“Moses was High ON Drugs,” read the headline of a story published March 2, 2008 by AFP, (Agence France-Presse) one of the three largest news agencies in the world. The story was also picked up and reported by other press agencies all over the world. The gist of the story is this: Benny Shanon, an Israeli psychologist at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, has published new “research” in the “Time and Mind Journal of Philosophy.” This research has led him to conclude that during the Exodus, Moses and the Israelites were frequently high on hallucinogenic drugs. He further argued that it was during these drugged bashes that Moses and the Israelites imagined hearing the Theophany (“God speaking”) and receiving the Ten Commandments. Dr. Shanon states that there could only be three explanations as the source of the visions and voices heard by Moses and the Israelites: they were either supernatural phenomena, myths or drug induced hallucinations. However, Shanon’s conclusion is that the explanation is it was a drug induced phenomena; therefore the Ten Commandments did not come from God but were instead the result of a high on psychedelic drugs.

These are very important claims for a variety of reasons; among them is the fact that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of Western Law and the Judeo-Christian doctrine of morality. If Dr. Shanon is correct, all of the West’s moral and legal codes are based on nothing more than a “bad trip” taken by some strung-out druggies about 3500 years ago. Given the wide ranging attention to this story by the “objective”, “mainstream media” it would be reasonable to assume that a sweeping claim with such broad implications must be founded on substantial research, especially given that the underlying story line is that: it is now time to forget the Ten Commandments and move on to a “new morality,” which will probably look a great deal like the old immorality.

So what is the evidence presented by Dr. Shanon that the media finds so compelling? Well, it is his “opinion” that is the evidence combined with his claim that when he used a South American hallucinogenic drug called Ayahusca, he had hallucinations, which had “spiritual-religious connotations.” He claims that there were plants in the Sinai, which could have produced similar hallucinations if taken by Moses and others. He further dismisses the alternative explanation that the supernatural event reported in the Bible, with the “irrefutable argument” that “I don’t believe that.” The world’s media of course does not want to question a claim supported by “research” of this quality, despite the fact that there is absolutely no textual or archaeological evidence to support the claims.

Why This is Important

The media’s uncritical reporting and support for such bogus and nonsensical stories based on nothing but one person’s opinion following his experimentation with hallucinogens have the unfortunate but not unforeseen result of granting credibility to claims that are totally unsupported by fact. Once these claims get into print they then have a tendency to become props for the received wisdom of the age. “The Di Vinci Code” is a good example: even though it was fiction and made claims that were demonstrably false, it has now become widely believe especially by young people that, “It is common knowledge that Jesus was married and had children.” The sad reality is that this “research” may now become part of the received wisdom and will be widely quoted as support for the claim that, “Moses imagined The Ten Commandments when he tripped out on drugs.”

By: Lawrence Vescera Ph. D., Iscca Newton Institute

On November 9, 2007, this Blog reported on the discovery that the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) that permeates the Universe shows clear evidence of the Earth having been placed at a special location in the Universe. Scientists discovered that the major temperature lobes left over from the Big Bang appear to be centered on our Solar System. This discovery is strong evidence for the Anthropic Principle: the belief that the Universe was designed to allow the existence of life. It also lends support to many physicists who have begun questioning String Theory and its speculation that our Universe is just one of an infinite or near infinite number of other Universes.

Of course, this affirmation of the Anthropic Principle is anathema to the atheist’s belief that there is no God, that humans are not special, and that our location in the Universe is not favored in any unique way. Consequently, materialists dubbed this discovery, “The Axis of Evil” because it presents a huge problem for their belief system.

Subsequently, materialist scientists have begun a desperate search to find some way to explain the structure of the CMB without recognizing God’s hand in it. A number of theories have been put forward to this end, including some interpretations of the recent discovery of a 900-million light year void in the Universe.

The Standard Model of the Universe, the one most widely accepted by scientists, and String Theory call for galaxies to be arranged in bubble-like structures. The surface of the bubbles consists of sheets of galaxies while the interiors are largely near-empty voids. However, neither of these theories predicts that any of the voids would be as large as 900 million light years. There are a number of explanations for this larger than expected void within the Standard Model. Of these, the most widely discussed is the “Topological Defect” model, which predicted this type of anomaly. However, Laura Mersini-Houghton of the University of North Carolina has offered a new theory. She argues that the larger than expected void is evidence that our Universe is being squeezed in one direction by another Universe, and this squeezing effect is causing the “Axis of Evil” anomaly observed in the CMB.

