Intelligent Design by ET’s

Here’s a controversial comment I left today on Richard Dolan’s website in the members section. It awaits approval there, but not here…

“The fact that [unknown] craft are flying around Earth is not a subject for science — it’s a subject for intelligence-gathering, collection and analysis. That’s because UFOs are not a natural phenomenon, and that’s what science studies.” — Dr. Eric W. Davis

Assuming this quote is accurate, you might think Dr. Davis’ definition of science excludes disciplines like archeology, paleontology and anthropology because they study artifacts and behaviors of intelligent beings (humans).

But to me, humans and our artifacts are part of the natural phenomena that science rightly explores, even if these fields of soft science are plagued by creative storytelling and various worldview biases.

Humans are a special part of nature, arising amidst multiple synergies that cannot be appreciated through reduction of the species to science’s narrow-minded list of possible common denominators: matter and energy.

As everyone probably knows, scientific materialism is the assumption that nothing exists besides matter and energy. This is an untestable assumption and therefore holding it as dogma is not in the spirit of science. And yet it’s somehow considered unquestionable truth by the vast majority of academia.

To be objective about this, it’s noteworthy that all non-materialistic worldviews, as best I know, are likewise based on untestable, unscientific assumptions. So holding them as unquestionable scientific dogma would also violate the core of science.

And yet mainstream “retail” science clings to one untestable assumption and refuses to allow exploration of the implications of the others.

If humans are part of nature, why wouldn’t ET’s also be? As a non-materialist, I would include here all possible and seemingly impossible forms of ET’s — the material, “interdimensional,” the “spiritual,” and those inconceivable forms that no human has the capacity to imagine as yet.

It seems clear to me that science should study all ET’s, as best it can, roughly the way it now struggles to objectively study ancient human history and human origins.

So I’d have to respectfully disagree with Dr. Davis on his idea that UFO’s should be the sole domain of the intelligence community, though I value this man’s well-informed opinions and admit that my views could be wrong. I often am wrong. I suspect we all are.

The problem seems to be that the scientific community denies any possibility of ET contact with Earth. The distances are too great. (Yawn.)

Science no longer denies the probable existence of ET’s “out there somewhere.” They’re just not here yet.

“There is no evidence of alien intelligence coming to Earth,” they assure us, as if they missed the DOD’s UFO disclosure. Sure, there’s no proof the UFOs are associated with ET’s, but there’s plenty of evidence for it. The very existence of UFOs is evidence of ET’s. Not proof, but evidence. Maybe some people don’t see a distinction between evidence and proof.

Science has a documented history of knee-jerk rejection and denial when it comes to new ideas, big and small. Most, if not all, scientific breakthroughs were met with denial and ridicule initially. The greater the eventual sea-change needed to absorb the new idea or technology, the greater the initial political and monetary roadblocks thrown up against the new item.

Nowhere is this emotional pathology clearer today than in the food fight between the “real” scientists of neo-Darwinian evolution and the so-called “pseudoscientists” who want to explore the genetic evidence of evolution by intelligent design. (These people are not pseudoscientists, by the way.)

Outrage reduces this discussion to name calling, ridicule and dismissal without addressing the logic of the issues. This is because those on the ID side often use the evidence of intelligent design to support a spiritual worldview, typically a Judeo-Christian worldview.

Materialistic science seems to viscerally hate all “spiritual” worldviews, especially the ones attached to the Crusades, the Salem Witch Hunts, ancient book burnings, the persecution and murder of great Western scientists, and so on. Perhaps materialistic science also fears spirituality because it might “drag humanity back into the dark ages.” I’ve heard this concern and nowadays I share it in view of the college crowds apparently abandoning logic by turning objective truth and reality into a subjective matter along with a cancellation of two-sided discussions. “My truth, your truth, so shut up and don’t trigger me or I’ll cancel you.”

Meanwhile, objective ufologists interested more in reality than in winning arguments also ignore the powerful ET evidence hidden in the literature of intelligent design.

