Home » Darwinism, Evolution » Episcopalian intelligentsia sucking up to the scientific establishment

Episcopalian intelligentsia sucking up to the scientific establishment

My last post describes 67 scientific academies around the world weighing in to support evolution. Not to be left behind, the Episcopalian intelligentsia and leadership have just done the same.

Both houses, Bishops and Deputies, of the Episcopal Church General Convention have approved the following resolution. The Episcopal Church is therefore now on record in supporting good science, recognizing that biological evolution is good science, and supporting good science education. And if you believe that, you need your head screwed on straight.

Here is the text of the final version:

* FINAL VERSION – Concurred
Resolution A129
Title: Affirm Creation and Evolution

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 75th General Convention
affirm that God is Creator, in accordance with the witness of Scripture and
the ancient Creeds of the Church; and be it further, Resolved, That the
theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation
for the emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of
origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an acceptance
of evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian
faith; and be it further Resolved, That Episcopalians strongly encourage
state legislatures and state and local boards of education to establish
standards for science education based on the best available scientific
knowledge as accepted by a consensus of the scientific community; and be it
further Resolved, That Episcopal dioceses and congregations seek the
assistance of scientists and science educators in understanding what
constitutes reliable scientific knowledge.

The following explanation for the resolution is not part of the Resolves but
was entered with them so that bishops and deputies would have a context for
the resolution:

EXPLANATION

The theory of evolution is broadly accepted by the overwhelming majority in
the scientific community as the most adequate explanation for the emergence
of life on earth, and the ongoing adaptation of life to changes in
environments. For example, knowledge of how evolution functions is essential
in understanding the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics, the resistance
of insects to insecticides, and the appearance of viruses such as HIV and
influenza.

The teaching of evolution is a crucial contribution to the development of
scientific literacy among the nation’s youth, yet state legislators and
state and local school boards continue to challenge, limit, or seek to
supplant the teaching of evolution. Limiting the teaching of evolution in
our schools has the potential to compromise students’ ability to understand
constantly changing living systems, and may undermine, for instance, the
understanding and treatment of diseases of the future.

Since the sixteenth century, Anglicans have described their faith in terms
of the “three-legged stool” of Scripture, Tradition and Reason. The quest to
understand the origins of life on earth, and the forces that drive the
ongoing changes in living organisms involves Reason and is in no way
incompatible with the central truths of Scripture and Christian Tradition.
Episcopalians generally accept that it is appropriate to seek to understand,
through scientific probing, the origins both of the cosmos and life on
earth, and that evolution is a valid explanation of the development of all
living things, including humanity. Several leading Anglican theologians,
past and present, among them priest-scientists William G. Pollard, Arthur
Peacocke, and Sir John Polkinghorne, have shown how an evolutionary world
view can be integrated with a theology of creation. The 67th General
Convention affirmed a belief “in the glorious ability of God to create in
any manner”, and its “support of scientists, educators, and theologians in
the search for truth” (GC Resolution 1982-D090). [Bob's note: this 1982
resolution also rejected "the rigid dogmatism of the 'creationist'
movement".]

* Resolution is final but status and text are still under review before
publication.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

27 Responses to Episcopalian intelligentsia sucking up to the scientific establishment

  1. Gullible is as gullible does.

    Or something like that. ;-)

  2. Here is another example of the competition taking micro-evolution and masquerading it as the whole set of issues. Based on my background in advertising, this would be a point where I would recommend that ID needs a new campaign to differentiate itself from the competition. So far the competition has put ID in a box, which it cannot seem to get out of. We do it partly by ourselves but the competition has more ad dollars than we do so they have ensured that the right message does not get out.

    The readers on this forum all know the correct message but that doesn’t mean the average educated person has any idea of the real set of issues.

  3. That’s okay. They’ve already excised inconvenient verses from Leviticus. Why not move on and excise Genesis? The question is…at what point do they stop being ‘Christian’ and become something else?

  4. Limiting the teaching of evolution in
    our schools has the potential to compromise students’ ability to understand
    constantly changing living systems, and may undermine, for instance, the
    understanding and treatment of diseases of the future.

    I wonder how on earth penicillin was discovered at Saint Mary’s Hospital in London back before the Catholic Church collected the atheist Charles Darwin unto their bosom rejecting the bible as allegory in favor of Darwin’s undemonstrable narrative account of the history of life. Didn’t those Catholic mystics back then reject empirical evidence discovered in their myriad institutes of science and learning?

    Maybe if just tell our children today that the mechanism which allows insects to resist pesticides, allows bacteria to resist our antibiotic toxins, changes the size of finch beaks during extended droughts, causes moth wings to darken to better hide from birds on soot blackened foliage, all the while remaining the same species, isn’t necessarily the same mechanism that transforms bacteria into birds and butterflies. And maybe we can even throw in a little prediction from ID and tell them that no matter how long those antibiotic resistant bacteria plague us they will remain bacteria won’t transmute themselves into flesh eating insects or something.

  5. Let’s not blast the Episcopal position too hard (despite recognizing that the Episcopals are already displaying a painful disreguard for Scriptures reguarding their positions on homosexuality.)

