problem.  But here is where we come to our final step – it is where the two problems merge together to create a final impossibility for an Order-but-from-Chaos argument vs. an Order-from-Order argument.

   For suppose we go back to the Encyclopedia experiment – and try to ‘evolve’ one of them through random chances. Suppose there is no sorting process and the efforts are done in total randomness and through total randomness. The first problem is that you can’t ‘evolve’ straight from total randomness to the Encyclopedia Britannica without going through all of the intermediate steps.

   First, you would have to have 10 to the massive powers of failed efforts to get one copy that has one correct entry while all the rest is still gibberish. And ten to the massive powers before you would get one with two correct entries and the rest is gibberish. The same with one that has three correct entries …

   … and then when you are at success minus just three gibberish entries how many efforts are gone by? Until you then get to minus two, minus one and success – a perfectly formed encyclopedia. With each level taking 10 to the massive powers of failures before reaching it. And here is why Darwin is the only intellectually honest Darwinist.

   Without going through a prolonged argumentation, he still stated, correctly, that “nature does not jump”. You do not get to go to Evolution Point Ga-jillion without going through all the intermediate steps as well. He even set this up as a future test for his theory. He stated that if nature does not start simple – and move simply through every step – then his theory should be rejected by future generations. His theory has failed his test but how many people do hear acknowledging his own arguments?

   So, here we now sit with the time involved from a ten to the ga-jillionth power of failed efforts where not a single workable entry occurred in any of the randomly produced encyclopedias. Then there was the time involved of the failed efforts that occurred to produce a copy with one correct entry. And so on. Won’t we eventually wind up with a ten to the ga-jillionth power of time involved, a ten to the ga-jillionth level of matter and energy expended and what if … the entire physical universe is not even big enough to accommodate the process?

   Suppose the process has such unwieldy probabilities that you will wind up using all of the time up to the Existential Deadline. Suppose it is so unwieldy – that just the small amount of matter and energy involved in each transaction (times the number of transactions that it would take to do a “impossible eventually becoming the inevitable”) would exceed all of the matter and energy that exists in the entire universe? Then it is, in fact, not only the impossible but it will also remain impossible – and throughout all the entire continuum of all time and space.

   This is what leads to something called the Borel’s limit. Put clumsily, it seems – at first – to be hard to understand. Essentially, you have, say, a 1 in 10 to 100th power of improbability. Then you have, say, a 1 in 10 to the 199th power of improbability. But you then switch into a 0 in ten to the 200th power of improbability and nothing ever changes: you just keep going to a 0 in 10 to the 2000th power, 0 in 10 to the 200,000th power etc. Where the impossible becomes truly the impossible and remains that way no matter what.

   But is not difficult to understand this when you realize what is really happening. Borel’s limit is simply the point where more and more improbable odds (the number of failed attempts keeps becoming larger and larger) will eventually collide with more and more ‘sorting’ problems (how do you deal with the time, matter and energy being expended that is getting larger and ever larger) until it has to hit that final breaking point: where there is no longer enough time, matter and energy available in the entire physical universe to sustain the process and to keep it going.

   In the ‘evolving’ encyclopedia problem suppose I could turn the entire physical universe into paper and ink products to help sustain the experiment. But even after using up the entire new universe we are still just scratching the surface of the number of experiments needed (because of the extreme odds) to have a single success. Thus, after having run out of all of all time, matter and energy we are now forced to end it. It has ended unsuccessfully because it ultimately had to: the numbers involved were simply too large.

   But it is best to end with a simple logical proposition: forgetting the odds question for a moment (or even Mr. Borel and his limit) what type of a universe does it look like to you? Does it look like a universe of one chaotic mass with just the few pin pricks of Order in it that it takes to sustain us? Or does it look like one orderly sphere with everything ‘sorted’ into it in an orderly manner?

   When you actually do the logic and think about what a universe of Order-from-Chaos would have to look like does our universe actually look like that? No, it does not. And it is because that is not the nature of our universe’s origins – and end of argument.

   Therefore, it is time to end the matter of arguments. I simply urge all people of good will to accept the reasonableness of belief in God – as well as the reasonableness of us all getting along however we may feel about God. In a country founded on religious freedom you would not think an argument about the reasonableness of belief is even necessary. But, as I said at the start of this argument, I worry about our country’s present course. I pray that we will, indeed, remain a country where such an argument is not even needed. But I am uncertain of our nation’s present course.

 

PART ONE: SCIENCE AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR

 

Where we ended in our introduction:

   “Thus, you have now been given my introductory tour on ‘Science’ vs. Thinking – where we allow others to do our thinking for us on ‘scientific’ grounds. There are three planned articles to follow: ‘Science’ and Human Behavior, ‘Science’ and God and then ‘Science’ and Nature.