Why This Is Important

Mersini-Houghton’s theory was recently discussed in an article published in The NewScientist entitled, “Into The Void.” What was amazing about this article was not its presentation of new scientific findings (which it did not contain) but rather its open admission that this new “highly speculative” theory might provide the materialists with a way to rescue their atheistic belief system. The author actually openly states of her theory, “And it would do away with the anthropic arguments that have plagued string theorists in recent years…” Mersini-Houghton admits that the philosophical/theological reasons for developing her theory were to resolve the dilemma recent discoveries had created for String Theorists. “String theorists, who had so hoped to avoid the anthropic principle, have now been forced to invoke it to explain why our vacuum was selected out from the 10 to the 500th other string vacuums.” The main advantage of her theory is that it might allow these String Theorists to once again abandon the Anthropic Principle and return to a purely materialistic worldview because “Anthropic arguments leave many physicists queasy.” “It’s a much more scientific and legitimate way of picking out a universe like ours than the anthropic principle.”

In other words, the belief that God created the Universe is illegitimate. The claim that the Universe just happened as the result of a cosmic accident is the only “legitimate” type of explanation.

Mersini-Houghton’s theory has yet to be put to the test. It is, of course, possible that experimental results will be found that can be interpreted as support for her theory. However, it is disheartening to see science driven by atheistic fundamentalism instead of by an objective search for the truth.

Source: “Into The Void” by Marcus Chown, The NewScientist, November 24, 2007, pp 34-37.

By:  Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

Biblical Minimalists are critics who historically have taken the position that almost everything in the Bible is either myth or fantasy. Until recently, Minimalists claimed that the entire Old Testament was written in Babylon during the period of the captivity of the Jews in the late Sixth Century. The Old Testament allegedly was a propaganda tool concocted to buck up the spirits of the exiled Judeans with a wonderful fictional history, something like an ancient Michael Moore “documentary”.

Minimalists refuse to acknowledge the accuracy of anything recorded in the Bible until forced by extra-Biblical verification. Unfortunately for the Minimalists, archaeologists keep uncovering evidence for the accuracy of the Biblical narrative. These discoveries have forced the Minimalists to recant and have left them with fewer Biblical accounts to disparage. For example, the once doubted historicity and veracity of the accounts of King David and King Solomon have been authenticated. When the first archaeological evidence emerged showing that King David existed, it was attacked as wrongly interpreted; however, as more inscriptions were uncovered bearing David’s name, Minimalists were forced to admit the truth.

Sadly for the Minimalists, independent extra-Biblical evidence has been found for the existence of another Biblical character. On October 29, 2007, Dr. Marjo Korpel, an Old Testament scholar at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, announced that an ancient engraved seal from the collection of the Israel Antiquity Authority in Jerusalem bears the name of Queen Jezebel, the Phoenician wife of King Ahab. Jezebel, discussed in 1 Kings 21, famously ran afoul of the Prophet Elijah.

Why This is Important

The extra-Biblical proof of not only Queen Jezebel’s existence but also of the accuracy of the specifics of the Biblical account (i.e. when she lived, where she lived, her queenly role) leave the Minimalists with nothing but unsubstantiated and unsupported claims of Biblical inaccuracies. The more the archaeologists dig, the worse the Minimalists’ case is against the Bible.

Source: Utrecht University ( 2007, October 29). “Ancient Seal Belonged to Queen Jezebel”. Science Daily. Retrieved from www.sciencedaily.com.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph. D.

Mathematics Professors Wanted – Believers Need Not Apply.
The new Princeton University Press book: How Mathematicians Think by William Byers a mathematician at UC Berkeley supports the extraordinary claim that atheism is “killing mathematics.” In his insightful review of the book, Gregory Chaitin one of the worlds leading mathematicians asks, “Would Euler, Cantor, and Ramanujan be welcome in the Mathematics Department of a university today?” His conclusion is a resounding “No”. These giants of mathematics would not be welcome among academic mathematicians because atheistic materialism has become the dominant paradigm in today’s universities.

