Keeping Science on the Rational Highway

Evidence that Science is veering away from Rationalism:

….Case 1 – The Moon and Solar System Origin

The moon has been proposed as the key to unlocking the solar system. This was a major justification for the Apollo Programme. This successful and far-sighted project, along with other space probes (mostly U.S.), have indeed opened the door of planetary origin. Yet the “official” result has bordered on confusion. Here is an abbreviated list of the questions the long-established theory — moon capture — appears to answer.

Q.1 Why is the earth-moon system unique in our solar system? (Capture allows individuality).

Q.2 Why has the earth’s spin rate not been drastically cut through tidal interaction with the moon? (Insufficient time).

Q.3 Why is the moon not in the plane of the earth’s equator? (Insufficient time).

Q.4 Why is the moon not in a geostationary orbit? (Insufficient time).

Q.5 Why is a planet like Mercury missing half its rock and moving fast in an unusually inclined orbit? (Perhaps it suffered rock sloughing and impact).

Q.6 Why is the earth not missing its rock and is not in an inclined orbit? (Perhaps it did not suffer sloughing and major impact).

Q.7 What could have quickly ‘tamed’ a newly introduced, careening moon? (Repeated passage through a primordial, earth-orbiting disc of icy bodies).

Q.8 Why are the moon’s craters not evenly, randomly distributed over its surface, as one would expect from random meteorite impacts? (Some impacts were part of the transport and orbit correction process, and therefore not random).

Q.9 What was the source of the vast quantities of CO2 and other atmospheric compounds essential to life on earth over the past 550 mil. years? (Those icy bodies orbiting earth at the time of moon capture).

Q.10 Following the event which terminated the Pre-Cambrian, approx. 550 million years ago, why did:

  • complex life explode into existence?
  • continents suddenly begin to move relatively quickly?
  • the earth’s magnetic field (probably) become more focused?
  • a probable all-pervasive global ice-age end?
  • land-planing and global inundation by sea occur?

(These things are in some way linked to moon arrival).

Q.11 Why does the lunar ‘soil’ contain evidence of an inexplicably strong past sun? (The moon was closer to the sun for most of its existence).

Q.12 Why do (sampled) rocks of the earth and moon have a common oxygen isotope ‘signature’? (A common donor planet provided material to both).

This is an abbreviated list of the answers moon capture appears to provide. New data arriving mid-2011 is harmonious with this model.

So why is the science public relations machine turning away from its own expert advice? Is it because moon capture implies a rational universe, rather than a Harry Potter universe?

….Case 2 – Speciation

For more than 50 years it has been known that a species is essentially an information programme working inside a living cell. One species can theoretically be changed into another by signalling information. Recent advances have clearly pointed to the processes involved. Yet the ‘official’ opinion is that the transformation of one species into another is a mystery.

Why is intelligent signalling of information a mystery? Is it because intelligent signalling is rational? Would scientists really prefer one species to turn into another, as if by magic?

….Case 3 – Species Extinction

There is evidence to link environmental pressure to the rise and fall of species. But have we gone overboard? The common explanation is that species were driven into existence through environmental pressure and driven out of existence through environmental pressure. Do we detect a contradiction here?

Various calamitous events — intense volcanism, climate change, meteor strikes, influxes of cosmic radiation, and so on — undoubtedly affected life. Do such events account for the selective removal of one species, but not another? Some extinctions seemingly were not caused by a blunt instrument.

So, are sharp instruments built into nature?

At least one cogent theory of selective species removal has been proposed. It is built around the nervous and orientation systems of organisms, combined with variations in the earth’s magnetic field (Jacobs J.A., 1984, Reversals of the Earth’s Magnetic Field, Adam Hilger Ltd., Bristol. See chapter on extinctions). Jacobs’ idea was that the orientation systems of organisms became accustomed to a long period of non-reversal and the re-commencement of frequent reversal resulted in some organisms becoming more disoriented than others. The question of extinction will remain clouded, until we have a better understanding of biology.

Why select a blunt instrument when a sharp instrument is available?

….Case 4 – Climate

This random, nonsensical, chance-derived outcome of natural accidents – if this is how one chooses to view the planet’s origin – has capably handled many more than a thousand times its current atmospheric reserves of CO2 – a greenhouse gas – without deviating once from the narrow band of temperatures amenable to life. All this time, it kept its ocean salt-content within similar rigorous limits – with salt constantly leaching in from the land masses. We have barely begun the story.