We should read this work. I recommend, “Signature in the Cell,” by Stephen Meyer, PhD. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qpAXEicJVsu1JkzuVsnu4pvGA4kN8LUyUOzlxV7JybA/edit

Yes, brilliant, vociferous, self-confident ID critics abound. All the more reason to read the ID scientists’ work for ourselves, I would suggest.

Once enough of us wade through a bit of the ID literature and math, some of us may come to realize that intelligent design is a respectable scientific theory that would be mainstream science in an unbiased scientific world.

Moreover, the UFO community might become able to articulate exactly why the human genome is far too complex, irreducibly woven into the complex nano-machines that the code generates, and far too teleologically information-based to have arisen by random mutation, genetic drift and natural selection in a universe that’s only 13.8 billion years old.

On the other hand, I think any thoughtful person would admit that IF the universe is infinitely old, infinitely vast, or accompanied by an infinite number of randomly-tuned parallel universes, then neo-Darwinian macroevolution, (ignoring the “irreducible complexity” issues) could account for at least some carbon-based life forms. (Not that “irreducible complexity” can be rationally ignored. See Michael Behe, “Darwin’s Black Box” for a discussion of irreducible biological complexity.) https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0743290313

But currently mainstream science insists that the universe is finite in size and merely 13.8 billion years old. So until they change their minds…

Let’s assume these concepts are accurate for now and point out that given these mainstream “facts,” science is almost certainly mistaken about the notion that Earth’s DNA came into existence through random forces without intelligent interference or guidance.

Because it’s relevant to Ufology.

In perfect analogy to mainstream science’s dismissal of UFOs as unworthy of study, anyone wishing to determine if intelligent design is worthy of scientific study must READ the ID literature before rejecting it. This sounds simple, but it is hard to do objectively when every scientific article we read attaches some aspect of the neo-Darwinian myth to the interpretation of new data, assuming the random origins story is unquestionable fact, when it’s not.

Darwin’s origins story is a myth based upon interpreting observations through the untestable lens of scientific materialism. It assumes mindless forces acting randomly on a planet that intelligent ETs have never touched. This lens of denial has kept the mainstream’s random origins story circulating long after it should be obsolete.

While religious people jump on intelligent design science to support the existence of God, the UFO community seems to be ignoring the ID literature’s relevance to ETs. Without mentioning God, the isolated theory of intelligent design quite logically and powerfully implicates ET’s in at least some of the coding of Earth’s DNA.

ID science is young, but it’s alive and well. We who are open to UFO science would be wise to educate ourselves in this hidden branch of scientific knowledge. It could widen the scientific foundation of objective ufology, and perhaps broaden the scientific horizons of the true believers in “scientific” materialism.

Full disclosure: Although I have a science background (a retired MD, with AP/CP pathology boards and cytopathology subspecialty boards) I believe in the scientifically Untestable assumption of a benevolent personal Supreme Being (or Beings), and I find myself praying a lot for the people I love. Just as the Untestable assumption of “scientific” materialism (a huge misnomer) dominates and colors the worldview of most scientists today, once a person like me goes down the path of the Untestable non-materialistic assumptions I have taken to heart, the loving and personal Supreme Being (or Beings, perhaps?) dominates your worldview. Nevertheless, I strive to be objective and don’t belong to any church, synagogue, mosque or CE-5 group. I know of no spiritual group that would accept me into their fold without a radical revision of my beliefs, except perhaps in some exceedingly generous way within the spirit of transcendent love, the spirit of objective Ufology, I’d like to believe.

Beaming you love,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

 


Love notes to Google and Facebook from John Steward Mill

“All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.”—John Stuart Mill, All Minus One: John Stuart Mill’s Ideas on Free Speech

“We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.” — John Stuart Mill

“Not the violent conflict between parts of the truth, but the quiet suppression of half of it, is the formidable evil; there is always hope when people are forced to listen to both sides; it is when they attend only to one that errors harden into prejudices, and truth itself ceases to have the effect of truth, by being exaggerated into falsehood.” — John Stuart Mill

“Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is anyone who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side.” — John Stuart Mill

