An Appeal to Stop Doing Science by Mulugeta Wudu

Dear Mr. Lawrence B. Crowell,

The western society may have had what it called 'theocracy' but it is clear from the picture you presented and from the historical information many provide that the western world was a material world. That cruelty in the picture, if true, demonstrates that the claim of 'faith in God' was merely cosmetic. I understand there was some desire to be godly by some people but clearly it is easy to see from the available data that the majority of western society placed great credence in gold-digging than in the theology of 'love your neighbor as yourself'. Apparently, the intense desire for wealth and power exploded in the form of the Renascence Movement which in turn led to countless savagery down to this day - savagery even worse than the picture you showed. Merciless colonialism, callous robbery and the ruthless extermination of fellow man became the standard praxis of the post 'theocracy' western society. So the barbarity was not in the 'faith' component of the society but rather in the gold-digging component of it. Of course, men of science who detest God will be glad to project the superficial 'theocracy' appellation in the 'middle ages' as a strawman for godly society in order to defeat any imaginings of an equitable future society.

Without indulging in the realm of the 1.5 million years ago knowledge fantasy, I can give you that there were indeed some godly elements in western society. Those godly elements left descendants in what we see today as the Amish. I don't have inside knowledge of the Amish, but from what I see in the public information, their self-restraint to indulge in the excesses of western delicious living pretty much tells a story of the presence of thoughtful forbears. No need to spoil the gist of the message in petty argumentation here, but I wish to summarize that moderate living that I am appealing for can be exemplified by the Amish way of life in the west.

Regards,

Mulugeta

Dear Mr. Jack Hamilton James,

The reason I used the term "if we assumed that science declared that God Is" was to bring men of science to the same thinking as those of Christians and to show them that in Christianity, Orthodox Christianity that is, God is the purpose of the universe. It was not to use science as a basis toward a conclusion. Since the entire message is especially for men of science, the point is to demonstrate that, when there Is God (for the mind that knows God Is), there is no nobler job than the praising of the Lord God. So it was just a proposal for the man of science to be in the shoes of the Christian for a second.

Since I did not ask for science to prove God, the question of whether science would then deem the praising of God a worthwhile activity is irrelevant. I see that you strove to deploy science's habit of providing competing identities in order to diminish an identity when you remarked: "God might prefer us to engage in natural pleasures, and this, or whatever we did, would depend on the discovered science of that God." Science created many competing identities and elevated many idolatries in order to overthrow the Christian faith. Its preference has always been to fight Christianity using what it calls 'religion' and in the process science puts itself above the fray and its principals as 'gods'. This is a trick science used for five hundred years. I think that time has now expired.

Regards,

Mulugeta

Dear Mr. Eckard Blumschein,

You saw the fly hated the fire. That is fine. However, you will be in error to conclude the bee is the fly when you find that the bee doesn't like the fire either. There is more to my plea than an equation with a certain Boko Haram. As for the population figures you conjectured on, I took publicly available data and projected population growth using the pre-industrial revolution figures and you can see in the curves attached that science ignorantly transgressed to infringe the natural balance of life that God put in place. The western science man oozed prideful 'knowledge' and equated himself to God in knowledge; but look at what the bitter fruit of that prideful knowledge has become. Do you see now that your blame is misplaced?

Regards,

MulugetaAttachment #1: science_and_world_population.png

Dear Mr. Jack Hamilton James,

God's first instruction to man in Genesis is to stay away from the knowledge tree (science). God told man that the fruit from the knowledge tree leads to death because the fruit is tempting and would seduce man to vie for godhood and to compete against God. What science did to earth is exactly as God said it would. Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden for eating from the knowledge tree. What is this Garden? It is a metaphor. In the midst of a vast desert of space of lands, moons and stars, the Lord God planted a beautiful garden - earth - and furnished it with animated habitat teeming with life sustained by a puzzling circuitry of measured diversity that maintains abiding vigor.

The supply circuitry or the cycles of natural supply of the garden is furnished for fair consumption to maintain strength and not for the excesses of drunkenness or mindless draining. For many days man lived with adequate consumption of furnished amenities and the moderation allowed the stock of furniture, which are the fruits of the earth, to be refilled by the endowed glory of replenishment (replenishment is a miraculous gift from God). This life of delightful security changed after the Black Death event that swept Western Europe in the fourteenth century Anno Domini. Out of the bubonic Black Death event arose an invigorated counter-purpose known as the renaissance movement and it imbued the Western European person with an unbridled fancy for the devouring of the whole earth. The Western European person, for the ruthless extraction of resources, fashioned a doctrine of counterfeit knowledge he named 'science' and pressed ahead and unfairly ravaged the earth. Adam and Eve lost the Garden and we now have that metaphor unfolding before our eyes. We are losing the earth because it is dying. You don't see it, do you?

