Throughout the pandemic, there are a number of phrases that we have heard time and time again which have stuck in our minds. Phrases like “wear a mask” or “stand six feet apart” or, because people love telling others what to do, “wear your f**king mask”. The phrase “trust the science” or “follow the science” is another one which we have often heard.
 
As I have stated in the past, science has become something of a religion for a certain group of authoritarian people. You are supposed to “trust the science” like one would trust God. You are supposed to “follow the science” like one would follow Jesus. You are supposed to “listen to the experts” like they are all-knowing prophets delivering the gospel to broken people. Scientists have become prophets and science has become a religion of the Left to spread whatever political narrative they wish to spread.
 
Biology details the differences between a man and a woman (as those are the only two possible options)? Heresy! There are a billion and one genders! There is no discernible evidence to suggest that mankind is even close to a primary driver in climate change? Sacrilege! We are killing the planet! We are the virus! There is no evidence that suggests that lockdowns are in any way effective? Bahumbug! Just lock yourselves down forever because there are things out there that can kill people at a rate less than 0.01% for most people!
 
Anything the Left says is “science” is junk science and real scientists like the one I will soon discuss understand this.
 
And, by the way, in case PragerU (who brought in this scientist) gets accused of bringing in a “biased” politically conservative scientist (as if the Left never brings aboard highly biased Leftist scientists), I think you should know that this scientist believes that mankind does at least somewhat contribute to the warming of the planet, so not a particularly conservative opinion, politically speaking.
 
I won’t argue against the scientist here as I have a lot of other articles pointing out how anthropogenic climate change is a communist hoax (to be fair, the guy didn’t necessarily say that mankind was the primary cause of climate change, just that “humans play a role in the warming of the planet” which is a more reasonable stance), so I’ll just get to the PragerU video.
 
Brian Keating is a relatively famous professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego, and who claims that science is his life, but “when I hear someone somberly intone ‘science says’ or ‘follow the science,’ I get very nervous.”
 
“Science doesn’t belong to any ideology. Science is the never-ending search for new knowledge. That’s what science means in Latin, by the way – knowledge. Not wisdom. Not morality. Not social policy. Knowledge. What we do with that knowledge is where wisdom, morality, and social policy enter the picture.”
 
This is generally what I have been saying for years now. The “science” that the Left uses or brings up isn’t actual science. The “science” that says we have less than 12 years before the world is doomed from climate change, or that the planet will become uninhabitable in around 100 years, is a load of crap. None of it is tested and, because they rely on models, they can’t really even be tested to begin with, as Prof. Keating will explain in a moment.
 
Keating continued: “Knowledge, it turns out, isn’t so easy to come by. And sometimes what we think we know for certain (the earth sure does look flat when we’re standing on it) turns out not to be so certain.”
 
“Of course, I trust in basic scientific truths – those things for which there is overwhelming evidence like, say gravity, even that humans play a role in the warming of the planet. But scientists – even the best ones – can get things wrong.”
 
“The brilliant astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle believed the universe existed in a steady state forever and had no beginning. But his view, once held sacrosanct by all astrophysicists, no longer holds. It’s been superseded by the Big Bang theory that the universe had a beginning and is still expanding.”
 
Certainly, it is more observable that the universe had a beginning. I just find it jarring how scientists generally accept the theory of the Big Bang, a giant explosion which brought into existence everything that currently is, and seem to generally ignore what would cause that explosion. After all, an explosion is an effect, and all effects require an antecedent cause. There is no such thing as an uncaused effect. Now, scientists might debate what may have been there before to have caused this, but they don’t seem to come to what is perhaps the most logical conclusion that God was the one to have created that Big Bang.
 
For crying out loud, the Bible literally begins with: “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, ‘Let there be light’, and there was light,” – Genesis 1:1-3.
 
Literally the third verse found in the entire Bible could be interpreted as describing the Big Bang event.
 
But in any case, Keating continued:
 
“In the 20th century, some of the most respected scientists in the world, including Nobel Prize winners believed in eugenics – the reprehensible idea that the human race could be improved by selective breeding. The National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the Rockefeller Foundation supported it. By the middle of the century, it had been thoroughly rejected as quackery. No reputable scientist would have anything to do with this idea.”
 
“So, we all need to get over this notion that just because someone – be it a politician, a bureaucrat, or even a scientist – employs the phrase ‘science says’ means whatever they’re saying is right. It might be right. But it might also be wrong. And if it’s wrong, it won’t necessarily be a bunch of scientists who say it’s wrong. It might be one guy.”
 
“Ask Einstein. One hundred scientists wrote a book explaining why his theory of relativity was wrong. He quipped, ‘If I were wrong, then one would’ve been enough.’”
 
And in the end, Einstein’s theory of relativity was proven right by an expedition led by Arthur Eddington to the island of Principe off the coast of Equatorial Guinea in West Africa, where a full solar eclipse was scheduled to take place on May 29, 1919.
 
100 German scientists wrote an entire book about how Einstein was wrong about his theory, and those 100 were proven wrong themselves following that expedition.
 
So let no one tell you that there is “scientific consensus” regarding anything, from anthropogenic climate change to anything else the Left claims. “Scientific consensus” means squat. All scientists in the world, past, present and future, could say that the sky was red and write thousands upon thousands of papers talking about how it’s definitely red, but their own observations and beliefs, even if agreed upon in a consensus, doesn’t alter reality. The sky is blue, not red.
 
It doesn’t matter how many scientists the Left brings on to try and “prove” that their agenda-driven junk “science” is correct. Consensus by definition isn’t science.
 
At any rate, Keating eventually brought up a quote from Richard Feynman, one of the most eminent physicists of the 20th century, who said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts…” This doesn’t necessarily mean that the experts are wrong, but it does mean that any good scientist will have some amount of skepticism in their own findings.
 
There is no such thing as “case closed” in science. Science means the search of new knowledge, and new knowledge is always obtained. Scientists used to think the earth was flat. Then, new knowledge was obtained and we observed that it was round. Scientists used to think the earth was the center of the universe. Then, new knowledge was obtained that the earth wasn’t even the center of the solar system. Scientists used to think, after proving that the earth wasn’t the center of the universe, that the sun was the center of the universe. That, too, was disproven with new knowledge, the discovery of our Milky Way galaxy, and what we have come to know about the universe itself.
 
Heck, over the past decade, scientists have found that we know astronomically little about what makes up the universe. Only 4% of the universe is made up of known forms of matter and energy, the rest being classified as “dark matter” or “dark energy.”
 
Good scientists will have a healthy level of skepticism in their own theories and findings. Bad scientists proclaim theories that cannot be falsified, or proven wrong. Keating explains that this is one reason as to why we can’t put too much faith in models (such as models that say how many people will die of the Chinese coronavirus if nothing is done, or that say that the planet will become uninhabitable in a century). Such models, which are attempts to predict the future, can’t be tested precisely because the future that they predict has yet to happen.
 
If I said “in 10 minutes, I will grow a second butt”, that can’t be tested at all because those ten minutes have yet to occur (though the chances of that happening are so astronomically low as to be virtually impossible). Now take that prediction and have me exclaiming that people have to do something drastic and irrational like giving up their freedoms, and you have what the Left does with climate change. Well, to be fair, the dynamic climate is more observable than my chances of growing a second butt, but it’s not too dissimilar to what the Left does.
 
They make a wild, unprovable and untestable “scientific” proclamation and follow it up with a demand from people (usually people outside the 1%) that they make great sacrifices “for the sake of the planet.”
 
In any case, there is more to this video than what I have shared, so I suggest you check it out for yourself (below). It is a good refutation of the insane and irrational demand that we “follow the science” as though science was God and as though the people who bring up this “science” are omniscient beings who are entirely infallible. Scientists are people, after all, and people are flawed. People err, make mistakes, and draw incorrect conclusions. More importantly, people can be corrupt, and use unscientific garbage and sell it as scientific like snake oil salesmen.
 
Science is the search for knowledge, and that knowledge is what we learn from the reality that God has created. Scientists don’t have to believe in God to study in their fields, but it is no coincidence that their fields exist in conjunction to God. They exist BECAUSE of God, and they are so observable.
 
Take genetics, DNA, proteins, cells, etc. and try to tell me that there isn’t intelligent design behind those things. Chance couldn’t have caused them because chance is not something that has power, but rather, is the mathematical calculation of probability. Everything around us can’t have come from nowhere or from nothing, because ex nihilo, nihil fit, or “out of nothing, nothing comes.”
 
Science is about understanding the creation that God has built. It’s not about advancing an ideology, certainly not an ideology that refutes scientific truths like biological sex for the purposes of political agendas.
 
Good scientists understand this. Bad and fake scientists – corrupt scientists – do not.
 
Proverbs 1:7
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.”