   But here is the short, short, short form wrap up for all of it in advance. Never let anyone else do your thinking for you – ESPECIALLY if they claim to be talking ‘scientifically’!”

 

SO WHY START WITH YOUR ARTICLE ON SCIENCE AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR?

   Because this is show case number one for the ‘science’ crowd’s blatant hypocrisy. Where you either 1) simply ignore the ‘scientific’ to do whatever you want to do anyway or 2) Do a Warp-to-Fit job to make something ‘scientific’ – in an attempt to justify what you want to do.

 

EXAMPLE I. JUST IGNORING SCIENCE (WHEN IT IS INCONVENIENT) – “HASN’T SCIENCE ENDED THE ABORTION DEBATE”?

   This statement was accurate in the 1980’s when President Ronald Reagan first said it. And it has just gotten more and more accurate as time has gone by. By the 1980s, direct measurement of fetal brain wave activity was common science. But even as early as 1942, it was known that there were two brain waves at work with (according to the law and medical science) there, therefore, being two people.

   This happened (in 1942) when a medical doctor accidentally picked up an EEG reading from the lower abdomen of a pregnant woman – and then compared it against post pregnancy infants. The two phenomena were then read, by the doctor, on a monitoring screen and were determined to be the same phenomena at work. That is, what was happening in the womb of the one woman was the same thing that was happening to another infant – after it had just left the womb of another woman.

   Further, medical monitoring has also gone on to determine that the brain wave readings of the infants are different than the brain wave readings of the hosting mother. So, according to both law and current medical science, two different brain waves equals two different people equals two different lives. So …  the ‘science’ crowd is against abortion? Not!

   And how do you blame this on, say, a Religious Right? An EEG meter is not an instrument of the Religious Right – but of science. So, what is the problem? It is the same problem as always: human nature. People will always believe whatever they want to believe and do whatever they want to do. The rest is window dressing.

   Why do some people try to justify things by quoting something from out of the Bible – while others take a snootier approach of talking ‘science’? For the same reasons: People have often misused the Bible to justify things or to try to take a short cut at making a case. But so do the ‘science’ types – it is just a slightly snootier version of the same behavior.

 

EXAMPLE II. WARP-TO-FIT: DO WE REALLY HAVE BIOLOGICAL DICTATIONS – LIKE A WIND-UP ROBOT?

   Did you know that you are biologically dictated – like a wind-up robot – to have to do homosexual behavior? Or did you know that science also proves that biology is meaningless – and affects nothing about your behavior? Or does it just depend on which ‘science’ you are talking about? There is a back story here with several parts.

   1. A WANTED OUTCOME

   The correct stance has always been – and is still just as correct today – that gayness is something that you do not something that you are. Therefore, it does not qualify for civil rights enforcement. All that happened is that the pressure lobbies for gay liberation decided to make ‘science’ change the nature of the game – and then went about seeking their ‘scientific’ proof afterwards.

   And the ‘scientific’ proof was to support a political agenda: if, the reasoning goes, my personal behavior is uncontrollable then you must regard it as just something I am. Like, say, my race or gender. Then you do, too, have to give me civil rights enforcement for my personal behavior.

   2. A MINOR PROBLEM: ARE YOU REALLY SURE YOU EVEN WANT THIS TO BE TRUE?

   Never mind that this destroys:

      1) the entire purpose of the law as it has always existed. The law has always existed to protect us against someone else’s personal, private behavior – if it is a potential problem for ourselves. The entire purpose of the law is to limit the boundaries for private, personal behavior so that my private, personal behavior does not infringe upon you. The law has never been used – nor should be used – to take something out of my private, personal behavior and somehow make it sacrosanct – and a matter for a required acceptance by all other people. For this then violates their rights.

      2) the rule of law. The argument is that “I do not have free will for my behavior”. But why do we punish people when they do crimes? It is because they chose to do it – and that this is either a deserved punishment and/or a deterrent so that others will not do likewise. But how is this still relevant if we are just biologically dictated robots that cannot control our behavior?

      3) Theism. Why do we still believe in God – despite the world being a place where people do crimes? It is presumed that God needed to give us our free wills and, thus, we are responsible for the world being a place where criminals exist in it. But if we have no free wills, then God is, indeed, the responsible party and, thus, as one once put it “If God exists then he must be the very Devil”.

    So: so much for theism along with the entire purpose and the rule of the law. But ask the modern liberal “Do you really think it is wise to advocate something that nullifies the rule of law, theism and the basis of democracy – just to have a talking point for gay liberation for the next 15 minutes?” To which they will answer “Of course it is! What else matters?” But I disagree – with both their underlying point (about the lack of free will) as well as their incredibly glib attitudes about ideas having consequences.

