Big Brother? The Curious Case of Randomness Theory
Most British academics, particularly in the atheist community, will cite Randomness Theory as the model to describe the cosmic order. According to the theory, the universe is nothing more than a fluke; subsequent life and humanity are random happenstance; all is random chance and chaotic. Randomness, a theory in academe, dovetails with Atheism, an ideological movement, as both posit the absence of any order or design to the universe. Thus the global lay atheistic community has apparently informally adopted Randomness as its pet theory and provides aggressive support for it in media in which they have leverage. As bizarre as this concept may be, Randomness is considered the only acceptable theory by the British academic orthodoxy. With control over many academic journals and leverage over select media, a small but focused British atheist academic group has managed to entrench Randomness as the prevailing orthodoxy.
To be sure, this group-think has its detractors. Often derided as being akin to the “Emperor's Clothes” parable, Randomness has been ridiculed as being more ideologically than scientifically motivated. Its prime political purpose is to remove any semblance of ‘design’ from universal theory. Now, mixing ‘science’ with ‘religion’ is a potentially dangerous and volatile mix. Highly-placed British academics have not only allowed this ‘mix’ to be institutionalized, they turn a blind eye to the egregious actions of their ideological ‘support group’, global Atheism.
To further this end of advancing Randomness, the entrenched orthodoxy has an ongoing structure in-place to undermine both any challenging theories as well as their presenters. In what can be seen as nothing less than actual character assassination, supporters of the British academic establishment have viciously attacked dissenters through concerted ad hominem attacks. A tiny minority of rabid academics have effectively held the intellectual community hostage – to prevent innovation in cosmic theory. By artificially burnishing Randomness Theory's credentials as an unassailable truth they have effectively stymied the advance of knowledge. Yet, their very tactics remove the most important tests of scientific theory – integrity and the ability to stand up to challenge and debate.
Typically, targets of the atheist group are first crucified in The Chronicle of Higher Education, the ‘enforcer’ of the atheist power-group; then the Chronicle article is heavily floated as gospel truth and linked by atheist media globally; finally, the atheist network ad nauseum quotes defamatory pieces circulated by its own fellow members trashing the target. The initial result is a cascade of delegitimization globally focused on a single individual target. The end result is to prop-up Randomness by undermining any intellectual challenge. This cynical game has been countenanced by disingenuous senior British academics for over two decades, as they self-award each other sundry awards and prizes. This ultimate ‘closed club’, having presided over the destruction of any dissenters outside the ‘club’ then self-congratulates itself on its intellectual profundity.
Take, for example, Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design was introduced with significant components qualifying as legitimate theory. It had strong intellectual backing from segments of the academic community; right or wrong it had credible philosophical structure.
The atheist academic community, far from viewing Intelligent Design as legitimate, engaged in an all-out war on the theory. Instead of engaging in meaningful debate, the academic orthodoxy ridiculed and delegitimized both the theory and any proponents willing to support it. The entry-point argument of the Intelligent Design group is that ‘design’ seems apparent both in the universe at-large and in nature. Through various morally dubious gambits, the zealot Randomness-atheist group has managed to demonize and delegitimize this quite legitimate intellectual position (which happens to be correct scientifically).
While fostering lively debate is a hallmark of proper academics, what the British academic hierarchy has condoned, if not instigated, is more closely associated with the gambits of defamation, libel and character assassination. This should hardly be shocking though. 1918 Nobel Prize winner in Physics winner Max Planck (arguably the father of modern quantum physics) famously noted in his autobiography Wissenschaftliche Selbstbiographie. Mit einem Bildnis und der von Max von Laue gehaltenen Traueransprache (Leipzig 1948): “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Sadly, this may mean that the only way to banish the old superstitions of Randomness is for those too blind to exit the stage, to fade into history.
A central tenet of Randomness is ‘decay.’ Randomness Theory states that everything in the universe has a natural tendency to disintegrate and decline. Never mind that the universe's first moments of creation contradict this supposition. Never mind that the Law of Conservation of Mass states nothing can be totally destroyed. Never mind that the changing nature of the universe actually gave rise to complex, sentient life. Never mind that the advocates of decay go ballistic when one asks them the source of that which is decaying. All these obvious weak points are off-limits to challengers of Randomness Theory. To question the High Priests of Randomness-atheism is to flirt with academic ruin; the atheist pinnacle predators who defend Randomness will come after you, en masse.
So vitriolic and unabashed have these gratuitous and baseless atheist attacks become, that some brave academics are speaking up to protest the damage done to the advancement of knowledge itself. In January of 2013, Yale Professor David Galernter, struck back at the atheist academic establishment with an article titled The Closing of the Scientific Mind. Enraged by the lasting damage caused by the reactionary browbeating of intellectual discovery, Galernter lashed-out at these ‘lynch-mob’ crypto-academics for what he called ‘locker-room braggadocio’ deployed to belittle legitimate intellectual challenge. Galernter maintains that it is the intimidation of science and the vicious tactics of those defending Randomness that is causing science to suffer and stagnate.
This all begs the question: How does this gang have any legitimacy at all? Have they not betrayed the sacred trust accorded to academia – to search out truth? Have they not thoroughly abused their power at the helm of academe? Has this so-elite group of fancy academic from fancy British universities not shown itself to be both morally and intellectually bankrupt? Moreover, do the proponents of Randomness actually have anything of substance to say? Or his the whole production of Randomness Theory just a ‘house of cards’ artificially propped-up on media life-support by a small clique of academics zealously protecting their little academic power turf and clubby Church (of Atheism)? Is Randomness even a theory – or more an absence of a theory? If it is indeed a theory, why do its defenders refuse to give any breathing space for opposition? Why do they choose to rabidly attack both message and messenger with such morally reprehensible tactics?
Are they are just ‘hollow men with hollow theories?’ Just how long do they expect to keep this dubious charade going? More importantly, when their ongoing nefariousness is uncovered, how much greater will the public revulsion when the full extent of their decades-long gangster-like gambits surfaces? Perhaps Randomness-atheist academics should actually consider being scientists first, and zealous, extremist loyalists of the Church of Atheism second.
As for the contemporary pioneers of modern philosophy and cosmology viciously attacked by the Randomness junta and their lackeys, kudos to them for staying steadfast and unbowed, as well as for their intellectual daring and conceptual brilliance. Consider these words from an address on the 25th Anniversary of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society (January 1936): “New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment.”
With no little irony, atheism currently stands where the Church once did. Through multiple mechanisms, such as controlling academic journals and leverage over select academic media, the 21st century Church of Atheism has ‘successfully’ waged war on intellectual freedom.