Genetic Code is INFORMATION: Proof of Intelligent Design

[ArtieE]

You might end up at the big bang if that theory is true. Of course it is an untestable concept which makes it beyond scientific inquiry... what else do we know is beyond scientific inquiry?

The universe is expanding. If you go backwards in time wouldn't you end up in a point? And we can use all we know about math and physics to try to understand what happened.

 

[ftacky]

A Vestigial Mote said: "One could also view the orbit of any celestial body as a vessel for conveyance of information...there is a "pattern" there, and always has been, that does, indeed, convey this information.

What I am trying to say is that, no matter what the physical laws of our universe end up being, in order for there to be any order at all, those laws have to be in place, immutable, and convey what they are via "information" that can be studied and assimilated into a knowledge-base. I don't think you're surprising anyone here."


Answer: No way!

A planet can be in a certain orbit. However, the planet in orbit, by itself DOES NOT CONVEY ANY INFORMATION.

If nobody takes any measurements of the orbit (distance, speed, etc.), there is no conveyance of any information regarding that orbit.

If we do have information about the orbit (distance, speed, etc.), it is ONLY because someone with a brain took those measurements and stored that information on a storage medium (paper, flash drive, hard disc, or in his own brain) and we came along later and obtained that information from that storage device.

Information is ONLY obtained through a thought process by SOMEONE.

Romans 1: They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator...

 

[KBC1963]

The universe is expanding. If you go backwards in time wouldn't you end up in a point? And we can use all we know about math and physics to try to understand what happened.

that would have some dependence on whether all the objects that are moving outward actually have a vector alignment that coincide. As far as I know there is no way science can empirically observe the vector alignments to confirm a specific point coincident to each of them.

If there was a single explosive event that indeed did cause all existence then every physical object resulting from it would have a coincident alignment of its path showing the same converging point however, if however there were multiple explosions that occurred across a few light years of space then there would be multiple alignments with multiple coincident origination points and from the view of our neck of the woods such an event would still seem to have everything expanding outward just as we perceive it now. So the question is did the expansion come from a single point / explosive event or was there maybe a series of events in a small area or possibly some other explanation altogether.

The one point that I concurred with on this subject with another person was the fact that an explosive event that provided the driving force of matter in all directions outward from a specific point should have left a huge sphere of nothing surrounding the central point since at some point the infusion of matter would have ended and even the last matter to have entered would have followed the all the first matter away from the origin point. So do we see a sphere of empty space that would be of a size relative to the nearly 14 billion years since the explosive event occurred? if the speed of expansion is some 45.5 miles per second per megaparsec then after 14 billion years at that rate would be quite a sizeable sphere of nothing at the central origin point.
There is still the question of how an initial explosive event being applied at a single point in history can account for the speed appearing to still be increasing...

here is a bit of new info from NASA on the subject;

NASA’s Hubble Finds Universe Is Expanding Faster Than Expected June 2, 2016
....
The improved Hubble constant value 45.5 miles per second per megaparsec. (A megaparsec equals 3.26 million light-years.) The new value means the distance between cosmic objects will double in another 9.8 billion years.
This refined calibration presents a puzzle, however, because it does not quite match the expansion rate predicted for the universe from its trajectory seen shortly after the Big Bang. Measurements of the afterglow from the Big Bang by NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and the European Space Agency’s Planck satellite mission yield predictions which are 5 percent and 9 percent smaller for the Hubble constant, respectively.
“If we know the initial amounts of stuff in the universe, such as dark energy and dark matter, and we have the physics correct, then you can go from a measurement at the time shortly after the big bang and use that understanding to predict how fast the universe should be expanding today,” said Riess. “However, if this discrepancy holds up, it appears we may not have the right understanding, and it changes how big the Hubble constant should be today.”
Hubble Finds Universe Expanding Faster Than Expected

 

[KBC1963]

A planet can be in a certain orbit. However, the planet in orbit, by itself DOES NOT CONVEY ANY INFORMATION.
If nobody takes any measurements of the orbit (distance, speed, etc.), there is no conveyance of any information regarding that orbit.

