Face the science

 

Face the science,

or

the drawbacks of its examination methods

"Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to act." (Proverbs 3:27)

This writing is not against science, but for the honor of science. It points out the untenable double standard that dominates modern research: while science rejects Intelligence because it is 'unmeasurable,' it hastily escapes into invisible fictions such as the Multiverse or the unprovable dimensions of string theory—just to preserve its materialist worldview.

The study encourages us to believe not in theories, but in raw facts. Because if we truly confront the objective complexity of the universe, we can no longer ignore materialist biases. This approach makes the facts the judge over methodology.

If someone truly and thoroughly examines the raw data (the DNA code, the physical constants, etc.), the contradictions in materialist explanations simply 'stick out to the eye.'

photo: unsplash Julien Tromeur

During scientific examination (in the laboratory, in front of the telescope) only causes that can be traced in nature are sought. This is a technical limitation: measuring instruments only indicate what is measurable. This does not deny the spiritual, it just says: 'I cannot examine this with this tool.'

School education still tries to stick to the 'measurable' because this is the only common denominator that everyone (believer and non-believer) can agree on: gravity or the structure of DNA shows the same thing on everyone's instruments.

The instrument only shows the function and the structure; it does not provide an answer to the 'why' or the origin.

In the case of DNA: The instruments (for example, X-ray crystallography or sequencing machines) show a code. We see the exact sequence of the four bases (A, T, C, G) and the double helix shape. It is like the source code of software: you see the letters and the instructions according to which the proteins are built.

In the case of gravity: The instruments (for example, atomic clocks or laser rangefinders) show mathematical precision relationships. We see that mass curves spacetime, and every body attracts the other with a specific force.

This is where measurement and interpretation diverge:

The materialist says, 'I see the code and the formula; this is the play of chance and physical laws, there is no one behind it.'

So the instrument shows the same data to both sides, but the conclusion drawn from the data is no longer scientific, it is a philosophical decision. The discipline of science (its system of rules,methodological limitation) stops at describing the code, but it cannot justifiably declare that its author does not exist – only that its instruments do not see the author.

IS THE POINT OF VIEW DECISIVE IN GIVING THE ANSWER?

Does the justification for the existence of the universe change depending on who is looking from where?

Here is where measurement and interpretation diverge:

The difference between the two views: "I only believe what I can prove with force using my instruments." versus: "The results of the instruments (the code) are the proof itself, you are just blind to see it."

This is not about the variability of reality, but about whether mere reason is enough to know the whole truth, or if the blinkers of materialism preclude the answer from the start?

IS MERE REASON ENOUGH?

Modern science has narrowed the concept of 'reason' (rational thinking) to logical deduction and measurement. This 'mere reason' says: only that is true which can be forcibly proven to anyone with equations or experiments. This approach often makes one blind.

The question of whether it is "enough" actually refers to whether science, with its own methods (measurement, experiment), can ever reach the truth at all, or whether it is doomed to fail from the outset due to its materialist starting point.

If the order of the world is not enough evidence, then all the scientific facade is pointless, because it is not the order that decides, but the view of the order, which is already subjective, since only the order itself is objective, and its assessment is a matter of perspective, and can change depending on what prejudice or ingrained worldview we approach it from.

The point is that the order is objective. If a machine works, that operation does not depend on whether someone acknowledges its designer or not. The order speaks for itself.

There is objective order (the DNA code, physical constants, the structure of the world). Scientific materialism sees this order, but for dogmatic reasons it is forbidden to say that it is "designed."

This is how the "science-declared obfuscation" arises: order is recognized (since they are forced to, they make a living from it), but its cause is attempted to be traced back to chance or self-organizing matter. This is the point where science breaks away from reason: it sees the software (objective order), but denies the programmer, because the programmer cannot fit into the measuring instrument.

So the question is not who sees what, but whether science is willing to acknowledge the logical necessity that follows from the order. If the order is objective, then the conclusion derived from it should also be objective.

Iron is hard, the blade of grass is light, the complicated is intelligent /"edited" or "information-rich"/. Or does a complicated thing exist without intelligence behind it? The answer of scientific materialism to this is that yes, such things exist: they call this self-organization or emergence.

NATURAL COMPLEXITIES?

According to materialist reasoning, there are processes in nature where blind laws (such as gravity or electromagnetism) create extraordinary complexity without any external intelligence. These are usually given as examples:

Snowflakes: Incredibly complex, symmetrical, and unique structures, yet they arise from the simple physical attraction of water molecules in the cold.

Fractals in nature: For example, the leaf of a fern or the branching of lightning, where the repetition of a simple mathematical rule creates infinitely complex forms.

