Comments on Essays in this web site.

Our essays are intended to show that science, while revealing physical truths, is in many cases open to logically consistent interpretations of the facts quite different from those put forward by the generally atheistic leaders of the scientific establishment and organizations.  Our essays are other points of view from a theistic bias.  We believe, however, that our essays and all the numerous referenced book and internet links in this site show how reality is beautifully consistent with classical concepts of one God as the Creator of the universe and the life in it.   (It should be noted that the many references in this site and our views are not in any case dependent on any specific religious belief.) 

Essentially, the essays in this site are about science philosophy and the metaphysics which underlie science and the philosophy which should determine what is science and what is not science.

We make no claim to know "the absolute truth" of science other than the one truth that nobody else has a valid claim to known "the absolute science truth" either.  This is also even true of "experts" in the fields of science who are more apt to be biased by personal financial and professional interests than those not dependent on the science for their income.  Certainly those with atheistic bias and minds closed to the other interpretations of science have no valid claim to know "the" truth of science.  They also have no valid claim to be able to reject God on the basis of any science.

We only propose to have brought together a lot of evidence from numerous science related sources that show that science is very limited, uncertain, and usually silent on the profound and deepest questions about life and the universe. 

We have endeavored to use colors and bold font (as per this page) to allow the reader who wishes to, to skip along the essays and pick out key coherent points if their reading time is limited.  Additionally, some subjects are covered in more than one essay as the issues are inextricably linked to together.

We will try to be one nexus for the opinions and positions of many scientists who believe that science cannot answer the deeper questions of life.  We believe that the more one looks at a broad range of  the beliefs of scientists involving the deeper questions of reality, the more one finds that for many scientists,  science points with a high probability to a universe fundamentally imbued with Design.  We believe that when one looks at the array of deep issues that science cannot explain, together with what science can explain and which are shown to be extremely improbable by chance, one is faced with a total picture which clearly points to God in all probability.  This is not to say that science has or can prove the existence of God.

Essentially, all the essays and almost all the references in this site are just philosophy.   Philosophy always contains some core logic and there is no reason that the logic should not be consistent with science.  Yes our philosophical essays even go beyond being directly related to science and into societal needs and deep values, but this is made necessary by the misuse of science by atheistic and monetary interests on the other side and the subsequent misdirection of society and especially the mis-teaching and indoctrination of our children.  We should be teaching our children to think open mindedly and not insisting that the believe in any dogma.

Our philosophizing certainly does not require the reader to be educated in academic philosophy.  We do not venture into the arena of academics but are concerned with and focused on the real world impact of science and the misuse of science.

The essays are generally not long nor require much scientific knowledge.  We believe that the essays merely present one set of logically consistent interpretations of hard science findings.   Often one will find such essays overstate the importance of the interpretations and we will probably fall into that trap on occasion trying to counter the overstatements of opposing viewpoints.  When we make that error on occasion, hopefully it will be at least partially offset by the numerous links and book references we include to support our basic positions.

 Any interpretation of science fact becomes, of course, much more significant when it is not merely that of an individual but is in close correspondence on key issues to those of many noted scientists.  We do not want to portray our views as representing the majority of scientists, and in fact, most of our views would represent the minority of scientists.  Majority views, however, do not mean that that view is correct, and in fact, the history of science is replete with majority views which turned out to be in error.

In this site we try to show the correspondence via the links to other sites and book references in many places within the essays and at the end of the essays.   Where the reference is to a site which also espouses particular religious beliefs, we will try to always highlight those in gray.   This is not in any way to say that those sites are not as valid in their scientific related reasoning (the reason they are included is that we believe their scientific interpretation is, we believe, reasonable and not in any in conflict with basic science fact.)  We only do not want to be accused of hiding any religious bias in the viewpoints we present.  (We do not consider sites which refer to God but not to any particular religion or faith and which primarily discuss interpretations of science as a religious site.) 

It is also worth noting, in any case how few of our links are to religious sites.  Generally the references to religious sites on most pages are far outnumbered by secular sites with views which support or at least parallel ours to some degree.  It is fact easy to find other scientists who have possibly valid science interpretations which like ours are different that the prevailing science dogma.  This is due to the fact that most science dogmas are full of logical holes. 

In few if any cases do we reference a religious site where the link page itself is enumerating specific religious belief or dogma.  This is not to be interpreted as taking away from the value of those sites which do espouse particular religious beliefs, but we believe that the arguments in this site can stand on their own and avoid dependence on any religious or other dogma.  This will at least avoid some of the attacks which are inevitable from opposing atheistic interests.