You are quite right in your assessment of information. The reference to information in the genome was in fact referring to the conveyance of information contained in a storage medium (DNA) and its subsequent application to build the living structure. Without the conveyance it would essentially not be information. Information has typically been based on the conveyance of something that can be understood by a receiver thus white noise though being conveyed has no meaning to the receiver and thus no information value.

 

[ArtieE]

here is a bit of new info from NASA on the subject;

NASA’s Hubble Finds Universe Is Expanding Faster Than Expected June 2, 2016
....
The improved Hubble constant value 45.5 miles per second per megaparsec. (A megaparsec equals 3.26 million light-years.) The new value means the distance between cosmic objects will double in another 9.8 billion years.
This refined calibration presents a puzzle, however, because it does not quite match the expansion rate predicted for the universe from its trajectory seen shortly after the Big Bang. Measurements of the afterglow from the Big Bang by NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and the European Space Agency’s Planck satellite mission yield predictions which are 5 percent and 9 percent smaller for the Hubble constant, respectively.
“If we know the initial amounts of stuff in the universe, such as dark energy and dark matter, and we have the physics correct, then you can go from a measurement at the time shortly after the big bang and use that understanding to predict how fast the universe should be expanding today,” said Riess. “However, if this discrepancy holds up, it appears we may not have the right understanding, and it changes how big the Hubble constant should be today.”
Hubble Finds Universe Expanding Faster Than Expected

Interesting. Just goes to show we still have much to learn.

 

[gnostic]

that would have some dependence on whether all the objects that are moving outward actually have a vector alignment that coincide. As far as I know there is no way science can empirically observe the vector alignments to confirm a specific point coincident to each of them.

If there was a single explosive event that indeed did cause all existence then every physical object resulting from it would have a coincident alignment of its path showing the same converging point however, if however there were multiple explosions that occurred across a few light years of space then there would be multiple alignments with multiple coincident origination points and from the view of our neck of the woods such an event would still seem to have everything expanding outward just as we perceive it now. So the question is did the expansion come from a single point / explosive event or was there maybe a series of events in a small area or possibly some other explanation altogether.

The one point that I concurred with on this subject with another person was the fact that an explosive event that provided the driving force of matter in all directions outward from a specific point should have left a huge sphere of nothing surrounding the central point since at some point the infusion of matter would have ended and even the last matter to have entered would have followed the all the first matter away from the origin point. So do we see a sphere of empty space that would be of a size relative to the nearly 14 billion years since the explosive event occurred? if the speed of expansion is some 45.5 miles per second per megaparsec then after 14 billion years at that rate would be quite a sizeable sphere of nothing at the central origin point.
There is still the question of how an initial explosive event being applied at a single point in history can account for the speed appearing to still be increasing...

here is a bit of new info from NASA on the subject;

NASA’s Hubble Finds Universe Is Expanding Faster Than Expected June 2, 2016
....
The improved Hubble constant value 45.5 miles per second per megaparsec. (A megaparsec equals 3.26 million light-years.) The new value means the distance between cosmic objects will double in another 9.8 billion years.
This refined calibration presents a puzzle, however, because it does not quite match the expansion rate predicted for the universe from its trajectory seen shortly after the Big Bang. Measurements of the afterglow from the Big Bang by NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and the European Space Agency’s Planck satellite mission yield predictions which are 5 percent and 9 percent smaller for the Hubble constant, respectively.
“If we know the initial amounts of stuff in the universe, such as dark energy and dark matter, and we have the physics correct, then you can go from a measurement at the time shortly after the big bang and use that understanding to predict how fast the universe should be expanding today,” said Riess. “However, if this discrepancy holds up, it appears we may not have the right understanding, and it changes how big the Hubble constant should be today.”
Hubble Finds Universe Expanding Faster Than Expected

That whole reply showed that you don't understand the Big Bang cosmology or theory.