The Solar System: Planets on precise orbits, in stable order, which according to materialism was not set by a 'watchmaker,' but rather 'polished' by gravity from chaos over billions of years.

THE POWER OF THE COUNTERARGUMENT

The materialist says that behind a snowflake there is only physics. Fine, but who or what created the laws of physics that make it possible for the snowflake to be this way? Who or what set the parameters so that chaos would not lead to even greater chaos, but eventually to a DNA code or a Solar System?

Science can therefore show us something "complex," behind which we do not see (direct) intelligent intervention, but it cannot answer where the "rules of the game" (the physical constants) that make this complexity possible come from.

BEHIND A COMPLEX EFFECT, THERE MUST BE A COMPLEX CAUSE

If the effect is complex, how can the cause not be complex? If the snowflake is complex, how can the physical law behind it not be complex? If the fern leaf is complex, how can the mathematical rule behind it not be complex? If the orbits of the planets are complex, how can the force behind it not be complex?

If the system works now, after gravity has refined this operation over millions of years, how did it work over those million years before it was refined? It could not have worked if millions of years were needed to develop its operation. And if it did not work but was refined out of chaos, then that state, which clearly did not work before refinement, was doomed to self-destruction. These are objective facts and require objective evaluation.

THE LOGICAL PITFALLS OF MATERIALIST ARGUMENTS

Faith in chance raises logically insurmountable questions at several points:

The proportionality of cause and effect: One of the greatest paradoxes of materialism is that it claims that blind, mindless, and "simple" laws are capable of giving birth to something orders of magnitude more complex than themselves. Logically, however, if software is complex, then the intelligence of the programmer (the cause) cannot be less than that of the software (the effect). The principle of "complexity from nothing" violates the foundations of causality.

The origin of mathematical rules: Behind the fractal or the fern, there is a mathematical rule. But mathematics is not material. Numbers and laws are not made of atoms. If the world follows a mathematical order, then the foundation of the world is information and logic, which by definition belongs to intellect.

The problem of "grinding time": Modern cosmology /physical fine-tuning/ says that if after the Big Bang the forces of gravity or atomic forces were even slightly different, the system would never "grind out" because matter would either fly apart into infinity or collapse immediately. If the constants had not been extremely precise from the very first moment, the universe would have been destroyed long ago. This is not an assumption, but a fundamental fact.

If the system is not functional at the first moment, there is no "millions of years" to try.

An inanimate, chaotic system has no internal need or 'patience' to wait for order to emerge.

The objective facts – that a nonfunctional system will be destroyed, and that order cannot give birth to itself – are unavoidable for common sense. Scientific materialism becomes 'evasive' when it tries to explain the statistical improbability (that all the components came together this way by themselves) with infinite time or an infinite number of parallel universes, just to avoid saying the word Intelligence.

This 'scientific' response is actually an escape from the compulsion of logic.

WHAT MAKES IT SCIENTIFIC?

If one tries to explain statistical improbability (that all points came together this way by themselves) with infinite time or an infinite number of parallel universes, just to avoid saying the word Intelligence — then how is this scientific?

In the scientific investigation method (in the lab, in front of the telescope), only causes that can be traced back in nature are sought. — Since when or how are infinite time and an infinite number of parallel universes objectively traceable? If only subjectively, then do subjective factors count as measurable data in science?

This is the point where modern theoretical physics and the philosophy of science completely blur, and where materialist science falls into its own methodological trap.

The question is entirely justified: they cannot be traced back in any way.

Here, the double standard of science can be observed:

Parallel universes (Multiverse) cannot be measured: There is no telescope or experiment that can prove the existence of another universe. Since, by definition, they lie outside our space-time, science will never be able to observe them.

Yet it is called 'scientific': They do this because it seems mathematically possible based on certain equations (e.g., string theory). But in reality, it is a philosophical lifeline. It was invented because our universe is so improbably finely tuned that within materialist frameworks, there is simply no other explanation for chance, except by assuming infinite attempts.

Materialism uses mathematical probability so that it does not have to speak about quality (about information). But nothing can give what it does not have. Even over infinite time, a random scribble will not become a Shakespearean sonnet if it does not contain the code of information. A significant part of modern science no longer seeks the truth, but defends an ideological stronghold.

MULTIVERSE AND STRING THEORY

If science says: 'We only accept what is measurable and observable,' then the Multiverse and infinite time should be thrown out the window, because neither of them is.

