The Dominant Paradigm of Modern Science (DPMS)

November 5, 2016

Terribly sorry old friend, but I’m here to destroy your paradigm.


In science and philosophy, a paradigm /ˈpærədaɪm/ is a distinct set of concepts or thought patterns, including theories, research methods, postulates, and standards for what constitutes legitimate contributions to a field.

The dominant paradigm of modern science (DPMS) involves 5 main leaps of faith:

  1. The evolutionary origin of humanity
  2. Heliocentricity
  3. The decay constant
  4. Stars are distant suns, galaxies etc.
  5. God is an optional extra

None of these leaps of faith can be proven. They are designed to feed each other a stream of apparently coherent logic that makes it seem as if the theoretical construct is complete and all-encompassing, but it is actually just circular reasoning. Each of the first 4 concepts are designed to feed the next. The 5th isn’t part of the logical construct, it’s just an observation. The 4 steps build on each other in a cyclical way but the development of the rationale follows the historical development of the philosophy of science and the advancement of technology. The great thing about circular reasoning is that at least we’re not wasting anything, right? Reduce, reuse, recycle…

The belief that humans evolved stems from a desire to deny that we are accountable to God. This belief is as old as the early Greek philosophers.

A major step in the development of a sound rationale for the construction of a paradigm of godless existence is heliocentricity. The belief that the earth orbits the sun. There is no greater confirmation that we were created by God than if the earth is at the center of creation. The main way to demonstrate heliocentricity, or that the earth is moving, is to measure stellar parallax. However, this can be interpreted in two very different ways. Kepler and Galileo developed the rationale for believing this. Geocentricy and heliocentricity are now both plausible explanations for the apparent order in our cosmos. The reason why heliocentricity became the dominant paradigm is because it fulfils the human desire to be free from the judgement of God, in theory at least.

Two possible ways to understand Stellar Parallax

Two possible ways to understand Stellar Parallax

Back to evolution and we have Darwin and Wallace’s natural selection providing a mechanism. Lyell provides the narrative for a long geological time scale. This includes circular reasoning regarding how fossils are used to “date” rocks based on assumptions about primitive vs. advanced forms, and the rocks are used to “date” the fossils. Rutherford produces a way to generate dates for the rock samples based on the assumption of an ancient earth. If, as the rationale goes, radioisotopes have always decayed at the same rate, then we can calculate an age for the earth of 4.6 billion years. However, it is impossible to prove that the decay constant is in fact constant. It is a desire, it is the hope. Science has taken several leaps of faith.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)

So the hope is that there is no God, and that we live in a vast cosmos where humans evolved. Faith itself is the evidence of what is hoped for. The substance of the dominant paradigm of godless existence is not the physical evidence, because that can be interpreted in favor of creation, it is the people themselves who choose to believe it.

We have already assumed that the cosmos has to be older than the earth, and we have assumed that stars are distant suns. There is no proof of anything at this point, we have a circle of logic that just keeps getting bigger and bigger, but that is still circular.

Once we have decided to believe in stellar parallax and we begin to explore the universe with bigger and bigger telescopes we find all kinds of celestial bodies that have to be explained. If there is a speck of light that we have decided is a distant sun, then we launch a new telescope and look at it and find out that beyond it is a cloud of smoke, what are we to think? Maybe it isn’t a distant sun? No, the DPMS is absolutely resolved to concoct any fiction necessary to account for it. So we have to decide that it is an even more distant nebula where the birth of galaxies occurs. Great, but our assumption of its size does something to our geometry so that now it has to be billions of light years away. Logically that means that the light that we are seeing from it is 5 billions years old. Guess what? it’s spectra matches that of our sun, therefore the ratio of radio isotopes was exactly the same 5 billion years ago when the light was emitted. We proved our point, right?

Not really. It’s still just a cloud of smoke. Do you see what happened? It is circular reasoning on a multi-disciplinary grand scale. We can’t prove that the stars are distant suns. We can’t prove that there are objects light years away. Stars are planetary bodies and clouds of dust in the Kuiper belt that reflect light. We can’t measure distance, we use geometry to calculate distance based on what we assume the nature of stellar objects is. That’s where we get the supposed light years from. They don’t actually exist. They are required by the parameters set by the DPMS. We didn’t prove that the earth is 4.6 billion years old. We let one assumption feed the other so that it looks like a compelling case for an ancient earth.






You Might Also Like


  • Reply trog69 November 24, 2016 at 4:04 pm

    Is this a too-early April Fools prank post? It must be, as there isn’t anything presented that is reasoned, rational, or coherent.

  • Leave a Reply

    %d bloggers like this: