Connect with us

Alternative News

Professor Explains Why He Believes Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Doesn’t Make Sense

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Darwin's Theory of Evolution has, for a great many scientists, become relatively obsolete in the face of new research into the creation and generation of life.

  • Reflect On:

    Can we see that the belief in the randomness of the creation and evolution of life, as posited by Darwin's Theory of Evolution, is a limitation on human progress and no longer serving us in our collective evolution?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

Science never ceases to question. When a theory is taught as an unquestionable fact, it should be quite obvious that something is wrong. Today, science isn’t really science, and this is not only true for topics such as evolution, it’s true in many areas where science is used for an agenda by powerful and corrupt forces.

advertisement - learn more

Health sciences are a great example. As Bud Relman, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine said, “The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”

-->Watch a free sneak peek of our new course: Our latest course focuses on how to improve your critical thinking and become more aware of bias. Click here to check it out!

Today, some scientific publications are silenced and others are pushed forward, depending on how they affect corporate and political agendas. It’s not actually about the science. What the mainstream media preaches as “settled science” is not actually settled. In fact it is often highly dubious. Why don’t more people see this? The answer is simple, it’s because we rely on outside sources to tell us ‘what is,’ instead of taking the time, as individual researchers, to really look into something.

The Theory Of Evolution

The ‘Theory of Evolution’ falls into this category. Scientists who have rejected the basic premises of Darwin’s theory continue to be condemned and shunned by the mainstream community and powerful people. This is because their paradigm-shifting thoughts and ideas on the subject, though more grounded in fact, threaten the goal of the global elite, which NSA whistleblower William Binney says, is “total population control.” The average person who gets a bachelor’s degree in science is trained to simply repeat the same old textbook rhetoric as to why evolution is the be all and end all of human existence, without actually looking into why the theory is highly questionable.

One of the latest dissenters is David Gelernter, a prominent scientist and distinguished professor of computer science at Yale University. He recently published an essay in the Claremont Review of Books explaining his objections to a premise behind Darwin’s theory.

He first points to the famous “Cambrian Explosion” which occurred half a billion years ago, in which a number of new organisms, including the first ever known animals, pop up suddenly in the fossil record over a period of approximately 70 million years. Apparently, this giant explosion of spontaneous life was followed by evolution, slow growth and “scanty fossils, mainly of single celled organisms, dating back to the origins of life roughly three and a half billions years ago.”

advertisement - learn more

From here, he explains how Darwin’s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from preceding ones. but if this is applied to the Cambrian creatures as well, it doesn’t work. The predecessors to the Cambrian creatures are missing, something that Darwin himself was disturbed by as well. Furthermore, even without this fact, many scientists have already used other aspects of the fossil record to demonstrate that Darwin’s theory is clearly wrong.

The Cambrian explosion had been unearthed, and beneath those Cambrian creatures their Precambrian predecessors should have been waiting – and weren’t. In fact, the fossil record as a whole lacked the upward-branching structure Darwin predicted….the ever-expanding fossil archives don’t look good for Darwin, who made clear and concrete predictions that have (so far) been falsified—according to many reputable paleontologists, anyway. When does the clock run out on those predictions? Never. But any thoughtful person must ask himself whether scientists today are looking for evidence that bears on Darwin, or looking to explain away evidence that contradicts him. There are some of each. Scientists are only human, and their thinking (like everyone else’s) is colored by emotion. (source)

The Genesis Of New Life Forms

His next point goes a little deeper. Many people point to the fact that variation occurs naturally among individuals and different traits are past on, this is something observable and something that we all know. Many scientists actually use this point as a proof for evolution, which doesn’t make much sense. According to proponents of the theory of evolution, natural variation is the consequence of random change or mutation to cells, to the genetic information within our cells that deal with reproduction. These cells pass on genetic change to the next generation, which, according to Darwinians, changes the future of the species and not just the individual.

The engine behind this thought, as Gelernter explains, is ‘change’ driven by the survival of the fittest and, obviously, lots and lots of time. He then goes on to ask a very crucial question: What exactly does generating new forms of life entail? Many within the field agree that generating a new shape of protein is the key to it. But does Darwinian evolution even purport to be able to do that? For Chris Williams, A Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University, the full scope of Darwinian Evolution barely touches upon this important matter:

As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require — or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have — or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life — the foundation of evolution – is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.

