Do you know how to make a scientist mad? Try this some time. Go up to a scientist and say that you believe the natural evidence of creation supports a scientific inference of a creator. That is, explain that the abundant evidence of design in the universe and the world around you naturally leads you to believe there might be an intelligent designer. Unless you happen to find one who practices the scientific method objectively, you will succeed in provoking the wrath of certainty from a dogmatic person who will lecture you on the difference between “science” and “religion”.
You will, in fact, create a mad scientist.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Oh, my servants, let me tell you one of my greatest kingdom secrets. I’ve succeeded in making “science” the new world religion by carefully cultivating the discipline of science and the persona of scientists as being “objective” arbiters of truth. Bias free, contemplating, rational minds inside humble bodies supporting white lab coats, dutifully doling out truth to the masses.
And my real triumph? I’ve changed the definition of “truth” so that in effect, the only truth permitted by ”science” and the new scientists must be, by definition, atheistic.
You don’t believe me? Then you have never tried to make a mad scientist.
Try it. You will see. And then do your own research into what “science” is today, and you will find that the new paradigm is that “science” must posit only “natural” explanations for natural phenomena.
And God is not natural.
So science today is forced by the elite establishments of academia to be unnaturally atheistic regardless of the evidence.
Did you know, my friends, that over 85% of the members of the United State’s National Academy of Sciences are atheists? And the atheists wonder openly how the other 15% got in.
Now you know why.
Please keep this information confidential; if this kingdom knowledge ever gets out my agenda could be set back to the days when God-believing scientists like Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein made ground-breaking scientific gains while openly practicing a belief in God.
Let me illustrate my great success on earth with a news article that caught my eye today. The Telegraph reports, in an article by John Bingham entitled, “Richard Dawkins: I can’t be sure God does not exist,” on a dialog at Oxford University during which Dawkins admitted to Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, ”that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.”
Richard Dawkins, one of my premeire beelze-buds, is as this article states, “regarded as the most famous atheist in the world.”
And now he’s “agnostic”?
Now, my friends, you know if you read this blog that I, like God, believe atheists to be fools.
There are no atheists in Hell.
But agnostics! That’s a different story. There are also no agnostics in Hell, but true agnostics on earth often never get here.
But after reading the article, I realize Richard Dawkins is as atheistic as he always was, which is to say, that like all those who profess to be atheists, he is merely an arrogant coward who refuse to face the evident truth of nature. (I just hope Dawkins never realizes that he can be sure God does exist.)
But atheists do help further my kingdom on earth, so I find them useful fools (and, usually quite stupid on top of that!).
Let me explain, using Dawkins as Fool in Chief.
In attempting to sound intelligent, Dawkins, according to The Telegraph article, stated to the Archbishop:
“What I can’t understand is why you can’t see the extraordinary beauty of the idea that life started from nothing – that is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something so messy as a God?”
Now, my servants, read that quote more carefully (I know many of you skip over quotes). Think about what Servant Fool Dawkins said, and learn.
The idea that life started from nothing . . . why clutter it up with God?
That, my friends, is not a scientific observation; it is a statement of faith.
The idea that anything can come from nothing is antithetical to all of science. A true scientist would never make such a statement. Whether “life” (as Dawkins says), or any element of matter in the universe (as Dawkins believes), science is quite clear that nothing comes from nothing.
If ever there was truly “nothing” there would still be nothing today.
On the contrary, Dawkin’s statement is a statement of faith. He is expressing the necessary faith of every atheist (although most are, frankly, not intelligent enough to grasp it): In the beginning there was nothing, and then “poof” out of nothing, came something.
It is scientific nonsense, but it makes perfect sense to atheists like Dawkins.
Here’s another secret, my friends: everyone believes something unbelievable.
Either something (the universe) just appeared like magic out of nothing (an unscientific thought, but held by Dawkins), or something was created by God.
Which statement is more scientifically valid?
Yes, you are right: God.
Because science says everything that came to be must have been caused.
Aristotle, a true scientist, decided there must be an Uncaused Cause. And he was right.
Every thinking human not hindered by a philosophical bias comes to the same conclusion as Aristotle; the evidence demands it.
But not all humans are like Aristotle. In fact, in today’s agenda-driven, philosophically constrained philosophical environment, humans who wish to be prominent, published, scientists must first express allegiance to practical atheism before they practice science.
Human => atheist => scientist is the progression I’ve arranged on earth. Humans like Dawkins are, as shown by his statement above, atheists second, and scientists third. Very simply, their “science” (something can come from nothing) is dictated not by the evidence, but by their atheism.
Human => scientist => atheist is impossible. Humans who are scientists first, observing the evidence of creation and making natural, rational inferences, can never be atheists.
Which goes to show my great ability on earth, don’t you think?
And if you try to point out the atheist’s philosophical bias they get mad. They lecture you on your ignorance of “science” and sue you for violating separation of Christianity and state, and deny you tenure, and call you names, and start blogs about you, and sit in their circle of atheist jerks and make each other feel good.
It’s a beautiful thing, really.
Now send Mr. Dawkins a thank you note for me, will you?
He’s a doll.
Can’t wait to meet him.
And those like him.
Mad scientists all, when they come rolling in my gates.
Something from nothing.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Madness, pure madness.