    What is clear is that the Episcopal position is one which is not theologically opposed to ID.

    “the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation.” If the theory of evolution provides a, then there is room for other options.

    “William G. Pollard, Arthur Peacocke, and Sir John Polkinghorne, have shown how an evolutionary world
    view can be integrated with a theology of creation” If an evolutionary world view can be integrated … then at least they are not suggesting that their view of theology obligates evolution, as others like Dr. Morris have done.

    “The 67th General Convention affirmed a belief “in the glorious ability of God to create in any manner”, and its “support of scientists, educators, and theologians in the search for truth”” I fully support scientists in the search for truth. I just think that science, with reguards to NDE, is a bit stuck.

    “Episcopalians strongly encourage state legislatures and state and local boards of education to establish standards for science education based on the best available scientific knowledge as accepted by a consensus of the scientific community” This also seems to be the position of the Discovery Institute, at least on the highschool level. I agree that the ID debate must be a scientific debate, not an educational or theological debate. What I find frustrating is that the scientific community is quite happily prepared to reject the ID position as educational or theological.

    I, an evangelical Christian, would not find it to be a crisis of faith to discover that NDE actually explains all of life post abiogenesis. It would not be a crisis of faith to discover that, given certain circomstances, abiogenesis is inevitable. I do not find the theistic evolutionary position to be theologically unacceptable. I find the NDE position to be scientifically unsupported. I believe that something far beyond RM+NS is requred to produce the biosphere as we know it. I expect that that something is either active agency, or a set of precisely tuned laws, in the tradition of the strong anthropic principle.

    I expect that biology will eventually run out of the ability to believe in NDE alone. Until science gets there, however, I do not, however, want our society to adopt Darwinism as its religous underpinning, because the results of this are desasterous.

  6. Jerry

    Too bad we can’t get the FTC involved. The Darwinian chance worshippers have through false advertising sold microevolution as macroevolution, sold ID as religion, and in the process established a monopoly. All illegal trade practices.

  7. bFast,

    The problem is that the Episcopalians give away the store with sentences like this:

    “and be it further Resolved, That Episcopal dioceses and congregations seek the
    assistance of scientists and science educators in understanding what
    constitutes reliable scientific knowledge.”

    This essentially says that the Darwinists get to say what counts as science and what doesn’t, a question that is at bottom philosophical rather than scientific. And the “science educators” hold as a matter of philosohical first principle that evolution is an undirected, unplanned process, although they occasionally try to conceal the fact for public relations purposes.

    This makes the Episcopalian position opposed to ID because they have ceded the privilege of defining the nature of science to the Darwinists, and the Darwinists say ID isn’t science.

    Ultimately, it makes the Episcopalian position opposed to rational belief in the existence of God Himself, since the Darwinists also claim that everything in existence can be accounted for by undirected, unplanned (non-intelligent) processes, and they claim to know it as a matter of scientific fact. Since the Episopalians have granted the Darwinists a blank check to define the nature of scientific knowledge, they have no basis on which to resist the conclusion that God is an unnecessary hypothesis.

    Cheers,
    Dave T.

  8. Ticiturnus, “This essentially says that the Darwinists get to say what counts as science and what doesn’t” The Episcopal position is that scientists, rather than theologians, determine what is scientifically determined knowledge. This is as it should be. The fact that biology is dominated by NDE evolutionists at the moment, and so is confused at the moment, does not support a position that theologians should displace scientists at determining what hs scientifically determined knowledge. The ID/Evolution debate must be a scientific, not a theological, debate.

    “Ultimately, it makes the Episcopalian position opposed to rational belief in the existence of God Himself, since the Darwinists also claim that everything in existence can be accounted for by undirected, unplanned (non-intelligent) processes” You give biologists FAR too much credit! The physicists have come to a very different conclusion than the biologists have. Cosmology and Christianity fit together most comfortably (with the exception of the age thing if you have a YEC interpretation of Scriptures.) Just because the science of biology is wacked, that doesn’t mean the rest of science is wacked.

  9. bfast-they are clearly drawing a line in the sand and making a point to attack ID. That is in fact the entire point of their little exercise in marketing. They are “branding” their “product”. They are making a political and social statement i.e “We are not ignorant fundamentalist right wing chauvinists”. They clearly want to present themselves as the place to go if you believe in God but revile ” ignorant right wing fundamentalists”. This is all about attempting to gain converts and the benefits converts provide to a church i.e. $$$

  10. bFast,

    I agree that theologians should not define the nature of science. That is a question for philosophy, not theology. What the Episcopalians have said is that scientists get to answer the philosophical question of what counts and doesn’t count as “science.”

    This is more than just allowing biologists to determine what the facts are according to a science of biology that biologists take as given. It grants to biologists the privilege of defining the very nature, meaning and scope of the science of biology. And the biologists say that, in the science of biology, only unplanned, unintelligent processes count as science.

    You may call this “whacked”, but it isn’t according to the Episcopalian position. They have granted to the current majority of biologists the privilege of defining what is and isn’t “whacked” with respect to the nature of science. If you hold to the Episcopalian position, then you must hold that it is ID that is whacked because the “consensus” of current scientists says it is. The question is not about biological facts but the scope and nature of biology itself as a science.