Before I begin, I think we should take what the CDC gives us with a grain of salt. Organizations like this one and the WHO have not exactly been wholly trustworthy in the eyes of many for the past year or so because of their b.s. Chinese coronavirus actions, what with the WHO doing the CCP’s bidding in lying to the world about human-to-human spread of the virus and the CDC being proponents of lockdown measures which scientifically have not proven to be effective measures against the virus.

However, despite all this, we kind of have to take certain facts and figures at face value, to one extent or another, since we do not have competing organizations that can perform similar tasks.
 
Now, every week, the CDC issues a report for a variety of diseases, such as the Swine Flu, Influenza, and most recently, the Chinese coronavirus. And interestingly enough, for some time now, the CDC has recorded fewer Influenza cases than are usually around, even for this time of year.
 
In their report, the CDC splits Influenza testing into two categories: tests performed in Public Health Labs and tests performed in Clinical Labs. The tests performed in clinical labs are often substantially more than in public health labs, and the positive cases often follow suit. However, there is a strange anomaly present throughout this clinical season (which they count similar to how some sports organizations count their seasons: 2020-21). Despite the number of Influenza tests having been the most in the last five years, there are insanely low positive cases.
 
Let’s take the Public Health Labs first, to show you what I mean. The latest CDC report is for Week 51, which ended on December 19th. In Week 51 of 2015, public health labs performed 586 influenza tests with 38 positives, at a positive rate of 6.48%. Week 51 of 2016 saw 796 tests with 256 positive cases, at 32.16% positive rate. 2017, there were 1,684 tests with 831 positive cases, a 49.35% positive rate. In 2018, the number of tests went down to 824, but there were 445 positive cases, a 54.00% positive rate. And finally, in week 51 of 2019, there were 1,848 tests performed with 1,074 positive cases, a positive rate of 58.12%.
 
This means that the five-year average was 1,148 tests, 529 positive cases, and a positive rate of 46.08%.
 
For 2020, however, there were 14,174 tests and only NINE positive cases, a 0.06% positive rate.
 
Let’s now take a look at Clinical Labs tests, which do not depict a much different story.
 
I won’t go over each year for this one, since I don’t want to overload you with information, but the five-year average for tests is 22,154, with 3,750 positives, and a 14.59% positive rate. This year’s tests for Week 51 were at 21,456, which is only a little lower than average, but with 27 positive cases and a 0.13% positive rate.
 
Taking both kinds of testing together, the Week 51 five-year average is 23,302 tests with 4,278 positive cases and a 15.80% positive rate. For this year’s Week 51, however, there were 35,630 tests and only 36 positive cases, a 0.10% positive rate.
 
Here is the spreadsheet for these numbers provided by Phil Kerpen, if you want to look at all the numbers:

And it’s not like this is an anomaly that’s exclusive to Week 51. Taking weeks 40 to 51 for this season in comparison to other seasons, we also see a massive anomaly.
 
For those 12 weeks, the five-year average number of tests for public health labs is 16,614, with 4,967 positive cases and a 29.89% positive rate. For this season’s Weeks 40 to 51, public health labs have performed 196,992 tests and came across only 135 positive cases, for a 0.07% positive rate. Clinical Labs are fairly similar, as their five-year average for those weeks is 250,525 total tests, 15,135 positive cases and a 5.39% positive rate. This year’s clinical labs tests were 319,985, with only 720 positive cases and a 0.23% positive rate.
 
So the total for those two tests, in a five-year average, is 267,140 tests, 20,101 positive cases and a positive rate of 6.77%. But for this season’s weeks, there were a staggering 516,977 tests, but only 855 positive cases, a 0.17% positive rate.
 
Here is Phil’s spreadsheet for Weeks 40 to 51:

​The million-dollar question here is why we are seeing these numbers. It’s easy to say that testing for the Chinese coronavirus is the reason we are seeing “fewer” flu cases, and that very well could be the case, but it’s not like these people aren’t testing for non-COVID things. Like I just said, they are testing at record levels, so the reason we are seeing these numbers isn’t because they aren’t testing for these diseases. So, then, I kind of have to question the tests themselves.
 
You see, as a result of numerous states counting Chinese coronavirus deaths by tallying very clearly non-COVID-related deaths like gunshot wounds or falling off of tall structures, I have had far less trust in the way in which “experts” and “scientists” run their numbers. That a member of the Austrian parliament managed to test a glass of Coca-Cola and find that the popular drink tested POSITIVE for the Chinese coronavirus also leads me to question the accuracy of medical tests.
 
Now, that Austrian MP did that to show how worthless the mass PCR test is, not to generally show that medical tests are sketchy, but that any test can be sketchy should bring questions to people’s minds.
 
Seeing as there were far more positive cases in years prior as opposed to this one, despite the number of tests performed, I can’t help but put into question how trustworthy these tests are. If they are the same tests as previous years, then that leads me to the following question: did these scientists produce fake positives in the previous years, or are they producing fake negatives now? Because if they are the same test, with the same accuracy as years prior, then something has to give.
 
You cannot reasonably have the exact same tests as the ones performed in years prior, perform more tests than ever before, and somehow find far fewer positive cases than ever before. Week 51 saw fewer total positive cases than the Public Health Labs did in Week 51 of 2015, with roughly 60x the amount of tests performed.
 
So either something in the tests changed (they very well could be different tests entirely, but if that’s the case, the CDC should look into that and why they are producing these numbers) or the scientists have some sort of motive for producing these results.
 
Now, that goes more into conspiracy territory, and without evidence of such motive, I cannot say that that’s what is the truth concerning this situation, but I don’t exactly trust these scientists and “experts”. Matter of fact, the only reason I don’t trust the tests is because of the people running them in the first place. Like guns don’t kill people, tests don’t test people – people kill people and people test people. A test is merely the tool through which the doctors and scientists examine subjects. They have the ability to manipulate tests and data, and may do so if provided with a reason.
 
And considering how much the Left has bastardized science and profit off of the Chinese coronavirus, I wouldn’t be surprised if these numbers are a result of that malevolent intent at fear-spreading and power-grabbing. I’m not saying that that’s definitely and absolutely the case, but one cannot realistically rule that possibility out. There are a lot of people out there in places of power and authority who are evil and will do whatever they can to achieve their goals. We have already seen the spread of their influence in even places like the sciences, so this is not as wild of an assumption to make as it may have been in decades prior.
 
I don’t know exactly why the CDC is seeing the numbers that they are reporting (and take into consideration that I have to take what they give me at face value, even while I don’t want to), and it’s possible, even likely, that I never will know, but I can’t help but assume the worst in these people.
 
One thing is for certain: you cannot say that these people (so-called “scientists”, not just the CDC) don’t have an agenda. They have shown this time and time again for years now, and in particular this past year.
 
2 Timothy 3:5
“Having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.”

Did we really need a study to know that this was the case? Did we not learn at some point during school that meat provides protein and calcium? Is this another piece of factual information we all learned in school that has gone by the way-side because the topic of EATING FOOD has become so politicized and many on the Left prefer the, frankly, self-destructive diet of veganism?
 
Maybe, but people’s desire to change the meaning of words or erase factual evidence does not mean that they can actually change reality. The reality is that there is no man-made climate change, just a natural one. The reality is that people can only be male or female because of XY and XX chromosomes, respectively. And the reality is that meat carries protein and calcium, as well as other things which help people to grow stronger.
 
And yet, it seemingly is necessary that a study be published to recognize that fact (and it still will be pushed back by those who do not find such facts to be comfortable or agreeable).
 
A recent Oxford University study finds that vegans are 43% more likely to suffer from bone fractures than do people who eat meat.
 
BMC Medicine published the research earlier this week, and the research itself was rather expansive, with researchers following 55,000 meat-eaters, vegetarians, pescatarians (people who eat fish), and vegans (different from vegetarians in that they will not consume any product which comes from animals, such as milk, cheese, eggs, etc.) for 18 years each, on average.
 
According to Breitbart News: “While vegetarians and pescatarians were 25 per cent more likely to suffer broken hips than meat-eaters, vegans were more than 2.3 times likely to experience the injury.”
 
The lead author of the study, Oxford’s Tammy Tong, pointed out the obvious, that this is a result of vegans receiving a lower intake of calcium and protein, and said: “We found that vegans had a higher risk of total fractures, which resulted in close to 20 more cases per 1,000 people over a ten-year period compared to people who ate meat.”
 
Breitbart News also points to another study, which was released earlier in November, by the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin, Germany, which “found that one-third of vegans assessed had a ‘markedly lower’ amount of iodine, at levels that the World Health Organization (WHO) would consider a ‘severe deficiency.’”
 
Opinions about the dumpster fire of an organization that the WHO is aside, iodine deficiency is no joke. If that study is correct, one-third of vegans are at risk of damaging their thyroid gland, which needs iodine to make hormones, according to WebMD. Without enough iodine, the thyroid gland risks getting enlarged, and lower levels of thyroid hormones can be pretty bad for women, as it can cause them to stop ovulating.
 
