Fake Science

You've heard of 'Fake News', this is about fake science. There are many who use the name of 'science' to promote an ideological agenda. They are not producing scientific evidence, or arguments, or anything that even resembles Real Science, which follows the scientific method, but agenda driven propaganda, shrouded in pseudo scientific terms to fool people & dazzle them with obfuscating terminology. Let us examine some of the traits of this Fake Science trend, & the basis that it is built upon.

1. Mandated Conformity. Instead of producing facts & evidence, & letting them compel a conclusion, the fake science advocates prefer to mandate belief in their decrees, & pretend the facts support their position. It is contrary to the scientific method & open inquiry.
2. Appeal to Authority. Fake Science believers have a pool of experts that they appeal to, based on credentials, rather than facts or evidence.
3. Bandwagon Fallacy. Instead of science, they claim, 'Everyone who is smart knows this is true'. It is a claim of universal knowledge, when the facts have not even been presented.
4. Poison the well. Any criticism of the facts, data, or conclusions from the Fake Scientists is met with an attack & discredit for the source of the criticism. The points of science or reason are not addressed, but the source is attacked to try to discredit it.
5. Ad Hominem. This is a favorite tactic of the Fake Science crowd.. they do not reply to any reason or facts, but deflect with name calling & insults to the critic of their pet belief, whatever it is.
6. Other logical fallacies. False equivalence, straw men, begging the question, circular reasoning, & just about any fallacy you can name is used by the Fake Scientists, instead of reason & scientific methodology.
7. Fake Data. For the fake scientists, the agenda is all important, not Discovery, or building upon the human knowledge base. Data is manipulated, faked, contrived & declared, with no examination allowed, & no criticism permitted.
8. Indoctrination. The agendas of the Fake Scientists are not driven by reason or facts, but by propaganda & forced indoctrination. Progressive indoctrination centers & every human institution that is controlled by the Fake Science adherents promote their propaganda with religious zeal.
9. Propaganda. Make the lie big, tell it often & loudly, & eventually people will believe it.

Fake science is the New Science of the day. In the dark ages, this kind of science was the status quo, & it took a revolution, beginning with Copernicus then built upon by Kepler, Newton, and many others that saw the birth of modern science, empiricism, & the Age of Reason. It reached a pinnacle in WW2, where technology & science seemed almost magical, & changed the world with dazzling displays of technological derring do. Machines could fly. Huge monuments to Man's Power were built everywhere, & the Ability of Man seemed limitless. Knowledge & science were worshiped like a god.

But since that era, we have slowly been 'devolving' as a society (in America, at least) to put technology in a sacred realm, where only the high priests could go. It was the holy of holies, where the common man could not go, & it is blasphemy for him to dare to challenge the decrees of the Elite Knowledge Keepers, who know all things, & should be trusted to care for him.

Here are a few of the Fake Science Beliefs of the day:

1. Global Warming. This is actually the poster child for Fake Science. It meets all the criteria: agenda driven, ridicule for any critics, ad hominem, contrived data, mandated belief, & relentless indoctrination.
2. A woman can do what she pleases with her body. This ignores the scientific evidence of a unique, individual human being growing inside the woman, which is the mammalian way of reproduction. The new person is no long 'a part of the woman's body', but a new life, growing inside her. It is fake science to claim it is a 'blob of tissue', or other orwellian redefinitions.
3. Evolution is settled science, & is proven to be the origin of man. This is flawed in every way, & is also Fake Science. There is NO evidence that this is even possible, much less that it DID happen. It is merely an indoctrinated belief
4. Guns kill people. Statistics are given, from juggled data sets, & deceptive studies, to try to demonize the firearm, which is also a great deterrent for evildoers. But only the negatives are presented, to try to promote a false perception, & to promote a phony narrative.
5. White people are evil. The race obsessed, divisive left is constantly revising history, promoting false narratives of 'white privilege,' 'black lives matter', & other hysteria based racist memes. It is not supported by facts or reality, but is a phony narrative, used to instigate violence, sedition, & division in society.
6. A nation should have open borders. This is historically & logistically false & impossible. Any nation that has any attraction to immigration must have some kind of orderly system for immigrants. Open borders only create chaos, crime, & overload the system. The reasoning & arguments for it are completely irrational, fallacious, & based on deceptive data.
7. If you are low on money, just print some more. This is the absurd belief that monetary policy should be based on decree, rather than production. But all decreed money does is devalue, as inflation eats up the wealth of the working man, & transfers it to the ruling elite.
8. Govt can enable everyone to live off of everybody else. This is the 'Great Fiction' that Bastiat wrote of, & ignores the more basic problems of production of food & other necessities, which 'govt' cannot produce. Only working people create the necessities of life.
9. America is evil. America is the only successful experiment in self rule, in the history of man. Those who hate it as a system usually suggest some kind of marxist solution, which has a terrible record for the common man, for rights, opportunity, prosperity, or anything else.
10. You can be what you want to be. This ignores scientific reality. It pretends that biological reality is somehow a choice, or an option you can make at any time in your life. But it ignores the genetic & biological reality of gender.
11. Love Trumps Hate. This is a favorite slogan of the progressive left, which they demonstrate by rioting, burning cars, & committing acts of violence on those who disagree with them. It is merely orwellian 'New speak', which redefines reality with opposite terms.
12. Islam is the religion of peace. This is also demonstrated, almost daily, with suicide bombers, attacks on civilians, & terrorist attacks, with the left constantly defending them while attacking other beliefs as 'bigoted'. 

There are many more, & i could go on. These are all sacred tenets of faith, in the religion of Progressivism. Almost all progressives hold to all of these, all at once, with little departure from the mandated belief system. These are not based on reason, facts, or empirical evidence, but mandated, indoctrinated propaganda. The American culture has turned from an empirical view of reality, with freedom of belief, to one of fantasy, mandates, & indoctrination.

Unless there is another cultural revolution in America, & unless empiricism & scientific methodology returns to its rightful place as an arbiter of knowledge, we will continue down the slide of madness & folly, where truth becomes a lie, & lies become 'truth.' It is a return to the dark ages, where Fake Science originated.

I'm looking forward to a revival of scientific inquiry.. it usually happens, after a period of mandated conformity by the status quo. A few bold heretics will post a controversial study, or make a shocking claim that rocks the Fake Science world. Like Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur, & others, the Truth of some sacred cow of the institutional status quo will be examined more critically, & it will eventually crumble under that scrutiny. I'm actually shocked, that something like the ToE and AGW has been going on for so long, in our alleged 'scientific' culture. It just goes to show that science is no more immune from human manipulations than anything else. The ruling elite have been doing it for centuries, if not millennia, & will likely continue into the future. The fantasy belief that we are somehow immune to this, because we are at the pinnacle of human knowledge, is charmingly naive, absurdly arrogant, & dangerously ignorant.

Science, or scientific methodology, is not tasked with explaining the mysteries of the universe for philosophical comfort. Facts, evidence, & Truth are the goals, not offering alternative explanations for unknown mysteries that are beyond the realm of scientific methodology. Evolution has become a religion.. a belief system, with NO scientific basis. For the true scientist, exposing flaws, & critically examining the claims are the main tasks. Attempting to prop up a worldview, or cater to a belief system has NO PLACE in scientific endeavor. Yet that is what Fake Science is all about. Truth & Facts are not sought, but validation for some hare brained 'theory'.

They are propagandists.. ideologically driven beliefs are all they have. There is NO EVIDENCE that 'species change over time, in the basic genetic structure. The only 'changes' that occur are on the micro level, or in mere variability. The postulation that organisms can move easily between one genetic structure to another is not possible, from anything we know today. That is 'Fake Science', that indoctrinates this belief system into people as though it were 'settled science'. It is not. It is not even science. It is a religious belief.

I know there are not many scientifically minded people out there. Most people are content to leave that to the 'experts'. So they 'trust' them, believing them to be conflict free, & sincere seekers of scientific truth. But these are human beings, & as such, are subject to the same biases, prejudices, & self interests as anyone else. Anybody involved in the realm of research knows this.

I like this quote, from 1961, about the increasing conflict of govt funding & scientific research. It should be obvious, & how many people have been up in arms over the years over some phony report from 'govt scientists', telling us to chill & trust them, they are the 'smart ones', & have everything under control. DDT? It's safe, they assured us. Nuclear testing? Not a problem.. just rattles the windows, some. Margarine vs butter. Cigarettes. GMOs. Coffee. Sugar. Coal. Nuclear power. Name your controversy, & there was a govt funded study taking whichever side the ruling or moneyed, or academic elite preferred. It is the classic case of mixing politics with science, & it has always been a problem. Whenever you take science away from individual pursuit, or bind it under some institutional directives, you get Fake Science. Oh, they may come up with a few solutions, using technology in some way, but seldom does govt funded research bring anything radical to the knowledge base. They may build on it, some, but they do not do breakthroughs.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

The bolds are mine, & the quote is from Eisenhower, 1961. It is interesting to me how little things change. This could have easily been someone speaking to the current problems with scientific research, & the conflict of money, influence, & agenda.

Fake Science is real. It has been with us forever, & it takes skeptical, keen eyed critics to see through the bluff & arrogance of the elite, to continue the holy curiosity of inquiry.

Neanderthal

Anyone remember charts like this?


How many of us were raised with this little evolutionary progression chart? The neanderthal was in that sequence. But now, even the proponents of evolution are changing their minds. They won't change the cute little evolutionary sequence, since that is canonized into the major tenets of the Religion of Evolution, but they now realize the neanderthals were probably just humans.. no fanfare.. no major announcements.. just sheepishly admitting that the facts do not support their fantasy.

..for a long time paleoanthropologists have viewed Neanderthals as too dull and too clumsy to use efficient tools, never mind organize a hunt and divvy up the game. Fact is, this site, along with others across Europe and in Asia, is helping overturn the familiar conception of Neanderthals as dumb brutes. Recent studies suggest they were imaginative enough to carve artful objects and perhaps clever enough to invent a language.

Neanderthals, traditionally designated Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, were not only “human” but also, it turns out, more “modern” than scientists previously allowed. “In the minds of the European anthropologists who first studied them, Neanderthals were the embodiment of primitive humans, subhumans if you will,” says Fred H. Smith, a physical anthropologist at LoyolaUniversity in Chicago who has been studying Neanderthal DNA. “They were believed to be scavengers who made primitive tools and were incapable of language or symbolic thought.”Now, he says, researchers believe that Neanderthals “were highly intelligent, able to adapt to a wide variety of ecologicalzones, and capable of developing highly functional tools to help them do so. They were quite accomplished.” source

Neanderthals were human. They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, employed language, and played musical instruments. Neanderthal anatomy differences are extremely minor and can be for the most part explained as a result of a genetically isolated people that lived a rigorous life in a harsh, cold climate. source

Since drawing about 60% of neanderthal dna, a lot has been discovered about them.

• They interbred with homo sapien. ~ 2 Billion people have neanderthal genes in them.. mostly european & asian. What does this tell us? They were the same species. Separate species cannot interbreed. They were merely a 'tribe' of humans that had unique physical features.. like many tribes today. Their genetic 'line' can be traced. They did not evolve separately, nor were they a distinct hominid species. They just 'looked different' than whatever normal 'homo sapiens' looked like.

This was a problem for those in the evolution field.
“We were suspicious of the result,” Reich says. “We found signals of mixture and then worked very hard to make them go away.”
He tried for a year, to no avail. Finally, Reich and his colleagues had no choice but to conclude that Neanderthals had mated with humans. They estimated that the DNA of living Asians and Europeans was (on average) 2.5 percent Neanderthal. source

So, if the 'experts' were mistaken about neanderthals, & they were merely humans like pygmies or aborigines, why do they continue to try to prove evolution with shaky data? Why do they start at the conclusion, looking for data to prop up their flimsy arguments? Why not admit we don't know, & let the data speak for itself?

But in many of the 'science' forums, sites, nature programs, & other evolutionary indoctrination centers, Neanderthal is STILL pitched as an 'ancestor' of modern human beings. 





Almost every time i 'debate' the ToE, neanderthals are thrust at me as 'proof of evolution!' So the facts have not caught up with the beliefs, or perhaps the beliefs have not caught up with the facts. Much of what is still taught as 'evidence' for the ToE is refuted, yet it still hangs on like it means something. The desperation is great for SOMETHING to base this belief upon. We have no evidence that man has 'evolved' from a common ancestor, or that species have evolved from simple organisms to the complex varieties we see today. ALL of that is conjecture & fantasy, with no supporting evidence from science.

I was spoon fed the ToE from infancy. It is the defacto standard for origins in every public arena, media, & mainstream science source. It was not until i began to examine the claims with more skepticism that i began to doubt the pop science of our modern culture. Just like the status quo used to think the world was flat, & that leeches took out 'bad blood', or that neanderthals were stupid, subhuman brutes, i began to doubt the 'experts' & their confident assertions. Using common sense, logic, & just the facts, i came to the conclusion that the ToE is flawed in many ways. It is a valid belief system, which i acknowledge. It might even be true. I just do not see any logical or scientific facts that compel that conclusion. It is a flimsy theory at best, & a deceptive hoax at worst. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the holes in the theory, just be a rational, skeptical person with average reasoning skills.

Fallacies of Evolution

Here is a list of fallacies for the Theory of Evolution (ToE) as it is commonly taught in schools.

1. False Equivalence. We can observe simple variability within an organism. Colored moths adapt to changing tree bark. Rabbits adapt to their surroundings. This is an observable, repeatable science, also known as 'micro evolution'. The fallacy is in making an equivalence between minor changes in physical traits, to extrapolating large changes in the genetic structure. But that is NOT observed, & cannot be tested. It is a false equivalence, to equate minor changes in micro evolution with the major ones in macro evolution.
2. Argument of Authority. 'All really smart people believe in the ToE.' This is not a scientific proof, but an argument of authority, as if truth were a democratic process. Real science must be proved, via the scientific method, not merely declared by elites.
3. 'Everybody believes this!' This is an attempt to prove something by asserting it is common knowledge. It is obviously not true, anyway, as many people do not believe in the ToE, in spite of decades of indoctrination from the educational system, public television, & other institutions intent on promoting this ideology.
4. The infinite monkey theorem. 'Given enough time, anything is possible.' is the appeal here. If you have infinite monkeys, typing on infinite typewriters (lets update this to computers!), eventually you would get the works of Shakespeare, etc. This is an appeal to measure the ToE with probability, rather than observable science. We still cannot observe or repeat the basic claims of the ToE, so the belief that anything is possible, given enough time is merely that: A belief.
5. Ad Hominem. This is a favorite on the forums. If you cannot answer someone's arguments, you can still demean them & call them names. It is an attempt to discredit the person, rather than deal with the science or the arguments.
6. Argument by Assertion. Instead of presenting evidence, assertions are repeated over & over, as if that will make up for the impotence of the arguments.
7. Argument from Ignorance. This is claiming that evolution is true, because it has not been proven false. But the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic, to prove their claims. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" ~Marcello Truzzi
8. Circular Reasoning. This is the argument that evolution is true, because we see all the variety of living things that have evolved. It is using the assumption of evolution to prove itself. Taxonomic classifications are often used in this manner.
9. Equivocation. This is similar to the false equivalence. It is using the terms 'evolution' when talking about variability within an organism, & changing the context to macro evolution. It is comparing horizontal diversity in an organism to vertical diversity in the DNA. But one is obviously visible & repeatable, while the other is not.
10. Correlation proves Causation. This attempts to use similarity of appearance (looks like) as proof of descendancy. But morphological similarity can often display wide divergence in the DNA, with no evidence there was every a convergence.

The ToE has not been demonstrated by scientific methodology, only asserted & claimed. It is, in fact, a belief.. an almost religious belief in the origins of living things. It is an essential element for a naturalistic view of the universe, & for that reason, it is defended (and promoted) with jihadist zeal. But it is too full of logical & scientific flaws to be called 'science'. It is a philosophical construct, with very shaky foundations. There are many other flaws in the ToE, regarding the dating methods, conjectures about the fossil record, & other conflicts with factual data.

The Scientific Method

Here's how the scientific method works:

1. Craft a plausible hypothesis for an observed phenomenon.
2. Compile data that addresses that hypothesis.
3. Examine the data. Is it valid? Is it accurate? Were the parameters for gathering it credible & conforming with established scientific methodology?
4. Dismiss any claims of expertise.. those are irrelevant to any scientific inquiry. That is a fallacy, not science.
5. Critically examine the 'science'.. that is, the data, the hypothesis, & the conclusions. Do they line up? Is the conclusion justified by the data? Do the predictions line up with the actual data?
6. Support or discredit the hypothesis, based on the conclusions of the data.
7. Grow in understanding. Add to the human knowledge base with sound reasoning, dispassionate scientific inquiry, & systematic methodology.