    Now I agree that the current understanding of what constitutes science in biology is whacked – but only because I don’t accept the Episcopalian position that biologists have a special privilege to answer the philosophical (not theological, not scientific) question concerning what makes something genuinely scientific in biology.

    The physicists are irrelevant because they don’t have a dog in this fight.

    Cheers,
    Dave T.

  11. example, knowledge of how evolution functions is essential
    in understanding the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics,

    There is a certain scientist who researched immunology and is former professor. She is the wife of many years of an Episcopal priest.

    Late in her career it dawned on her what she was taught about evolution was all wrong.

    When she revealed her change of heart, her academic career was blugeoned to death by the Darwinists. I wonder if it occured to the Episcopalian leadership that some scientist in their congregations dissent based on science? As a matter of fact I know several of the members of an episcopalian congregation who are practicing scientists and pro-ID.

    The Washington post gave her story:

  12. 12

    Hello Dave T-

    Nice post:
    “This makes the Episcopalian position opposed to ID because they have ceded the privilege of defining the nature of science to the Darwinists, and the Darwinists say ID isn’t science.”

    It’s looking like ID is becoming a fulcrum of division, because it is a clarifying position.

    As I mentioned in post 38 on the “Is Darwinism a Nature Religion” thread, Darwinism is really only compatible with atheism. Not because some form of theistic evolution can’t be right, but because if there is a God, any form of evolution which follows is no longer an undesigned one.

  13. Up is down and down is up, right is wrong and wrong is right, evil is good and good is evil. How long before they self destruct?

  14. for theistic evolutionists (whom Dave Scot has called confused IDists) the distinction is not about whether nature IS designed (yes) but whether we can objectively DETECT that design. (no). Of course, this is silliness of the first order. But it is their position. The designer of nature is, as you say, very, very sneaky indeed…

  15. taciturnus, you said, “The physicists are irrelevant because they don’t have a dog in this fight.” You also said, “Darwinists also claim that everything in existence can be accounted for by undirected, unplanned (non-intelligent) processes.” Biologists only know about biology. They don’t have a claim about “everything in existance.” Once “everything in existance” is the topic of discussion, physicists have a seat at the table, whether they are sitting at it or not.

    In a way it is true that physicists don’t have a dog at this fight. They do have a dog. I hear he’s big and mean, and he truly champions science. Yet I also hear that he’s got ID written all over him.

    Physicists don’t have a dog in this fight for two reasons, biologists don’t want that dog to be in the fight, and we IDers haven’t broght them to the table very well either. Denton has made a valiant attempt to bring the physicists to the table, but for the most part the biological side of ID has left their dog out in the cold. I say, lets bring in the big dog.

  16. bFast,

    The reason I say physicists don’t have a dog in the fight is because they make no claims about design or planning one way or the other. Physics, as a science, says nothing about God either for or against.

    It is true that the science of cosmology leads to interesting philosophical questions. What was around before the Big Bang? If time has a starting point, who or what started it? But physicists do not pretend to have answers to these questions, let alone scientific answers. They understand that such questions are philosophical rather than scientific, even if science is the thing that led us to them. This is proper scientific humility. And when we raise such questions, we aren’t dragging in science, but philosophy, and properly so. The physicist’s dog is not in the fight, but the philosophical dog is.

    The problem in biology is that biologists claim philosophical conclusions as part of their science in a way that physicists don’t. In particular, they claim evolution is “unplanned and unguided”, and they claim this as a scientific principle, not a philosophical one. Well, it isn’t scientific. But how do you dispute their claim if you grant them the privilege of defining what does and does not count as science, the way the Episcopalians have? The biologists dragged in a philosophical dog prentending it is a scientific one, but the Episcopalians grant the biologists the sole role of dog-catcher.

    Cheers,
    Dave T.

  17. Yikes! No wonder Episcopalians are ordaining homosexuals.

  18. What I wonder is whether the scientific establishment is welcoming a theological pronouncement in their field. I thought there was supposed to be such a strong wall of separation between the two.

  19. taciturnus:

    But physicists do not pretend to have answers to these questions, let alone scientific answers. They understand that such questions are philosophical rather than scientific, even if science is the thing that led us to them. This is proper scientific humility.

    You are very correct that physicists draw a hard line, humbly declaring, “we don’t know.” However, there are few who would question the legitimacy of physics as a science. Yet physics begins with the “big bang” theory. This “big bang” theory is a theory that declares that its causation cannot be understood. Yet biology says “you can’t consider saltations, because the cause of these saltations could not possibly be explored” or something like that.

    Physics has brought man to the edge of telicity (oooh got into big trouble over at telic thoughts for that word — guess I didn’t learn my lesson) and basically said, “here are the facts, science cannot interpret them for you, we are limited.” It is a beautiful model of science recognizing the limits of its ability rather than trying to limit the options available for consideration.

    I still say that we need to point to the science of physics as an example of how science should operate — humbly, and with a firm committment to scientific agnosticism.

  20. “For example, knowledge of how evolution functions is essential
    in understanding the …. appearance of viruses such as HIV and
    influenza.”