Intelligent Design

More and more, the evidence points to the great intelligence apparent in the system of life-creation. The reason that Darwinian Evolution is being left behind, and for many is obsolete, is because it is completely based on random, non-intelligent processes. Edward Peltzer Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute), Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry, uses a clear real-life laboratory example to explain the need to posit the existence of an overriding ‘intelligence’ in order for things to make any sense:

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

Gelernter brings this conversation specifically to the generation of proteins:

Proteins are the special ops forces (or maybe the Marines) of living cells, except that they are common instead of rare; they do all the heavy lifting, all the tricky and critical assignments, in a dazzling range of roles. Proteins called enzymes catalyze all sorts of reactions and drive cellular metabolism. Other proteins (such as collagen) give cells shape and structure, like tent poles but in far more shapes. Nerve function, muscle function, and photosynthesis are all driven by proteins. And in doing these jobs and many others, the actual, 3-D shape of the protein molecule is important.

So, is the simple neo-Darwinian mechanism up to this task? Are random mutation plus natural selection sufficient to create new protein shapes?

Diving Into Proteins

Gelernter goes on to answer that question in great detail, and after going through the entire explanation he comes to what seems to be an inarguable conclusion. That the Theory of Evolution cannot, in any way, be a possible explanation for the generation of new proteins and mutations that are required for evolution to occur at all. This explanation is complex, but well worth it if you really want to understand how the ‘Theory of Evolution’ is refuted by the science of proteins:

How to make proteins is our first question. Proteins are chains: linear sequences of atom-groups, each bonded to the next. A protein molecule is based on a chain of amino acids; 150 elements is a “modest-sized” chain; the average is 250. Each link is chosen, ordinarily, from one of 20 amino acids. A chain of amino acids is a polypeptide—“peptide” being the type of chemical bond that joins one amino acid to the next. But this chain is only the starting point: chemical forces among the links make parts of the chain twist themselves into helices; others straighten out, and then, sometimes, jackknife repeatedly, like a carpenter’s rule, into flat sheets. Then the whole assemblage folds itself up like a complex sheet of origami paper. And the actual 3-D shape of the resulting molecule is (as I have said) important.

Imagine a 150-element protein as a chain of 150 beads, each bead chosen from 20 varieties. But: only certain chains will work. Only certain bead combinations will form themselves into stable, useful, well-shaped proteins.

So how hard is it to build a useful, well-shaped protein? Can you throw a bunch of amino acids together and assume that you will get something good? Or must you choose each element of the chain with painstaking care? It happens to be very hard to choose the right beads.

Inventing a new protein means inventing a new gene. (Enter, finally, genes, DNA etc., with suitable fanfare.) Genes spell out the links of a protein chain, amino acid by amino acid. Each gene is a segment of DNA, the world’s most admired macromolecule. DNA, of course, is the famous double helix or spiral staircase, where each step is a pair of nucleotides. As you read the nucleotides along one edge of the staircase (sitting on one step and bumping your way downwards to the next and the next), each group of three nucleotides along the way specifies an amino acid. Each three-nucleotide group is a codon, and the correspondence between codons and amino acids is the genetic code. (The four nucleotides in DNA are abbreviated T, A, C and G, and you can look up the code in a high school textbook: TTA and TTC stand for phenylalanine, TCT for serine, and so on.)

Your task is to invent a new gene by mutation—by the accidental change of one codon to a different codon. You have two possible starting points for this attempt. You could mutate an existing gene, or mutate gibberish. You have a choice because DNA actually consists of valid genes separated by long sequences of nonsense. Most biologists think that the nonsense sequences are the main source of new genes. If you tinker with a valid gene, you will almost certainly make it worse—to the point where its protein misfires and endangers (or kills) its organism—long before you start making it better. The gibberish sequences, on the other hand, sit on the sidelines without making proteins, and you can mutate them, so far as we know, without endangering anything. The mutated sequence can then be passed on to the next generation, where it can be mutated again. Thus mutations can accumulate on the sidelines without affecting the organism. But if you mutate your way to an actual, valid new gene, your new gene can create a new protein and thereby, potentially, play a role in evolution.

Mutations themselves enter the picture when DNA splits in half down the center of the staircase, thereby allowing the enclosing cell to split in half, and the encompassing organism to grow. Each half-staircase summons a matching set of nucleotides from the surrounding chemical soup; two complete new DNA molecules emerge. A mistake in this elegant replication process—the wrong nucleotide answering the call, a nucleotide typo—yields a mutation, either to a valid blueprint or a stretch of gibberish.

Building a Better Protein

Now at last we are ready to take Darwin out for a test drive. Starting with 150 links of gibberish, what are the chances that we can mutate our way to a useful new shape of protein? We can ask basically the same question in a more manageable way: what are the chances that a random 150-link sequence will create such a protein? Nonsense sequences are essentially random. Mutations are random. Make random changes to a random sequence and you get another random sequence. So, close your eyes, make 150 random choices from your 20 bead boxes and string up your beads in the order in which you chose them. What are the odds that you will come up with a useful new protein?

It’s easy to see that the total number of possible sequences is immense. It’s easy to believe (although non-chemists must take their colleagues’ word for it) that the subset of useful sequences—sequences that create real, usable proteins—is, in comparison, tiny. But we must know how immense and how tiny.

The total count of possible 150-link chains, where each link is chosen separately from 20 amino acids, is 20150. In other words, many. 20150 roughly equals 10195, and there are only 1080 atoms in the universe.

What proportion of these many polypeptides are useful proteins? Douglas Axe did a series of experiments to estimate how many 150-long chains are capable of stable folds—of reaching the final step in the protein-creation process (the folding) and of holding their shapes long enough to be useful. (Axe is a distinguished biologist with five-star breeding: he was a graduate student at Caltech, then joined the Centre for Protein Engineering at Cambridge. The biologists whose work Meyer discusses are mainly first-rate Establishment scientists.) He estimated that, of all 150-link amino acid sequences, 1 in 1074 will be capable of folding into a stable protein. To say that your chances are 1 in 1074 is no different, in practice, from saying that they are zero. It’s not surprising that your chances of hitting a stable protein that performs some useful function, and might therefore play a part in evolution, are even smaller. Axe puts them at 1 in 1077.

In other words: immense is so big, and tiny is so small, that neo-Darwinian evolution is—so far—a dead loss. Try to mutate your way from 150 links of gibberish to a working, useful protein and you are guaranteed to fail. Try it with ten mutations, a thousand, a million—you fail. The odds bury you. It can’t be done.

Proteins/Mutations Are One of Several Issues

Despite all of the scientific dogma that plagues this issue, proteins/mutations and lack of fossil evidence are simply the tip of the iceberg when it comes to finding faults found within the Theory of Evolution. There are many facts, information, science and new discoveries that would make one wonder how it’s even still being taught.

Furthermore, despite the fact that we get pounded with the idea that random mutation is ultimate truth within the mainstream, and that one is wrong for questioning it, there are a number of prominent scientists, who are actually getting together in large numbers to collectively refute Darwinism. A group of 500 scientists from several fields came together a few years to create “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism,” as one examples. The issue is that these scientists are never getting any mainstream attention. But clearly there are some very intelligent people here.

The theory will be with us for a long time, exerting enormous cultural force. Darwin is no Newton. Newton’s physics survived Einstein and will always survive, because it explains the cases that dominate all of space-time except for the extreme ends of the spectrum, at the very smallest and largest scales. It’s just these most important cases, the ones we see all around us, that Darwin cannot explain. Yet his theory does explain cases of real significance. And Darwin’s intellectual daring will always be inspiring. The man will always be admired.

He now poses a final challenge. Whether biology will rise to this last one as well as it did to the first, when his theory upset every apple cart, remains to be seen. How cleanly and quickly can the field get over Darwin, and move on?—with due allowance for every Darwinist’s having to study all the evidence for himself? There is one of most important questions facing science in the 21st century.

Other Examples That Throw Off The Theory Of Evolution

Not long ago I wrote about a  recent paper published by 33 scientists in the Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal suggesting that the flourishing of life during the Cambrian era (Cambrian Explosion) originates from the stars is so fascinating.

