Science and Randomness
Randomness is a common idea in modern science. For example, Darwinism postulates that evolution takes place through random mutations and quantum theory postulates that the movement of particles follows a ‘probability wave’. On average the movement will follow predictable, defined rules but any individual particle has a movement that is random.
It must have been frustrating for early scientists (most of whom were real scientists in that they formed theories based on experimentation) who were up against the established church hierarchy. Church leaders had their own criteria for determining how things worked and for deciding the truth or falsehood of new ideas. These criteria were based on their preconceived notions of how things worked. Reference could also be made to the Bible or previous edicts. One important point was that the authority of the church could not be undermined. Scientists found they could answer many questions that had previously been attributed simply to the will of God. Obviously, church authorities could not allow these ideas to gain currency.
The similarities to the situation today are apparent. Darwinism has replaced Biblical interpretation; any questioning of this results in immediate condemnation and where the scientific community cannot explain behaviour, it is attributed to ‘randomness’. In other words, there is no answer and any attempt to provide an answer is treated with derision and condemnation.
In reality, attributing something to random behaviour is simply to say that you cannot find a pattern. If there were any real scientists left, the word ‘random’ would be disallowed. It would be replaced by ‘unknown’ behaviour. But this would be to admit ignorance and would require a degree of humility that the scientific community lacks. These are the people who claim to know ‘the mind of God’; to understand how the universe was created and life developed. And yet can’t even produce so much as simple protein – the basic building block of life, let alone produce any living thing.
There is no randomness. I’ve
previously written about how the so-called random behaviour of particles is controlled by low-entropy energy and can be influenced by concentration and prayer. What is called the laws of physics is simply the average behaviour of these particles. Similarly, the so-called random mutation of genes is influenced by the direction that the organism itself chooses to evolve. I’ll discuss this in more detail later but any hint that these patterns are not random will result in condemnation by scientists and, if they could do it, excommunication.
One can sympathise with the early scientists up against an established church. Science is the new religion and scientists the new high priests, who are more concerned with protecting their own interests than in objectively finding out about the world. These high priests of science see the threat to their power as coming from religion. I mentioned previously that it is only recently that science has seen religion as its opposition. In reality, there is no opposition to the ideas but there is opposition if you see it terms of leadership.
One of the issues that I have with this pseudo-scientific way of thinking is that it suppresses new and original ideas. In life there are patterns and if you observe what you think is a pattern, what are you to think if scientists tell you that such a pattern can't be possible (for example, you think that prayer affects the outcome or, even more contentious, that Darwinism doesn't seem quite correct)? The 'new' scientists, who are more concerned with scepticism and atheism than science, will simply ridicule your ideas.