The Big Bang is about "expansion" of the universe, not "explosion".

The original papers in the 1920s on the Big Bang weren't called the "Big Bang". The Russian astrophysicist Alexander Friedman in 1922 and the Belgian Georges Lemaître in 1927, independently explain the cosmology in term of the "expanding universe" or "inflating universe", where the universe was hot and dense before the initial expansion began.

Although, Friedman's was the earliest of the two, it was Lemaître's hypothesis (Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom, 1927) that made him more famous as the founder of the expanding universe model or the Big Bang.

Neither of these two men called it the Big Bang theory.

Around the 1940s, Fred Hoyle rejected Lemaître's work, and introduced a rival theory - the Steady State model, in 1948.

It is said that, during radio interview in 1948, where he tried to introduce his Steady State theory, he referred to Lemaître's theory as the "Big Bang" theory, a name which was meant to be derogatory. This name we are stuck with, was coined by an astronomer who rejected Lemaître's expanding universe model, is not only a misnomer, it is inaccurate and oversimplification of the theory.

The main differences between the Big Bang and Steady State theories are that the Big Bang explain the observable universe have a beginning, and it's current form (observable universe) was very different to the earlier universe as a "singularity". Lemaître tried to explain how the atoms formed before the first galaxies of stars.

Hoyle argued that the universe have no beginning, and the current universe is the same universe as that it has always is; in another word, Hoyle was describing an universe that is "unchanging", hence the name "Steady State".

Around the same time as Hoyle was introducing his new cosmological model in 1948, another group of astrophysicists contributed to Lemaître's theory greatly.

Another Russian astrophysicist, George Gamow, explained more thoroughly, how subatomic particles formed into the earliest atoms, known as the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN).

Gamow had also collaborated with his American students and younger contemporaries - Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman - in predicting the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). CMBR is a relic radiation, the earliest "observable" light in the young universe, occurring 377,000 years after the Big Bang (or the instance of the initial expansion).

377,000 years also marked the time when the universe became transparent and therefore "observable", as a direct result of energy being released (CMBR) when electrons bound themselves on ionised hydrogen and helium atoms, thereby creating stable atoms. This period is known as the Recombination Epoch, lasting till the first stars began to form.

CMBR was predicted in 1948 by Alpher and Herman, but CMBR wasn't discovered until in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson.

CMBR were further observed from the images provided by the space telescopes -

• COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer, 1989)
• WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, 2001)
• Planck (2009)

This discovery of CMBR is what finally and conclusively refuted Hoyle's Steady State model.

Now unless you are talking about supernovae or about annihilation of matters and antimatters (or of baryons and anti-baryons), the Big Bang is not about "explosion".

So please actually read the links you have provided, and stop referring the Big Bang to an explosion.

 

[gnostic]

DI does not advocate a deity. They advocate intelligent agency, who or what could have possibly been the agency is entirely beyond scientific investigation. Again I ask you what is either my or their speculations based on?

Wrong.

If you bother to read the Discovery Institute's manifesto (Wedge Document), it revealed that their agenda is never about science, but about disguising creationism in pseudoscience Intelligent Design.

The Wedge Document revealed that their hidden agenda is to get people to accept god and creationism through ID. The Discovery Institute have only demonstrated the lack of integrity in this organisation, based on religion, using propaganda and legal tactics, not science.

The manifesto was written by Phillip Johnson, the guy who started Intelligent Design at the Discovery Institute. Johnson have no background in science, no qualifications in physics or in biology. He is a bloody lawyer, and worse a Protestant creationist pretending to be a scientist.

Call it whatever you like - Designer, Creator, God - there are no empirical and verifiable evidences to any of these mythological beings than that of Zeus, Osiris, leprechaun, gnome, troll, etc.