“With the rapidly increasing number of exoplanets that have been discovered in the habitable zones of long-lived red dwarf stars (Gillon et al., 2016), the prospects for genetic exchanges between life-bearing Earth-like planets cannot be ignored. ” (The study)

There is a great little blurb from Cosmos Magazine, one of the few outlets who are talking about the study:

With 33 authors from a wide range of reputable universities and research institutes, the paper makes a seemingly incredible claim. A claim that if true, would have the most profound consequences for our understanding of the universe. Life, the paper argues, did not originate on the planet Earth.

The response?

Near silence.

The reasons for this are as fascinating as the evidence and claims advanced by the paper itself. Entitled “Cause of the Cambrian Explosion – Terrestrial or Cosmic?”, the publication revives a controversial idea concerning the origin of life, an idea stretching back to Ancient Greece, known as ‘panspermia.a’.

Academics like Francis Crick, an English scientist who co-discovered the structure of the DNA molecule (alongside James D. Watson), argues that there is no possible way that the DNA molecule could have originated on Earth. The generally accepted theory in this field, as explained above, is that we are the result of a bunch of molecules accidentally bumping into each other, creating life. However, according to Crick, we are the result of what is now known as Directed Panspermia. Crick and British chemist Leslie Orgel published their paper on it in July of 1973, hinting that we were brought here by chance, or by some sort of intelligence from somewhere else in the universe.

This is interesting, because then you can get into the lore of creation stories that exists within ancient cultures from around the world, one would be our relation to, for example, what many indigenous culture refer to as the ‘Star People.’

I’m not even going to go into all of the strange skeletal remains that have been completely left out of the record, like the remains of giants, for example.

The Takeaway

The agenda for the maintenance of the neo-Darwinian version of the ‘Theory of Evolution’ was nothing less than to move people away from the notion of an intelligent creator and towards a perception founded in scientific materialism. In this way, those who funded and controlled scientific activity on the planet would have tremendous power.

Darwin’s theory may have served humanity for a certain phase of our own evolution, but now it is holding us back. It’s time for all of us to pierce more deeply into an understanding of the nature of the creation of life if we are to become creators ourselves by studying the current evidence. As the group of 500 scientists asked, ‘How cleanly and quickly can the field get over Darwin, and move on?—with due allowance for every Darwinist’s having to study all the evidence for himself?’

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

UFO Crash Recoveries: A Classified Corporate Gold Rush

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 7 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    UFOs are being disclosed within the mainstream, have governments around the world "captured" any of this type of technology? Are there people who stand to profit off of it instead of using it to benefit humanity?

  • Reflect On:

    What are the implications of the idea that we are being visited and have been visited for a very long time?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

The picture you see above comes from a series of photographs that have been confirmed authentic by the Pentagon.

Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), now known as Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAPs) within the mainstream, is arguably one of the most popular subjects on the minds of people all over the globe. “Mainstream” coverage of the phenomenon lending a large amount of legitimacy to the topic over the past few years via outlets like the New York Times and CNN, for example is now commonplace. U.S. intelligence agencies are also expected to release even more information about what they know about the phenomenon within the next couple of months, but based on my experience, humanity may never get close to the entire sphere of what governments and black budget programs have uncovered about the phenomenon over the past several decades that they’ve been studying it.

I do not believe this topic is for governments to disclose, but rather the citizenry to investigate for themselves. If we continue to rely on governments as well as mainstream media for truth, we most likely will always be deceived in some way shape or form. Perhaps I’m wrong.

It is quite concerning that a controversial topic like UFOs, which were for years considered to be a “conspiracy theory” despite the fact that there was more evidence for the phenomenon than much of what we accept as fact today, have to be presented in a legitimate way via mainstream media outlets for the masses to accept and become aware of their reality. It’s concerning because it goes to show how much mainstream media, which has always had close ties to large corporations, governments and intelligence agencies, influences the perception of the masses. This allows, as I would call it today, this machine of psychological warfare to manipulate human consciousness in ways that best serve their interests. We’ve seen it before with a variety of topics, like geopolitical issues for example, and I am quite concerned that we will see the same thing with regards to the UFO phenomenon. I am concerned about governments and mainstream media shaping the masses perception about the phenomenon,  but so far it’s been nice to see the topic receive the legitimacy it deserves.