Euler, who created much of the math used today, was so strongly informed by his Christian beliefs that he is recognized as a Lutheran Saint, and is commemorated each May 24 on the Church Calendar. Cantor invented, or in his view “discovered,” transcendental numbers (multiples of infinities) as a way to “better understand God.” Ramanujan, recognized as one of the greatest geniuses of the Twentieth Century for his work in Analysis and Number Theory, argued that, “…an equation is only of value if it expresses one of God’s thoughts…”

Other famous theistic mathematicians, who would now be expelled from academia, include the Sumerian priests who started it all with accounting and calculating the astronomical calendar, the Pythagoreans, who invented geometry and number theory (the foundations of advanced math) as part of their mystical investigations into knowing God, and a vast number of Christian luminaries including Descartes and Pascal. Towering above all of these are the penultimate mathematicians of all time, Newton and Leibnitz, the cofounders of modern calculus, with deeply and explicitly Christian motivations behind their mathematical investigations; they most definitely would not be welcome.

Byers and Chaitin believe that math began to die in the twentieth century as freedom of thought and creativity became constrained by an over emphasis on formulae; “…words, ideas, diagrams, examples, explanations, and applications” were all rejected in favor of a “nit-picking avoidance of mistakes.” Creativity was abandoned in favor of rigor, and this rigor has resulted in “rigour mortis.” As someone who has taught math, I was struck by the truth of these claims. It is very difficult to think of a truly important discovery in math coming after the 1950s.

What caused the creativity, imagination, and leaps of insight characteristic of mathematicians to be replaced with a stultifying and slavish attachment to formulaic rigor? It is Byers and Chaitin’s conclusion that secular humanistic beliefs about the nature of man are at the heart of the problem. Secular humanists contend that man is nothing more than an accident of nature, that consciousness is simply biochemical reactions in the brain, and that life itself is totally without purpose and meaning. “If mathematicians see themselves as machines they will behave like machines; if mathematicians think they are trivial, then they will be trivial.”

Why This Is Important

It is important that Christians know their intellectual heritage. Many surveys have been done on the religious beliefs of scientists. Mathematicians are always at, or near, the top of these studies showing that 70% to 80% of them believe in God. The percentage of believers decreases, as the field of scientific study gets “softer,” with the social sciences having the lowest percentage of believers.

The media consistently try to portray Christians as stupid, ignorant, benighted dupes, or worse. However, in the sciences, the exact opposite is true; intellectual capability tends to be highly correlated with belief in God. Christians need to know that they have been the key players in the cutting edge of mathematics, the world’s most fundamental intellectual endeavor.

Beyond the troubling damage being done to the advancement of mathematics by secular humanism, there is also the practical cost. Technological innovation, economic progress, and health are all tied to the continued advancement of math. Kill math and you kill innovation. Kill innovation and you kill economic growth and people.

Sources:

1. New Scientist, “Review: How Mathematicians Think” by Gregory Chiatin, July 25, 2007.

2. “How Mathematicians Think”, by William P. Byers, 2007, Princeton Universty Press, Princeton, NJ.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

“This ‘scientific research’ defies common sense!” Have you ever found yourself saying this after reading a “scientific” study, which makes an incredible claim such as, “porn is good for marital health,” or “there is no link between abortion and depression?” Have you noticed that “scientific research” with questionable results or conclusions seems to be on the rise? Have you read conclusions that do not appear to be justified by the “proof” given? If you have, you are not alone.

Recently there have been a number of high profile scandals involving bogus research findings. These have spanned the world and have covered every field from genetics to the disappearance from public view of the UN’s purported “Smoking Gun” of “Global Warming” - the now discredited and vanished “Hockey Stick.” However, these scandals are just the tip of the iceberg.

On September 14, 2007, the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled, “Most Science Studies Appear to be Tainted by Sloppy Analysis.” This article was based on the work of Dr. John Ioannidis of Tufts University. In Ioannidis’s provocative article, “Why Most Research Findings Are False,” he makes an even stronger case for skepticism of “scientific research.”

Dr. Ioannidis’s findings show that over half of all scientific research is seriously flawed and therefore not valid. Very often these flaws involve using the wrong mathematical tools, misapplying them, or inappropriate handling of data. While sloppiness is a major factor in false research, there are far more powerful motives for falsifying or misinterpreting research. These include money and, most importantly, “bias.”