“Iodine deficiency can also lead to an autoimmune disease of the thyroid and may increase the risk of getting thyroid cancer. Some researchers think that iodine deficiency might also increase the risk of other cancers such as prostate, breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancer.”
 
Another study from 2019 from Utrecht University in the Netherlands suggests that vegans are prone to suffer worse hangovers than do meat-eaters because of a lack of B3 and zinc in their diets, both of which are necessary for digesting alcohol.
 
To top it all off, research presented at a farmer’s union meeting back in February of 2020 suggested that “the production of non-meat foodstuffs like tofu may be worse for the environment, and not as healthy for individuals to consume,” according to Breitbart News.
 
The reason for it is that, according to The Rothamsted Institute’s Graham McAuliffe, tofu, because it’s entirely processed, requires “more energy going into its production” and “when you correct for the fact that the protein in it is not as digestible compared to the meat-based products, you can see that it could actually have a higher global warming potential than any of the monogastric animals… To get the same amount of protein, tofu is worse.”
 
Now, like I said, there is no man-made climate change and no evidence to support the idea that it’s real, so the production of tofu is not going to cause climate change any more than a car, a boat, a plane, or whatever else Leftist lunatics will blame for climate change. However, it’s important to note that vegans, who are usually Leftists, believe in man-made climate change and as such, would have to believe that the processing of tofu, if suggested by “scientists”, would lead to man-made climate change.
 
And as such, they reach an impasse. It doesn’t mean they would necessarily have to stop being vegan for that reason (though they should for all the other health concerns), but they would necessarily have to at least reconsider their consumption of tofu, since it oh, so clearly is a massive threat to the planet and humanity itself, apparently.
 
Again, not that there is any actual sane reason to believe that, but we are not exactly dealing with sane people. These people will believe it. Or, at least, you think they would.
 
If the “science” doesn’t conform to what they want it to say, even “science” which is in quotation marks (meaning the kind that Leftists usually use to try and coerce people into doing what they want them to do), they will largely ignore it or demand that it be changed. Why else do you think that it is considered a cardinal sin for climate scientists to at all be skeptical of the idea that mankind is causing climate change? Despite it only being natural for scientists to be skeptical of data and common knowledge, as it’s part of the scientific process to test and re-test just about everything, those who do honest research and come away with the conclusion that mankind is not causing climate change get hounded and harassed and threatened for not conforming to the Leftist dogma of using science as a political weapon.
 
Those who are skeptical of man-made climate change are considered “science-deniers”. This extends even to things like the Chinese coronavirus, which entirely expectedly was politicized as soon as it became convenient for tyrants. Anyone who shares anti-mask research is purported as being someone who wants to kill people’s grandmas. Meanwhile, actual grandma-killer Gov. Andrew Cuomo receives praise and prizes for his anti-scientific, irrational and deadly actions.
 
Similarly, for someone who is vegan, they won’t care to look at data which challenges their opinions and perspectives. Such people (Leftists in general, I mean) are extremely close-minded, and any semblance of evidence or fact which challenges their desired truth (which is no truth at all, since truth cannot be subjective) is dismissed at best and considered heresy at some of its worst.
 
But despite how much they may push back on such evidence, despite how much they may want the truth to be what they define it as opposed to what it is, despite how much they claim things are X instead of the reality of Y, they cannot change said reality.
 
They cannot change the absolute fact that mankind does not cause climate change. They cannot change the absolute fact that there are only two genders. They cannot change the absolute fact that people need protein and calcium (among other things) in their diets, which are largely absent in a vegan diet. They cannot change the fact that, as a result of such absence in nutrients, those who eat such diets are not as physically healthy as those who do not each such lackluster diets.
 
The problem, however, comes in the fact that Leftists demand others think the way they do. It doesn’t really matter to them that mankind cannot cause climate change – they DEMAND that others believe we do. It doesn’t matter that there are only two genders – they DEMAND that others believe there are more. It doesn’t matter that vegan diets are, of course, bad for people – they DEMAND that others believe it is good.
 
More than that, they demand that others subscribe to the same diet. Vegan activists, for a long while now, have sought to tax meat consumption, have campaigned to make being vegan a “protected characteristic” akin to race, sex, religion, etc., and have demanded civil rights akin to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 insofar as they want protection from discrimination in the workplace, and have even met some amount of success.
 
Despite the risks of a vegan diet, they demand others subscribe to it. Remember what I said about iodine deficiency? Well, it also affects pregnant women, as it can lead to high blood pressure for the mother and mental retardation for the baby. This, obviously, causes generational problems. Not that vegans will care. Not that Leftists care about the destructive effects of their demands and goals.
 
For crying out loud, they demand the same brands of communism that the Soviet Union had, that China has, that Cuba has, etc. and think that people who lived/live in those countries ARE BETTER OFF as a result of communism. These are not exactly rational people we are dealing with.
 
But again, despite what they claim, despite what they want, the reality is as it is. They cannot change that because they are not God.
 
Those who choose to have a vegan diet do great harm to themselves. Not necessarily immediately, and they won’t always show it, but if the research is remotely correct, they unnecessarily increase their risk for injuries and other health risks as well.
 
Again, it’s not surprising that such a result is the case, but plenty of people refuse to see reality for what it is.
 
1 Corinthians 2:14
“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”

“Wear a damn mask.” “Wear a f**king mask.” “Just wear your G-damn mask.” A lot of people have been told this for a while now from a variety of Left-wing lunatics who view “science” as gospel and “scientists” as prophets. From celebrities to regular social media idiots, we’ve been, often crudely, ordered to wear our masks.
 
Which, by the way, the more I’m told to ”wear your f**king mask,” the greater an inclination I have to tell that person to go f**k themselves. And I’m not usually one to curse at people in such a way, even online. That’s how infuriating these people are, that they have such a superiority complex that they believe they have any sort of right to tell people what to do. Not surprising that Biden and other Democrats plan/have planned to institute unconstitutional mask mandates: these people can’t help but abuse the power that they have.
 
Well, despite all the “science” and “evidence” surrounding the wearing of masks, at least when it comes to surgical masks (which are generally less effective than N95 masks), a recent Danish study has discovered that the rate of infection is about the same for a group which wore surgical masks and a group which did not wear surgical masks (or any masks).
 
Interestingly enough, The New York Times is reporting on this study, though they try their best to discredit it to some extent (which is odd because, again, they are reporting it, so why report on it if they don’t agree with it? And don’t tell me that it’s because they are a news source, because their behavior over the last four years, at least, runs contrary to that idea).
 
According to The NYT: “A new study, the first of its kind, is likely to inflame the controversy. Researchers in Denmark reported on Wednesday that surgical masks did not protect the wearers against infection with the coronavirus in a large randomized clinical trial.”
 
“The study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, did not contradict growing evidence that masks can prevent transmission of the virus from wearer to others. But the conclusion is at odds with the view that masks also protect the wearers – a position endorsed last week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention…”
 
“About 4,860 participants completed the study. The researchers had hoped that masks would cut the infection rate by half among wearers. Instead, 42 people in the mask group, or 1.8 percent, got infected, compared with 53 in the unmasked group, or 2.1 percent. The difference was not statistically significant.”
 
Now, a raging liberal might argue “but there is a noticeable difference here of 0.3%, which may not be a lot, but it’s something and every little bit helps!” Thing about that is, like the NYT pointed out, it’s statistically insignificant.
 
That 0.3%, I’m willing to bet, is well within the margin of error for the study. Part of the scientific method is to try and repeat the results, which I’m certain plenty of researchers would try to do. It could be that less people in the non-mask group get infected or it could also be that even more get infected. What I’m saying here is that wearing a mask, even a surgical one, which is generally more effective than regular cloth masks (obviously, since they are used during surgery) which most people tend to wear, does not offer any significant protection as opposed to not wearing a mask at all.
 
And insultingly, the NYT quoted a researcher in Norway who said that the study showed “there might be a symbolic effect” in wearing masks, even while she is persuaded by the study that “the effect of wearing a mask does not substantially reduce risk” for the wearers.
 
Are you kidding me? This is about symbolism now? What place does symbolism have in science? What place does how people feel about something have in science? I FEEL like my mask is going to work, so I’m encouraged to wear it even though it won’t?
 
I’m told by jackasses on Twitter to “wear my damn mask” not because it will work but because it will make THEM feel good, or it should make ME FEEL good? Biden and other Democrats want to FORCE ME to wear a mask, not because there is evidence that it works, but because of FEELINGS?!
 
Why am I surprised? Of course these people inject non-scientific garbage into science. We’ve seen, for a very long time now, how they do this. They scare children half to death about a climate “crisis” which isn’t actually a crisis and which isn’t man-made because of “feelings” (and money and power for a select few, of course). They redefine words and erase biological facts to make transgender people “feel” good and “natural” even though they are definitely not natural nor scientific.
 
So for them to make a religion which worships the idol of a mask, and passing that off as science, should not be so surprising.
 
