THE GOALS OF THIS SITE:

The primary goals of this site are to;

 1) Educate students and people of faith and anyone who is concerned about where erroneous atheistic interpretations of science are taking us. Citizens should understand the limits of science and the dangers of science which arise from the misuse of science and even the misuse of the term "science" by those who misrepresent materialistic opinion and philosophy as  science fact.

There can be a big difference between Science Truth and science interpretations and even the issue of truth in science is not simple.

There is nothing wrong with informed speculation/philosophizing about the findings of science as long as the speculation is not presented as hard science or as the only interpretation of hard science.  Informed speculation (like all essays in this site) is in fact necessary to determine where science goes next.  Informed speculation is not, however, hard science and is (or at least should be) open to questioning and different interpretations in the true spirit of science which should be an open minded search for the truth.

2) Provide a nexus (a source where information is brought together in a way which a place of focus on the realities, failings, and potentials of science.    The is a great deal of information about science generally available and we will work to provide a nexus to look at some of that information which is key in evaluating the actual and supposed truths of science.

We provide numerous quotes by scientists and book reviews which support our positions including some of the top scientists in the world like S. Hawkings, R. Penrose, and R. Laughlin, Nobel Prize physicist plus E. Schrodinger also a Nobel prize physicist and Nobel prize winner I. Prigogine to name a few.  (This is not to be taken as implying in any way that the quoted scientists would fully agree with of our positions.)   Cosmos Bios and Theos  questions 60 leading scientists including 20 Nobel prize winners;  in the interview with Sir John Eccles, Nobel Prize winner with a Ph.D. in natural sciences, when questioned if he believed in a divine Creation said:  “Yes I do.  I have said that several times in my books.  And this is a creation.  You have to think of it as not just by a Creator who tosses off souls one after another.  This is a loving Creator giving us all these wonderful gifts.”

C. de Duve (Nobel Prize Winner)  In his book "Life Evolving" makes some interesting admissions which actually argue against the authors position that life can be explained naturally.  In the book he admits that some scientists are becoming skeptical of the explanatory powers of evolution.  The author additionally admits that life seems designed into the laws of physics.  The author also admits that many of the hypotheses of the evolution community are highly speculative and not supported by scientific fact.

We would hope to play a role in making science known to be far less than the ideal and more limited, uncertain, speculative, while still being essentially consistent with a basic faith in God.  The ideals of science as being a pure search for the truth are often not the reality and science needs to be more responsive to the needs of society through the pressures resulting from an informed/voting citizenry.

Voting citizens should be informed about science and its major misuses. Thomas Jefferson has been quoted as calling for "the diffusion of knowledge among the people."  He also said "No other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom".  Education, and science education in particular, is, in fact, one of the major keys to the future of society and the world.  When it comes to science, that education is not just for children.  Responsible adults/citizens also need to better understand the real limits and dangers of science in particular.

3) Reinforce the fact that science points towards the probable existence of God and in no way tends to refute such a basic belief in a Designer/Creator of the universe and the life in it. 

4)  Support good science by working to minimize the misuses of science.

We believe that misuse of science is not well known among the voting public and is being misinterpreted and misused in several areas.  The misuses of science (or at least the misuse of the term science) include the following;

     1) Presenting opinions of what science findings mean and misrepresenting those opinions of the researcher as science fact or at least not making a clear distinction between the facts and the opinions/interpretations.

     2) Misrepresenting any science finding as implying that life is without meaning or purpose or that only random factors are at work.

     3) Misrepresenting science as something which can answer all questions at all levels.

     4) Teaching theory as unquestioned fact (specifically Darwinian macro evolution, the big bang inflation (this is different than the big bang theory by itself) and the standard model of physics) and not teaching the questions the theories do not answer and not teaching the conflicts between the theory and observed science facts is not in the true spirit of science.

     5) Science not being the open minded contest of ideas that science is supposed be.   Dogma based on circumstantial evidence open to other interpretations is not science.

     6) Often indirectly attacking people of faith by claiming that science is in conflict with their faith when there is no such science.

     7) Endangering society and the world with careless science and use of science, driven by personal and/or profit motives.

All this is not to say that we are anti science.  The opposite is the case and we believe that much more good science needs to be done as the world population grows and stresses the environment and societies.  The issue is what is the best science to do for society and our planet and how is that science represented to the public.