The world’s weather is known to cycle in time, and no correlation to greenhouse gases has been clearly established.

There are sound climate theories. For example, the earth’s atmosphere is a slightly magnetic fluid and there is some basis for suspecting a link between weather, magnetism and solar activity. Further, slight variations in the earth’s orbit are bound to have their effect. The idea that life could accidently survive for over four thousand million years, only to be threatened by a relatively small increase in certain atmospheric compounds, is comparable to evicting a mouse when a hippopotamus is in the house. Once again, does the matter devolve onto the question — is there rationality out there or does Harry Potter rule?

Does this speak of the patient’s condition?

. . . . . . . . . . .A nonsensical past, a nonsensical future?

Are we going to be

suffocated through poisoning of the atmosphere?

drowned through melting of the icecaps?

frazzled by a nearby exploding star?

blasted by meteor/comet impact?

scorched through magnetic field failure?

We shall answer these questions via a detour. The mystery of the Christian Religion is touched on in a beautiful statement by the man of God, J.G. Lake (1870-1935). ‘The life of the Christian, without the indwelling power of the Spirit in the heart, is a weariness to the flesh. It is an obedience to commandments and an endeavour to walk according to a pattern which you have no power to follow. The christian life that is lived by the impulse of the Spirit of Christ within your soul, becomes a joy, a power, and a glory.’

True Christianity embodies much more than a mere system of beliefs and commandments. Central to the Christian Faith is the Word of God, the Bible, which has been miraculously, accurately preserved. The Bible has overwhelming relevance to the successful functioning of society and is the basis upon which modern democracy and modern technology were founded.

Elements within the ancient Roman Empire employed every means imaginable to obliterate Christianity and banish the Word of God. Civilisation, as it was then known, was obliterated. We still have the Word of God. State enforced religion of the Middle Ages was soon overtaken by a mafia cabal with methods at times almost as bad as those of heathen Rome. In 1199 Pope Innocent III ordered the burning of all Bibles. Men in those times died like flies and sometimes didn’t live much better than flies. We still have the Word of God, and biblically inspired democracy has made inroads against despotism. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Islamic Militants, etc. etc. . have had no more success in evicting the Word of God from this earth than did their predecessors in history. Whenever men have tried to destroy the Truth, they have only succeeded in destroying their own welfare.

A minority of technical references today deliberately attack the Bible. Even world-leading science publishers have permitted their authors to distort and misquote the Bible and to misrepresent the beliefs and attitudes of their scientific forebears. This blatant departure from scholarship only appears to happen in relation to the Bible — no other document. This departure from sound scholarship and from humble acceptance of the advice of superiors is not confined to elements within technology. Quite obviously, some of those who are engineering our laws and guidelines for society have the same problem.

History testifies that rather than abolishing the Word of God they will abolish their own welfare.

Perhaps we can take guidance from Galileo, whom many regard as the father of modern science. ‘ He was a christian Platonist as far as scientific method was concerned. This is why he praised Copernicus repeatedly in the Dialogue for his belief in the voice of reason, although it contradicted sense experience. Such a faith rested on the conviction that the world was the product of a personal, rational Creator who disposed everything according to weight, measure and number. This biblically inspired faith was stated by Galileo most eloquently in the closing pages of the First Day of the Dialogue. There he described the human mind as the most excellent product of the Creator, precisely because it could recognize mathematical truths. This faith is possibly the most precious bequest of the great Florentine…on the night of January 8th 1642, with philosophical and christian firmness he rendered up his soul to its Creator, sending it, as he liked to believe, to enjoy and to watch from a closer vantage point those eternal and immutable marvels which he, by means of a fragile device, had brought closer to our mortal eyes with such eagerness and impatience’ (Encyclopedia of World Biography 2nd Ed. 1998, eds. Byers, P.K. Bourgoin, S.M. & Walker N.E., Vol. 6, p. 182).

       Case 5 – Academic Ostriches?