For crying out loud, researchers from MIT and UCSF were going to publish a study about the effectiveness of masks in over a thousand counties which “saw” a decrease in hospitalizations after mask mandates were put into place, until cases began to spike (even despite those mandates), and those researchers pulled that study but did not see the connection between what they were trying to say and the reality that no, mask mandates don’t work. These are supposed “scientists” who, instead of looking at the new data (that masks don’t work and mask mandates are ineffective) and making adjustments to their hypothesis (or outright scrapping them), are still convinced that masks do work, despite the evidence that they don’t, and will seek to publish their study whenever it is more opportune.
 
The science of the Left is not science at all. It is a religion which disguises its zeal with “facts” and “evidence.” If you deny the science of the Left, you are deemed a science-denier and an anti-science ignoramus who must be re-educated (and trust me, given the opportunity, they will go this direction because Leftists always do this).
 
The “scientists” are their prophets, the “evidence” is their gospel, the masks are their idol (at least until it’s replaced with imagery of the planet or mother nature or something), and the Democrats are their Pope who will lead this religion by force and shove it down everyone’s throats.
 
Any studies which go against the grain are considered heresy, and even if reported by The NYT, they receive the treatment of “take it with a grain of salt”, while studies which show the “approved” message are to be believed entirely and without question. Scientists who factually push back against man-made climate change, or the idea of infinite genders, or any such Leftist principle, are treated as heretics and punished for their acts.
 
FYI, that study, while fairly recent, is still nearly a month old now and was rejected by multiple publications. Again, it is treated as heresy and it must be censored because it does not adhere to the approved message of the far-Left, which seeks control over facts when it comes to dealing with the China virus.
 
It is outright infuriating that the Left has successfully hijacked the realm of science and uses it with impunity to spread Leftist ideals.
 
Here’s hoping that we somehow manage to reverse course on this and will eventually utterly crush the Left in every single manner.
 
2 Peter 3:16
“As he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”

I have often spoken about the sort of damage the Left has done to science itself in a number of ways, from obliterating biological truths about sex and gender to discarding scientific proof of life in the womb to making assertions of anthropogenic climate change that are not at all based on scientific evidence. The Left has made a joke of science, but even more than that, they have made a cult religion out of it to the point where questioning any part of it is seen as a cardinal offense.
 
No other time was that true than throughout the Chinese coronavirus pandemic, when we were told that if we had any sort of challenging questions regarding the data we were being presented with, we were on a malicious mission to kill people’s parents and grandparents (meanwhile, Gov. Cuomo essentially was doing that following his March 25th EO sending sick people to nursing and retirement homes). We were told that we had to listen to the “experts” because they had the “data” and the “science” behind them.
 
However, as Michael Fumento from Just the News recently pointed out, there were a number of instances when the “experts” were flat-out wrong about what they were saying regarding the virus, as well as the data they were presenting.
 
Before I actually get to those instances, of which there are ten, allow me to preface all of this by pointing out a simple, yet oft-forgotten aspect of science: it is SUPPOSED to be challenged.
 
Man is not perfect. This means that we are capable of erring. Various sciences are studied by people who err. People used to believe in geo-centricity, the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe, until it was discovered that it was not. It used to be “settled science” that the Sun revolved around the Earth, but because science is about challenging conventional wisdom, people sought to find if that was actually true or not and it was discovered that it was not.
 
Science isn’t science if it is not challenged and questions aren’t raised. This is the damage the Left makes to the practice, as they use its good name for the purposes of “settling facts” that benefit them politically. It’s why climatologists who dare challenge the idea of anthropogenic climate change, though they are doing their defined jobs as scientists, are blacklisted and fired because of their challenges. The Left, in owning the pillar of power of the sciences, can push out people who challenge what they want seen as scientific fact, even though the very purpose of science is to challenge conventional wisdom to weigh it against objective reality.
 
As with anthropogenic climate change, the Left has made it their mission to ensure that the “experts” were practically seen as Jesus’ apostles by the public when they talked about the “data” and the “science” regarding the Chinese coronavirus, all for the purposes of getting people so scared that they will comply with whatever the Left wanted (and it clearly worked, as we shut down our entire economy for a few months, leaving millions unemployed).
 
However, because man is capable of erring, it is no surprise that the data the “experts” brought in was incomplete and ripe for rebuke and revisitation.
 
Without further ado, let me share with you some of the times the “experts” were wrong that Fumento shared in his Just the News article (not all of the ten instances will be written here because I don’t want to make this article insanely long).
 
First, the threat level. Back on January 21st, the day of the first Chinese coronavirus case found in the U.S., Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared on Newsmax TV to talk about the virus and how much of a threat it posed to the American public. In that interview, he said: “Obviously, you need to take it seriously and do the kind of things the CDC and the Department of Homeland Security is doing. But this is not a major threat to the people of the United States, and this is not something that the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about.”
 
Of course, a few months later, that idea was entirely changed and the CDC director said that the virus was the “greatest public health crisis” to strike our nation “in more than 100 years.”
 
Now, I won’t be too harsh on Fauci here for the simple reason that the data was very much insufficient by that point to determine with any level of certainty if the virus was going to be a big deal. The virus originated in China and we all know that they are not a reliable or trustworthy bunch, and we now know they were hiding things from us for a very long time, to the point where some believe the virus was first found in Wuhan in AUGUST OF 2019. But regardless of whether or not China was lying to us, the fact remains that the data was incomplete and no one of sound mind would disagree with me here.
 
We didn’t know, back in late January, how bad it would get. And yet, we are supposed to take all the data given to us as 100% true and verified, even if it is changed and that new data is supposed to be taken as 100% true and verified.
 
It simply does not compute to operate like that.
 
Moving to another example, there was the masks debacle where the Surgeon General of the United States claimed masks were “NOT effective in preventing general public from catching” the Chinese coronavirus. Following that, the CDC said that you should wear a mask if you are sick or are going to be near someone who is sick, and now, the guideline is that people should wear masks regardless of their health when they are around others.
 
The third example is the asymptomatic transmission declaration by the WHO, when Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove said that it was “very rare” for asymptomatic people to spread the disease, when that was one of the biggest worries surrounding the virus: that we would unknowingly and asymptomatically be carrying the virus and we could unwillingly be infecting our loved ones, particularly our elders. The data even went so far as to actually show that there hasn’t been a single documented case of asymptomatic carriers spreading the disease, so it’s more than just “very rare” – it’s outright unheard of.
 
Then there is also the mortality rate, which used to be 3.4% towards the beginning of the pandemic and now sits at around 0.26%. We used to think this was extremely deadly (by certain standards) and nothing like the flu, but now it’s not all too different from the flu in terms of mortality rate. Yes, it’s still higher than the flu’s mortality rate, but considering the fact that non-COVID deaths are being counted as COVID deaths, I’d wager to say that the mortality rate should actually be considerably lower than 0.26% and be closer to the flu, if not even lower than that.
 
Which brings me to the cause of death, another example brought up by Fumento, since there has been outright proof of non-COVID deaths, such as gunshot wounds, being counted towards COVID deaths. There is also the fact that Dr. Birx said that they were counting people who died “with” the virus as people who died “to” the virus and the fact that Medicare began to provide a 20% bonus for naming the Chinese coronavirus as the main cause of death, which did nothing but give hospitals and morticians a financial incentive to count anything and everything as death to Chinese coronavirus.
 
Not to mention that the vast majority of deaths are from people 65 and older, with only 7% of COVID-19 deaths coming from people who did not have pre-existing conditions, meaning that 93% of those who died of the Chinese coronavirus (whether with it or from it) also had underlying conditions that could also have contributed to, or even be the main cause of, the actual death of a person.
 
Another aspect of the “data” the “experts” gave us, particularly early on, was the model that showed over 2,000,000 deaths in the U.S. and over 500,000 in the U.K., which served as the basis for locking things down and going into quarantine. It was found out not too long after that the model didn’t take into account any sort of action by the government and was based on literally nothing being done about the virus which was not a realistic scenario. People would have done something about it, from government officials to businesses themselves, in order to keep people from dying. Those figures were entirely unrealistic and yet were used as the basis and the reason for shutting everything down.
 
The funny thing is that the professor who made that model, Neil Ferguson, recently said that if the U.K. had locked down just a week earlier, half of the deaths wouldn’t have happened, though he never shared any data that would indicate such a thing. 2020 is the year of 20/20 hindsight, it seems.
 
And of course, my argument against Ferguson’s claim is that, even if he did actually bring data that would point to it, as I have already established: data is not to be taken as 100% fact 100% of the time. Everyone operated using the data available at the time – data that was not complete at the time, either.
 
We need to stop pretending like scientific data is equivalent to the Word of God in terms of validity and truth.
 
And this is why I say that the Left has made a cult religion out of science. Any sort of data presented today, even if it is refuted and cast aside tomorrow, is to be taken as 100% fact and anyone questioning it is an unscientific buffoon who can barely read. We are supposed to blindly trust these “experts” because of nothing apart from the fact that they have the label of “experts”, even as they are proven wrong time and time again.
 