    How exactly has evolution explained either the origin of life itself or the origin of viruses in particular?

  21. …the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth

    There ya go johnnyb!

    Like these people even know enough about the theory of evolution to say anything intelligible about it =P. i wonder why the Episcopalians don’t allow the Catholics to define their theology for them. What’s the difference? They are relying on what they think someone else knows rather than on what they know themselves.

  22. re #19: “I still say that we need to point to the science of physics as an example of how science should operate — humbly, and with a firm commitment to scientific agnosticism.”

    I agree that physicists are much better in this regard than Darwinists, but don’t forget that many of them tried to make the beginning of the universe go away because of the philosophical and theological implications. These physicists have included Einstein and his “cosmological constant” and Stephen Hawking and his square root of -1 “imaginary time.”

    And don’t forget that some physicists have tried to explain away the fine-tuning of the universe for life with multiverses (e.g., Lee Smolin and his theory of cosmic evolution by the natural selection of black-hole universes).

    But I digress.

    “…the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth…”

    Where did these clowns get this nonsense? No one has the faintest idea how life originated, or even how it COULD have originated. How has this “theory” produced any fruit?

  23. “Episcopalians strongly encourage state legislatures and state and local boards of education to establish standards for science education based on the best available scientific knowledge as accepted by a consensus of the scientific community.”

    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
    – Michael Crichton, 17 January 2003 lecture

  24. These Episcopalians are now officially an apostate sect and may have unwittingly set in motion their own demise. There’s some quite revealing reporting on their just-concluded 75th General Convention, at

    VirtueOnline Correspondent Hans Zeiger reported from Columbus, OH:
    “While addressing a morning Eucharist at the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, Presiding Bishop-elect Katherine Jefferts Schori declared, ‘Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation. And you and I are His children.’

    “With Jefferts Schori as the leader-to-be of the Episcopal Church, it seems that the church will move beyond gender-inclusive language to transgender-inclusive language…”

  25. GilDodgen:

    I agree that physicists are much better in this regard than Darwinists, but don’t forget that many of them tried to make the beginning of the universe go away because of the philosophical and theological implications.

    How true. Physics has come to the ID table kicking and screaming! Even now, they are doing everything they can to avoid the telic consequences of their science. However, truth has prevailed. It will in biology also.

    Emkay:

    These Episcopalians are now officially an apostate sect and may have unwittingly set in motion their own demise.

    The Episcopalians became an apostate state when they welcomed homosexuality, a perspective repeatedly rejected in Scripture. This ID/evolution thing is just a sideshow compared to that. If the Scriptures clearly and repeatedly teach a doctrine, a church cannot abandon that doctrine without becoming apostate.

  26. bFast,

    I’m with you 100% on your post #19… I think this is the first time I’ve been in one of these exchanges that ended in complete agreement!

    Cheers,
    Dave T

  27. 26 Comments »

    Comment by jerry — June 22, 2006 @ 11:33 am

    That’s okay. They’ve already excised inconvenient verses from Leviticus. Why not move on and excise Genesis? The question is…at what point do they stop being ‘Christian’ and become something else?

    comment
    I agree that the ID debate must be a scientific debate, not an educational or theological debate. What I find frustrating is that the scientific community is quite happily prepared to reject the ID position as educational or theological.

    I, an evangelical Christian, would not find it to be a crisis of faith to discover that NDE actually explains all of life post abiogenesis. It would not be a crisis of faith to discover that, given certain circomstances, abiogenesis is inevitable. I do not find the theistic evolutionary position to be theologically unacceptable. I find the NDE position to be scientifically unsupported. I believe that something far beyond RM+NS is requred to produce the biosphere as we know it. I expect that that something is either active agency, or a set of precisely tuned laws, in the tradition of the strong anthropic principle.
    because the results of this are desasterous.

    Comment by DaveScot — June 22, 2006 @ 11:53 am

    Since the Episopalians have granted the Darwinists a blank check to define the nature of scientific knowledge, they have no basis on which to resist the conclusion that God is an unnecessary hypothesis.

    Name: ‘Last Generation’
    Email: Sales @ lastgen.net
    Issue: Vol.16 No. 4 page 29
    Date: Copy right@ 2006 j
    January/Febuary issue

    Comments

    “What shall be sign of thy coming, and the end of the world ? Mathew 24;3″

    Yet massive distaser seem to have paved the way. Could this foreshadow how the kings of the earth might unite with “one mind” to achieve a common agenda?
    Revelation 17: 13.

    A FAREWELL TO AUSTRALIAN LIBERTIES?