   But this is where (and how and why) their quest began for ‘science’ to prove something (that they had already decided to prove). And to have this ‘science’ done in service to a political agenda. And what they, ultimately, came up with re-proves every point that I have made about letting others think for you – and especially if they are ‘scientific’.

 

   3. THAT FINAL MINOR PROBLEM: THE MERE FACT THAT YOU DO (OR DO NOT) WANT SOMETHING TO BE TRUE – STILL DOES NOT MAKE IT SO!

   No, Junior, the world does not revolve around you!

 

FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT ABOUT THE MATH SCIENCES?

   When does the same 25% equal 100% while, simultaneously, also equaling 0%? It is when ‘science’ is invoked in search of an already decided upon ‘answer’. The search for the ‘gay gene’ has never turned it up but an, admittedly, biased researcher tried to come up with an alternative. He took the phenomenon of twins separated at birth – and then compared their behaviors.

   It was not a bad idea for research – it was just his bad conclusions. For his research rebutted his premise. He found that in only 25% of the cases did both twins practice homosexuality. That is, that our natural make-up controls about 25% of what we are. The point being that no one has ever contested this. It has always been an accepted fact that all behavior is a combination of nature, nurture and choice.

From the Bible:

   “In sin did my mother conceive me” – nature

   “Raise up your child in the way they should go and when they are old, they will not depart from it” – nurture

   “Your own sins have brought this upon you” – choice and accountability

   The Ancient Greeks, for another example, divided people up into four basic temperaments. But they did not advocate that children should raise themselves – since their temperaments dictated their lives anyways. Nor did they advocate that the law should treat people differently according to their different types of natural temperaments. Nature, nurture and choice have always been assumed parts of human nature. And, with it, accountability.

   But we digress. Going back now to our non-Greek, non-Bible believing ‘scholar’ and his studies. Next, his study confirmed that nurture was also just as much a part of the picture as nature. When identical twins were raised in the same household then the rate became 50% of them being alike. That is, that 25% of our make-up is from natural inclinations (not the same as biological dictations like a wind up robot), that 25% of it came from how we are raised (nurture) and that the majority of it was still pure choice. But the spin was that 25% equals 100%.

   The media reported his ‘proof’ that people are biologically dictated like wind-up robots to do homosexual behavior. But 25% still only equals 25%; it does not equal 100%. And if I am biologically dictated (like a wind-up robot) to do certain types of behavior – then don’t I have to act that way 100% of the time – rather than only 25%? Even in the crude and indirect effort led by this first researcher, the numbers refuted the premise – they did not support it. But next: how do you make this same 25% also equal 0% at the same time – and why would you do it?

   It relates to another politically correct practice: gay adoptions. A ‘study’ showed that gay adoptions do not create gay children – except that they do. What it showed is that, left strictly to nature, there will be 1 to 2 percent of the population that practices homosexual behavior. But children raised in a homosexual household will practice it around 25% of the time. (By the way: isn’t this the same 25% that the other study showed – about nurture and its part of the influences?)

   But now 25% equals 0%. The study ‘showed’ that there is no influence from gay parenting and becoming gay as an adult. Therefore, it is now ‘proven’ that gay parenting is simply fine – except that it is not. Someone is still between 1 and 2 dozen times more likely to practice homosexuality – if they are raised in it – than if they were just left to nature instead. Thus, it still has a 25% influence and not a 0% one.

   And we could go on with the contradictions that are caused by other politically correct causes. How about my being a woman trapped in a man’s body? But if I am dictated to by my biology – then how can I also be at a 180-degree contradiction to it at the same time? That is, that my biology is totally the one thing (male) – but that somewhere in that innermost me of all me’s I am the opposite (a female)?  

   So, which one is it: am I dictated to by my biology – or is my biology totally irrelevant instead? Both can’t be true at one and the same time EXCEPT when you are dealing in politically correct ‘sciences’.

 

SPEAKING OF WHICH, THOUGH, THERE IS MORE ACTUAL SCIENCE …

   But now we finally get down to the latest (real) science on the matter. Now (of course) it has nothing to do with politics but a researcher (interviewed by Lester Holt) did a groveling session first before dispersing his knowledge. He pleadingly stated how ‘sensitive’ they were going to be in releasing the latest research. And that – of course not – it would not be released in any way that would help a non-believer in gay liberation. But they did, eventually, get down to the actual results itself. (Which proved that you should be a non-believer in gay liberation.)

   First, a quick splash screen was put up with five points to it. The most important one, of course, being the fifth and last one listed. It stated, essentially, that homosexuality was “just like all other traits”. Meaning that, to whatever level we are responsible for our own behavior, that they (people practicing homosexuality) are equally as responsible for their behavior also. And that, to whatever extent you might want to give them a responsibility exemption, then you would have to give this same exemption to everyone else also.