I don't know what message of mine you are arguing against in your discussion of cause and purpose. I provided an experimental summary in the essay that proved Mr. Darwin's evolution idea wrong. Whether Mr. Darwin tried to show that there is cause rather than purpose is meaningless since Mr. Darwin's elaborate discussion on 'decent' was elaborately wrong.

Regards,

Mulugeta

Dear Eckard Blumschein,

In many a science man, in whom the antipathy seed was planted in early childhood, I see the feeling of aversion to God already. But I was hoping to encounter amenability to the persuasion of reason, however intense the dislike maybe. I provided data that can be verified very easily and I did so with clarity, without complicating anything. I can't invest time and energy to entertain vague insinuations and cold declarations. Please, let us reason - point by point. 'Be fruitful and multiply' is consistent with the pre-industrial revolution population growth. The industrial revolution messed up the earth in irreversible many ways. The data is there. The earth is here. You can't hide it. The calamity striking the earth is much more devastating than the little perceptional snit you are trying to avoid. The remedy, if it is not too late already, is to stop the root cause.

By greed, the scientific west destroyed the once vibrant earth that God furnished. God furnished the earth for the "poor" too. The poor who are feared to be "too desiring a life in luxury" by way of "global advertisement" did not benefit one iota in the course of the earth's destruction. Now the western man of science says he likes the idea of eliminating, himself as god deciding who to eliminate. There is no consideration of reason in all this, is there? There is only projection of might.

Regards,

Mulugeta

Dear Mr. Jack Hamilton James,

Science - so called "modern science" - was conceived and hatched in willful antagonism specifically to the Christian belief. Science then waged its war against the faith on all fronts. Almost every subject of science conducts that war in its own realm. Early in school, children are subjected to a grueling competition of reading witchcraft and mystery books particularly designed to remove them from Christian way of life. With handsome payment, a legion of forces are assigned to go around shopping for stories in old idolatries that resembled stories in the Christian faith. Then specialized story tellers publish mystery books where they allege the Christian narrative to have been borrowed from some early beliefs. To this end, all other idolatries and beliefs are companions to science. In the "natural" sciences domain, the strategy of science instructions is creating senseless folk. In the "natural" science front considerable resources (earth's precious resources) are spent to ensure the Christian faith is defeated in every person's mind. The "natural" sciences instruct students to shut-off their natural senses and to follow the procedures of the science doctrine alone. A rigorous recital of the procedures create, out of children and out of college graduates, indoctrinated "zombies" fanatically hostile to Christianity. Also, since fostering competing identities are vital to diminishing the Christian faith, the science religion brings all other beliefs and idolatries to the same platform as Christianity. In fact, one of the first steps of the renaissance movement was to intervene in the Christian scripture and to declare that interpretation is personal. Then a multiplicity of feuding "christianities" emerged immediately relegating authentic Christianity to the mire of contention where science enthrones itself as the adjudicating authority hovering over the mire. The goal is, for the western science man to acquire godlike powers over earth and over all its inhabitants. It is science's standard trick to create competing identities to defeat an identity. If, for example, science wants to get rid of Mr. Jack Hamilton James, it manufactures dolls, many dolls, and calls them each "Mr. Jack Hamilton James "and it starts to elevate the "Mr. Jack Hamilton James" dolls to a platform of celebrity. Then it gradually starts to bring dishonor to them. When, by spectators, unanimity is reached as to the vileness of the many "Mr. Jack Hamilton James" attributes, science proceeds to eliminate all that is "Mr. Jack Hamilton James" and it starts doing so from the honorable authentic Mr. Jack Hamilton James since, by reason of the competing dolls, Mr. Jack Hamilton James has become just one of them. So, your expression: "...we don't, in my view, need a God to see that and nor can we blame causal information ..." is a simple derivative of the science motif. God is everything and we need Him in everything, everywhere.