 

[KBC1963]

Wrong. If you bother to read the Discovery Institute's manifesto (Wedge Document), it revealed that their agenda is never about science, but about disguising creationism in pseudoscience Intelligent Design.
The Wedge Document revealed that their hidden agenda is to get people to accept god and creationism through ID.

ho hum, conspiracy asserted again.

The "Wedge Document": So What?
Staff
Discovery Institute
February 3, 2006

Conspiracy theorists in the media continue to recycle the urban legend of the "Wedge" document, which Discovery Institute has responded to in the past, in detail.

Click here to read the Discovery Institute response to charges regarding the "Wedge" document, as well as seeing the exact original document in question. (Originally published in 2003)
The "Wedge Document": So What? | Center for Science and Culture

Apparently the US congress was also conspiring in the same way;
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
.....We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,....

So do you think we should also abolish the constitution since it was a conspiracy to form the current US society based on the concept that we were all created equal and endowed by that higher power with rights?

Materialism was instituted as a controlling aspect of science which is now being used to limit scientific investigating to purely natural based causes, however, this also limits sciences ability to investigate the possible causal actions of previous intelligent agency that may have existed prior to life on earth. So, I would agree with ID in the aspect that when a governing principle is destructive to the ends of investigating or discerning whatever the truth may be that it should be altered or abolished to allow for the freedom of science to follow the evidences where ever they lead.

 

[KBC1963]

That whole reply showed that you don't understand the Big Bang cosmology or theory. The Big Bang is about "expansion" of the universe, not "explosion".

Really... this was the best reply you could come up with... attacking my use of the term explosion. We all have an understanding of the expansion term as it was used. We should also have an understanding of the term explosion. Note also that I never posited detonation;

Definition of explosion
2 : a large-scale, rapid, or spectacular expansion or bursting out or forth
Definition of EXPLOSION

huh go figure... explosion can mean rapid expansion

...An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures...

Natural
Explosions can occur in nature. Most natural explosions arise from volcanic processes of various sorts. Explosive volcanic eruptions occur when magma rising from below has much dissolved gas in it; the reduction of pressure as the magma rises causes the gas to bubble out of solution, resulting in a rapid increase in volume.

Evolution of heat
The generation of heat in large quantities accompanies most explosive chemical reactions....It is the rapid liberation of heat that causes the gaseous products of most explosive reactions to expand and generate high pressures. This rapid generation of high pressures of the released gas constitutes the explosion.
Explosion - Wikipedia

Where most people have a problem understanding the term explosion is the fact that most including you hold a belief that all explosions are the result of a detonation. Maybe you should write the people in the article below and inform them how wrong they are too;

Big Bang Theory: Evolution of Our Universe
18 Dec , 2015 by Matt Williams

How was our Universe created? How did it come to be the seemingly infinite place we know of today? And what will become of it, ages from now? These are the questions that have been puzzling philosophers and scholars since the beginning the time, and led to some pretty wild and interesting theories. Today, the consensus among scientists, astronomers and cosmologists is that the Universe as we know it was created in a massive explosion that not only created the majority of matter, but the physical laws that govern our ever-expanding cosmos. This is known as The Big Bang Theory...
...The basics of the Big Bang theory are fairly simple. In short, the Big Bang hypothesis states that all of the current and past matter in the Universe came into existence at the same time, roughly 13.8 billion years ago. At this time, all matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity. Suddenly, the Singularity began expanding, and the universe as we know it began.
Big Bang Theory: Evolution of Our Universe - Universe Today

Notice above where it is specifically noted "Suddenly, the Singularity began expanding" can you define exactly what caused the singularity to expand? Based on your understanding (which must be greater than most scientists) a detonation followed by the explosive rapid expansion and release of heat is not a possibility. It must be more like the magical god thing where space just rapidly expanded on its own whim. Nice.
Of course the big bangs explosive expansion event is only a theoretical concept that does not explain al the observable evidences.