Outcomes of P. Heywood’s Correspondences with Learned Institutions

The Origins Question, like some other questions, is both sensitive and complex. Some of the greatest men of science – Sir Isaac Newton being one – were convinced 24-hr day Creationists. Some of the greatest, scriptural, most powerful men of religion did not hold that particular view. One standard-bearer for freedom of religious and political expression – Martin Luther – condemned the work of Copernicus and Galileo because it certainly appeared to contradict the literal reading of Scripture. At the same time, the power-motivated “official Church”, whilst no stickler for scriptural accuracy, condemned both these men, and Luther. During Victorian Times, with the science of fossil studies growing and men such as Sir Richard Owen proposing species revelation under a creatively pre-pro grammed mechanism, 24-hr Creationism was backstaged. Officially, Science was creationist. Owen, a man reportedly with religious sympathies, seems not to have employed the one certain authority – the Word of God as it is written – perhaps hoping his own reputation as a scientist would uphold his thesis? This in combination with an accusation of departures from scientific professionalism, later in life, damaged his cause. Darwin, meanwhile, a man who at first enrolled in training for church work, eventually became the catalyst for a gentlemanly, partly unscriptural, simple, populist theory. Clearly, a populist but scripturally contradictory theory could only have one effect on the 24-hr creationist stakes. What in Victorian Times was perceived to be only worth a dime, soon became a dollar.

Some may ask, why the Almighty didn’t make it clear from the outset, so that there would be no controversy? The answer is self-evident. A man will never know God through technicalities. Why, then, are the technicalities there? For a technical purpose. There are facts about man’s body and his planet that can only be confirmed by divine revelation. And even the technicalities in the Word of God speak to his honour, and witness to his works in the lives of men. Following are examples of some of the many letters sent by Philip Heywood to various science-religion-education bodies. Although, as will be noted, very few effective responses have as yet been forthcoming, we need not imagine that no responses have been received. Human responses in this department tend to be the same as they have been since Copernicus. Although you will find these correspondences in what is hopefully a slightly amusing setting, please do not take this as a reflection on anyone’s character.


Darwin vindicated in the 21st Century! – even the mildest external pressure applied to the formerly upright Croweii Adinfiniticus has resulted in it putting its head in the sand after the manner of the common ostrich. Appended are a few illustrations of this puissant phenomenon. These letters are a product of a decade or two of attempting to contact Adinfinitical Croweii, particularly those colonies and individuals which have been scratching and finding worms in the rich verbo-pile of sciento-religious philosophy. The author of this article would happily and anonymously have donated his meagre worms to those birds already active at the site; but over two decades he could never attract their attention. When approached, they place their heads under the pile – an environmentally driven adaptation clearly paving the way for them to become fully-fledged ostriches.

Artist’s record of recent discovery of a species showing ostrich-like tendencies

Through the swirling jargonmist we glimpse yet more convincing evidences of the vicissitudes of the species…

Here at the unique Galapagaggies we observe the wafflebarons, some biasing their concoctions with jam, some with cream, and all unanimous in their assertion: “Aha! Yours is done in polyunsubstanturated fact!” Here we also catch glimpses of the elusive Croweii Adinfiniticus, often heard but never caught and held to something concrete. These ephemeral products of evolution, when not searching for earth-terms and term(inology)-ites in the verbo-pile, lay egg-ucational conundrums. A relationship has been documented between the frequency of the ululations of this remarkable transitory bird and the production of waffle.

Copy of two of the more recent messages sent to Australian educational organisations such as CSIRO, the Australian Museum, the ABC’s science division and the Australian Science Teacher’s Association. It is rare for such organisations to even acknowledge the receipt of these messages: A.S.T.A. refuses to accept or acknowledge offers of paid advertisement. Amongst the incredible baggage the Australian taxpayer carries, could there be some stud birds?

Hello at CSIRO and The Helix, from P. Heywood, dabbler in origins science (mainstream). Below is a largely self-explanatory message sent to the Australian Museum. Some years ago, when a previous Helix editor ran an article highlighting Prof. Plimer’s anti-“creation science” efforts, I sent materials which I presume were unused. It certainly wouldn’t have been difficult, then, to set the record straight – without mentioning me – simply by owning to the possibility that we don’t know everything yet. We certainly don’t. The official and correct CSIRO stance, of course, is that it doesn’t involve itself in religion. It did then – under a retired editor – and to my knowledge it has never taken the simple steps to set the record straight. Please correct me if I am misinformed. Life goes on, of course, and not only does the Common Donor — Capture Theory of moon origin stand unchallenged and enhanced by new findings; the actual processes involved in the sequential revelation (evolution) of the species can now be dimly perceived. I was able to predict several things – such as free water on the early earth (confirmed by analysis of an Australian mineral grain, and all but conclusive support of Capture); superconductivity in iron through pressurization (possible implications for the magnetic field); and capability of living cells to receive intelligence from the sun’s radiation in concert with the earth’s magnetic field – see SpaceDaily, several weeks past, “A Bird’s Eye View”. I am just checking with CSIRO again to give you the opportunity to at least provide some sort of usefull criticism/feedback, or to utilize these facts in your (quality) educational efforts.