We are supposed to blindly trust the word of people who likely have an agenda. I say this because doctors and nurses were mounting “counter-protests” against the lockdown protests, saying protesters were putting themselves and others at risk, yet have supported and in some cases JOINED the George Floyd protests featuring barely any of the safety guidelines detailed by the CDC regarding social distancing and wearing masks. And the people wearing masks were often Antifa rioters. Nevertheless, we are supposed to treat their word like the Gospel of Jesus Christ Himself.
 
We are supposed to accept what these people say as the absolute truth even if scientific evidence shows to be contrary to what they are saying (i.e. anthropogenic climate change).
 
The Left has turned the institution of science into a religious cult, where you are deemed as an outcast and a freak if you show any semblance of dissent or even reason. Actual scientists don’t have an agenda. Actual scientists review the evidence and data and try to challenge it to weigh it against objective truth. It’s how science has always operated and how we have made the discoveries that we have.
 
But actual scientists no longer get the spotlight. They no longer get their findings published by mainstream sources. They hardly even manage to keep their jobs wherever they might work if they show dissent to the established Leftist narrative surrounding their fields of study. Either agree with the Left and spread the narrative, even if it is not scientifically found, or be severely punished for doing the right thing and remaining objective.
 
It’s not even about politics, as the Left has destroyed climatologists who don’t like Trump at all just because they dared step outside of the collective Leftist thinktank. It’s about power for the Left and anyone who disagrees with them at any capacity is seen as a threat to said power. This is the case just about everywhere, not just the “scientific” community.
 
This is the damage the Left has done to science. They have perverted it to the point where it’s no different from a cult, where “prophets” like the teen climate puppet can emerge, not because they are backed by science, but because they are backed by George Soros and Bill Gates, as well as the Leftist mainstream media which carries the Leftist narratives.
 
As I have said countless times, the Left must be defeated in every way, in every pillar of power.
 
Romans 2:9-11
“There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.”

Politics has infected a lot of things, but perhaps the worst thing that it could have infected was the field of science, as science relies on empirical data and facts, but now has been reduced to nothing more than a sort of democracy, where the mob rules what is considered “science”. It is extremely difficult to have an honest scientific conversation about the climate without someone bringing up talking points from the climate cult that make zero sense to those who are not intellectually deficient.
 
However, speaking to the House Committee On Science, Space and Technology, a sincere climate scientist absolutely shredded the talking points of the climate cult, though without necessarily naming any names (though you and I both know the two people he likely was talking about).
 
Michael D. Shellenberger, President of Environmental Progress, got to speak in front of this House committee regarding the science of climate change. He began by explaining his background in the field:
 
“I am an energy analyst and environmentalist dedicated to the goals of universal prosperity, peace, and environmental protection. Between 2003 and 2009, I advocated for a large federal investment in renewables, many of which were made as part of the 2009 stimulus. And since 2013, I have advocated for the continued operation of nuclear plants around the world and thus helped prevent emissions from increasing the equivalent of adding 24 million cars to the road.”
 
“I also care about getting the facts and science right. I believe that scientists, journalists, and advocates have an obligation to represent climate science accurately, even if doing so reduces the saliency of our concerns.” For this, I predict the man will be labeled a “climate denier” despite the fact that he does believe in man-made climate change. The guy, unfortunately, does not quite understand the very reason as to why it is that some scientists, journalists and advocates do not represent climate science accurately. They don’t claim that Miami, Los Angeles or other cities around the world will be flooded in the next 10 to 20 years because they believe it to be true, but rather, so that people will be scared enough to the point where they will vote for the people who claim to have an answer to this “issue” in the form of hardcore communism.
 
But regardless, he continued: “No credible scientific body has claimed climate change threatens the collapse of civilization, much less the extinction of the human species. And yet, some activists, scientists, and journalists make such apocalyptic assertions, which I believe contribute to rising levels of anxiety, including among adolescents, and worsening political polarization.”
 
That part was particular great, because we all know what ridiculous climate cultish “warnings” he was referring to. AOC has advocated that we only have about 12 years to implement the socialist GND before the world ends, and the now-17-year-old climate puppet has famously declared that humanity was facing “mass extinction” as a result of climate change, both of which are nonsensical apocalypse warnings that are only meant to scare people to the point where they will willingly give up their rights and freedoms in exchange for “safety” from climate change.
 
But as it usually works out, those who give up freedom for safety gain nothing. Benjamin Franklin once famously said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” And he’s certainly right, but that’s not where it ends. Those who would give up their liberty for some safety deserve neither and will receive neither.
 
Just look at Venezuela. They were told to give up their weapons and that doing so would make the country safer, but the country is more dangerous today than it was back then and now, they have no liberty either.
 
Look, also, at China, or in specific, Hong Kong. I remember, back when the Hong Kong protests were still a major story, watching a video of a woman asking the Hong Kong protesters why they wanted freedom if they would lose their safety (not putting that in quotation marks because I don’t remember the exact wording of the question, but that was the general point: why give up safety in exchange for freedom?) What the woman fails to understand is that liberty GIVES THEM safety.
 
Remember, the protests began because the Chinese government wanted to pass an extradition bill that would allow them to take people from Hong Kong and arrest them and send them to mainland China if they “perceived” that person to be a threat to the State. What part of that gives the people of Hong Kong any sort of safety?
 
But regardless, bringing this long tangent to an end, the reason people like AOC and Greta Thunberg make such ridiculous claims is to get people to be scared enough to vote into power those who claim to have an answer to the problem they create. They don’t have a vested interest in the truth.
 
But Shellenberger does appear to be interested in the truth, at least, as much as he understands it. “My colleagues and I have carefully reviewed the science, interviewed the individuals who make such claims and written a series of articles debunking them.”
 
Again, it’s possible that some in the climate cult will brand Shellenberger a “climate denier” but they don’t have a real reason to. He does believe in climate change, particularly man-made climate change as he suggests in the following quote: “While climate change may make some natural disasters more frequent and extreme, the death toll from extreme events could and should continue to decline, as it did over the last century by over 90 percent, even as the global population quadrupled. Does that mean we shouldn’t worry about climate change? Of course not. Policymakers routinely take action on non-apocalyptic problems. And the risk of crossing unknown tipping points rises with higher temperatures.”
 
The guy does believe in man-made climate change and believes policymakers have the ability to pass into law certain policies that will help to “fight back” against climate change. Of course, the guy is definitely wrong here. I’ve already discussed, at length, how there is no discernible link between climate change and extreme weather events, so the first sentence in that last quote is technically incorrect. As far as “unknown tipping points” rising “with higher temperatures” goes, this one can also be tackled by the fact we’re living in the Modern Warm Period and that there have been two other warming periods like this, at least as far as we know (and in all likelihood, there are many more), that occurred about a thousand years ago or so (known as the Medieval Warm Period) and one that occurred while the Roman Empire existed (known as the Roman Warm Period).
 
The sort of “higher temperatures” we experience today are nothing new, particularly for this planet, and the advancement of technology allows us to survive any sort of dynamic climate patterns, so it is unlikely that this planet will face a “tipping point” as Shellenberger and others worry about. Not that there is a link between hurricanes and climate change, but technology has allowed us to better survive hurricanes that occur. The places where we find the highest death tolls in this day and age are places that are fairly behind in technology and infrastructure (i.e. poor countries in the Caribbean).
 
So Shellenberger is perhaps unaware of the erroneous statements he made there, but if anything, they go to show that he’s not some random scientist that “was paid off by big oil”, as conspiracy theorists on the Left might try and argue.
 
This is why I say that he is a sincere scientist. He is not outright telling the truth on this matter, but it could very well be because he is simply ignorant to the truth. But at the very least, errors and all, he is sincere and honest enough not to take what many other scientists and, in particular, climate cultists are saying at face value and say “yeah, they’re right. We’re screwed unless we employ this long wish-list of socialist policies that will totally not be ineffective at combating climate change”.
 
Shellenberger then also went on to advocate in favor of nuclear energy, arguing that solar and wind  energy, while popular, are unreliable and make electricity expensive as a result of large land use and large material requirements, all for the fact that they cannot replace the energy output of fossil fuels.
 
Regardless, it is nice to see someone who tries their hardest to be objective on an issue that has been so politicized that it’s practically impossible to be, or be perceived as, entirely objective. Again, he isn’t right about everything, as I have said. But at least he’s honest enough not to join the mob and demand action be taken out of fear of complete global annihilation.
 
He believes climate change is a threat, but he doesn’t believe it will kill us all, particularly in the extremely short timespan that insane cultists have presented.
 
Proverbs 19:1
“Better is a poor person who walks in his integrity than one who is crooked in speech and is a fool.”

Searching through news articles and op-eds for me to find inspiration, I came across an opinion piece published on Scientific American with the following title: “Can Science Rule Out God?”, with the subhead reading: “We must understand the laws of nature before we can deduce their origins”.
 