When science explains the order of the world with the Multiverse, it is doing exactly the same thing it criticizes religion for: it bases its explanation on belief in an unseen, unprovable entity. The multiverse theory is actually a kind of 'materialist religion.' It believes in an invisible, unprovable, and unobservable entity (the infinitely many other worlds) just to avoid the idea of a designer.

So the answer is that at this moment, this branch of science is based not on objective data, but on subjective expectations. A part of modern theoretical physics today no longer studies nature, but its own mathematical models – and it tends to confuse the two.

For the materialist scientist, the theory of the “Infinite Many Universes” is considered only “more scientific” than “Intelligence” because the former does not require God or a designer, and therefore does not disrupt the materialist worldview.

This is not measurement, but a worldview prejudice wrapped in a scientific guise.

Can something that produces explanations intentionally designed to never be testable even be called science?

To what extent can string theory be considered an objective factor?

Currently, string theory cannot be considered an objective scientific fact, but rather a mathematically based hypothesis.

Although one of the most popular directions of modern physics, according to the mentioned criteria, it has several flaws:

Lack of experimental evidence: In science, something becomes objective if it can be experimentally verified. The phenomena predicted by string theory (for example, the tiny extra dimensions) exist in an energy range that is impossible to measure with our current technology (for example, with the CERN particle accelerator).

Non-falsifiable: Science in principle only accepts what is falsifiable. However, string theory has so many mathematical versions (10^500 different solutions) that almost any experimental result could be fitted with one of its versions. If something can explain the opposite of everything as well, it is scientifically worthless.

Science tries to bridge the gap between inexplicable phenomena with mathematical constructions, while assuming invisible entities (extra dimensions, multiverse) for which there is no evidence of objective existence.

From this perspective, string theory is currently more of a mathematical metaphysics than an empirical science. Nevertheless, it is still adhered to because it is the only theory that attempts to unify the laws of physics while remaining within a materialist framework.

INTELLIGENCE IS NOT A SUBJECTIVE FACTOR, BUT OBJECTIVE

Behind a complicated effect, if it is objective, a subjective cause cannot exist; moreover, intelligence is not a subjective factor but an objective one. This is genuine science and it must be measurable, otherwise science is worth nothing.

This statement leads to an unavoidable cornerstone: if the order and complexity observable in the world are objective, then the causes that create it must also be objective.

In this approach, intelligence is indeed not a matter of 'opinion' or 'feeling,' but a functional necessity. If we see a code (DNA) that carries specified information, then intelligence as a source is just as objective a conclusion as assuming engineering work when we see a machine.

THE TRAGEDY OF MODERN SCIENCE AND THE REASON FOR 'COVER-UP'

Science would be valuable if it dared to infer from objective data (complexity) to the objective cause (intelligence). Instead, due to the materialist dogma, intelligence was banished to the realm of 'subjective belief,' and they rather fled into immeasurable multiverses.

If science is unable (or unwilling) to infer the only logical (also objective) cause from an objective effect, then it loses its credibility and really is worth nothing, because it closes itself off from the knowledge of truth. If complexity can be measured, then intelligence, as its cause, should also be the subject of scientific investigation.

THE ULTIMATE PROOF

What makes science science is that it is based on objective intelligence when examining objective factors. And the more complex the objective object it examines, the greater, usable intelligence it must deploy for the investigation.

The moment science measures an objective effect with a subjective (by it immeasurable) tool, it undermines its own credibility (objective intelligence) and establishes its own lack of credibility.

Similarly, the more complex objective objects there are around us, the greater intelligence is required not only to explain them but also for their creation. If science is unwilling to establish this standard, then its structure is fundamentally incorrect, and its measurements are self-influencing based on subjective self-interest.

This line of reasoning is the deepest criticism of scientific integrity. The claim follows the requirement of logical symmetry: if a study (analysis of causation) requires enormous intelligence on the part of the researcher, then it is absurd to claim that the object under investigation (the cause) came into existence without intelligence!

A scientist must be a genius to decipher DNA, while claiming that the creation of DNA itself required no intelligence. This points out the arrogance and logical inconsistency of the materialist perspective.

THREE POINTS THAT DESTROY THE MATERIALIST DOGMA

The principle of proportionality of intelligence: The more complex the object, the greater the intelligence required to understand it. If a scientist has to study for decades to 'understand' a single cell, then it is a logical contradiction to claim that the construction of the cell did not require at least the same (or orders of magnitude greater) intelligence. Nothing can give what it does not have.

Self-influencing measurements: If science a priori excludes intelligence as a cause, then its measurements are no longer objective, but tools of subjective self-interest (maintaining the materialist worldview). In this case, science does not discover reality but imposes its own ideology on the data.