The reality is that great beauty and opportunity for humanity is found almost everywhere on our planet.  The beauty and harmony that exists from the large structure of the universe all the way down to living cells and below is supportive of faith and the belief in purpose in the universe and reason to care for others and this planet.  It is imperative that society understand the facts of science and the uses and misuses of science to avoid irreparable damage to our environment, our society, and our children.  There can be great pleasure in finding out how deep and beautiful all of creation is.  Good science can do this.

We are admittedly biased by our belief in God in what we believe is good science, but we will be open in our bias and this will not limit our ability to provide some insights as to the hidden biases and dangers inherent in science.  The public is often misled about science activities by those who hide their biases.  Our viewpoint is from a Christian faith and we will endeavor not to hide our bias (which at least is not monetarily driven.)  It is true, in any case, that our bias does not detract from the truths that we bring forward in the site from numerous scientific sources.  We will present many quotes from noted scientists as to what are the probable real limits of science, in support of our beliefs and positions.    We also at times reference and link to religious sites but those will be highlighted in gray and are in the minority of our links.

Though it is clear that the leadership of scientific organizations and scientific publications by in large have an obvious atheistic bias,  that does not mean that the truth of science is biased against nor is any real evidence against the validity of  a belief in God.  We do not propose, in any case, that our admitted theistic viewpoint is necessarily the only valid viewpoint but only that it is a viewpoint that is consistent with the hard facts of science, in basic agreement with that of many other scientists, and worth being a small part of the publics education on science in general.

Science understanding/education will become increasingly important to society as science becomes ever more determinate of the direction of any society.   The site hopes to stimulate critical analysis of all that is presented as supposed science.   Science conflicts and disagreements should be brought up as part of science teaching.  Teaching the controversies.

We believe that that Thomas Jefferson was very farsighted in this belief of the need for "diffusion of knowledge among the people".  He probably did not fully realize the future importance of understanding the limits and biases in science.  This is becoming increasingly  important to people of faith due to the hidden atheistic biases, sadly, especially those of many in the teaching profession.

There are very serious implications as to whether one believes in purely naturalistic explanations for life or in the probable existence of a creator and design in the world.  The truth of science in this and other regards is far from being just of academic interest.  (Please refer to the sections near the bottom of the page or in this other web site on Evolution or Intelligent Design?  Also refer to the book; "The Case For A Creator" by L. Strobel.)

In this site, we rely on published scientific views from professional scientists and where possible views of scientists who are known to the general public or who at least have published books or essays.  We will make very little reference to religious teachings and will rely essentially logically consistent interpretations of the hard facts of science.  We wish to present a counterpoint to the atheistic view based on science without dependence on our Christian religious beliefs. 

The atheistic views and bias in much of what is presented to the public as science is of greatest concern and impact on society where it pervades the top levels of education and scientific organizations which determine what is taught to our children in science classes in schools.  While we do not advocate the teaching of any specific religion in public schools, we are very much against the teaching of atheism (especially when that atheism is not openly stated.)   We believe atheistic teaching is for all practical purposes teaching a form of religion and should also be prohibited in public schools.  (An statement such as; science can explain everything and eliminates the need for a belief in God, or anything close to or implying such, is a religious statement which should be prohibited unless taught is a philosophy of religion class with opposing views from scientists of who believe in God.  (There are many such scientists.)

This site has another goal to be a counterpoint to those who present science as absolute truth and who either hide the dogma and uncertainty in all of science or who cannot see or admit the dogma which almost always accompanies pronouncements of supposed scientific truth.   We do believe that Scientism is a real problem and needs to be countered. 

Toward our goals, we hope the information presented in this site will at least encourage the reader to examine his/her beliefs about science and truth.   We would hope that readers will raise the concern about  the impacts of atheistically biased and misrepresented science upon our society, our lives, and our faiths.  We certainly do not mean in any way to devalue true science.  Our contention is only in areas where some scientists have clearly stepped beyond the realm of the hard facts of science itself and are trying to use atheistic interpretations of science to influence society toward a materialist and reductionism stance which falsely devalues faith.

We will try to be intellectually honest and will endeavor to make our biases open and above board.  Unfortunately, most sites presenting atheistic views do not make it at all obvious that such is their biases are and instead make the reader believe they are only stating the objective science facts.  Most science pronouncements go far beyond the limited facts without making it clear that they have crossed far beyond that line.

We would caution the reader to be vigilant when searching the net for science information.  In addition to the hidden bias, there are numerous sites which present some science theories which would find very little support among other scientists and that is generally not made clear either.