Naturally, I became interested in what the author of the piece, a man by the name of Mark Alpert, had to say on this subject. The debate between science and religion has existed for centuries at this point since the Age of “Enlightenment” (I put it in quotation marks since it seems to have had just the opposite effect when it came to logic and reason).
 
From the outset, Mr. Alpert notes that he himself is not a religious man, does not outright believe in the existence of God as He is found in the Bible, but is not an atheist either, but something more akin to an agnostic (which has roots to the Greek word “agnostos” meaning “unknown” or “unknowable”, or in other words, basically means ignorant since “agnoia” means “ignorance”, so it is interesting that someone would be willing to call themselves “ignorant”). Mr. Alpert also mentions that for a decade, he had been an editor at the very scientific journal that he is currently writing for in efforts to expose “the falsehoods of ‘intelligent design’ proponents who claimed to see God’s hand in the fashioning of complex biological structures” like the human eye and bacteria.
 
Not quite sure what falsehoods he could be talking about with this. The only other argument here is that these complex things came about entirely by chance, which as I have explained time and time again, is nothing more than mathematical probability of an event occurring and it has no inherent power to act upon anything, but I digress.
 
Mr. Alpert eventually writes something that I found interesting. He notes that “as physicists investigate the most fundamental characteristics of nature, they’re tackling issues that have long been the province of philosophers and theologians: Is the universe infinite and eternal? Why does it seem to follow mathematical laws, and are those laws inevitable? And, perhaps most importantly, why does the universe exist? Why is there something instead of nothing?”
 
That last question is really what intrigues me (and the question about the universe being infinite and eternal, which I will get to). Indeed, why is there something instead of nothing? And here is where we arrive to one of three possible theories to explain the existence of the universe:
 
Theory #1: the universe was created by God, who is a self-existing, eternal being, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
 
Theory #2: the universe is eternal and self-existing.
 
Theory #3: the universe is not eternal but self-created.
 
Let us observe the objective reality that there is, indeed, something, as opposed to nothing. By sheer reason and logic, we can completely eliminate the third theory as a whole. Why? Because of two laws: the Law of Causality (or the Law of Cause and Effect, if you will) and the Law of Noncontradiction.
 
The Law of Causality is, as explained, the law of Cause and Effect. Simply put, this law means that every effect must have an antecedent cause. For a ball to move, force must be applied to it. Someone must move it themselves, be it with their hands or their feet, or simply a strong enough gust of wind or the force of gravity must act on it in order for the effect of motion to occur. Following Newton’s First Law, the Law of Inertia, an object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an outside force.
 
Every effect must have an antecedent cause and if there is no cause, there is no effect. The second of the laws I mentioned is the Law of Noncontradiction which simply states that A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship. Something cannot BE and NOT BE at the same time and in the same relationship.
 
For example, you can be a father and you can be a son at the same time, but you cannot be both at the same time and in the same relationship. You cannot be your own father and you cannot be your own son. It is logically impossible for such a relationship to exist. Another example would be that you cannot exist and not exist at the same time and in the same relationship. Or you cannot have a job and not have a job at the same time and in the same relationship, etc.
 
So why do I bring this law into the conversation? Because in order for the universe to create itself, it first must BE and NOT BE at the same time and the same relationship. It must exist and NOT exist, which is not physically or logically possible. In order for something to create anything, even itself, it must first BE. You cannot argue that the universe created itself because you would then be arguing illogically, as the universe must first have not existed and existed at the same time and in the same relationship.
 
NOTHING can create itself, as a result. It is logically, not to mention physically, impossible for something to create itself simply because it would have to literally defy LOGIC in order for this to happen. Not even God has the power to create Himself.
 
If there ever was a time when there was nothing, without the acting of an outside being that is self-existing and eternal, there would be nothing at this very moment. Ex nihilo, nihil fit. Out of nothing, nothing comes. So if there is SOMETHING, it absolutely could not have come from nothing, at least out of its own power. So the third theory is eliminated entirely.
 
So let’s move on to the second theory, which is something Mr. Alpert covers, even if unwittingly. Mr. Alpert writes:
 
“Cosmologists don’t know if the universe even had a beginning. Instead it might’ve had an eternal past before the big bang, stretching infinitely backward in time. Some cosmological models propose that the universe has gone through endless cycles of expansion and contraction. And some versions of the theory of inflation postulate an eternal process in which new universes are forever branching off from the speedily expanding ‘inflational background.’”
 
Such theories should be easy enough to discern why they might not hold up. If the universe is endlessly expanding and contracting in cycles, what is causing it and when did that start? To return to the Law of Causality, all effects must have an antecedent cause. If something, anything, including the universe itself, is expanding and contracting like a lung, then what is the CAUSE?
 
It is this very law that also eliminates the second theory. The very existence of the universe, the fact that there is something instead of nothing, is an effect. Again, out of nothing, nothing comes. Even those who believe in the second theory understand this principle and it is the reason why such people do not believe in the third theory. But the Law of Causality also throws a wrench at the second theory. The existence of the universe, being an effect, must have an antecedent cause.
 
Funny enough, even Mr. Alpert notes this: “But other cosmologists argue that inflation had to start somewhere, and the starting point could’ve been essentially nothing. As we’ve learned from quantum theory, even empty space has energy, and nothingness is unstable. All kinds of improbable things can happen in empty space, and one of them might’ve been a sudden drop to a lower vacuum energy, which could’ve triggered the inflationary expansion.”
 
A few things about this. First, I’m glad that he notes that cosmologists have enough logic to argue that this cycle of inflation (if true) had to start somewhere. That’s nice.
 
Second, and most importantly, suppose that the “sudden drop to a lower vacuum energy” is, indeed, what happened and caused this “inflationary expansion”. We return, once again, to the Law of Causality. What CAUSED that sudden drop? I don’t think I need to argue why a “sudden drop” is an effect. When you suddenly drop a coin, that drop had an antecedent cause. The same, therefore, must be applied here.
 
Which brings us to the first theory I talked about: the theory of a self-existing, eternal being with the power to create and manipulate energy and matter itself to create anything and everything.
 
Now, non-believing skeptics might argue “but doesn’t the Law of Causality apply to this theory too? You argued that an eternal, self-existing universe cannot be because of this Law, which says that all things must have a cause. Why is this theory, the one that points to an eternal, self-existing God, any different?”
 
The answer is simple: because the Law of Causality states that every EFFECT must have an antecedent cause. God is not an effect, but the antecedent cause. God is not a creation. He is not an effect, because if He were, literally nothing would make any sense. There’d be no universe and no intelligent being to understand anything for anything to make sense. God CANNOT be an effect and most certainly, He is not.
 
God is the antecedent cause in the Law of Causality. If you argue that the universe came about because of a “sudden drop” to a lower vacuum energy, one must still explain the cause of that sudden drop and the only feasible and logical outcome would have to be the acknowledgement of a self-existing, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being and there is only one such being that can come to mind, and that is the God of the Bible.
 
It is for this very reason that science cannot rule out the existence of God and those who adamantly deny the existence of God are not scientific. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. You cannot prove a negative. It’s for this same reason that it is up to the prosecution to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction. It is not up to the innocent to prove their innocence (though exculpatory evidence should be looked for, but is not necessary), but for the accuser to prove guilt. One cannot prove that God does not exist, and by virtue of the things that I talked about, it would be illogical for people to say that He hasn’t been proven to exist, because He has.
 
Science can’t rule out God because God is FACT. Science can’t rule out God because without God, there’d be no science in the first place. There’d be absolute nothingness because ex nihilo, nihil fit. Out of nothing, nothing comes. If there is no God, there’d be nothing right now.
 
Romans 1:20
“For since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.”

It is rare to see college professors be nuanced enough to challenge their own beliefs, understand where they fall short, and rethink certain things with new information given, at least in this day and age. But David Gelernter dared to challenge Darwin’s theory of evolution, at least in the aspect of macro-evolution, in an essay he titled: “Giving Up Darwin.”
 
The essay is rather long and pretty technical, so I will have to skip a decent bit of it, but here are the main points:
 
“Darwin’s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from old ones in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life. Those brave new Cambrian creatures (what are considered the first-ever animals in an event called the Cambrian Explosion) must therefore have had Precambrian predecessors, similar but not quite as fancy and sophisticated… Each must have had a closely related predecessor, which must have had its own predecessors… All those predecessors must have come together, further back, into a series of branches leading down to the (long ago) trunk. But those predecessors of the Cambrian creatures are missing… The Cambrian explosion had been unearthed, and beneath those Cambrian creatures their Precambrian predecessors should have been waiting – and weren’t. In fact, the fossil record as a whole lacked the upward-branching structure Darwin predicted.”
 