The UFO subject leaves no aspect of humanity untouched and opens up conversations that go into physics, biology, economics, history, technology, metaphysics, parapsychology and more. To be honest, the fact that there are objects in our atmosphere performing maneuvers that no known man made piece of machinery is capable of that may be controlled or manned by beings from other worlds is not even the tip of the iceberg.  That’s how vast, complex and fascinating this subject is. There are many questions and discussions to be had around it.

We (Collective Evolution) have been writing about this topic for more than a decade, if you’re interested in going through our article archive, you can do so here

Crash Recoveries: One topic within the subject matter is the phenomenon of supposed crash retrievals.  Apollo 13 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell once told the world that “Yes there have been crashed craft, and bodies recovered.” He is seen making these statements in this documentary. Eric W. Davis, a renowned astrophysicist who worked with the Pentagon UFO program stated that he gave a classified briefing to a Defense Department Agency, as recently as March 2020 about retrievals from “off-world vehicles not made on this Earth.” Christopher Mellon, a former Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for Intelligence from 1997 to 2002 has confirmed that he was  present during this testimony. He himself has been quite outspoken about the phenomenon over the past few years.  Dr. David Clarke, an investigative journalist, reader and lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University who was also the curator for The National Archives UFO Project from 2008–2013, came across some interesting documents suggesting that the UK was desperate to capture UFO technology. Paul Hellyer, former Canadian defence minister claimed that the protocol when military jets were scrambled to intercept a UFO was to “shoot first and ask questions after.”

The most viewed document from the FBI archives touches upon the idea that the US Government was responsible for three UFO crashes in 1950. Each craft had three bodies inside. You can read more about that specific story here.

Then you have supposed cases like the famous Roswell incident, but there are many multiple dozens of stories like Roswell I’ve come across over the years in my research.

UFO Crash Recoveries: A Classified Corporate Gold Rush: “UFO Crash Recoveries: A Classified Corporate Gold Rush” will be one of multiple themes that renowned UFO researcher/historian Richard Dolan will be covering at an upcoming UFO conference.

I have talked about the acquisition of exotic technology by the military and the black budget world. This time I’m going to go deeper into not just the testing and the attempts to replicate this type of technology but the likely corporate players involved and revolutionary nature of the sciences and technologies involved. What has been developed over the years is a bizarre system of what I often call legal illegality and one of massive profit for certain organizations. – Dolan (source)

If you’re interested about the crash recovery topic, this is probably something you won’t want to miss. It’s called the “UFO Secrecy in a Changing World Conference”, and it takes place on May 20th. You can learn more about it here.

Final Thoughts: Russell Brand recently conducted an interview with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. One point Snowden made was that we have to be careful, because not everything that is labelled a “conspiracy theory” is actually a conspiracy theory. This has been proven to be true for not only mass surveillance, but for several other topics like false flag terrorism and perhaps most recently, UFOs. The point is, our world, and more particularly the mainstream fails to have conversations about “controversial” topics that don’t fit within the frame. That being said, it’s not easy to come to grips with the idea that our world is nothing like what’s been presented to us, but that’s something humanity must go through if we want to move forward as a collective.

We have to be very careful when it comes to things that are deemed to be a conspiracy theory, and remember that the very phrase “conspiracy theorist” was used in 1967 in a classified CIA dispatch providing instructions on how to manipulate and manage public opinion. This appears to be the manner in which the phrase made its way into the public. They coined the phrase and established it to single out and ridicule dissenters of officially established opinions. Keep in mind that a decades long campaign of “ridicule and secrecy” has been applied to the UFO issue (Ex-CIA Director Roscoe Hillenkoetter).

This is something important to think about, especially in the era of COVID.

To those who believe the phenomenon represents nothing but false deception and some sort of grand plan by the elite, I ask you, why would they ridicule a phenomenon for so long and place it into the conspiracy theory bucket if they wanted to convince people of the reality of UFOs? During the period of ridicule and secrecy a number of researchers showed that it was quite obvious something was going on. Eventually, too many people became aware of it to the point where governments have no choice but to address it because it’s so obvious. That’s where we seem to be now.