   Other flash screen points were that all human behavior is complicated and can not be reduced to any type of a one-shot panacea. (Wow!! I guess I, as an average person, was not aware of that? Were you? Is that why they now charge people nearly a quarter of a million dollars to get a higher education – because you learn so many things that you could never know otherwise?) And then one last point before moving on:

   The flash points then stated that sexual behavior is even more complicated than the other kinds!!! Holy Whatnot – when I heard that I fell out of my chair so hard is was as though I never even twitched a muscle – or even took any notice. To their credit, they did still flash screen these ‘profound’ and ‘new’ discoveries long enough for you to speed read your way through them – before pulling them back down again. And did, eventually, even get to the main point.

   Eventually, Lester Holt said – and with as quick an in and out as could be done – “Born that way. True or False?” Thus, he did, ultimately, get down to the main course of the subject matter (even if in a very truncated manner). And said the researcher “False” – before mad dashing it back out of the subject matter.  And then talking about anything else he could think of. So, he did – ultimately – give The Answer (that gutted the whole Gay Liberation premise) before making a mad dash to the nearest exit immediately afterwards.

   And, I guess, we should be thankful for the newspaper coverage – even if just because there was some. Up until recently, on a topic this sensitive, news people would still let people from both sides in on the conversation. But not today. The newspaper quoted only a non-response from only the pro-Gay Liberation side. And what other type of a response could they make?

   It was a multi-year study, backed by multi-millions of dollars, and from pro-Gay Liberation sources of funding. What is more, it did attempt to directly tackle the ‘gay’ gene question. Using the latest technology, it did go through the entire DNA structure of a human being looking for the ‘gay’ gene. And still advanced the issue none whatsoever.

   After all the millions of dollars spent, and from a totally pro-Gay perspective, the facts remain identical to where they have always been. Namely, that there are some genetic aspects to ALL our behavior, that nurture is also an aspect of ALL our behavior and that choice is also an aspect of ALL our behavior. And that homosexuality, in this regard, is like quote “every other trait”. Thus, we were only allowed to hear a totally boiler plate response from the Gay Liberation lobby – and no response permitted from anyone else.

   For, after all, mustn’t ‘scientific’ studies (like what the researcher initially said) be handled with ‘sensitivity’ – to ensure that ‘non-enlightened’ viewpoints are not in any way aided or abetted? So, what am I complaining about? I guess I should just be happy that they at least did get down to the main points of the matter – and still show how it is an empty debate. At least ‘scientifically’ that is.

 

EXAMPLE III. WHERE QUESTIONS OF SCIENCE AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR SHOULD BE CONCENTRATING – THE SELF DESTRUCTION OF OUR INNER CITIES

   This is, actually, the main point of this article that I have most wanted to get to. While I find it a continual annoyance to see science prostituted for political correctness, it is worse when it is simply not considered important at all – and on the type of things that are the most important. For, ironically, the people who have about the closest claim to being ‘dictated’ into certain behaviors are the type of people that we tend to hate the most intensely.

   My favorite person that I tend to love-to-hate is the man who is now the posture boy for the new ‘bail reform’ movement. He was just released for (for reals) the 104^th time. And the first thing that he did was to observe and elderly woman go past him – upon which he cold cocked her to the deck for absolutely no reason!

   It was a thrill crime just because he can do it. Now before going on, let me give some reassurances: he is (obviously) morally responsible for what he did. And he is as despicable a person as his criminal behavior suggests he is. Yet, there is still an important lesson we need to learn here: where do people like this come from?

   The answer (and one that can be observed by the physical and social sciences) is that he is created by us – and the dysfunctional things we allow to continue in our society. Did you know that if you grow up in a state of prolonged stress (the fight or flight syndrome) for long enough that it physically re-wires your brain? And that this is even observable in laboratory conditions? That you, essentially, become hard wired to be dysfunctional?

   Did you know that most of the people – who are like the poster boy for ‘bail reform’ – have a three strikes and out record for all three of the behavior factors – nature, nurture and choice? If the Bail Reform Poster Boy did not start out with a natural inclination to act on impulse (and most criminals, in fact, do start out that way) then an entire upbringing (of living under a fight-or-flight environment) was certainly not helpful.

   Now what about the Bail Reform Poster Boy and nurture, you may ask? I will bet the bank that he does not come from an intact, properly disciplinarian two – parent family. And that he does not, say, know the Lord as his personal Savior.

   Choices? Yes, he has, ultimately, become the way he is from his own choices. But how much encouragement did he get to make the right choices vs. the wrong ones? For example: how do you think aiding and abetting him to make a ha-ha joke out of the criminal justice system helped – at encouraging him to make good choices rather than bad ones?