To Whom it may Concern, Aust. Museum,
I have a B.Sc. (hons) in geology & am also trying to do something about biodiversity by running a farm without knocking down all the trees and plowing all the land. By experience, the problem with biodiversity is primarily economics, with greed being a factor in some unfortunate cases. Whether or not the new vegetation regulations are anything but a penalty against enviro-friendly landowners, time, and the compensation outcomes, will tell. I tell you what you already know – to lose the biodiversity in these Brigalow Lands is a real tragedy. It can be stopped, but how do we answer the economic demand for ever-increasing production whilst leaving land unused? To come to the point.
I left a note in the visitor’s Book. The religious department at the top of the Aus. Mus. was better in August this year than when I visited several years ago. At that time Darwin’s book was being mounted on its well-lit pedestal and a steady stream of high-school students – today’s new teachers and scientists – was filing past this newly enshrined tome, and amongst other things, a depiction of their proposed near-human ancestors, a couple of whom were mating in the scrub, like indiscriminate animals. Shades of that Mardi-Gras they run in your neck of the woods. This August, the visual stimulus to our youth to act the moral nondescript didn’t hove into my view, for which someone possibly should be congratulated. Animal behaviour stimuli aside — if something is obviously an unassailable fact, why mount it on a pedestal? Why Darwin, and not Newton’s Laws of Motion, or Einstein’s Theories of Relativity? All facts of science are ultimately self-evident and harmonious with the human intellect. They don’t need stage-lit pedestals, or even incense. The reason for the special – some would suggest, quasi-religious – attention being given to Darwinism, is Darwinism’s deficiencies. It’s 150 years old, and its mechanisms haven’t been updated. Darwin himself probably would not approve of this neglect of his own theory. I think we can safely assume that no rational person – which all proponents of the various evolutionary theories aspired to be – wishes to be remembered for believing either that life generates spontaneously, or that one species can create another. Egg-beaters don’t create cakes, and in analagous sense, evolution doesn’t create species.
The late Professor Dorothy Hill, arguably Australia’s most illustrious palaeontologist to date, successfully contributed to the world’s leading publications without (to my knowledge) stating or even implying the mode of origin of the organisms she so capably described. Thereby she showed understanding of evolution. The more one understands of a complex and obscure topic, the less one has to say about it.
I have attempted to say something about it myself, which will perhaps lead to a notoriety which the good Professor wisely avoided. Technology has advanced since her times. The mechanisms of species transformation are conjectural at this stage, but I suggest they are definitely beginning to hove into view. I have published books, and the Internet site . These published materials are self-explanatory. They are at the Museum’s disposal.

On a slightly different tack — if someone there would like to know, how, by an elementary process of logic and observation, I think we can be all but definite that humans have inhabited Australia no more than 2,000 years and probably much less, please ask. It has to do with counting the number of artefacts actually discovered here, and examining that number in the light of the likely population density.
Another question that may interest someone: Why does the human species leave a fossil record which can be interpreted as a gradual progression from ape-like creatures? The exact biologic processes remain obscure, but we are not entirely in the dark in addressing this question – and many similar ones.
Don’t let the Museum and Australia’s educators and scientists of tomorrow be left behind.
Sincerely, Philip Heywood.

Responses? The Helix has been known to respond, and who knows what an innovative editor might achieve? However to date the very few responses have been the standard, bureaucratic type — ‘your input has been noted with thanks’ — one can almost visualise the administration of the defence of Singapore, W.W. II, responding to advice in a similar vein. ‘Your information has been filed, and will be consulted at our leisure’ … including, one suspects, standard textbook military procedure, which, if pulled out of the files and not only consulted but acted on at the appropriate time, may even have tipped the balances… . ‘There is a tide in the affairs of men, which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat and we must take the current when it serves or lose our ventures’ – [Julius Caesar, Act IV] Shakespeare was switched on...History waits for no man.