“The whole strength and value, then, of human judgment, depends on the one property, that it can be set right when it is wrong; reliance can be placed on it only when the means of setting it right are kept constantly at hand.” — John Stuart Mill

“Yet it is as evident in itself, as any amount of argument can make it, that ages are no more infallible than individuals; every age having held many opinions which subsequent ages have deemed not only false but absurd; and it is as certain that many opinions, now general, will be rejected by future ages, as it is that many, once general, are rejected by the present.” — John Stuart Mill

“For while everyone well knows himself [herself] to be fallible, few think it necessary to take any precautions against their own fallibility, or admit the supposition that any opinion of which they feel very certain may be one of the examples of the error to which they acknowledge themselves to be liable.” — John Stuart Mill

“… the present age … has been described as ‘destitute of faith, but terrified of skepticism…'” — John Stuart Mill

Two days before the election, my daughter asked me who would win. I told her I had a premonition. Biden would win, then Trump would do a recount and win, then Biden would do a recount and win, and that would be the final decision.  So far we’re on track. I don’t much care.

In my humble and yet infallible opinion, democracy in the US is a thing of the past. We seem to have an unelected shadow government that probably overlaps with the anonymous private stockholders of the FED. These people make the big decisions and the big mistakes, as best I can tell.

So I don’t let myself waste emotions and time on politics.

But freedom of speech is another matter, an entirely greater issue than the question of whose aged puppet lives in the White House for a few years.

The gatekeepers of science journals and the censors of the internet probably do more harm to humanity and the Earth than our shadow government ever could. They do it by silencing and marginalizing the outliers and politically incorrect voices of society, gagging those who disagree with the latest cultural dogmas and the so-called settled science, a term reflecting convenient ignorance of the history of science.

If only these powerful unelected leaders of ours would read and embrace John Stuart Mill’s love notes to them.

And where the devil is Monty Python when we need ’em, anyway?

“John Steward Mill

Of his own free will

On half a pint of shandy

Got particularly ill.”

Socrates showed us that to have a worthy opinion, you need to engage in debate with those of opposite opinion. That would mean listening to those who trigger you, those who upset and disgust you, and those who would ban and outlaw your worldview for the “greater good” of their own. Long ago, the people in charge understood this…

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” – The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Today, more than ever, having a reliable opinion means listening to those whom you instantly recognize as liars. You know they’re lying because their so-called facts contradict the true facts delivered to you by those you trust.

But we all trust our sources mainly because they agree with our own opinions. Might as well admit it. This human tendency is never wise. Scientific breakthroughs, for example, struggle long uphill battles against the reigning dogma of the day and its intrenched adherents whose grant money depends on status quo research.

Both sides of every question must be openly spoken and debated, but the fact is, in today’s PC-controlled world, discussing controversial issues has become nearly impossible. You’re often not allowed to speak. For instance…

If you doubt CO2 is the major cause of climate change,

if you think that the currently lower COVID-19 death rates despite rising infection rates cast doubt on the wisdom of a renewed lockdown,

if you doubt that the complexity of our genetic code could be the sole product of random mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection in a mere 13.8 billion years,

if you doubt that advanced human technology came about for the first time on Earth in the last 12,000 years, starting with about 300,000 years of hunters, gatherers and drooling troglodytes,

if you doubt the wisdom of preaching depressing, nihilistic “scientific” materialism to children as if it were anything more than an untestable assumption of religion-phobes,

if you think the COVID-19 virus might have originated in a research laboratory,

or if you have an opinion about UFOs that differs from the mainstream media’s casual reports, then…

Well-intentioned gatekeepers and the shadowy power heads will silence you, cancel your account, lie about you, discredit you, or at least keep your voice confined to an AI info bubble limited to people who already agree with your ridiculous ideas.

And many of your neighbors will thank the control freaks for their disservice to truth and human awakening.

So this is my plea for open-minded discussion and the questioning of every “indisputable truth” however painful it is to question. We must all place our sacred cows under the spotlight of sincere discussion.

Love through listening,

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

Please send this to a Monty Python fan or to a young person who has no mnemonic for Western philosophers.