Related Articles

March 17, 2014


February 13, 2014

Jubilee piece


Big Brother?

The Curious Case of Randomness Theory

Most British academics, particularly in the atheist community, will cite Randomness Theory as the model to describe cosmic order. According to the theory, the universe is nothing more than a fluke; subsequent life and humanity are random happenstance; all is random chance and chaotic. Randomness, a theory in academe, dovetails with Atheism, an ideological movement, as both posit the absence of any order or design to the universe. Thus the global lay atheistic community has apparently adopted Randomness and provides aggressive support for it in media in which they have leverage. As bizarre as this concept may be, Randomness is considered the only acceptable theory by the British academic orthodoxy. With control over many academic journals and leverage over select media, a small but focused British atheist academic group has managed to entrench Randomness as the prevailing orthodoxy.

To be sure, this group-think has its detractors. Often derided as the “Emperor's Clothing”, Randomness has been ridiculed as more ideologically than scientifically motivated. Its primary purpose is to remove any semblance of ‘design’ from universal theory. Mixing ‘science’ with ‘religion’ is a potentially dangerous and volatile mix. Highly-placed British academics have not only allowed this ‘mix’ to be institutionalized, they turn a blind eye to the egregious actions of their ideological ‘support group’, global Atheism.

To further this end of advancing Randomness, the entrenched orthodoxy has an ongoing structure in-place to destroy both any challenging theories as well as their presenters. In what can be seen as nothing less than actual character assassination, the British academic establishment has viciously attacked dissenters through concerted, ad hominem attacks. A tiny minority of rabid academics have effectively held the intellectual community hostage - to prevent innovation in cosmic theory. By artificially burnishing Randomness Theory's credentials as an unassailable truth they have effectively stymied the advance of knowledge. Yet, their very tactics remove the most important tests of scientific theory – integrity and the ability to stand up to challenge and debate.

Typically, targets of the atheist group are first crucified in The Chronicle of Higher Education; then the Chronicle article is heavily floated as gospel truth and linked by atheist media globally; finally, the atheist network ad nauseum quotes defamatory pieces circulated by its own fellow members trashing the target. The initial result is a cascade of delegitimization globally focused on a single target. The end result is to prop-up Randomness by undermining any intellectual challenge. This cynical game has been countenanced by disingenuous senior British academics for over two decades, as they self-ward each other sundry awards and prizes. This ultimate ‘closed club’ has no choice but to self-congratulate fellow members in-on-the-game. .

With no little irony, atheism currently stands where the Church once did. Through multiple mechanisms, such as controlling journals and academic media, the 21st century Church of Atheism has waged war on intellectual freedom and progress. Take, for example, Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design was introduced with significant components qualifying as legitimate theory. It had strong intellectual backing from segments of the academic community; right or wrong it had credible philosophical structure.
The atheist academic community, far from viewing it as legitimate, engaged in an all-out war on Intelligent Design. Instead of engaging in meaningful debate against the theory, the academic orthodoxy ridiculed and delegitimized both the theory and any proponents willing to support it. The entry-point’ argument of the Intelligent Design group is tat ‘design’ seems apparent in the universe and in nature. Through various morally dubious gambits, the zealot Randomness-atheist group has managed to demonize this qute legitimate intellectual position.

While fostering lively debate is a hallmark of proper academics, what the British academic hierarchy has condoned if not instigated is more closely associated with the gambits of defamation, libel and character assassination. This should hardly be shocking though. 1918 Nobel Prize winner in Physics winner Max Planck (arguably the father of modern quantum physics) famously noted in his autobiography Wissenschaftliche Selbstbiographie. Mit einem Bildnis und der von Max von Laue gehaltenen Traueransprache (Leipzig 1948): “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Sadly, this may mean that the only way to banish the old superstitions of Randomness are for those too blind to lexit the stage, to fade into history

A central tenrt of Randomness is “decay”. Randomness Theory states that everything in the universe has a natural tendency to disintegrate and decline. Never mind that the universe's first moments of creation contradict this supposition. Never mind that the Law of Conservation of Mass states nothing can be destroyed. Never mind that the changing nature of the universe actually gave rise to complex, sentient life. Never mind that the advocates of decay go ballistic when one aks them the source of that which is decaying. All these obvious weak points are off-limits to challengers of Randomness Theory. To question the jih proests of Randomness-atheism is to flirt with academic ruin; the atheist pinnacle predators who defend Randomness will come after you, en masse.

One doesn't have to look far to find examples of these attacks.