Again, the phenomenon is deep and has the potential shift human consciousness and change the way we view ourselves, the cosmos, the nature of reality and why we live the way we do on our planet. We still have a ways to go. For example, if UFO technology has the potential to change our world for the better in multiple ways, will it be used for that? Or will it be used by a small group of people to benefit financially and in other ways? It’s not technology or new discoveries that will change our world, it’s the consciousness that lies behind them, and more. Ultimately, it’s the way we treat others.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Society of Catholic Scientists Will Hold A Conference On Non-Human Intelligence

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 4 minute read
DanieleGay via Shutterstock

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The Society of Catholic Scientists (SCS) is holding an event focused on exploring extraterrestrial life and artificial intelligence. The conference is focused on the science behind these possible realities.

  • Reflect On:

    Is it becoming more and more commonplace for us to have to get used to the idea that extraterrestrials might in fact be real? How might people react to this if a more 'mainstream' disclosure took place?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

I go back to this statement a lot because I’m passionate about it: the UFO phenomenon, and its relationship with the reality of extraterrestrials, is a consciousness shifting moment for humanity that has the power to change how we live our lives. It may not be immediately obvious why that’s the case, but when you consider the change to our worldview in and amongst the technologies that come with this phenomenon, nothing would be the same.

What Happened: For the reasons above you can imagine that many are sensing how near the public discussion of the reality of ETs really is. The Society of Catholic Scientists (SCS), an organization that believes science and faith can work well together, is going to be holding a conference in Washington D.C. on the subject of non-human intelligence.

The conference is titled “Extraterrestrials, AI, and Minds Beyond the Human” and will take place from June 4-6, 2021.

The conference will feature discussion from experts on the topics of extraterrestrial life as well as artificial intelligences. The possibility of extraterrestrial life will be presented from the fields of study including – astrophysics, astrochemistry, evolutionary biology, and Catholic theology. It was unclear to me whether current evidence from credible witnesses will be presented or whether this is strictly based on a scientific hypothesis. This distinction is key as the likelihood of ET life, as limited by the study of scientific models, does not necessarily provide all the the available evidence that dramatically changes the reality based on what we currently know.

“There’ll be 13 talks. Half of the talks are going to be about extraterrestrial life, and there’s going to be talks by some big experts on that subject,” Dr. Stephen Barr, president of the Society of Catholic Scientists

The speakers will include Jonathan Lunine, director of the Cornell Center for Astrophysics and Planetary Science; Karin Öberg, professor of Astronomy and director of Undergraduate Studies at Harvard University; Simon Conway Morris, chair of Evolutionary Palaeobiology at the University of Cambridge; and Christopher Baglow, director of the Science and Religion Initiative of the McGrath Institute for Church Life of the University of Notre Dame.

“There’s a lot of excitement because in recent years astronomers have discovered large numbers of planets orbiting other nearby stars. They could learn a lot about these planets – how far they are from the star, how big the planet is, even things about the chemistry of the planet in some cases.” Dr. Stephen Barr

Why It Matters: It appears that various institutions, even one’s where the reality of ETs might not easily fit into their existing theology, are starting to take the ET discussion seriously enough to begin engaging with their communities about it. This is likely because mainstream discussion around the topic has become significant, and the evidence we’re learning about continues to mount. If you’re not lending serious inquiry to this subject yet, it might be a good time to start exploring. It’s no longer culturally considered ‘a conspiracy theory.’

The Takeaway: As we’ve reported on for many years, the reality of this phenomenon inches closer to mainstream public acceptance. While this doesn’t mean we will know every detail, it means we will have a much greater idea of what’s been happening in this field for many decades now. This does also mean that if we are told the totality of what is known, we’ll understand not only that non human life is almost 100% real, but that governments and intelligence agencies have known for many decades. For some, dealing with the shock of not only the existence of ET life but also that governments knowingly kept it secret may feel like a lot. To others, this will be a welcome sense of relief. Curiosity and playfulness can take us a long way in collectively gaining clarity in our world, but we have to be careful not to become too rigid in any narrative we choose to play with.

I’ve laid out a lot more thoughts related to this in my complete interview from Dr. Steven Greer’s latest film Close Encounters of The Fifth Kind. You can watch that entire raw interview here.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

‘Be Careful Because Some Things That Are Termed A Conspiracy Are True’ – Edward Snowden

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 5 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Russell Brand recently conducted an interview with Edward Snowden. One point Snowden made was that we have to be careful, because not everything that is labelled a "conspiracy theory" is actually a conspiracy theory.