    The Australian government has made an unprecedented move to get tough on terrorist , rushing NEW ANTI-TERROR LAWS…without consulting the public”or WARNING “of liberty watchdogs. The new legislation now lets police arrest and immidiatly persecuted suspect “Clearly plainning a terror attack”- even if no specific target had been identified?
    -: The laws were plced on the senate agenda after the London bombings last JULY that killed several Australians.
    … The legislation process itself was cause for alarm as it compromised “our right to take part in Australian’s public political CONVERSATION as citizens…said Tony Kevin, Australian’s former Ambassador… “also that ” these laws are not about somebody else, they are only about intimidating Australian Muslims, though the law will bear down esp hard on them initially.
    Later, the net will widen, to intimidate all of us”forbes.com..CHANGES After Attack WARNING”green left. Org.au NO CHOICE BUT TO PROTEST Howard’s TERROR LAWS,”Nov 2 2005 & minemsn. Com.au,” POLICE MAY ACT NEW TERROR LAWS” Nov 7, 2005.
    The Bible predict that the last world power before jesus’s coming will have authority over all govt to coerce citizen to conform to its dictates.Those who refuse will be persecuted &killed.See Revelation 13:7-8,15 Could Mr. Kevin’s misgivings about A POLICE STATE be prophetic of things to come?
    IMPLANTABLE MICROCHIPS FOR HUMANS
    The U.S. food and drug administration (FDA) recently APPROVED “ the world first human implantable microchip”…the company has shipped seven thousand chips world wide… include the pentagon, the CIA and FBI.This sparked fear of the government using BIOCHIPS TO SPY ON CITIZENS.Time.Biochips for Everyone! ‘ oct 16,2005

    …Yet, what if the technology where to fall into the hards of an autocratic regime? Might it become a tool to spy on people and restrict their liberties?… Could such technology aid this power in its but for world dominion?”

    Re: issue vol.16 No.4 Page 29
    Name:The wise Reminder
    Email: [email protected]
    Organisation:Nigeria Police force comm. ‘B’ Dept west Africa.
    Date: 12,August 2006

    ANSWER

    Comments

    From east and north reporting and greetings. With responds to your millennial dates issue and for possibly approval of your organization,’last Generation’established with some similar teachings of Jordan July 1879 issue.
    Let us without seeking sins and consequences at this time, consider how your questions and issue could be made straight properly and answered appropriately and respectively (numbering the steps with Job 10:1-7,14-18,31:4-8,33-37,applicably,profitably,arguably, relivantly,relatively, unrelaxably, unquitably,compatibly and remindably…with Rev 22:18,19, Prov 30:5,6; Deut 4:2) before your approval. (psalm 5:10-12).
    -Matt12:17-21,:5:17-20; Rom 15:4; 2tim3:16,17; Job15:1-3,5,31,35.

    For your approval & support in equipping the preaching work and directing this society with the early groups and early presidents and associates as well as the activities of the bible students and study helpers. Send your voluntary contributions and donations (matt 12:42, 2ch 4:1; Job 4:11),on this issue of the ‘early rain’ and the ‘late rain’ yet to issue with authority or authoritatively and fastenly, if you wish (Hab2:1-4, James5:7,JOE 2:23,24,Job 29:22-25, Rev 11:5,6, 1:1,22;20; Isaiah60 :22,Hosea 13:13-15, Ecc10:16,17, Matt 24:45,46 ) Sending also your membership photos (with similar indications please) for early groups & presidents &for also overseering if also building on this foundation (1cor 3:10-23) With your various contributions & inquiries be sure there will be no delayed complance & subscriptions and you will never regret investing in your future with Jehovah in Ecc 11:1,2,while making a change in your esterblishment.

    To:
    Job 40 :2,8-24
    ‘The Supreme Executive’:Agbonghae. G.U.
    Mail:N.P.F comm “B” Dept Eleweron P.M.B 2012
    Sapon Abeokuta,Ogun state. Nigeria West Africa
    Email: west_wap @ yahoo.com’Sales’:DHL or money gram accept please, if necessary.
    Contributors: Sender should please notify with mail or E-mails.

    From east and north reporting and greetings.
    Comments/questions on content
    Request for additional information
    Letters to the Editor
    Comments and questions to the webmaster on
    the site content or layout.
    Under the “Popular Science Series” is an attempt to highlight the achievements during the past 50 years of our scientific establishment covered in the main by the CSIR laboratories, the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), the Bhaba Atomic Research Centre (BARC), the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).
    Similarly the atomic and space programmes are treated with historical perspective and presented with a gripping narration. Table I (Indigenous satellites) and Table II (Nuclear Reactors) contain important landmarks, which will be useful to engineering and science students. These three chapters (five, six and seven) rightly occupy one-third of the total 150 pages.
    And which exciting information has been recorded: today, that the INSAT is one of the largest communication satellite systems in the world; India’s successes have been rewarded by its recognition as a “pioneer investor” in deep seabed exploration at the Law of the Sea Conference (U.N.); the success of India’s supercomputer venture that has been its software experts, who are among the best in the world.