Goodbye Big Bang, Hello Black Hole? A New Theory Of The Universe’s Creation
23 Dec , 2015 by Elizabeth Howell
Could the famed “Big Bang” theory need a revision? A group of theoretical physicists suppose the birth of the universe could have happened after a four-dimensional star collapsed into a black hole and ejected debris.
Before getting into their findings, let’s just preface this by saying nobody knows anything for sure. Humans obviously weren’t around at the time the universe began. The standard theory is that the universe grew from an infinitely dense point or singularity, but who knows what was there before?
“For all physicists know, dragons could have come flying out of the singularity,” stated Niayesh Afshordi, an astrophysicist with the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada who co-authored the new study.
So what are the limitations of the Big Bang theory? The singularity is one of them. Also, it’s hard to predict why it would have produced a universe that has an almost uniform temperature, because the age of our universe (about 13.8 billion years) does not give enough time — as far as we can tell — to reach a temperature equilibrium.
Most cosmologists say the universe must have been expanding faster than the speed of light for this to happen, but Ashford says even that theory has problems: “The Big Bang was so chaotic, it’s not clear there would have been even a small homogenous patch for inflation to start working on.”
Goodbye Big Bang, Hello Black Hole? A New Theory Of The Universe's Creation - Universe Today

I wonder if you also harbor a resentment for the wording of the other big bang called the Cambrian explosion. Do you suppose that the implication of the word explosion here means a detonation or simply an expansion as most of the rest of us infer.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

BTW, can anyone here give us an example of a language developing without an intellectual source?

A genetic code cannot be used as an example, of course, because that would be circular reasoning.

I agree with you, but a better question would be, "Can anyone here give us an example of a language originating without an intellectual source?"

 

[gnostic]

ho hum, conspiracy asserted again.

The "Wedge Document": So What?
Staff
Discovery Institute
February 3, 2006

Conspiracy theorists in the media continue to recycle the urban legend of the "Wedge" document, which Discovery Institute has responded to in the past, in detail.

Click here to read the Discovery Institute response to charges regarding the "Wedge" document, as well as seeing the exact original document in question. (Originally published in 2003)
The "Wedge Document": So What? | Center for Science and Culture

Apparently the US congress was also conspiring in the same way;
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
.....We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,....

So do you think we should also abolish the constitution since it was a conspiracy to form the current US society based on the concept that we were all created equal and endowed by that higher power with rights?

Materialism was instituted as a controlling aspect of science which is now being used to limit scientific investigating to purely natural based causes, however, this also limits sciences ability to investigate the possible causal actions of previous intelligent agency that may have existed prior to life on earth. So, I would agree with ID in the aspect that when a governing principle is destructive to the ends of investigating or discerning whatever the truth may be that it should be altered or abolished to allow for the freedom of science to follow the evidences where ever they lead.

You are ignoring the BLOODY FACT that Phillip Johnson is a lawyer in profession, not a scientist.

Phillip Johnson, the senior member of Discovery Institute, the one who started Intelligent Design in the first place. The other two founders of Discovery Institute - Gilder and Chapman - are also not scientists; they were former journalist and journalist/politician.

Michael Behe, who is a scientist, a biochemist, their expert and senior member of the Institute, his proposition Irreducible Complexity (IC), have been refuted and considered a pseudoscience. Even his own biology department at the university where he work, make a disclaimer that they don't advocate or support Behe's Intelligent Design in any way.

Behe's works on ID is no more recognisble as science as Fred Hoyle's Steady State model. And the only reason why he still persist with debunked IC is that it is backed by DI's money, not backed by his peers.

 

[ftacky]

Quick Review of article: Big Bang Theory: Evolution of Our Universe


This article states some questionable things:

Article: "These are the questions that have been puzzling philosophers and scholars since the beginning the time, and led to some pretty wild and interesting theories."

Comment: We need to NOT ignore the bloody fact that theories are just theories, and nothing but theories.

Article: "Today, the consensus among scientists, astronomers and cosmologists..."