  • Reflect On:

    How much is our perception of major global issues and events influenced, controlled and manipulated?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

(Join us on Telegram here) Russell Brand recently conducted an interview with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and released the first part of it. In the interview, Snowden mentions something that’s been true for a number of decades, and that’s the fact that some things, and in my opinion many things, that are termed a conspiracy theory are in fact true. We have to be careful and really utilize our critical thinking skills. You can watch the full interview below.

The very phrase “conspiracy theorist” was used in 1967 in a classified CIA dispatch providing instructions on how to manipulate and manage public opinion. This appears to be the manner in which the phrase made its way into the public. They coined the phrase and established it to single out dissenters of officially established opinions. The document was put out as a result of the JFK assassination when many concerns were being raised, concerns that, regardless of how much consideration was warranted based on certain evidence at the time, was ridiculed.

Ridiculing something, regardless of how much evidence it holds, has been commonplace, especially today. This is a “psychological warfare” tool, and it’s quite rampant. A declassified document from the CIA archives in the form of a letter from a CIA task force addressed to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time details the close relationship that existed between the CIA and mainstream media and academia. Imagine what it’s like today. The document states that the CIA task force “now has relationships with reporters from every major wire service, newspaper, news weekly, and television network in the nation,” and that “this has helped us turn some ‘intelligence failure’ stories into ‘intelligence success’ stories, and has contributed to the accuracy of countless others.” Furthermore, it explains how the agency has “persuaded reporters to postpone, change, hold, or even scrap stories that could have adversely affected national security interests or jeopardized sources and methods.”

National security today, in my opinion, has become an umbrella term to justify measures taken, as well as the secrecy around them, implemented under the guise of good will to keep information secret and to ridicule anything that threatens certain government, corporate, and/or political agendas. This is why people like Julian Assange, I believe, are muzzled and put in prison. They are modern day heroes. Today, information is a threat, especially information exposing unethical and immoral actions taken by governments.

One of the best examples of previous conspiracies that turned out to be true may be mass surveillance, as leaked by Snowden and others before him. The most recent example would be the existence of UFOs, another great example would be false flag terrorism. There are many, and this type of psychological warfare and the desire to manipulate the consciousness of human beings, which may also be considered a “conspiracy theory”, is again, ongoing.

The Takeaway: The good news is that people are “waking up” to this type of consciousness manipulation I mention above. Just like 9/11, the COVID pandemic has truly served as a catalyst for more people to question the human experience and why we live the way we do. When it comes to the pandemic specifically, people are extremely polarized in their views, and government measures that roll out and will roll out in the future restricting people’s rights and freedoms they previously enjoyed are heavily opposed by a large portion of the population. This begs the question, why do we give these entities so much power to restrict certain rights and freedoms that we enjoy, especially when things are not as black and white as mainstream media and government makes them out to be. Shouldn’t freedom of choice always remain, while government makes recommendations instead of mandates?

As far as views that oppose what we are getting from the mainstream, the pandemic is a great example of labelling and ridiculing something as a “conspiracy theory” when many people are seeing that it’s not. Doctors and renowned scientists in the field have even been subjected to this type of treatment. At the end of the day, this type of treatment simply forces more and more people to ask, what’s really going on here? Why are experts in the field being silenced for presenting opinions, data and science that opposes what the masses are being told?

Mainstream media and governments are failing to have appropriate conversations around “controversial” issues. People who disagree with each other these days seem to be experiencing the same thing, as many of us have become extremely polarized in our viewpoints. It’s ok to believe something, and stand on one side, but what’s even more important than being “right” or “wrong” is to understand why someone feels the way they do, and why someone believes what they believe. Human beings are intelligent, we are all capable of thinking and examining information and just because somebody disagrees with you does not mean they are stupid. We really need to respect and understand each other, especially in this day and age.

At CE we’ve made many efforts over the years to help improve collective communication, one of the latest is the release of a coursed in our CETV membership called ‘Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking’ It’s a course that truly can benefit everyone, even those who feel they already think critically very well. You can learn more here.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Due to censorship, please join us on Telegram

We post important content to Telegram daily so we don't have to rely on Facebook.

You have Successfully Subscribed!