   And this is all relatively typical of all those scary people that we love to hate: the almost gratuitously violent types, those people with an almost unlimited ability to rationalize their behavior and to be oblivious of others. All of them are, very often, people we have created to be that way by our tolerance of dysfunctional conditions. And the type of dysfunctional values that are rapidly taking over our society.

   All these people have a much stronger claim to “I was forced into it” than people like Mayor Pete and his in-your-face homosexual behavior. Or, another prime example of the entitled types claiming to be unable to help themselves: do you remember a Rielle Hunter? She was the paramour of a Senator John Edwards – who was horsing around with him while his wife was kicking the bucket from cancer.

   True, they did not actually do a live copulation with each other – while laying on top of his dying spouse in her hospital bed simultaneously. But they did everything short of that. And yet what is her own statement on this matter: “I bear absolutely no responsibility for what we did”.

   And why? Because it “just happened” and they therefore could not possibly help themselves. Really? Compared to who and what?

   How many of us really have it as bad as these others that we tend to hate the most? How many of us grow up with a strong natural inclination (category #1) to do bad things (that is then – literally – reinforced through the rewiring of our brain cells). Next, are given no positive nurturing (for category #2). And then are not just encouraged – but are often aggressively encouraged – to make all the bad choices rather than the good ones (thereby damaging us in category #3 as well).

   For those of us who can’t lay claim to these types of things – which still constitutes most of us (for now): if we are ‘pressured’ to do, say, an abortion is this pressure really as bad as what some people are subjected to? And as their own type of a ‘new normal’ of dysfunctionality that often makes up their whole lives? Are most of us really a bunch of victim types who cannot help ourselves – and especially as compared to a lot of people who have it much worse?

   And does anyone really believe that pampered, entitled types like Rielle Hunter and Mayor Pete are some type of victims? That really cannot be held accountable for themselves – when we still hold these other types of people accountable for themselves? What elitist garbage!

   The esteemed criminologist, a James Q. Wilson, even points out why criminals often become criminals in the first place. It is because of their complete inability to think things through logically rather than to act on impulse. But even when you have the combination of all three factors (bad natural inclinations, no proper nurturing in growing up and an impaired ability to make rational choices) we still cannot absolve people of their responsibility. Or the first thing we would have to do is to clear out of all the prisons – so when do we get started doing that??

   But, ultimately, we are back at the central point of this entire galley of articles. Better to use your own common-sense thinking processes than listen to the ‘science’ crowd. And nothing better demonstrates this than a study of science and human behavior. If they really gave the rodents whatnot about science they would be pro-life, pro-family, would reject ‘biological dictations like a wind-up robot’ to justify their behavior and would place science (and real science) more deeply into much more important issues (like the free fall zones in our inner cities and the destructive behavior that often comes with it.)

   Rather, that is, than all of our pampered, politically correct BS about abortions, sexual ‘preferences’ (hate the term), “Help me because I am feeling Gender Dysphoric today’ and etc. We would be much more concerned about the type of dysfunctional behavior and conditions that our values systems (or lack thereof) are causing and on I could go. But do not hold your breath waiting for them to do any of this – it is not going to happen!

   Thank you for reading the first article of our Science Trilogy. The next is an article that should not even need to be written – Science and God. In America, the land of religious liberty, why should you even need to write about belief in God as being intellectually reasonable? You shouldn’t; but, unfortunately, there are now many people at work trying to make America a totally different country than it has always been. And religion is rapidly becoming more and more of a fault line in today’s society. I wish it were not so, but it is.

 

 

 

HAD ENOUGH YET?

   So, how are we all doing one Great Depression, one 6 trillion-dollar giveaway (and still higher deaths) later? After we have let ‘Science’ and the medical professionals run the whole show for us – on the virus? In fact, my worst problem (with covering the ‘science’ crowd) is sticking to just 5 ways to describe their errors.

   Nevertheless, I will attempt to do so. Here is the shorthand version of this article. Regarding, that is, ‘science’ vs. how, say, just thinking logically might have been a better alternative:

   Error #1) There are 3,142 government agencies – all of which could have stopped the epidemic dead in its’ tracks. But ‘Science’ overlooked all of them – and continues to do so now.

   Error #2) It is possible to do an effective isolation campaign – and with virtually no economic damage. But ‘science’ has dismally failed to deliver it for us.

   Error #3) It is possible to keep every business in the entire United States open and to INCREASE the safety from the virus. But ‘Science’ adamantly disagrees with me on that.

   Error #4) ‘Science’ has protected hundreds of millions of people who have no need for it. And cannot figure out why the people who do need it keep dying.