THAT is science.. but is that what we see? Not much, anymore. And hardly at all, in public discourse. And, not at all, with the theory of evolution. Instead, here is how it goes:

1. Craft a plausible hypothesis for an observed phenomenon.
2. Provide no data, or ignore data that conflicts with the hypothesis.
3. Assert that the data supports the hypothesis, with no logical or scientific compelling conclusions.
4. Ridicule, blackball, & insult any who question the claims, the data, or the conclusions.
5. Demand that 'experts' be given authority over scientific methodology.
6. Rely on fallacies of science & logic to support the claim.
7. Demand that the hypothesis be believed, and mandate conformity.
8. Set back science for centuries, & return to the dark ages.

Fortunately, this New Science has not taken over all of science.. yet. It is the domain of the politically driven pseudo scientists, however. I have updated the labelling of this trend as 'Fake Science' to be more current with terminology. It is a major setback in the quest for knowledge, & is a return to the dark ages, where truth is mandated, & conformity demanded.

This kind of 'science' is most visible in the 'soft' sciences of climate & biology, where philosophical beliefs flavor the outlook, rather than compelling data. And, it is lawyers, politicians, celebrities, & other NON scientific people who are the most vocal for this kind of 'science'.

The decline of scientific methodology is one of the most tragic trends in our culture.. and demanding that the common man submit to 'experts' is the antithesis of science. 

Critical thought. Skepticism. Asking, 'WHY?' 

THESE are the hallmarks of scientific thinking, not blind submission to mandated belief.

I have used the hard sciences for all of my professional life. I have seen & used proven methods of engineering, formula calculations, geometry, & hard data to arrive at solutions for practical problems in the world. But my arguments are not based on my personal experience, or beliefs, but those of science. So any argument for some alleged 'science!' claim is easy for me to see. Is it based on hard data? Do the facts support the hypothesis? Is the data credible? I have not seen ANY credible data or arguments that support the theory of evolution. It is all contrived, extrapolated, asserted, or based on flawed assumptions. It does not take an Einstein to see this, but it is easier if you have some background in real science, & not just the pseudo science that is pitched these days. 

So how about it? Anyone want to take a shot at presenting some REAL SCIENCE to support the claim of universal common descent? Can you demonstrate, WITH DATA, that this phenomenon is even possible? I am very clear as to the assertions.. & the eye rolling.. & the disdain for any who question the basic tenets of this belief, but i have not seen ANY compelling data to suggest this is even possible. If anything, the exact opposite is observed. Organisms do not increase in complexity, or add chromosome pairs, genes, or traits, but they decrease. How do you combine the speculative claims of this hypothesis with observable reality? They are opposites.. diametrically opposed concepts.

Show me. Provide the mechanism that demonstrates HOW you can go from 23 to 24 (or 22) chromosome pairs, with the necessary genes to explain the major differences between a chimp & human. Show me HOW you can add genes, or modify them in such a way that major changes to the genetic architecture is permanently affected. HOW do you add wings, warm bloodedness, construct an eye, or any of the fantastic events that this god of evolution somehow creates? It is absurd. It is madness. It is UNscientific. It is a religious belief, with no basis in science.

Living with Indoctrination

Have you ever been mistaken? Have you ever been told something that later you discovered wasn't true?

How do you know that what you think now about something is correct, and not just another misconception?

I have been wrong in the past, am likely misled or mistaken now about some things, and will no doubt be wrong in the future.

There are many levels and factors that shape our world view and perceptions about reality. Some of them are benign or inconsequential,  while others are critical parts of our world view. Most of these overlap, and blend together to form our belief system.

1. Incomplete information. We arrive at a conclusion, but it is based on partial knowledge. We either fill in the gaps of our data with assumptions, or we dismiss the importance of sometimes very critical building blocks in our knowledge base.
2. Partial truth. Sometimes a nugget of truth is extrapolated to a flawed conclusion. A false equivalency or other faulty process is used to blend truth, assumptions, and lies to a plausible, but mistaken, conclusion.
3. Flawed assumptions. We have a smattering of facts, but they are processed through assumptions we make. The resultant conclusion might be logical, but it is based on unproven assumptions.
4. True facts. Most of our knowledge base is based on true facts. Most of what we learn is true, whether from personal experience or from others.
5. Blatant lies. Some of what we believe to be factual is not, but is based on deliberate falsehoods. Most of that is from others, but at times we lie to ourselves.
6. Assertions. At times 'truth' is merely declared, with no factual or logical basis.