    The dark side of Joseph Rybcyzky the greatest thoerist:
    For reasons the author can only surmise, there appears to be a deliberate posture taken on by the scientific establishment to receive the millennium theory with silence. The reader can speculate as to why this would be so. Why would the scientific establishment ignore the only theory that has successfully offered rational explanations for relativistic effects, explanations that are supported by the very same evidence that supports Einstein’s theories? Why would a world renown science institution continue to openly claim that it is not possible to modify Newton’s kinetic energy equation using gamma, even after it was successfully done in the millennium theory? Why did the National Science Foundation show no interest in helping to have the millennium papers peer-reviewed even when this was pointed out to them? One thing is certain; the millennium theory will not go away. Sooner, or later the scientific establishment will have to come to grips with it. They will have to either, show that it is wrong, or give it the recognition it deserves.
    The Mathematical Models used in the Preparation of his Paper
    Relativistic Motion Perspective Example, Dec. 31, 2002 – Feb. 11, 2003 PerspectiveExample6.mcd (See Addendum A)
    Verifying the Proper Use of the Constant Acceleration Distance Formulas, Jan. 1, 2003 – Jan. 8, 2003 PerspectiveEx_poof2.mcd
    Rederivation of Kinetic Energy Formula Based on Perspective Theory Jan. 8, 2003 – Jan. 31, 2003 Perspective Kinetic Energy Formula.mcd
    Developing Constant Acceleration Distance Formulas Based on Stationary Frame Time, Jan. 8, 2003 – Feb. 3, 2003 Perspective_Ex_distances.mcd
    Perspective_ac_distance2.mcd Jan. 14, 2003 – Jan. 15, 2003
    Time, Rate and Interval Analysis, Jan. 19, 2003 – Jan. 23, 2003 Perspective Range Variable1.mcd (See Addendum B)
    Time Rates and Time Intervals for Motion Perspective Theory, Jan. 20, 2003 – Jan. 21, 2003 Perspective Time Rate & Intervals2.mcd (See Addendum C)
    Distance Based Transformation Factor, Jan. 24, 2003 Perspective Distance Xfmtion Factor.mcd (See Addendum D)
    Constant Acceleration Distance Based on Einstein’s Theory, Feb. 3, 2003 Perspective Einstein Distance Formula.mcd
    REFERENCES
    Joseph A. Rybczyk, Millennium Relativity Velocity Composition, Unpublished Work, (2002)
    Joseph A. Rybczyk, Millennium Theory of Relativity, Unpublished Work, (2001); Time and Energy, Unpublished Work, (2001); The Laws of Acceleration, Unpublished Work, (2001); Time and Energy, Inertia and Gravity, Unpublished Work, (2002); Millennium Relativity Velocity Composition, Unpublished Work, (2002)
    Joseph A. Rybczyk, Theory of Natural Motion, (1996)
    Albert Einstein, Special Theory of Relativity, (1905)
    Joseph A. Rybczyk, Time and Energy, Inertia and Gravity, Unpublished Work, (2002)
    ì mesons, have and extended life expectancy when observed traveling at near the speed of light in cosmic rays.
    Joseph A. Rybczyk, Time and Energy, Unpublished Work, (2001); The Laws of Acceleration, Unpublished Work, (2001); Time and Energy, Inertia and Gravity, Unpublished Work, (2002)
    Note: If you entered this page directly during a search, you can visit the Millennium Relativity site by clicking on the Home page

    The bright side of Joseph A Rybcyzky and his first email letter:respectively:

    COMMENTS
    From east and north reporting and greetings With approval on my part and with regards to your previous email on similar issue of the satillite (Re:Wanted insight ,july issue.non org)Congratulating you in your millennial dates(From 2000-2002,3years fastenly)Congratulation [email protected]
    On this issue of early rain and late rain.(Psalm 5:10-12)

    Subject: WANTED: Insight
    [email protected]:
    Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 22:49:52 GMT
    Approved: [email protected] (sci.physics.research) Message-ID: [email protected]
    Newsgroups: sci.physics.research Organization: none Sender: [email protected] (Matt McIrvin)

    Re: AutoDynamics (AD)
    Name: Joseph A. Rybczyk
    Email: [email protected]
    Date: 1 Aug 2003 Time: 06:43:35 -0400
    Remote Name: 65.128.212.42

    JOB

    Comments

    Antonio, In your comment, SHOCK BY NEW THEORY ”…,is not true of millennium relativity. In millennium relativity, SPHERICAL REFERENCE frames replace the rectangular reference frames of special relativity….three FACTORS, that appear to be SUPPORTED the evidence, form the entire basis of the theory. The millennium theory then attempts to explain…within the constraints of these FACTORS and whatever else the evidence shows to be true. …Whether, or not, Dr. Carezani is wrong will have to be left to those who are more familiar with his theory to JUDGE. The millennium theory is still very new….I have no awareness of any millennium theorists beside myself AT THIS TIME

    Subject: Auto Dynamics
    Name: Antonio Navas
    Email: [email protected]
    Date: 31 July 2003 Time: 06:42:44 -0400 (JORDAN ISSUE.Job40:23 :Jos 3:15 :Jer12:5-17
    Remote Name: 65.128.212.42

    ELIHU:Job32:…6…

    Comments
    I AM JUST A BEGINNER shocked by this new theory. I just want to ask you if you are aware of AutoDynamics theory? In my effort to convince myself that Einstein could be wrong, I’d like to know if Millennium Theory of Relativity and AutoDynamics are divergent theories that proves Einstein’s theories wrong in entirely different ways. Furthermore, I’d like to know what Millennium theorists think about AutoDynamics, is Carezani also wrong?