Extract from a message to the Australian Sceptics Society. This part of the letter is an attempt to get people thinking about alternative approaches to a big problem – the perplexing surge of cancer in the modern era. The Challenge mentioned at the end of the extract is the Australian Sceptics’ monetary reward for proof of the paranormal.

To: ‘’; Cc: ‘’; Subject: Can you get me a sceptic?

Information malfunction diseases, radio, magnetism, and electromagnetic signalling of information. The background, as mentioned above, is on . This very important matter appears to rank a passing note in the Bible itself — confirmation of its rationality and relevance. We probably know even less of this topic than of the electro-biology behind water “divining”. Several points may be noteworthy.

a). The Scriptures link the sun (all wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation), the moon (planetary magnetic fields), information failure, and sickness. Cancer-type diseases fit. Of course, one can never plumb the full depth of meaning of any part of God’s Word. We shall make an attempt.

b). Consider cancer – an intelligence malfunction involving mutation combined with failure of the autoimmune system to identify the mutated cells as dangerous. Where is the intelligence failure, exactly?

c). Does the intelligence failure cause the cells to mutate, or does the intelligence failure cause the autoimmune system not to identify the cells as defective? Or both?

d). Knowing nothing, let us try a stab in the dark. Magnetic Resonance Imaging is a ‘mechanical’ process by which the information carried by protons within living organisms is altered. It involves radio and magnetism. It is therefore possible to alter the information status of living cells. Is it possible to so alter the information being carried within a mutated cell, utilizing radio and magnetism, so that the immune system can recognize the defective cell as an enemy?Obviously, this is not clear-cut. I invite you to put your Challenge into a real challenge and invest it in this area of public health. Or in rational science education, origins included.Sincerely, P.H..

The Australian Sceptics’ never replied.

Extract from one of a series of letters to various leading science journals such as New Scientist, Scientific AmericanScience, Nature and National Geographic. Similar letters have also been sent to a range of universities and technical institutes – mostly Australia, U.K., and U.S..

Dear ….. .
Hello .. from the Principal at …… upholding the philosophy of Science as handed down through Galileo, Joule, Faraday, etc.. An amateur who isn’t going away … until organizations such as yours do their job and provide feedback/criticism. To date your organization has acted as though these developments don’t exist — upholding the good old traditions of LemmingThink and HarryPotterScience. You were sent my moon paper years ago – your organization could have had it as its own. If nothing else, I am a lover of Science. Presumably, it was trashed. Fortunately, the World now has the Internet. If I have made major errors, so that the thousands who read about the moon and other matters on my site are misinformed – I am an amateur – I followed due process – a whole battery of learned organizations such as yours refused to check my work. I cordially invite you now to alter that scenario…….. .Perhaps the easiest way for you to get the idea is for me to present a series of questions. By way of setting the scene – the first question; the only one of its type: How often – whether in the times of the ancient Greeks, the middle Ages, or whenever – how often has science or a branch of science been held back by a collective unwillingness to answer specific questions or make cold, hard observations? I.e., Do we humans first consult facts, or pre-conceptions?

Q. What explanation could account for the sun being tilted relative to the System?
Q. ……. The relatively low rotation – rate of the sun?
Q. …… The existence of “flash – melted” grains in asteroids/meteorites?
Q. …… 2 ice – giants that didn’t collect much hydrogen/helium, compared to 2 giants that did?
Q. …… Mercury’s relative high speed and tilted orbit?
Q. …… Major differences in the chemistry and motion of components of the system?