The raw data that comprises our knowledge base comes from two main sources:

• That which we learn and discover experientially, through our own senses and observation.
• That which others have imparted to us.

Most of what we 'know' has been provided by others. Very little of our knowledge base is from self discovery.

There are also many reasons and motivations for those who dissiminate information to us. 

1. Manipulation and control. Deliberate distortion of truth to extract money or action for the agenda of the manipulator.
2. Sincere ideological belief. They truly believe their information to be factual, and are providing a useful service for humanity. They might be completely wrong, partially wrong, or completely right.
3. It is their job. They have been hired by other parties to impart information, which might consist of truth, half truths, and lies, depending on the agendas of the other parties.

But regardless of the source or motivation, most of our individual knowledge base is filled with facts, beliefs, and assumptions from others before us.

So how do we verify the information imparted to us? 

• Trust. We believe the information that really smart people have told us. Authority.
• Skepticism. We doubt the information from sources we don't trust. Null hypothesis.
• Verification. We research the information to see if it is credible. We discover that it is true, false, or unknown. Scientific methodology.

The default human position *should* be, 'i don't know.' But that is not satisfying, so we prefer flawed assumptions and falsehoods to an admission of ignorance.  I see a decline in the quest for Truth, for truth's sake, in this ever changing culture.  

“The goal of modern propaganda is no longer to transform opinion but to arouse an active and mythical belief” ~Jacques Ellul

Now we have a united front of propaganda.. a marxist/darwinist world view that has become the default pop religion of the day.  Is the basis for this view on absolutes?  Of course not.  It is based on indoctrination, propaganda, & constant pounding of the world view until it becomes the only plausible belief system.  There is no tolerance of other world views, in the pop religion of leftist ideology.  Their elitist, state-centered, truth-by-decree philosophy has overcome any past views of open inquiry, scientific methodology, & critical thinking.

So, how do you know if you have been indoctrinated?  How do you know whether some of the things you believe to be true are nothing more than propaganda from an agenda driven ideology?

1. You live in modern western culture.
2. You went to a public school.
3. You have watched entertainment.
4. You have watched the news media.
5. You follow news feeds, and the selective information given by social media.

IOW, if you have been alive in America over the last 50 yrs or so, you are a victim of indoctrination.. some of what you believe is nothing more than lies that have been spun to appear plausible.

So how do you correct indoctrination?  How do you determine the actual truthfulness of the things you believe?  It is a never ending process, that requires skepticism over what we hear, a critical view of what we consider to be 'facts', & a gearing of the mind to pursue truth, whatever the cost to our belief system.

He that would seriously set upon the search of truth ought in the first place to prepare his mind with a love of it. For he that loves it not will not take much pains to get it; nor be much concerned when he misses it. ~John Locke

Of course, this all presupposes that truth can be known, & that the universe is not all relative, or filled with unknowable mysteries.  But that is another topic.

...

Nobody is born in a vacuum, or grows into adulthood without any influences on their beliefs or world view. There are many things that mold & shape us into the 'thinking machines' that we become, & we are merely reflections of our influences.

I think the simple observation of the rise of atheism is an illustration of that. It is not like there have been any more startling discoveries, that have proven how life or the universe originated, or that somehow have disproved any possibility of the existence of the supernatural. No, the rise of atheism is more due to indoctrination from the educational system. So instead of churches indoctrinating people to become theists, we have the progressive educational system indoctrinating people to become atheists. Does that make any sense? Does anyone else see that correlation? Is that a plausible 'theory' as to the 'cause' of increasing atheism?

Please don't take this as a pejorative.. i mean it as a simple analysis, or search for 'why' for this cultural trend. And, if you disagree, let me know why, or what your 'theory' is, for why atheism has been increasing rapidly in western culture.