Comment: The 'consensus' described by Jesus is:

Matthew 7: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Yes, this 'consensus' is the majority of humanity, running away from their Creator on the broad road that leads to destruction. You will notice no mention made by Jesus of the education level or intellectual status. They can have ten PhDs apiece but if their attitude is one of unthankfulness toward their Creator, they will be running away from the truth, who is embodied in Jesus ("I am the way, the truth, and the life").

Article: "...all matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a singularity."

Comment: Really? Do we realize how unvalidated and unverified that statement is? We are to actually believe that "all matter was compacted into a very small ball"? How is this called "science" anyway?

Can anybody show me such a "ball" to have ever existed or something similar in the past or in modern times?

Any pictures of such a ball in existence, anywhere?

Any lab verification/results?

Any tests?

Any actual measurements of this ball or any other ball like it?

Where is the VALIDATION for all of this 'stuff'?

This theory makes the laws of physics a joke. Matter cannot appear from nowhere, nor can it be compacted into an infinitely dense point. Especially megatons of dirt, rock, etc. which makes up planets. Matter requires space. Period.

Or is this to be taken on faith?

Luke 4:
“Truly I tell you,” Jesus continued, “no prophet is accepted in his hometown. I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.”
All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. They got up, drove him out of the town and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way."

 

[ftacky]

“We do not know how the transition to digitally encoded information has happened in the originally inanimate world; that is, we do not know where the RNA world might have come from.”

“Was a network of chemical reactions able to increase in complexity and eventually undergo Darwinian selection?”

“We demonstrate here that replication of compositional information is so inaccurate that fitter compositional genomes cannot be maintained by selection and, therefore, the system lacks evolvability."

“The computed population dynamics of growing noncovalent molecular assemblies that undergo splitting when a critical size is reached clearly illustrates that compositional assemblies do not evolve.”

"We conclude that this fundamental limitation of ensemble replicators cautions against metabolism-first theories of the origin of life."

"We now feel compelled to abandon compositional inheritance as a jumping board toward real units of evolution.”

Vasas, Vera, Eors Szathmary, Mauro Santos. January 26, 2010. Lack of evolvability in self-sustaining autocatalytic networks constraints metabolism-first scenarios for the origin of life. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)

Romans 3: Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."

 

[ArtieE]

Article: "...all matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a singularity."

Comment: Really? Do we realize how unvalidated and unverified that statement is? We are to actually believe that "all matter was compacted into a very small ball"? How is this called "science" anyway

Ask people like Stephen Hawking who use physics and math to arrive at their conclusions. Do you think they just make it up? I'm sure they'll be willing to show you all their calculations if you ask nicely.

This theory makes the laws of physics a joke.

LOL the normal laws of physics don't apply when we are into quantum physics and quantum theory.

Matter cannot appear from nowhere, nor can it be compacted into an infinitely dense point. Especially megatons of dirt, rock, etc. which makes up planets. Matter requires space. Period.

Is All the Universe From Nothing?

 

[Shad]

Big Bang Theory: Evolution of Our Universe
18 Dec , 2015 by Matt Williams

A science-fiction author..... with no degrees in any related field

23 Dec , 2015 by Elizabeth Howell

A journalist that is only a student in Aerospace Sciences....

You should of just ended the post with your first paragraph.

 

[Shad]

Materialism was instituted as a controlling aspect of science which is now being used to limit scientific investigating to purely natural based causes, however, this also limits sciences ability to investigate the possible causal actions of previous intelligent agency that may have existed prior to life on earth. So, I would agree with ID in the aspect that when a governing principle is destructive to the ends of investigating or discerning whatever the truth may be that it should be altered or abolished to allow for the freedom of science to follow the evidences where ever they lead.

Do you know why this came about right? As any crackpot could claim ghosts, spirits, magic, cause X then pile on whatever verification they want. All while others have no method to show this claim is false as such causes are "mysterious", "supernatural", etc.