In other words, the sort of Darwinian chain of gradual improvement from one creature to the next isn’t there in terms of macro-evolution. The first-ever animals that popped up half a billion years ago seem to have pretty much come from out of nowhere, with no noticeable predecessor to them being fossilized and discovered. And it’s not like it was a matter of how hard their bodies were. Soft-bodied fossils have been found in the past.
 
But that’s not Darwin’s only problem, nor is it the biggest. Mathematically-speaking, Darwin’s theory surrounding evolution through mutation is virtually impossible. Avoiding getting too technical, it is mathematically-impossible for a mutation of an amino acid (the things inside DNA) to carry on to future generations and make an entirely new species. The mutation would have to be early enough in the genetic sequence to do it, but there hasn’t been a case when a mutation in that stage of the sequence wasn’t fatal to the organism. These mutations are not mutations that make improvements upon a new organism. They are deficiencies and malformities that kill the organism with that mutation before it can mate.
 
Gelernter also writes against the idea that simple chance is what does the trick:
 
“Neo-Darwinism says that nature simply rolls the dice, and if something useful emerges, great. Otherwise, try again. But useful sequences are so gigantically rare that this answer simply won’t work…”
 
While he doesn’t really dive too much into that particular aspect, I think I should.
 
The biggest problem, in my opinion, with the theory of evolution as Darwin describes it and as scientists take it is that they have a simple formula that doesn’t work. That formula is Matter + Chance + Time = Everything.
 
This is really what fuels theories like Darwin’s: that something has to be there in the first place in order for something else to eventually, probably, be there. But one can see the cracks pretty much immediately. It alludes to the illogical idea that something can come from nothing and thus, that everything can come from nothing.
 
Of course, one might ask: “But if matter is already there, isn’t that already something?” Yes, but then where did that initial form of matter come from? It had to have come from somewhere, surely! If it is there now, it had to have been there before in some sort of way. But there are people who will argue in favor of self-creation. Such an example comes from the Big Bang Theory. That theory is a theory based on the idea that something can come from nothing. That the universe created itself. That an explosion, an effect, came from nothing, no cause. It is an argument that there is an effect without a cause, which is entirely illogical. It also doesn’t help that chance doesn’t have any actual power to do anything, as I have explained time and time again, given it is nothing more than a mathematic calculation of the probability of an occurrence, but has no actual say as to what happens.
 
So when it comes to the Big Bang Theory and the theory of evolution, reasonable people will point to the idea of intelligent design being a good answer, at least in the abstract. Since something can’t come from nothing, and since we are here and since animals are here in the way they are with no Precambrian ancestry to note, the only logical answer then is the idea that an intelligent, or conscious, presence affected the way things are and the way things were.
 
This presence – this being – has to have had the power to affect these things down to the molecular level and has to have been separate from the actual chain of life. In other words, it had to have been an omnipotent, omniscient, self-existent and omnipresent being – someone who exists outside of this realm of reality and has the power and knowledge to affect things within it – in order for matter, for life and everything in the universe, or at least on this planet, to have gone the way things went.
 
Of course, scientists like Gelernter don’t immediately jump on to Christianity and the Bible. They understand that intelligent design is a serious theory that makes more and more sense as time goes on and as more information is made available, but that does not inherently mean that the God of the Bible is inherently the intelligent designer of this world, at least in their minds. Man’s desire to avoid the things of God is there, even if it is forced to acknowledge through reason His existence.
 
However, it is impossible to divorce the Intelligent Design theory with Scripture, as the Intelligent Designer being described in the theory fits the God of the Bible to a tee. The theory requires an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being to exist. God is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being. Matter of fact, He’s the ONLY omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being in existence. And He's self-existent - He has the power of being within Himself. He's the first cause of everything.
 
Do you want to know what the Big Bang Theory, the theory of evolution and the Bible have in common? They all require the existence of God.
 
The Big Bang Theory, if interpreted by rational people, insists that there is a self-existent being who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent to cause the literal explosion and creation of the cosmos. The theory of evolution, going all the way back to the first life form, requires that there have been a self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being for there to be life in the first place. Again, something can’t come from nothing, and that includes life. Life can’t come from out of nowhere, at least in the natural.
 
And Genesis 1:1 states: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” The Bible assumes and requires the existence of a self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being that literally creates everything.
 
I find it rather funny that, in Man’s desire to avoid the things of God to the point it wishes to DISPROVE God, all he manages to do is further prove His existence and further drive people to the understanding of His existence. Darwin had to assume, even if unconsciously, that there is a God in order for his theory regarding macro-evolution to make sense. The Big Bang Theory has to assume that there is a God in order for it to even logically work.
 
As more of this world is made known to us, we only find more and more evidence of God’s existence through His creation. Paul, in his letter to the Romans, wrote: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”
 
Paul is saying here that God reveals Himself through nature, so Man doesn’t have any excuse not to have been made aware of His existence and His presence. As scientists discover more and more about the world we live in, this is made all the more apparent. God has already proven His own existence. Scientists continue to prove His existence through their discoveries of the creation. Man has no real excuse not to understand and believe that there is a God.
 
I fully give credit to Gelernter in his understanding that Darwin’s theory of evolution, at least regarding macro-evolution, is full of holes and is essentially outdated and impossible. I also give him credit for understanding that the theory of Intelligent Design is sound and serious and shouldn’t be attacked by fellow scientists who seek to find the truth about the universe and who seek further understanding of its truth. But one has to also come to the understanding that you can’t just stop at the theory of Intelligent Design and try to divorce that from the God of Scripture.
 
All signs point towards God as He is described in His very own Word. Still, this is at least a step in the right direction and shows the guy’s ability to reason instead of following the religion of Darwin, which even Gelernter admits is basically a religion itself and anyone who dares challenge it or question it must be silenced or eliminated.
 
John 8:24
“I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

Don’t you just love it when Leftists just hand you candy like this? As you may know, I found AOC’s doomsday clock of 12 years to be completely laughable, given the fact that it is yet another doomsday clock for something that isn’t happening (man-made climate change) and is close enough to our time to get people scared about it to take action but far enough away to be able to make adjustments and even to ignore it completely once the timer runs out, like Al Gore did in 2016 when his 10-year doomsday clock ran out and virtually no one talked about it.
 
But sometimes, Leftists give us jewels like this: Prince Charles, as well as other British climate “scientists” have all asserted that we only have 18 months to “save the planet”.
 
Matt McGrath, BBC News environment correspondent, told the BBC that “Now, it seems, there is a growing consensus that the next 18 months will be critical.” McGrath also cited the UN’s IPCC model, which in 2018, said that carbon dioxide emissions would have to drop 45% by the year 2030 in order to prevent global temperatures from rising 1.5 °C.
 
Of course, as I have established in a previous article covering man-made climate change (of which there are a lot, but this one talks specifically about this), the only place where CO2 raises global temperatures is in the IPCC models. This is because there has been a historical record where temperature has increased BEFORE CO2 levels did. For example, the Tropical Atlantic used to be around 7.5 °C warmer around 10 to 15 thousand years ago, when CO2 levels were around 220 ppm, which was roughly half the level they currently are.
 
So there is no correlation between CO2 levels and warming temperatures. Not that these agenda-driven hacks will admit to it publicly. The IPCC, despite its many flaws and errors, is considered to be virtually sacred amongst climatologists. To defy it would be risking your career and reputation, despite how wrong it often-times is regarding climate change. So people like McGrath and other climate “scientists” will go along with it, perpetuating the ridiculous and irrational lies it tells and passes them off as truths, while getting certain power-hungry politicians to take advantage of it and assert some sort of “need” for “action” against climate change which would do nothing to actually combat climate change (for a number of reasons apart from literal incapability) and will only serve to enslave entire populations (even AOC’s chief of staff admitted that the GND wasn’t about climate change but about changing the economy of the U.S. from capitalist to socialist).
 
But regardless of the insincerity of the IPCC, people like Prince Charles perpetuate the idea that we are killing out planet and we have a certain window of opportunity to do anything. As a result, he, alongside many others, will claim that we only have 18 months to do something about climate change. It’s an interesting long-con, all things considered. Prince Charles once claimed we only had around 96 months to “save the planet”. This was around July of 2009, so 10 years ago. In other words, that was 120 months ago and yet, here we are! Oh, but this time, we only have 18 months, according to this dishonest future king of England (sorry to all Brits in the audience). It’s obvious, then, that if it’s been 120 months since he sounded the alarm of only having 96 months to solve climate change (and if we haven’t done so, according to the Left), then surely he made brilliant adjustments to his brilliant calculations and we are all to agree on them, facts be damned!
 
Yeah, because that’s how science works: consensus over facts. The Earth used to be the center of the universe when there was consensus that that was the case and then it changed once the consensus was around the Sun being at the center (and then, of course, that it’s only at the center of the solar system, not the entire universe).
 
Give me a break. How dishonest can these people be?
 