In April 2012, Bard College hosted a three-day international academic conference show-casing private scholar David Birnbaum's iconic Summa Metaphysica philosophy treatise. In his work, Birnbaum proposes his dynamic and scientifically-based Infinite Potential Theory – possibly the most elegant metaphysics ever presented. Global academic acceptance of Summa notwithstanding, the British Randomness-atheist academics organized what can only be described as a “hit squad” against anyone Summa-related.  In May of 2013, the Randomness junta retaliated in academic media in a mass, ad hominem attack on both Birnbaum and Bard (and any academic willing to stand by Birnbaum) – threatening the names and careers of anyone or anything that was associated with Infinite Potential Theory. What was left unspoken was how Birnbaum’s Theory of Potential puts sketchy and intellectually vacuous Randomness Theory to shame. The cavalier British academic atheists seem to confuse power with truth.

The main attack against yeshiva-educated and Harvard-educated Birnbaum is that he is an ‘outsider’ to the academic establishment. Iconic philosophy ‘outsiders’ 17th century Spinoza and 20th century Teilhard de Chardin, to name just two, might be bemused by the apparently panic-filled Randomness-atheistic establishment hell-bent on undermining paradigm challenger Birnbaum. The Randomness attack-dogs conveniently fail to note the dozen+ colleges globally using this particular ‘outsider’s’s philosophical treatise as a course text. Note that notwithstanding the intense academic scrutiny, no flaw or vulnerability has been found or discerned over the 26-year span that Birnbaum’s 3-volume treatise has been released..

Likewise, American philosopher Thomas Nagel challenged Randomness in his 2012 book Mind & Cosmos (Oxford Press). Ironically, Nagel himself is an atheist, but not part of the ruling junta. However, Nagel’s belief that a universal model of purpose was missing from the Randomness model was enough to enrage the entrenched academic orthodoxy and set off a string of vicious personal attacks on him. Meanwhile the Randomness-atheist hierarchy scratches each other’s backs and then mutually bestows awards upon one another ‘for scientific advance’, of course. Cute.

So vitriolic and unabashed have these gratuitous and baseless atheist attacks become, that some brave academics are speaking up to protest the damage done to the advancement of knowledge itself. In January of 2013, Yale Professor David Galernter, struck back at the atheist academic establishment with an article titled The Closing of the Scientific Mind. Enraged by the lasting damage caused by the reactionary browbeating of intellectual discovery, Galernter lashed-out at these ‘lynch-mob’ crypto-academics for what he called ‘locker-room braggadocio’ deployed to belittle legitimate intellectual challenge. Galernter maintains that it is the intimidation of science and the vicious tactics of those defending Randomness, that is causing science to suffer and stagnate.

This all begs the question: How does this gang have any legitimacy at all? Have they not betrayed the sacred trust accorded to academia – to search out truth? Have they not thoroughly abused their power at the helm of academe? Has this so-elite group of fancy academic from fancy British universities not shown itself to be both morally and intellectually bankrupt? Moreover, do the proponents of Randomness actually have anything of substance to say? Or his the whole production of Randomness Theory just a ‘house of cards’ artificially propped-up on media life-support by a small clique of academics zealouslu protecting their little academic power turf and clubby Church (of Atheism)? Is Randomness even a theory – or more an absence of a theory? If it is indeed a theory, why do its defenders refuse to give any breathing space for opposition? Why do they – in knee-jerk fashion - choose to rabidly attack both message and messenger with such morally reprehensible tactics?

Are they are just ‘hollow men with hollow theories?’ Just how long do they expect to keep this dubious charade going? More importantly, when their ongoing nefariousness is uncovered, how much greater will the public revulsion when the full extent of their decades-long gangster-like gambits surfaces? Perhaps Randmoness-atheist academics should actually consider being scientists first, and zealous, extremist loyalists of the Church of Atheism second.

As for the contemporary pioneers of modern philosophy and cosmology viciously attacked by the Randomness junta and their lackeys, kudos to them for staying steadfast and unbowed -- as well as for their intellectual daring and conceptual brilliance. Consider these words from an address on the 25th Anniversary of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society (January 1936): “New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment. “  In that vein, the Birnbams and Nagels of today are the inheritors of science, the Newtons, Plancks and Galileos of the new millennia.

Summa Metaphysica’s intro presciently quotes 20th century European philosopher-poet Lanza del Vasto “All revolutions take time to settle in.” Intellectual mavericks and allies Birnbaum and Nagel have come to symbolize resistance to the terror-tactics of a disingenuous reactionary group operating ‘from the shadows’ and committed only to their personal power and ideological zealotry.  Although vastly outgunned, both intellectual revolutionaries Birnbaum and Nagel remain steadfast and confident that they will prevail, perhaps secure in 19th Century French writer Victor Hugo’s adage ”Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come”.

February 7, 2014

A Cancer in AcademeFraming Theory of the universe? See  David Birnbaum philosophy Summa Metaphysica. David Birnbaum Theory of Everything?  A unified  theogony....cosmogony....cosmology....theodicy....teleology. See David Birnbaum philosophy....metaphysics.


Comments are closed.