   Error #5) I could go on excessively so I will do just one more. Real science has a ton of practical measures that we can use on the virus in the right here and right now. But ‘Science’ is obstructing every one of them.

 

THAT’S SAYING A LOT SO … LET’S GET STARTED!

ERROR #1: 3,142 WAYS TO HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB

   My main point here is that every one of the 3, 142 counties in America has its own crack health departments. But how many people are familiar with the following names: Donald Trump, Andrew Cuomo, Jay Inslee, Gavin Newsom vs., say, the names of any of the 3,142 heads of the County Health Departments.

   And, while I may hate to bruise egos, it is the people you see on TV: Cuomo, Inslee, Newsom, ‘Witless’ Whitmer (Governor of Michigan) and et al who are the LEAST consequential in the fight. It is actually the real scientists (at the front lines) who are left under-resourced and relegated to the sidelines – but are the real essential people.

   So, the first truly scientific thing to do is to get more resources to the front-line scientists. And get more of their front-line involvement at the center of the fight. We need to have way more direct, CDC to County Official connections. And, while it is not necessarily the only solution, in other writings I have noted that there are 687 federal courthouses spread across the country among the 3,142 counties. Maybe, with a little investment and retrofitting, you could wind up with 687 staging areas (in better contact) with the counties – where most of the action is at.

   Just one dreadful example: The many thousands of people who have all died in senior care facilities. And all because the senior care industry has been a complete basket case since time immemorial. There have never been enough resources going into the senior care industry to even begin protecting them from infectious diseases.

   And even if we started properly resourcing them, the money would just go to waste if we are minus the County level health departments doing their necessary inspections. Just this one item, alone, would have been able to save countless thousands of lives.

   Or look for a moment at other things you can’t expect someone on the national ‘science’ scene to pick up on. There have been, for example, countless times – over and over – where we could have broke the virus had we acted stronger at a more local level. And also acted there on a much sooner basis.

   There are many local level things left undone. The most tragic is the complete neglect of what is called surveillance testing. Virtually every virus could be broken, early, if every County Health Department was resourced to do regular and widespread surveillance testing. This would tell us the best information on when and where to strike in using our State and National resources.

   I will demonstrate that last statement, and the deep gravity involved, by walking you through the epidemic timeline. The main brunt started out in my state, Washington State. And in the County where I live in – King County. Now, had the crisis ACTUALLY revolved around science and being data-driven (by County-led regular and wide spread surveillance testing) what would we have known and how soon would we have known it?

   We would have soon discovered that just some very small measures would have solved the crux of the matter – with little more needed to stop the loss of lives. I still have no problems with businesses being required to do a Safe-but-Open plan and working with the citizenry to ramp up aggressive self-protection. But just by securing the elderly and infirm even a badly infected hot spot area would have had few fatalities. All of which would have been known (and from early on) had the effort been science and data driven – and worked by inspectors and scientists at the local levels.

   So … enough of if-this and that. What evolved next is that we wound up with 10 counties doing half of all the emissions for the whole country. (And do any of you know the names of any of the ten County Health Commissioners of these 10 counties? Or of any significant role they played at helping to resolve the crisis? Neither do I.) Then it evolved to where we are at now: we still have 80% of all cases occurring in 12 major metropolitan areas.

   But … still no locally based solutions from ‘science’ and the medical professionals. So, I will summarize for now as I conclude this point: we still can (and should) use local strategies to fight the virus. It is possible to do a strategic quarantine of an area (to stop it from creating other hot spots) – and with little economic damage.

   For, again, once you have sheltered the elderly and the infirm there is little danger to anyone else. All of which, again, would have been well known by now if we had had a truly scientific and data driven approach. And done at county levels throughout all the localities in America.

ERROR  #2: FEELING ISOLATED (BUT FOR NO LEGITIMATE REASON?)

   Then there is the ‘science’ of the isolation campaigns. Or they got us started down this road without even attempting any ‘science’ – or anything else for that matter. Do you ever remember hearing something to the effect of: “Here is my systematic presentation demonstrating that ‘social distancing’ and having to fire everyone from their jobs are one and the same? And that the one thing can’t be done without the other”? I do not remember hearing anything like this for a simple reason: no such presentation has ever been spoken. Not by anybody, not at any time and not anywhere.

   So, why are we still doing it then? Well, it is not because of science or data driven. Because, in this case, they never even tried to make a case tying the two things together. Not with science, not with data driven, not with anything whatsoever. Yet, we have still bought into their …. non-case (is that what you would call something like this?)

   And, from my other writings, there are several other matters that ‘science’ overlooked regarding the virus crisis. And the quickest way to describe it is to note how the case (or non-case?) is self-contradictory. To begin with, there have been no actual shut downs executed anywhere in the United States of America. There have been only shut down orders (not the same thing) – and with serious ramifications.       