I'll show a study that presents evidence for this phenomenon, of increasingly atheistic worldviews in our society:

"Atheists, in general, are more likely to be male and younger than the overall population; 68% are men, and the median age of atheist adults in the U.S. is 34 (compared with 46 for all U.S. adults). Atheists also are more likely to be white (78% are Caucasian vs. 66% for the general public) and highly educated: About four-in-ten atheists (43%) have a college degree, compared with 27% of the general public.
Self-identified atheists tend to be aligned with the Democratic Party and with political liberalism. About two-thirds of atheists (69%) identify as Democrats (or lean in that direction), and a majority (56%) call themselves political liberals(compared with just one-in-ten who say they are conservatives). Atheists overwhelmingly favor same-sex marriage (92%) and legal abortion (87%)."

10 facts about atheists | Pew Research Center

I see a study like this, & i am forced to conclude that the correlation of the ideology, & the consistency of the worldviews, makes a conclusion of indoctrination hard to miss. There seems to be a steady, state sponsored indoctrination trend to produce ideological followers of progressivism. Almost all the individual beliefs fall in lock step with the agenda of progressivism.

Newton vs Darwin: Basis for Worldviews

I see 2 basic foundations for world views:

1. Newtonian.  The universe is orderly, with immutable laws governing its processes.
2. Darwinian.  The universe is constantly changing, there are no absolutes, & everything is relative.

Newton continued the quest for scientific truth started by Copernicus, the father of modern science.  Some say the Copernican Revolution, the birth of modern science, concluded with Newton's laws.  This worldview is the basis for all of our modern discoveries, & they laid the foundation for all the technological, medical, & scientific discoveries for the last 200 years.  This was the Age of Reason, where empirical truth overcame superstition, & science explained the world we live in.  It was an instrumental factor in dragging western civilization from the dark ages, & was the foundational basis for the American experiment, Natural Law, & other Enlightenment values.  Physics, Astronomy, Mathematics, & other sciences had a basis in empirical facts, derived from an orderly universe.  Most of these early scientists believed in a Creator, who made all things, & created Laws to govern the universe.  There was no conflict between science & faith.  Science was seen as a way to explain the universe, & to understand what God had wrought.

In contrast, Darwinian theory was based on change.. constant change.  Nothing was absolute, & laws could vary & change with the environment or other variables.

The Newton pattern is science’s holy grail: universal laws, fixed interactions described by tightly causal equations. The Darwin pattern is fundamentally different: universal processes whose logic, applied locally, creates a looser causality, including parts with behaviors that aren’t fixed, often involving choice and change. Hence detailed outcomes aren’t as mathematically describable or predictable.  ~JAG BHALLA

America was founded under Newtonian principles & the Enlightenment.  Marxism, Progressivism, & Socialism (among others) came from the Darwinian world view.  That is why the left is unconcerned with Truth, as a principle.  They are only concerned with the end result, & the means of getting there.  Expediency, not accuracy, is their focus.  Facts can be spun to make a point, or accomplish a goal.  Lies are ok, if they further the Cause.  The end justifies the means.  Hence, the pattern of mandated 'truth' by the left.  Evidence & scientific methodology are not important, but crafting a plausible belief system, that works with an agenda.

1. Naturalism is the only explanation for origins, science, & the existence of life.  Evolution is proven fact.  Those who are superior should rule.
2. Global warming (or climate change) is settled science, & show the need to give power to the superior elite.
3. Facts are irrelevant in examination of an issue.. Obama's birth certificate, Hillary's emails, Benghazi, all ask for trust, not critical examination & due process.  The Expert elite should be trusted, & the superior should rule.
4. Smear campaigns against ideological enemies are not base on empirical fact, but accusation & phony narratives.  'Racist!', 'Denier!', and other pejoratives are used in place of facts.  Trust the experts.  They are superior, & they should rule.

As long as the foundation for this worldview remains, the ideology will continue.  Unless a return to empiricism occurs, we will continue the slide away from the scientific method, back to science by decree.  Critical thinking has given way to belief in the elite, & opinion of 'experts'.  The constant argument is over credentials of the claimant, not the accuracy or evidence of the content.  But Truth is not a democratic process, or a matter of consensus. 

The only conclusion that can be made is the superiority of the evolved elite, & a mandate for them to rule.  This is contrary to American principles of self rule, & human equality.  It is a stark difference in worldview, but it has become the State Religion, & is indoctrinated in everyone from every institution in modern society.  It portends the end of America, & a return to the dark ages.