Q. …… If the earth suffered an early, dessicating, cataclysmic impact, how were at least some of its oldest mineral grains formed in the presence of free water?
Q. ….. Why wasn’t it knocked into an inclined or eccentric orbit?
Q. …. Why didn’t the attendant melting result in an earth with no water in its rock and with all heavy metals sunk to the core?
Q. …. If, as the (incomplete) computer models suggest, the giant impactor vaporized, then formed the moon largely from its own remains, why is there a common mathematical relationship between the oxygen isotopes of at least some moon and earth rocks?
Q. ….. How rapidly would a planet such as Mercury be rotating so that, when heated (say) to the melting-point of quartz, it would slough a quantity of surface rock with sufficient force to eject the rock from its gravitational influence, or at least, to throw it into orbit? Would some minor impacts assist such a process?
Q. …. How much rock would need to slough from a planet such as the original Mercury to enable a moon-sized body to form from the slough – product?
Q. …. What are the mechanics of impact(s) that would convert a fast-spinning, partly sloughed Mercury to its present state, whilst throwing large quantities of its rock into the gravitational influence of Earth?
Q. …. How much ice (perhaps dominantly dry ice) and in what configuration would it need to be about the earth, to facilitate successful moon capture? (Suppose an almost over-the-poles, strongly elliptical initial orbit for our moon – if that is what Goldreich & Gerstenkorn envisaged.)
Q. ….. What are the chances of, and where is the objective evidence of, the ubiquitous deep and low-tidal-drag oceans throughout Pre-Cambrian times, necessary to long-association theories of moon origin?
Q. … If the signal change that came over the earth with the termination of the Pre-Cambrian was not moon capture, what was it?

Q. … Is the fossil record of snakes unique? Is any known evolutionary pathway comparable to the origins-pathway of this group?
Q. … Does a fossil record of viruses exist? Are viruses a degeneration, or are they an anti-life, semi-mineral?
Q. ….Does the geologic record contain evidence of abundant microscopic and parasitic forces of the type now militating against life?

Q. … The likelihood (as suggested by the geologic record) of a definite but mysterious link between magnetic reversal frequency and both weather and species extinction – any clues?
Q. ….How do ladybugs of the U.K. “know” (as proved by studies of the depth at which they shelter) whether or not coming winter temperatures will fall below -10?
Q. .. Species are by definition reproductively self-contained or isolated. Yet they were revealed in sequences in which one species was often very similar to the next. Since each species was unique and reproductively self-contained (dogs give birth to cats? you saw one do it?) why were they nevertheless outwardly very similar?
Q. …Take an hypothetical example – say, an eel and a pike eel, or a sheep and a goat. Yes, neither of these examples are in evolutionary sequence, but they will suffice. Theoretically modify the goat’s immune system to allow sheep cells to safely exist within the goat. Theoretically impregnate a female goat with a sheep embryo. Can the “goat” (now in a sense a sheep) theoretically give birth to, and rear, a sheep? Would mothers’ milk adjustment be necessary, or does immune system re-programming take care of it?
Q. …How far off is DNA modification through sophisticated electromagnetic and information technology processes, only?
Q. .. What are the processes involved in living cells, whereby environmental conditions feed back some sort of influence, opening the organism to receival of information specific to those environmental conditions?
Q. … Why do biologic systems have a relationship to the moon?
Q. … What triggered the Cambrian explosion of life?

Some at least of these questions are non-trivial. People out there can think. I look forward to an intelligent evaluation of matters of public interest. Yours sincerely, etc..

Response? One scholarly gentleman – a world leader in his field – found time to put pen to paper to suggest we didn’t have enough information to nail down the moon just yet. Otherwise, nix. Observe, many of these publications and organizations have a record of attacks against “Creation Science”. Some of these attacks arguably are necessary. In these attacks, these organizations often display bias. When invited to set the record straight, they can’t find space even in the Letters To The Editor, merely to allow the possibility of the Bible being a technically relevant document. Not only so, but the possibility of a reliable Bible seems quite unnerving. Why? Is it because of the “correct” social engineering hogswallow that has emanated from many such institutions and publications attacking humanity and the laws of God? Have our academic institutions lost their moorings? These are publications and organizations that claim to be in the tradition of men such as Sir Isaac Newton – who, coincidentally, composed a commentary on part of the Scriptures, and who regarded these writings as more important than his technical works.

Extract from a letter sent to the National Centre for Science Education.(NCSE). The NCSE is one of a suite of organizations – such as the American Civil Liberties Union, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Australian Sceptics Society, TalkOrigins, etc., dedicated to separating fact from fiction. It seems that they, like the remainder of us, are idealogically motivated in their discernment between fact and fiction. TalkReason, an idealistic Internet Publisher mentioned in this letter, seems to be having difficulty measuring up to the high ideals its name implies. TalkOrigins is even more obscure, being better titled, TalkOstriches. The author did hold out hopes that the NCSE was a moderate and professional body dedicated to excellence in education. Unfortunately, bodies fitting that description are almost as rare as teeth in Adinfiniticus Croweii. Some of our educators and their advizors seem to have lost the pathway. Perhaps the best solution is to tackle the sacred cow and hand the money and education back to the parents? Is it time for western Culture to step back and take a long, critical view of itself?