Often in the essays we will incorporate related subjects and provide links within the body of the essay to those subjects to give the interested reader an easy path to follow.   We also include links at the bottom of the pages for additional reference.

We will try to write for best information understanding rather than best continuity in reading.  Most of the subjects in this site are fairly closely interrelated, and we have knowingly touched on key issues in more than one essay where it fits the basic topic.  We hope this will help in understanding how things fit together.

We would also refer the reader to the book reviews which cover some of the support from scientists in book as well as web site forums.  The reviews include key quotes by scientists which show that we are by no means alone in our views of science.  There is a second page which covers more book reviews with even shorter comments.

 When one takes science information at any level and extrapolates its possible meanings, no person derives hard science but only a hypothesis (a reasoned interpretation.) our essays in most cases contain hypothesis which are similar in basic philosophy to those of others trained and experienced in science who have come to understand the limits of science.

Our fully original positions and ideas can be seen as such by fewer references supporting positions of other scientists. In these cases, the positions should be taken as being farther from the mainstream of science.  The ideas are still, in any case, in logical correlation with the basic nature and understandings of science.

Our essays do contain a number of such original ideas including extrapolations of the fundamentals of modern physics (especially starting from the idea that all of reality is some form of a field and other such fundamental findings of basic physics.) our extrapolations are not presented as science but just as hypothesis which are not in conflict with known science and which fit the direction in which science is going.

Our ideas are not any farther out of the mainstream that ideas being seriously investigated in physics.  On such new basic ideas of physics is STRING FIELD THEORY  which is an example of reasoning that physical reality is based on geometries, frequencies, and field interactions.   In this theory, the whole universe is like a symphony of notes and tones.

Our hypothesis are also to our knowledge, consistent with such ideas and a basic belief in a harmonious god and the belief that the basic truths of science actually point to a deeply profound and beautiful harmonious reality at work in the universe.   Such a universe is not what has any significant probability of occurring just by chance.

More and more scientists are coming to believe that science is showing the handiwork of god.
 LINK HERE TO LIST OF SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVE IN GOD.  Additional links listing such scientists can be found below.

Detractors who may question our credentials (engineering rather than pure science) cannot validly question the credentials of the numerous scientists we reference throughout the site and essays. At the very least, our references prove that the "science" of the mainstream leaves many fundamental questions unanswered.  We also believe that an engineers viewpoint may at times actually have an advantage in understanding the "design" of the universe.

Mainstream science also contains many assumptions and contradictions which are not openly discussed as is often the case in our essays. Our essays would not qualify as an academic paper, but such a qualification doesn't always mean much as is illustrated by an article in the April 15 Seattle times titled; "science conference fooled by MIT babble." pranksters at MIT created a computer generated gibberish paper which was accepted for presentation at a world scientific conference.  So much for peer review and scientific papers always being good science.

The reality is also that almost all science articles in magazines and newspapers are like our essays and even conference papers are not 100% science. Very often science papers contain a lot of philosophy and very little hard science.

Actual hard science reports contain descriptions of test setups, equipments lists, data tables and plots, and calculations. What they contain beyond that almost always is not hard science. Interpretations of test results very often drift beyond the hard science into philosophies in the same category as our essays.

Though the large majority of our beliefs are shared by other scientists, our is certainly not a majority view in the science community. The prime reason for this is that science is too often driven by close-minded dogma as well as monetary, peer pressure, and career factors and not the open-minded search for the truth.

Another reason our essays present a view not often found in the official science community is that our viewpoint is from a position of belief in god while the basic bias of the science community (not the science itself) is against those who believe in god and naturally against any position which would affect their research funding or direction. People of faith often tend to be discouraged by professors to continue education in the basic sciences if they hold to their faith when the college level is reached. This is coming more to the fore and a group has been formed to bring the issue into the open.

Unlike that of the majority of scientists, especially at the college level, who depend on grants and approval from other scientists, our views are limited by bureaucracies holding monetary purse string and controlling what is done and said.  It is a simple truth that most scientists cannot say that their philosophical positions do not effect their careers. This fact will inevitably color their views at least as much as our belief in god colors ours.

Additionally, atheistic science views are rarely admitted openly, in contrast to our open statement of belief and recognition that it impacts our views. Usually at the very least, peer pressures and career biases of most science writers result in biased and overstated interpretations of hard science fact.