   Because you have a bunch of idiot governors just issuing shut down orders (and leaving the people to their own devices to somehow shut themselves down) it has forced a contradiction. Because people still have to resource themselves to stay shut down (and still do things like eat food, have the utilities on and etc.) they have had to exclude 50-60% of the people as ‘essential’ workers. So, what real purpose does  the exercise still serve? Even among the 40-50 percent of the ‘shutdown’ people a large amount of them are going to be personally connected to the other 50-60 percent. Thus you have only a small percent of the population that is even, truly, sheltered-in-place to begin with.

   Next, because this ever decreasing percent of people still have to keep themselves shut down with their own devices, then they are only doing a limited sheltering. They will have to keep going in and out of their shelter to keep themselves provided. They will have to keep doing it more and more and more and more as the process keeps going on and on and on and on. Human nature will get them restless so that they will start to do it more and more even when they may not have to. So … in a virus this contagious how is this still supposed to kill a virus with an R factor of 3 people to 1?

   The only way that it is physically possible to have an actual shutdown (rather than just a shutdown order – not the same thing) is to execute it through the National Guard delivering the necessary food – and thereby have it be a 100% of the public, 100% of the time for 3 weeks type of a measure. But, if you are not going to do it correctly (with the National Guard), then you should not do it all – since it would then simply serve no purpose. That is, you will still have 50-60 percent of the populous with full exposure, the other part with only limited shelter (since they are left to their own devices to keep themselves fed). And that this will then keep getting more and more porous as the whole exercise goes on and on and on and on …. and the people have to keep going out more and more as it does.

   Or, let’s go the other way. Let’s say it is possible for the 50-60% ‘essentials’ to learn to operate more smartly and navigate around the virus. Then why can’t the other 40-50% of the people learn to do likewise? In which case, the shutdowns would never have been necessary. Thus, once you decline to execute a shut down properly (by way of the National Guard) then there can only be two possible outcomes. It will either turn out to be totally un-effective or totally unnecessary – with no other possible outcomes. And, no, this does not come from ‘science’ or ‘data driven’ – it comes from basic logic.

ERROR #3: ‘SCIENTIFIC’ MICROMANAGEMENT OF OUR BUSINESSES?

   Back, again, to the (non) case about the firing of everyone from their jobs because there is no other way to do ‘social distancing”. In numerous other writings, I have already made the point about physical barriers and the directional nature of the virus being better ways to block infection. But let us have some specifics from an actual example. Here, from restaurant advisers themselves, is the precise how for every restaurant to be laid out. And to wind up being laid out safer than every grocery store.

   So … why is eating out still perfectly ‘scientific’? It is because every restaurant can use a combination of

      a) masks (before you sit down to eat and before you get back up after eating).

      b) partitioning – give every booth a 270-degree partition using inexpensive materials. Thereby setting up a physical barrier to block transmission between table and table. Many restaurants (the Black Angus comes to mind) already have their booths set up this way.

   Now you simply combine b) (how you have your at-the-table safe environment) with common sense about your surroundings. (If you see an elderly couple coming your way: can’t you just wait until they have passed you – before you do your get up to leave process?)

      c) still not happy with b)? – Then how about a 15 to 20-dollar clear curtain to pull back and forth as people sit down and get up from the table?

     d) directional functions – Tables in the center of the room are not a problem. Put plexiglass (or other clear partitioning materials) in the center areas of the tables. Thus, the people you are facing are physically shielded from you. And the people you would be 3 feet away from are the ones who would be facing away from you. Thus, you would be safer, rather than less safe, than “6 feet, social distancing.”

     e) 6 feet, social distancing but plus – Like all businesses (essential or otherwise) there is still a point where you will have to be around other people at least somewhat: waiting to get seated, getting up and down from your table, leaving the restaurant, going to the restroom, etc. But ‘scientific’ only demands that you do 6 feet. I would demand that you do 6 feet plus masking.

     f) environmental controls. A finale would be to set up inexpensive UV or artificial sunlight to change the entire nature of the indoor area. This would make the virus less contagious as they would be inhibited by the controls involved.

   All of these retrofits would have a chump change cost. (Especially as compared with the ‘scientific’ types who never even proved that they needed to be closed in the first place.) But here is the ultimate reason that we must start allowing economics to triumph over both ‘science’ and central government planning. Where, under the present circumstances, is the incentive for any restaurants to do this? Since there is no guarantee that they will not keep you closed anyways.

   On the other hand: you give businesses the chance to do Safe-but-Open plans. Then they have their economic incentives to do all these things and will, therefore, do them. And here you finally come to the worst aspects of this of all.