Hello at NCSE. From P. Heywood, c/o , currently the world’s only(?) major, mainstream science, bible-based, educational website. 1st with species origin, 1st with moon origin, etc.. That is, if I haven’t made grave errors, which NCSE as yet has been unwilling to weed out. I had been led to believe that organizations such as yours are not religiously affiliated either in theory or in practice, so you accept the teaching of evolution provided it is non-sectarian and factual. I have yet to see your policy in practice. You are invited to put it into practice. I need expert evaluation – as do the educators who view the materials. Said evaluation will not be forthcoming from “Creation Science”. The philosophy espoused in my materials is only (in general terms) that of Galileo, Newton, Joule, Dalton, Pasteur, Maxwell, Thompson, Faraday, and in some measure, of Einstein, Planck, etc., etc.. What’s yours? For your entertainment. I once visited TalkReason. Their machine must have placed me on their e-mailing list. Dashed inconvenient for a computorially illiterate individual such as I. In trying to get off it I accidentally read parts of their latest blast, a deeply-thought-out and literate expression by some educated types from a university somewhere. The gist of this product of excited grey-matter was that, since processes in Biology are not perfect, Intelligent Design is a wives’ tale. (Sorry,
femino-correct persons.) Their drift was, an intelligent Designer would have got it right, wouldn’t he? (Ouch! again, for the Correct.) Quickly stirring up the one or two surviving neurons, I notified them of the following scientific deductions: 1) Having read their publication, and observing some minor imperfections therein; since any imperfection is proof of no Intelligence being involved in Creation; therefore, no intelligence was involved in the said deep & weighty paper. Obviously, the writing and publishing of this paper was a chance event. 2) So would you folks at TalkReason please delete my address from your E-mailing machine? Don’t feel bad about it – it happened by chance.

Response. Successfull removal of E-mail address! (And, although not related to this letter, the Queensland Science Teachers’ Assoc,. a non- sectarian, mainstream organization, advertized these materials, which, along with a few other publications, places them in a class of their own.)

Extract from a letter sent to approximately 20 scientists associated/affiliated with the U.S. National Aeronautical & Space
Administration (NASA).

Dear …. .
“Common-Donor — Capture Moon Origin”, found under that title on the ‘Net, review requested. Consistent refusal by the normal players to do their job has necessitated self-publication. Said normal players seeminingly have an agenda of irrelevancy. NASA can have this theory as its own if it so desires. Wording can be adjusted. Maths calculations need to be done. Trip to Mercury recommended. Why was P. Goldreich ignored? Giant Impact as full of holes as a colander, as the literature says and the amateur sees. Do we really wish to go back to Aristotle and the middle Ages? Taxpayers can think and Congressmen like to see a result for the investment. We all like to laugh – plenty of opportunities in that department. Science never got a result from fairyland. Ostriches make good cartoon foodstuff – especially when their heads are under the sands of obscurantist mysticism, they are feathered with the taxpayer dollar, and the taxpayer has an idle boot ready to apply to the obvious spot. Science, and Uncle S., need you, now. I look forward to a professional evaluation of moon origin. Best wishes, etc..

Response? One Gentleman replied, and apologised for not assisting.

These are a few examples of repeated efforts to contact organizations active in the origins science arena. None of these organizations openly claim a religious aim or affiliation. What of those that do? The reader may draw his own conclusions. For two decades the author tried in vain to give this away to “Creation Science” — and, indeed, to anyone else who would take it on. The author’s aim is to be an anonymous recluse. My experience with religion as a whole (I do not exclude myself from this evaluation) has led me to three major principles, viz.: As you value your freedom, and almost everything else besides:
1) Maintain separation of Church and State.
2) Maintain separation of Church and State.
3) Maintain separation of Church and State — In the sense the founders of the Australian Constitution meant it.

My experience of good men – the salt of the earth – leads me nevertheless to the conclusion, Let me die the death of the righteous; and let my last end be like his!