    ANSWER
    :
    Comments {JOB38:41:42 40:16Nw))
    From east and north reporting and greetings, Who is this that darkens THEORY by questions without knowledge?(Judge 6: 13;Eccle 7:10;zech 1: 1-6;James 1:22-27(2:1;3: 1-18:5: 11)Job12: 2;Matt23: 26,29-39;(Job7 :21)Job 15:1,6;13:12;28:21,22;39:25;16:2-4;23:2-17;21:27,28) Can a faultfinder contend with the Almigty God?Who do not know the THEORIES OF GOD? (Rom1:18-32Job38:36,37:10:1-9:2Cor2:11:Jonah3:9,10:Heb 6:10) Will you even put God in the wrong? And even i shall question you,do you really have an arml like God?Or can you thunder like him?(Ecc 8:1-9:Rev 5:1-7:Zech 2:12,13 Prov 22:29 Zech 8:6) Will you condemn him that Antonio might be right? Due to their curiosities and honesties( JOB 6:23-30:13:12) and religious conversational stoppers like Marx theory with the Jews then, with those who seek your sins, and the sins or consequencies of the theories.(Job10:1-7,14-18 13:11,12)

    SCIENCE SEEKS OTHER’S VICTORIES THAN THEIRS, NEITHER NOW NOR IN TIME TO COME —–THEORISTS ACTION

    ( ISAIAH 2:4: DANIEL 2:44) The theorists possibly mearnt ARGUABLY, that nations will not fight against nations(U.N.PEACE,KEEPING,AND STATUE OR “ISAIAH WALL”) that due to the kingdom or millenium, theory, that God will set up,a millenium that will put an end to all others(Zech 1:20,21) and it, itself will stand to time indefinite, that there will be no contention and fighting against it by nations and without any nations fighting among themselves as the putting an end to wars and weapons. So, it merely and presently or AT THIS TIME does not mean to literally put an end to sword or weapons, like also the internet theory of satellite microchip camera, a chip for spying that will be lauch in the future, predicted by Ancient Theorists atmospherically or,VOID and with perfect chronological sequence of the Map 2000 Wapan issue paper with microsoftword2000 on Zech 5: 1-4. Eccle. 10:20 before Zech 5 : 5-11, fufilling another prediction in the millennium. PROFITABLY and arguably ,( 2 tim 3;16,17; Job 15: 1-3,5,31,35: Rom 15: 4), for beneficial use LANDMARKS( Job 24:…14-16…; 39:27-30; 41:34),as well as the weapons for physical or literal and simbolic or spiritual casting down,authoritatively, with PEACE AND SECURITY( Job 29: 22-25; Rev. 1:1; 11:5,6) so that all the prophecies and theories can be fufilled like Job’s theory of the east wind and the change with his theory of the SPHERICAL earth and VOID,science arguably then,in Job(26:6,7,8,10) and those of the entire prophets or Ancient Theorists like Isaiah’s in Isaiah 40:20,with Job’s for fufilling, proving seeing and predicting the future by aid or FACTORS of science, the spherical earth and VOID condition in the era( of only measuring scale or craft,or draft,device,mathematics to explain the ‘limits’ and existence of the Almighty and his rulership and Godship(Rom 1:18-32) through the holy spirit and inspiration or even vision as it was in heaven to take away sins (Job 38:33;Matt 6:10;12:28;Rev 11:15) in Job 5:1,12,13, Rev. 11:1,2 :Zech 1:20,21and by the measuring or crafting of the satillite macrochip in Zech 5:1-4,Rev 11 1-2:Job 38: 5: 11:1-8 and so on),when there was no improved scientific equipments and experiments,or LABORATORIES vindicated or redeemed in our time TO SHOCK THE WORLD by science and Theorists in our time,and by the spiritual God of all final answers,and of the millenniuim theories and comments above all arguments over Job’s theory, arguably then, the prophets , with the theorists Scientific Sentiments as these, which will continue to be applicable in many aspects of life arguably,and profitably wether there is rich and the poor with God’s already made answers( Job 13:16-19; 19: 23-24; 31:4-7,33-35; 23: 2-17;6 2-5:21: 27,28).sothat we do not see them while the LEGAL CASE is already before them (like Rev 5 :1-7 & the satillite macrochip camera which are already under our noses and already sent forth for their use)and we are waiting for them in the future and soon(Job 34: 31-37: 35: 1-3,14 Dan 8:23-2511:44-45 :Job13:13-16):that’s why the rulers of this world has already been JUDGED and so that what the theorists are doing are WITHOUT WARNING,but with Legal Authority(Rev11; 5,6;John 1: 12)

    AS THE RULERS OF THE WORID BEING JUDGED ALRAEDY IN THIS NEW AGE WHILE FORMAL THINGS HAVE PASSED OR PASSING AWAY WE COUNT ARROWS,SPARES,JAVLINS,SWORDS,WEAPONS,NUCLEAR REACTORS,BOMBS,OR WORDS AS ROTTED WOODS,WORDS THAT DO NO GOOD THAT HAS EXPIRED AND,OUTDATED CENTURIES AGO UNCIVILIZED OR UNSCIENTIFIC,SAVAGE.Job1:15,6:19-30 BY JOB’S AND GOD’S LEGAL CASE(JOB 13:12;29:22-25: 40:10-14: 41: …26,27,28,29,34…)New Isaiah Wall