   What most of the ‘science’ crowd will never think about is that most of these features would then stay in place AFTER the coronavirus. They would still be in place during all the next flu seasons – and, thereby, be SAVING us future lives. They would still be in place during the next novel virus like another C19 – and, thereby, be SAVING us future lives.

   But what if you have no incentive to do any of this? I.e., your fate is decided by Gavie Newsom rather than anything you might try to do to help yourself? Then all these things will not happen. And, thus, they will NOT be there for the next flu season – COSTING us more future lives. They will also not be there during the next novel virus outbreak like C19 – COSTING us more future lives. So, thank you, ‘scientific’ micromanagement for costing us more lives, over the long haul, than we would have suffered otherwise. Well done.

ERROR #4: JUST WHO ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING ANYWAYS?

   Actual science and actual data driven: if you are under 65 and have no underlying health conditions, we now know that your fatality chances are less than 1 in many thousands. That you could take everyone between 18 and 65 (that are healthy), deliberately infect every one of them and still have less than 20,000 fatalities in America. So why are we now above the 70,000 fatalities mark – and with no apparent end in sight?

   From the beginning, the sole relevant issue has never been how many people get sick – but what types of people get sick. Literal example: I have 100 healthy young men and women in, say, their 20s sitting at a bar in a pre-corona style of doing business. Opposed to that I have one person, 75 plus w/ underlying conditions, who is not getting the protection he needs from society against infectious diseases. The one 75+ plus person is 100 times more likely to result in a fatality than all 100 of the other people combined.

   But here was the ‘scientific’ reasoning (of the ‘professionals’ and the ruling classes): they did not try to directly shield this population. Instead, the effort was to bubble wrap the entire population – to indirectly protect them. Because “they have to get it from somewhere”? That is, if you don’t want Group B to get something bad from a Group A then you have to quarantine BOTH groups. Even if the one Group B is a relatively small group and is relatively manageable – while the both groups would constitute trying to bubble wrap an entire population.

   But we have already discussed the second part of their ‘scientific’ reasoning: that we are not bubble wrapping the rest of the population anyways. Nor even any plausible amount that is even close to that. Sixty percent is totally un-bubbled due to being ‘essential’, another 30 is only half bubbled because they are left to their own devices to get themselves bubbled. And, thus, they must keep bobbing in and out of their bubbles.

   And, all throughout this time, the only in-danger group is the remaining 10 percent. But the ‘scientific’ consensus was, rather than directly protect this group through all feasible measures, we should leave them totally un-bubbled. Then we will leave another 60 percent of the populous totally un-bubbled and have the other 30 percent be only partially bubbled – to indirectly protect them. Smart ‘science’? Then why aren’t we getting better outcomes?

ERROR #5: ‘SCIENCE’ VS. SCIENCE

   So … we are coming to the end of our grand tour of ‘science’ – and how we have let other people do our thinking for us. I will be the first to admit that it is not much of a ride (and I appreciate you still staying on board if you are still reading this.) Therefore, we will make this final leg of the journey as quick as possible. What follows are a short list of practical, right here and now helps for the virus:

   1) Viruses have less tolerance to several chemicals than humans. Therefore, there should most likely exist a someway, somehow method of deploying chemotherapies to fight it. (As was successfully done against the AIDS virus.)

   2) Per the contagiousness question: viruses have less tolerance to several radiations and heat (in the outdoor environment) than humans do. Therefore, there should most likely exist a someway, somehow method of deploying these things into our outdoor/indoor environments. Thus, making the virus less contagious in these cases where environmental controls are inhibiting it.

   My point is that there are legit scientists, medical doctors and others who are working on all types of alternative medicines, chemotherapies, environmental controls etc. But where has the ‘data driven’ and ‘science’ crowds been? I refer not to the medical doctors but to the medical establishment: how much have you been hearing from them about the need for practical medicine in the right here and right now? I have heard little of that while Trump is often ridiculed simply for pushing for an “everything including the kitchen sink” approach.

   Therefore, I make my blunt assessment: I regard them as being little more than an ass-pain simply being in the way. Didn’t any of these high-level medical (and ‘scientific’) types ever take any classes on “Lead, follow or just get out of the way”?

    Thus, you have now been given my introductory tour on ‘Science’ vs. Thinking – this is the start of a trilogy on this important matter. That is, where we allow others to do our thinking for us on ‘scientific’ grounds. The three parts of this Trilogy (that will be coming out soon) are ‘Science’ and Human Behavior, ‘Science’ and God to then be finished with ‘Science’ and Nature.

   But here is the short, short, short form wrap up for all of it in advance. Never let anyone else do your thinking for you – ESPECIALLY if they claim to be talking ‘scientifically’!