Not surprisingly, a large amount of academic funding is dependent upon the results of research. If your funding comes from the National Education Association, your research on the academic success of parochial schools is not likely to show or emphasize the fact that parochial schools consistently out perform public schools at half the price. If you are a socialist, using environmentalism to advance your economic agenda, your research is not likely to point out that the United States (whose Congress has not ratified the Kyoto protocols) has met the CO2 reductions mandated by Kyoto, while most of the nations that have ratified the treaty have not met their mandated reductions.

Very often these “false research findings” are spin. A leading example is the failure of hundreds of genetic studies that aimed to bolster the Darwinian Tree of Life model of descent from a common ancestor. The researchers and media rarely mention that these unexpected and contradictory findings are a huge problem for Darwinism. The results are duplicitously spun and reported as being consistent with the Darwinian paradigm.

Why This Is Important

A few years ago DDT was banned based on research now universally acknowledged to be incorrect. The ban resulted in millions of unnecessary malarial deaths (mostly children) worldwide. Bogus research can also have disastrous social consequences. Margaret Mead’s studies of sexual freedom in South Pacific Islanders, including her book, “Coming of Age in Samoa,” are used to rationalize and to promote sexual promiscuity. Yet, it is widely acknowledged in the current anthropological literature that her findings were total fiction.

Be very skeptical of what you read and believe is supported by “scientific research,” especially if you are going to quote or act on it. Check to see who did the work, who funded it, where it was published, and what the agendas were of all involved. Read the details: was the data cropped, were the statistical tools appropriate, were the truly relevant questions even asked, was the question framed to produce the result desired? Very often you will find that even when the research has been done properly, the analysis may not support the conclusion as claimed.

Consequently, if research flies in the face of your common sense, it probably is false.

Source: Public Library Of Science: Medicine v.2(8); Aug. 2005.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph. D.

Despite their lousy name, “Slime Molds” are among the most amazing organisms in existence. During most of their lives they live as individual cells on the forest floor. They look and behave much like amoebas, spending their time scavenging for food among the detritus on the ground. They are especially fond of cow dung and rotting wood because these are rich in bacteria, the slime molds’ food of preference. However, on occasion, these solitary creatures will come together in large numbers to form a colony, called a plasmodium. Amazingly, slime mold plasmodiums look and behave like multi-cellular organisms. Some look like fungi, others like slugs. These plasmodium move about and can travel up to several feet a day.

When conditions for the colony are not favorable, the plasmodium may produce a stalk with a puffball full of spores. The puffball releases spores into the wind, which are carried off and produce more of the amoeba-like slime molds. After this reproductive action, the plasmodium may again disaggregate into individual cells that return to their solitary lives.

How is this possible? These individual cells appear to act with conscious volition. How do they communicate? How do they know how to differentiate into specialized organs?

As amazing as this cellular level intelligence is, a new, even more amazing phenomenon has been discovered at the sub-cellular level. Labeled “Natural Genetic Engineering” by Dr. James Shapiro, a University of Chicago Geneticist and Biochemist, and brought to light by Dr. Barbara McClintock in her 1983 Nobel Prize Acceptance Address, predictably, this stunning discovery has been largely ignored by the media.

Natural genetic engineering is the process by which cells modify their own DNA. If you are not familiar with this process, your eyes are not deceiving you, it actually happens. Cells, under challenge from something in their environment, can restructure their own DNA, thereby changing their internal biochemical capabilities. This restructuring process enables the cells to produce new proteins and other molecular products needed for survival.

Why This is Important

Dr. Shapiro has come under criticism and has had difficulty getting at least one paper published because of the implications of his work. The quotation below shows why.

“The idea of natural genetic engineering is controversial to some because it implies the existence of an “engineer” to decide when restructuring should occur.”… “The obvious problem is that it is hard to imagine material causes alone producing sentience and consciousness via random interactions. The sentience, together with messages in DNA and extrodinarily sophisticated genetic code and information processing systems, are arguably a large number of “smoking guns” for an intelligent cause operating in the system itself.”

The problem comes down to this: cells have no brains and no nervous systems to direct their activities, so where is the intelligence coming from that directs the cells to perform intricate, delicate surgery on their own genes? It would be easier for a human to perform complex brain surgery on him or herself; so, how is it possible for a cell to modify its own genetic code?

The answer of course is obvious to all except those who refuse to accept the truth glaring starkly in their faces. There are, of course, intervening natural mechanisms, which mediate these biological processes; however, God is the intelligence behind it all.

Source: http//Shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/2006.ExeterMeeting.pdf

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph. D.