Science, Scientism, and Insanity: Origins of the Universe

Supporters of the Big Bang Theory, the majority of whom are mainly atheists or, at the least, agnostics, congratulate themselves forever for upholding this (grand and often unrecognized) tautology as a scientific proposition involved with their (deranged) cognition that is not ever seen obviously to be mere scientism, not true science.  The ancient maxim that nothing comes from nothing is, somehow or other, studiously denied, with such a regularity, as to easily surpass pure faith, and borders on generally plain superstition as such.  

An analogy for such crude scientism can be seen, e.g., in evolutionism, Darwinian, neo-Darwinian, or otherwise, where spontaneous generation is not honestly and plainly recognized as being made “scientifically” acceptable to supposedly explain the forever absolutely quantum leap from inorganic to organic reality.   It is a forever tremendous intellectual scandal that, nonetheless, just gets proverbially swept under the Darwinian-evolutionist carpet of assumed scientific thinking regarding evolutionism, which makes all of evolutionism a bad joke at best, poor pseudoscience at worst.   

Thus, it is intellectually and, moreover, scientifically hoped that someday evolutionism will be regarded as simply equivalent to the past discredited “science” of phrenology, which once had its many devotees, publications, special language, etc. that once had it credited as an actual science in the 19th century.

And yet, a truly atheistic view of the creation of the universe supremely results in not a simple scandal but must, in fact, generate an enormous kind of blind faith that something can be created quite literally out of nothing at all, contrary to all known reason and logic combined.  This is, indeed, either a great act of faith to surpass all belief, all faith, or else it is what would normally be recognized as an act of intellectual insanity supreme.  It is plainly insane to believe, therefore, that something can will itself completely by itself into being; this is not, as is well known, logically or reasonably possible; matter, meaning inorganic material reality, does not possess a will of its own.   

As is correctly scientifically understood, the origination of the universe, the totality of all that physically is, cannot, thus, have ever been an assumed act of (willful) spontaneous generation.  To ever believe erroneously otherwise is plainly an insane thought not supportable by scientific evidence, methodology, experimentation, etc.  And yet, do the majority of scientists think that the universe had really originated without the existence of any Originator?  Yes, they do, incredibly so. 

If one, however, were to ask all of these same scientists if they do believe in spontaneous generation, would any of them (publicly at least) say yes?  No.  This is because, as was clearly explained above, due to the destructive effects of nominalism upon the human mind by which the mind gets divided against itself in a kind of cognitive schizophrenia, which is a fairly good definition of nominalism. The best scientific way to resolve the questions revolving around origins has been, fortunately, put forward by the proponents of Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) who need not be afflicted by Occamism, meaning a kind of cognitive schizophrenia. 

But, will this aforementioned insanity cease by which certain people, calling themselves scientists no less, willingly believe that something can, in fact, come from nothing?  No change is expected in this present era.  It will take an IDT revolution (or its equivalent) to fully impact contemporary science in the way that past scientific revolutions have occurred, according mostly to the central thinking of Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 

When that fortunately occurs, the Big Bang Theory, through intelligent scientific support from IDT, will offer the world a significantly much better and coherent explanation of origins than what now presently exists.  Until then, there will be, for the most part, the widespread superstition, founded absurdly upon scientism and its associated nominalism, that the universe had, indeed, genuinely originated — but only without any Originator.  No really intelligent person, however, ought to believe such very unmitigated nonsense, especially if given as a supposed “scientific” fact. 

Thus, IDT ought not to be confused or confounded, however, with Biblical Fundamentalism and its Creationist position that is consistent with many or most Protestant beliefs.  IDT can, moreover, readily conflict with pure or mainstream Creationism and usually, in fact, does on many points of contention.