In addition to hidden biases, scientists are human and prone to mistakes.  There is also science fraud.  There are also science power structures which turn science away from the search for pure truth.  Many teachers use books loaded with errors and don't know the difference.  

four essays are also dependent on some degree of faith in all our references and like other science related essays, will almost inevitably contain errors.

Our essays are not subject to peer review as is the case with most science essays. This leaves us more open to error but less channeled into narrow thinking by dogma.

We gladly and openly admit our bias of a belief in god and our belief and that we have faith in a creator who is beyond science. without monetary interests at stake, we are also in a position to stand back and have a clearer view of the limits of science.

Understanding the limits of science is, we believe, on of the keys to the future of society. not all "science" is true and not all science is good for society.
We are driven by the belief that UNBRIDLED AND BIASED SCIENCE IS BECOMING MUCH MORE DANGEROUS TO SOCIETY every day. 

We are also driven by the belief that true science does not refute nor conflict in any way with a belief in god and in fact, true hard science is fully in basic support for a belief in something beyond this universe.
We further believe that naturalistic science is, in fact, very limited in many ways including what it will ever be able to say about the origin of the universe, the origin and development of the novelties of life and the phenomena of consciousness. We believe there will always be room for and a need for faith when it comes to these fundamental questions of reality.

Unfortunately, the nature of science funding and the science community fosters overstatement and atheistic interpretations which support the prevailing naturalistic science dogma of those who hold the purse strings. scientists who do not support that dogma do not get funding for experiments from those who consciously or subconsciously don't want the dogma questioned. science is supposed to be a contest of ideas which are tested in the laboratory. The reality is that almost always, experiments which might refute the established dogma are not run, simply because they are not funded by the science bureaucracy. 

It is, of course, important to have scientific consensus to a degree. Without such consensus progress in science would be much slower. The problem is that consensus in science inevitably gets tangled up with career impacts and other biases, especially financial biases.

The interpretations of hard science facts, in this site , are generally in agreement with those of other scientists who have had the courage (nevertheless) to speak out to some degree. The interpretations herein which are reinforced by  referenced books and websites ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE well reasoned since THEY ARE  SUPPORTED BY a broad range of INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN BOOKS OR ARTICLES or websites WRITTEN BY SCIENTISTS.

 When reading anything about science, keep in mind that true hard science generally just gives the results of experiments. The results of hard science have basically two science values. The first value is confirming or refuting the predictions of some theory. The second value is to predict what other experiments should find if the theory is found to be accurate because the subject experiment agrees with the subject theory. That is all hard science tell us.

The reality is that science theories can never be proven with certainty to be true. Experiments can be found consistent with the theory or can show the theory to be false. This limit of science which is often not brought up by scientists themselves.

Science inherently also says little or nothing about where the laws of science come from. hard science is limited to predictable and repeatable laboratory experimental findings about interactions between physical entities and/or postulated fields.

In this site, we will try to bring together information for interpretation from a very wide range of sciences. Any interpretation is only one possible interpretation and we certainly do not claim that ours are definitely the correct or only interpretation.

We will try to knit together important science findings, and interpretations by scientists, into a coherent and more understandable whole. Like proponents of Darwinian macroevolution, we will in some cases speculate well beyond hard science. We will, however, try not to imply that our interpretations are proven science. (Please note that Darwinian microevolution is far different and is based on hard science but explains only micro or linear (brick building) changes in life.)

We encourage web searching on evolution and other sciences. We do strongly advise the searcher to be on the lookout for speculations and philosophizing, not clearly indicated as such. most science sites contain a lot of hidden bias. We would suggest that the searcher look carefully for any presence of large unfounded leaps of logic in scientific interpretations. (Look for words and phrases such as "invented", "adapted", "must have", etc.)

Commercialized science will be more and more controlling of our future as time passes. the uses of science need to be monitored by an informed public. We believe it is important for citizens to try to find and basically understand the most probable truth about science.

We especially believe that the truth is that hard science certainly cannot answer any of the deeper and complex questions about reality. Science models are not reality. They are just one way of viewing reality. Looking at reality from a belief in god is another equally valid way of viewing reality not inconsistent with science facts.  There is no scientific fact which precludes or even argues against such a view.

Science will, almost certainly, never eliminate the need for faith and a belief in something beyond ourselves, nor the need to being careful in what we accept as truth. we believe the truth of science points towards god.