I do not see the election of Trump as an indicator of a return to Enlightenment principles.  I see it as a temporary setback for the progressive agenda, & a nostalgic gesture for 'the good old days' of American values.  The root is still there, & the indoctrination continues for darwinian, marxist principles.  As long as progressivism is seen as a benign or even preferable world view, the decline of America & the principles of human equality, freedom, & self rule will continue.

Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is a book which contains the basis of natural history for our views.
Karl Marx on Darwin's On the Origin of Species
December, 1860

Dear Sir:
I thank you for the honour which you have done me by sending me your great work on Capital; & I heartily wish that I was more worthy to receive it, by understanding more of the deep and important subject of political Economy. Though our studies have been so different, I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of Knowledge, & that this is in the long run sure to add to the happiness of Mankind.
I remain, Dear Sir
Yours faithfully,
Charles Darwin
Letter from Charles Darwin to Karl Marx, October, 1873

Rights or Commodities?

In most of Western Civilization, there is confusion about what constitutes a 'Right'. Many times, what some people call their rights, are merely commodities, or privileges provided by a social collective. Let's analyze what makes something a 'right', vs a commodity.

A right is something inherent.. it is part of your nature as a human being, & is something you own, either by birth, or from working. Here are some of the elements of a Right:

1. A right is something you have, as an individual.
2. Someone can take or violate your rights, but you can also defend them.
3. Your Rights are not dependent on the involvement or labor of another.

During the Enlightenment, Natural Rights were defined as life, liberty, & property. Here are some examples of Rights, that belong to every human:

1. The Right to Life. You are born a free human, & have the right to live.
2. The Right to expression. You have the right to speak your opinion, & express yourself.
3. The right to belief. You can believe in whatever ideology you wish, & live whatever worldview you choose.
4. The right to property. You have the right to use, keep, & dispose of your property, that you have worked for, as you see fit.
5. The right of Liberty. You can choose your way in life, & make decisions regarding your future, your property, & your beliefs.

There are limits with individual rights, when they affect the rights of others. So any individual rights are always mitigated by the rights of others.. there are no universal rights. They are always interdependent with other people's rights. For example, your right to free speech ends at yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater, or inciting riots, or slander.  And, as always, power is always the final arbiter of any human disputes, & individual rights will require this power to secure them.

Now, let's look at Commodities, & see how they differ from Rights. At the very core, there is little difference between a commodity & a privilege, & the distinction could be binary, just between rights & commodities. I have included 'privileges' as a subset of Commodities, as they are something provided by a collective social system, for the benefits of the citizens.

1. A commodity is something that another person creates, that is used as an exchange for other commodities.
2. A commodity must be worked for, by someone, to exist.
3. A commodity can be bought & sold, & is usually something tangible.

Here are some examples of commodities:
1. Food.
2. Clothing.
3. Housing.
4. Utilities.
5. Transportation.
6. Consumer goods.
7. Employment.
8. Health care.
9. Justice.
10. Protection.
11. Infrastructure.

All of these things require the labor of someone, to create them. None are inherent to anyone, but require the intelligent labor of another. SOME of these things can be provided as privileges, to a collective, if the collective wishes & can afford it. Items like Justice, Protection, & Infrastructure are commonly provided privileges by the collective social process. Any of these things COULD be provided by the collective, as a privilege to the citizens, but the cost & consequences should be weighed carefully, to see if it is a wise or viable action for the society to make. But none of these are inherent rights, as they require the active, intelligent labor of another to create them.

One of the problems in an affluent society, is the blurring between Rights & Commodities. Some people begin to believe that certain commodities are owed them, as an inherent right. They begin to believe that the world 'owes them a living', but this is usually an adolescent fantasy, that they outgrow. The problem really begins when this adolescent fantasy becomes a mainstream political belief, & is institutionalized. Instead of outgrowing the fantasy, they become entrenched in entitlement, & believe that they are owed all the commodities of life. But this is a skewed & distorted view of life. Usually, Reality educates people & they become aware of the need to work & earn their own commodities of life, & not consider them an entitled right. But some institutions & human circles become entrenched in entitlement, & begin to believe that all commodities are rights. You see this most commonly in areas where there is abundance, & a disconnect between the needs of survival & human labor. When affluence & easy money flows in a culture, many of the citizens lose the perspective that someone has to work to provide these things. Life comes easy for them, & they think it is that way for everyone. They live in a disconnected fantasy world, away from the struggle for survival that most humans have had, for all of human history.