On Reason of Natural Science


The reason the secularists and  atheists do not deserve the leadership in our schools is simple: They promote nonsense in science! 

To circumvent their obvious illegitimacy in law, the secularists and atheists rest their hope of building legitimacy with natural science for their agenda of dispelling churches from the public schools. With a seemingly indisputable claim that the schools must be places of teaching only rational reasoning, they grab the schools so that they can force the students to accept their no-God assertion. They fundamentally rely on three “scientific” pillars listed below for their peddling.

1. The Big Bang theory,

2. Darwin’s evolution,

3. Einstein’s relativity.

The atheists and secularists have long regarded these three pillars as their bible in converting our public schools into their temples of anti-religion, and in these temples they proselytizing children from religious families to rebel at the value of their own family. However, are these three pillars representing “rational reasoning” at all? The answer is absolutely false.  Detailed scrutiny can only show that they all are self-defeated and irrational, and thus unscientific and nonsensical!   The evidence about their being self-defeated is overwhelming. Let’s simply list a few here.

1. Regarding the Big Bang Theory

  1. This theory claims that the universe can spontaneously create itself from nothing because of the law of gravity. So claiming, this theory plainly fails even to  recognize a proper time sequence between the universe and the law of gravity, disintegrating its own validity right at the time it suggests itself. That nature’s law can exist independent of nature and that something can be created from nothing and by nothing violate human’s known experience in every sense. Simply, who can confirm that the law of gravity can exist independent of the existence of the universe? Or more directly, how can the law of gravity be part of the nothingness from which the universe is created?
  2. Emphasizing the concept of a big bang (explosion), this theory has never been able to guide anyone to detect in the heavens a material void that can satisfy the following description: it is supposed to have been formed with a time of 13.8 billion of years, and surrounding this void are celestial materials rushing away from this void with extraordinary speed along rays of all directions. One question can immediately falsify this theory: Ever since the completion of the only explosion, and out of the singularity, is there any material group that can be viewed as the last batch of material sent out by the singularity? An answer of yes or no can paralyze this theory.

2. Regarding Darwin’s evolution

    1. Evolution relies on natural selection, which must impose the concept of common ancestor, but common ancestor must ultimately lead to the concept of the first life on earth. The formulation of the first live organism must mean some originally chaotically scattered wild materials having been successively exempted from the universal destructive action forced upon everywhere by the second law of thermodynamics against any highly orderly material combination. With respect to such a successful exemption, the evolutionists must make either choice from only two: (1) to accept that such an exemption is a result of the interference of some intelligent design, (2) to present solid explanation that is independent of intelligent design for the exemption to be indisputable. Making the first choice means the evolutionists must give up their no-God assertion. Making the second choice means that the second law of thermodynamics can be made invalid in evolution. Subsequently it means that nature’s spontaneous action cannot govern what happens in the process of evolution, and natural selection is thus impossible. Without the presence of natural selection, what is the meaning of evolution? The evolutionists therefore simply end up destroying the meaning of a term they invent. In other words, either choice must make the evolutionists rescind the scientific credit they claim they entitle in their usurpation of the public schools.
    2. Why must all live organisms be conquered by death, one way or the other? Can evolutionist propose any convincing reason for the explanation? If life must ever emerge from a lifeless state with wild materials, why can’t it lead itself to enter a state of even stronger live function by taking advantage of a life body that has been so formed?   Why must every live organism, after its spontaneous establishment, return all its components to a chaotically scattering state? Evolution cannot be a science if it has “strong” arguments stressing how life must emerge from a lifeless state but is speechless regarding why every live organism needs to return itself to a lifeless state. The contrast between the strong arguments and its speechlessness simply means that the evolutionists have to accept that nature by itself is intolerant of life and that the evolutionists cannot find the true reason and mechanism how such intolerance is overcome. If such intolerance applies to organism possessing life function, such intolerance must also apply but with far higher potential to materials possessing no life, overcoming every possibility for life to appear spontaneously.
    3. Since the debut of “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, more than one and half centuries have passed, but the evolutionists can only still ask people to accept that human beings are the offspring of some missing link coming down from some treetops.   With an apparent absence of logic and material evidence about human’s ancestor, evolutionists force our students to accept their uncertainty of no evidence, synonym of nonsense, to be scientific.
    4. The secularists and atheists tell people that genetic discovery supports their evolution theory. According to their claim, the appearance of new species is the result of gene mutation, because the more and more complicated gene structure through the mutation must leave behind more ever newer species. However, their “conclusion” cannot even earn credit in explaining what happened in the biological development of primates. Simply, brown woolly monkeys have 62 pairs of Chromosome, gibbons have confused chromosomes, big wild apes have 24 pairs of chromosome, and human beings have 23 pairs of chromosome. Can the evolutionist determine whether the development of primate is proceeding in a direction of evolution or devolution?

3. Regarding Einstein’s relativity

This theory is a result of erroneous derivation in mathematics, both in logic understanding and technical operation.   It destroy its own conclusions with its own equations in these ways: (1) It claims that speed has limit, which is the speed of light. But its equation actually says that speed can go beyond any limit. (2) It declares that its calculation can only be done with rigid frame. But its conclusive equations reject the possibility of the existence of any rigid frame.  Instead, relativity must lead to frame of elasticity that is speed dependent. (3) Most suicidal to relativity, it must lead itself to an equation that cannot validly hold with any nonzero speed. Drastically, relativity not only fails itself, but it also fails the Big Bang theory, because the mathematical elaboration of the Big Bang theory must rely on the validity of relativity. Of course, this just simply says that, in addition to the invalidities pointed out in 1-(a) and 1-(b) above, the Big Bang theory has one more fatal invalidity, a mathematical invalidity, which we can add as 1-(c) to the list of failure of the Big Bang theory.


starMark  On Reason of the Supreme Law


Back to Petition Signing