As I’ve established time and time again, backed up by facts from ACTUAL CLIMATOLOGISTS WHO DON’T KOWTOW TO THE LEFT’S INSANE DEMANDS, there is no man-made climate change. There is no doomsday clock to actually watch out for. There is no period of time for us to be able to do something. We didn’t even CAUSE climate change in the first place, how can we possibly do anything to end it?!
 
And for those in the audience who will point out the current heatwaves in the U.S. and Europe, allow me to explain, in small words so that they might understand, what is currently happening: IT’S JULY! And I’ve made the recent scientific discovery that is certain to rock the entire scientific world: it gets hot during summer.
 
I KNOW, HOW CRAZY IS THAT?! But wait, it gets even crazier: it also gets colder during winter!
 
WHERE IS MY NOBEL PRIZE AND MY MILLION DOLLARS?! I SHOULD BE SHAKING HANDS WITH THE PRESIDENT!
 
In any case, getting back on track, in New York, recent data for the month of July shows us that, in Central Park, temperatures got as high as 95° F. Up there, but far from peculiar. The record high for Central Park is 106°. Want to know when it was set? 1936! And since 1870, that very temperature was either equaled or exceeded in at least 112 years. So in 112 of the last 149 years, these are the temperatures Central Park has recorded DURING SUMMER!
 
So the current heatwaves we are seeing are NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY! Not that Leftists will care. The fact that it can even get hot like this in the first place is proof enough to them that our capitalistic system is killing our entire planet (despite us not even being a top polluter) and we must enact socialistic policies in order to save our planet (while the politicians that enact this stuff laugh to themselves at how stupid some people can be to buy this crap).
 
Leftists will make ridiculous claims like “we only have 18 months to change this” when they already have, MULTIPLE TIMES IN THE PAST, made similar assertions. The aforementioned Al Gore is one example of this. AOC is one of the most recent ones, of course. In 1989, the UN insisted that humanity had until the year 2000 to “save the planet”. They’ve issued “tipping-point” warnings ever since then.
 
And guess what? They have all been completely wrong about everything they said. Things like the polar ice caps melting, sea levels rising and causing flooding, and entire islands made of trash floating in the Pacific Ocean have all been b.s. Everything from those lies to how much time we have to “save the planet” has been bogus because there is nothing we are doing to the planet to cause it to warm up or cool down severely. Again, temperatures have been changing well before CO2 increased so much. There is nothing, collectively as humanity, that we can do to change these things and even THEY know that.
 
Again, even AOC’s chief of staff admitted the GND was about changing the economic system of the U.S., not fighting climate change. These people are in it to take power for themselves, not to make any meaningful and positive changes to our world.
 
So for Prince Charles and all these other “scientists” to make these assertions is to spit in the face of science. Shame on them.
 
Proverbs 12:22
“Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!

There are a lot of people in this day and age that seem to think that God, or at least religion, and science are completely incompatible with one another. That one strictly requires faith, but not backed up with facts and evidence, and the other strictly requires facts and evidence, but not supported by any faith.
 
That is 100% erroneous and unrealistic. And I will explain just what I mean in a moment.
 
First, let me introduce you to Marcelo Gleiser, an Astro-physicist who has won the Templeton Prize, a prize given to those who have “made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works.” The prize also gives out $1.5 million, which is more than the Nobel prize gives.
 
Gleiser recently told Agence France Presse that “Atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. Atheism is a belief in non-belief. So you categorically deny something you have no evidence against.”
 
He also told Yahoo News: “I’ll keep an open mind because I understand that human knowledge is limited,” sort of taking a Socratic approach to knowledge and understanding that we truly know nothing.
 
Gleiser also points out that “everybody wants to know how the world came to be… Science can give answers to certain questions, up to a point. This has been known for a very long time in philosophy, it’s called the problem of the first cause: we get stuck.”
 
He also says that those who believe the universe and everything that exists was literally created in six days “position science as the enemy… because they have a very antiquated way of thinking about science and religion in which all scientists try to kill God. Science does not kill God.”
 
And I have some things to say about this. First, a good number of scientists are atheists and devote their careers to finding out more about the universe, yes, but with the particular point of trying to disprove God or suggesting that there is an answer as to how things came to be that do not include God.
 
People like Neil DeGrasse Tyson come to mind as such scientists (and I would include Bill Nye the Science Guy, but he only has a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical science, soooo…). But both of these guys often try and insist that God is 100% not real, cannot possibly be real, and that science already has proven that He is not real, when nothing could be farther from the truth.
 
So we certainly have good reason for not being keen towards scientists who try to prove God does not exist using evidence that does not allude to that in the slightest. If anything, the more we find out about our universe and the more complex we see it to be, the more it goes to show that it couldn’t have come from a massive cosmic accident and that it had to have been specifically designed this way, as it works in perfect synchronization with everything else.
 
The more we find out about DNA, while scientists try and prove evolution using it, we see more and more evidence of the complexity of the creation and the intricate design by an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being, who is the only being who could possibly have created such a thing.
 
But it is precisely because of this that I also have to agree with Gleiser when he says that science does not kill God. If anything, it further goes to show that God does, indeed, exist.
 
But now, allow me to return to something I said earlier and the explanation I promised for it. In the beginning, I said that people seem to think God and science are incompatible with one another; that one strictly and exclusively requires faith but with no evidence and the other strictly and exclusively requires evidence but no faith. Like I said, that is erroneous.
 
From what I just mentioned about DNA and other things, it does not require blind faith to believe in God. We see, every day, His creation at work. Everything we see, touch, smell, hear, taste, etc. is proof of God’s creation. The further we investigate the things we see, and even do not see with the naked eye; the things we can touch and cannot touch; the things we smell and cannot smell; the things we hear and cannot hear; and the things we taste and cannot taste, the more we can become convinced that the theory of everything coming from nothing by pure chance (which is nothing but a mathematical calculation of probability) is ludicrous.
 
Seeing just how everything works, discovering what composes every little thing in the universe does more to PROVE God’s existence than disprove Him.
 
What’s more believable and requires less faith? Believing that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being created everything or that everything we know of this universe came from nothing and it was all a massive coincidence that it all works as it does and there are no complications with it that would disrupt the entire universal ecosystem?
 
Personally, I think it requires more blind faith to discover more and more about the universe and think that God is definitely not real.
 
But that’s just one part of the equation. There’s also the notion that “the other”, or science, requires nothing but evidence and no faith. Again, that’s completely wrong.
 
The scientific method REQUIRES a hypothesis. What’s a hypothesis if not some sort of belief or faith that something will be the way one thinks it will be? Science REQUIRES faith to work to its fullest extent, otherwise one would find it much more difficult to use the scientific method.
 
Not to mention that science is not always correct about its evidence. Take the brain, for example. Neurobiologists are constantly finding new things about the brain that they thought were in other places in the brain. The information they previously had about the brain, including the evidence, was not 100% correct.
 
So how can one be 100% sure that God does not exist when one can’t be 100% sure of the brain’s functions in how it works? How can one dismiss the idea of a higher being existing when we know so exponentially little about the universe we live in? We haven’t even fully explored the Earth yet, at least when it comes to the oceans!
 
So Gleiser is right in saying that science doesn’t kill God. Naturally, as nothing can kill God. The problem arises when people use science to further their own agendas that do nothing to advance humanity. The problem with the theory of evolution (and really, there are a LOT of problems with that theory) is that it only goes back so far – to the single living organism that evolves into everything else in the span of millions and millions of years, but it does nothing to explain how that single living organism got there in the first place. If something evolves, it had to have come from something that was already there. And if something living evolves from something else that is living, that previous living thing had to have already been there.
 
Never mind that the theory does nothing to explain just HOW one species can evolve into an entirely different one (I agree that things can adapt and evolve to better suit their environments, but believing a human can come from a monkey, a monkey can come from a reptile and a reptile can come from a fish, which can come from whatever else honestly takes more faith than believing in God).
 
So even the theory of evolution HAS TO INCLUDE GOD FOR IT TO BE FULLY EXPLAINED AND MAKE SENSE!
 
But in any case, the relationship between science and God isn’t antagonistic. One does not hate the other nor does one try to destroy the other. God CREATED everything, and that includes science. God gave humanity the ability to use logic and reason, and thus, the ability to study the things around it.
 
It is only in man’s sinful nature that we find people who pervert science to further a selfish cause. Those who adamantly insist that God is not real and can’t possibly be do a disservice to science, not to mention to God.
 
As I said, the more we find out about our universe, the more we discover its complexity and the improbability of it all being the result of a simple mathematic calculation of probability that has no actual power to dictate anything.
 
Chance does not decide the outcome of a coin flip, it only calculates the probability of an outcome. So chance can’t possibly decide the outcome of the entire universe’s history, only calculate the probability of it all happening. It has no actual power to DO anything. It's not a thing. Those who believe in chance are giving it a power it does not have - they're giving chance the power of "being".
 
God, on the other hand, has ALL the power to do everything. The dismissal of His existence as being antiquated does nothing to progress science itself or humanity. It only serves to further pervert both.
 
John 1:3
“All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!