In all its history, the earth has seen nothing more beautiful than Christianity. It is compassion, it is humility, it is fairness, it is love, it is peace and it is tranquility. Two major evidences distinguish Christianity from any other in authenticity. While many watched, our Lord Jesus Christ was Crucified and Buried, and He rose up in Resurrection on the Third Day and Ascended to Heaven on the fortieth day. The second is the prophecies of scripture that unfolded with remarkable truthfulness. Writing that men do that you have in mind isn't capable of prophecy. Nothing, absolutely nothing compares to Christianity. It is as much vital to us as water is to earth. It is the only hope there is that we have. On the other hand, science is an institution of subjugation and of class and of contempt and of derision. Overbearing pride and presumption drive science institutions. Hubris is the hallmark of the science culture. Humility, love and compassion are objects of ridicule in science quarters. The man of science rejects God and the morality God gave us because he wants to be god himself and intends to provide his version of morality, which he calls "ethics" to the inhabitants of the earth. When it is declared "there is no God" moral codes are given by the powerful - by the coercive force. That is what is happening now. The science capitals, America and England, are imposing on the dwellers of earth what is their version of the moral code that needs to be obeyed. So, in brief, the purpose of the "no God" science journey is to replace it with a new god.

As for who the new "god" is, we can look at one example. In his book: "The Grand Design" Mr. Stephen Hawking (along with co-author Mr. Leonard Mlodinow), citing some conjectures of Mr. Richard Feynman, which, in science quarters is known by a physics term "sum over histories," stated: "... In cosmology, in other words, one shouldn't follow the history of the universe from the bottom up because that assumes there's a single history, with a well-defined starting point and evolution. Instead, one should trace the histories from the top down, backward from the present time. Some histories will be more probable than others, and the sum will normally be dominated by a single history that starts with the creation of the universe and culminates in the state under consideration. But there will be different histories for different possible states of the universe at the present time. This leads to a radically different view of cosmology, and the relation between cause and effect. The histories that contribute to the Feynman sum don't have an independent existence, but depend on what is being measured. We create history by our observation, rather than history creating us."

By measurement and observation, Mr. Hawking and his assistant are referring to their own theorems of physics which they themselves forge. So the English and the American men of science are already openly declaring themselves "gods" who created the universe and its history by their mathematical observations. Their statements implicitly demand all tongues and tribes of the world bow down to them. In the same book Mr. Hawking also writes: "because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." Since he is the god (subject matter authority is the code word for it) he doesn't have to reason. His mere declaration is enough. Inspired by this god, many science minions wrote ridiculous books on how the universe created itself from nothing. The mind of man is under an awful tyranny of the science doctrine and the cruelty of it is that food and amenities are denied for failing to submit to it.

Regards,

Mulugeta

Dear Mr. Joe Fisher,

You talk of a "visible universe of infinite physical surface and infinite non-surface light" and you start from it as given. If someone takes you to the wilderness and there he provides you with a beautiful home furnished with beds, chairs, tables, light, water, food etc, would you just ignore everything and assume that such furniture is given, that it is there by itself without anyone preparing it? You don't sense some naivety in that, do you? It takes an extraordinary plunge in pretension to be rid of the overwhelming natural perception of creation and replace it with a philosophy that impresses an artificial notion such as that something happens without someone making it happen. It takes an extraordinary ritual in delusion to consider that a dull, unconscious, dead matter starts to move around without an input or instruction and begins to construct itself into sophistication of dazzling regularity and into patterns of perceptible beauty. In everything that you touch, that you see, that you smell, that you taste, that you feel, you see God. The stone that you touch is bound together as a solid unit and it doesn't have to be so. The timber shouldn't be the way it is. Any why are they side by side? Water shouldn't be liquid and all the diverse state and nature of things shouldn't be there, much less to benefit other things. It is an encouragement to dullness that science drives many to be blind and assume things as given. I advise you to think a little more.

As for science, it is a dangerous thing. The saying: 'little knowledge is dangerous' (which was modified from Mr. Alexander Pope's cliché "a little learning is a dangerous thing") impressively befits science. Any individual person is always of little knowledge and the danger that one person can cause is minimal to nothing. So 'little knowledge is dangerous' does not make sense to attribute to individual persons. But science, which commands kingdoms and nations and powerful institutions, causes immediate or delayed peril of significant scale by its evident little knowledge. With insufficient knowledge science has been, for many years now, taking disastrous steps the sum total of which has now brought the earth to serious trouble. The Fukushima nuclear disaster is a product of science's little knowledge adventure. The building of atomic and neuron bombs is a little knowledge step. You don't build bombs that you are not going to use. The toasting of the earth with fuel is a little knowledge thing and the areas of harm such little knowledge steps affect are too many to count. Science's little knowledge packages that translated into massive operations have made the earth desolate already. The problem is not that it is always wrong, but that it always acts based on little knowledge.

Regards,

Mulugeta