    God is gathering his people, YOU( Matt. 21:42-46; Romans 10: 15-21: Zech 5 :8,10-11 Job 21:27-31: obad 1: 5,13-16 Job 6:24-26) and equiping them for work , he is preparing a different and a new breed of people of a different world( Isaiah 52: 13-15; Job 10: 1-9), the New Age and new millenium and by its issues and its entire theorists through the 2000 issue while seeing and prophesying or predicting the future as we stepped into the new the millenium with new aspiration, new inspiration, new confidence…And by these and the issue, the world will never be the same again, neither in the future nor in years to come while all the former things will pass away and look, a new age has come: the new millenium! (Rev 21: 1,5,7) For these to be DAWN, the issue or news/reports will come from the poor, the wise reminder the early President as indicated or predicted in the theory and Eccle 9:13-18;Zech 4:6(by his early rain and late rain), not quitting and not crying aloud in the street till victory is done, BY INTERNET( Matt.12:17-21; 11:11-13; Isaiah 60:22), and by the preaching work of the early groups and associates directing this society as well the activities of the Bible students; worldwide( James 5:7; Joel 2:23; job 29: 22-25; Rev 11:5,6). In order to fulfil this, and the scriptures,( THE THEORIES), your cooperation and voluntary contributions means a lot.(Zech.4:6:Eccle 9: 13-18). And it’s never too late according to Hab.2:1-4, Isaiah 60:22:; Hosea 13:13-15; Eccle.10:16,17;Matt 24:45-46. for example: as the millennium search must have died down AT THIS TIME of Job 6:22-26 t(job’s ruin or end of Joseph A.R.profitably in Dan 44,45 for the intervention of God or Dan 8:23-25;12:1and also in future oftenly.Job 27:17)in Rev.11:7-10, this email of 2000 issue came to you today 8th july, 2006 and have been waiting for your comments expecially on Antonio’s of 31st july 2003, after 3,1/2 years from 2000 and 3 ,1/2years from 2003 which is 2006 july each,on same month (millennial dates and of the early rain and the late rain)to profitably fufill the prophetic theory of Rev. 11:7-9.11:Matt 12:38-40,fastingly as of Isaiah 60;22 of seeing and prophecying or predicting the future as we step into the new millennium,with hope,faith,and with pride. (Dan 12:4,9-10:Rev 22:10,11)You can coperate by no need of preaching because you have not known the 2000 issue also or” the root of the matter “(Job 19:28,29},except you wish.Your aspiration is to carry on what you are doing to assist the poor,the wise reminder on the preaching work who will stretchout lives and the millenniums and even will not quit down to the future with his early groups and associates,even you for the benefit of both of US through your voluntary contributions(Ecc 4:9-11;Job 19:28,29:Prov 23;10,11;Job 41:8;Isaiah 31:4:Matt 21 45 46;REV 11:5,6 —A Refuge) Like “solomon”,the wise reminder is not really asking any othor things from you apart on assisting him of purchasing a scanner,printer and laptop computer for quick actions and posibly interactions with you.if you wish Because he is not a material seeker but one trying to seek more joy of our pride through Jehovah’s legal judgement and legal agencies while through Christ ransom sacrifise(Job 38;11:40:10-14:41:34:29:22-25),with Jehovah’s intervention and wisdom of power .(Matt 12;38-42:16:1-6:1cor 1:…22,23…)He is assuring you that you will never regret it,and even after you die you will have an inheritance in the future awaiting you and even before it to time indefinite and even .while keeping on doing these things and investing with in your future with Jehovah in Ecc 11: 1,2 for the TRUE PEACE AND SECURITY of our people.NATIONS But stand in your alloted place now.And don’t miss the great CHANCES!(Jonah1;1,2:3:1-4) — Dan 12:12,13:Job 28:27,28: Ecc12: 9-14: 1con3: 10-16; Ecc9: 7-10…:11:,,,9-10: 12: 1…:James 2: 14,17-26
    (Matt12:38-42:16:1-4)The words of solomon as ended,too with Job’s,Jonah,and the jordan the faithful and district slaves(job 40:23: jos 3:15:matt24:15,16,22 :isaiah 31:4,5 :job 4:1,10-11 : psam 5: 10-12)you know who you are,in their “search for God”,understanding or discernment,knowledge,wisdom,for conclusion of their thought(if really in the right)through the fear
    of God in case we might go to the left and incase we might go to the right.(Jer 10: 23,24:Act 1:6,7)
    But incase also you are interested for further information and comments free to contact him with the below address for even more subsciptions like the remarkable fulfilment of Joseph A Rybcyczk unpublish works and also i will be please to recieve your subscriptions(Job 23: 2-17)

    The Wise Reminder;
    A.G.Uhunwa
    Tel:2348038566719
    Email:[email protected]
    Mail:NPF Comm “B” Dept Eleweron P.M.B 2012 Sapon Abeokuta Ogun state,Nigeria.West Africa
    DHL or Money gramm acepted please,if necessary

Leave a Reply