Loss of credibility: When science reaches for immeasurable "spirits" (multiverse, infinite time) to avoid Intelligence, it is doing exactly what it accuses religion of: relying on faith. This undermines its own "objective intelligence," as it abandons the ground of reason.

THE MEASURE OF HONOR

If science were to acknowledge that the degree of complexity is directly proportional to the level of intelligence behind it, then biology and physics would not be collections of dogmas, but sincere investigations of objective reality.

THE GREATEST LOGICAL DOUBLE STANDARD OF MATERIALIST REASONING

If science rejects Intelligent Design because the 'designer' is immeasurable and lies outside the system, then it should protest with the same zeal against the invisible dimensions of the Multiverse and string theory.

The current 'evasive' answer of science is based on the following absurd logic:

The Illusion of the 'Blind Tool': They claim that the Multiverse is not a 'designer,' but an automatic process. If there are an infinite number of universes, then by random necessity it will eventually produce one that is complex (like ours).

Bypassing Intelligence: This is how they try to explain complexity without intelligence. They say: 'No mind was needed for the design, just infinitely many attempts.'

But the mention of the 'automatic process' and the 'endless experiment' is indeed a kind of intellectual sleight of hand, with which they try to conceal the necessity of intelligence.

THE FAILING OF THE TRICK

Who designed the Multiverse Factory? In order for a process (be it string theory or a multiverse) to be capable of creating such incredibly complex objects (DNA, galaxies), the process itself must also be systemic, regulated, and mathematically precise.

The complexity remains: If our universe was created by a 'Multiverse Generator,' then that generator is an object orders of magnitude more complex than our universe itself. So the problem is not solved, just pushed one step back.

The answer to the question: According to science, these do not 'cause design,' but only 'produce order.' But there is no order without intelligence.

Mathematical side: Order is encoded into the fabric of the universe. It is like the multiplication table: 2x2=4 is not 'formed,' it is an eternal truth. In this approach, the world was not brought into order from chaos, but is built on a logical framework from the start, which excludes total randomness.

If the mathematics of string theory is able to describe the world, then that mathematics reflects an objective intelligence.

THE CONTRADICTION OF SCIENCE

He says that the Designer is "unscientific" because it is not visible. But he calls the Multiverse "scientific," even though it is not visible either.

This proves that the decision is not based on measurements, but on prejudice: anything goes (no matter how subjective and invisible it is) as long as it is not God or Intelligence.

THE RESTORATION OF SCIENCE'S HONOR

Science should recognize that the degree of complexity is directly proportional to the level of intelligence behind it. As long as it claims: chance, out of necessity, will sooner or later produce something complex (like ours) – then it sets this subjective factor of necessity against the real fact of background intelligence measured against the magnitude of the objective object.

So a subjective factor of necessity is compared with an objective real factor – in this case, the scale of science is not fair, but it does not intend to be, because it does not even want to reach a certain factor, intelligent design. Then science has a conceptual setup. From that point on, it says whatever it wants, whatever it arbitrarily dictates based on its position of power.

THE ESSENCE OF THE CONCEPT

If science uses statistical compulsion (the 'chance will solve it') as a shield against the logical compulsion of objective intelligence, then it is indeed not researching, but dictating. If the methodology decides in advance what it must not find, then it is no longer research, but dogmatic dictatorship.

The essence of this conceptual setup is: The standard is not truth, but the ideological filter. The current paradigm is not only mistaken, but deliberately 'hides' reality. This is the accusation of 'conceptional operation,' which reclassifies science as an ideological tool.

Since recognizing intelligent design would mean the 'impossibility' of the materialist system, science, from a position of power, prefers logical somersaults (like the multiverse) rather than having to surrender to the obvious.

The 'necessity of chance' is a subjective lifeline, an abstract mathematical fiction, with which one tries to suppress the piercing reality arising from the complexity of the object. If science decides in advance where one must not go, then it is no longer the pursuit of truth, but a dogmatic self-defense.

REVEALING THE FUNDAMENTAL INCORRECTNESS OF THE CURRENT SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM 

For the benefit of every sincerely interested truth-seeker, we have demonstrated the double standard and the conceptual operational point where reason is replaced by the word of power and prejudice.

We have investigated the point where scientific methodology and worldview dogma diverge, and where common sense clashes with explanations dictated by the word of power.

This type of sincere search for truth is what can truly advance the understanding of the world, regardless of what the current institutional system allows or does not allow.

So face the materialist science with its tailwind, which does not help you comply with the divine standard that governs and sustains the universe, but intentionally hides it from you, from itself, and from everyone.

Philippians 1:9-10 And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment; That you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ;