This is particularly timely, since Peter Higgs was just awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for his boson theory and the subsequently reported experimental verification. Sir David O. Wray is a Professor with a doctorate in the rare field of Quantum Algebra. Sir David is an expert in quantum field theory and nuclear particle physics. The following is a paraphrased transcription of Sir Davidâ€™s email response to my question regarding the validity of Higgsâ€™ theory: The most devastating aspect of the Higgs methodology is as follows: A unitary irreducible representation of the general Affine Group (a type of unitary group theory) GA (nF), F= reals, C= complex and H = quarternarions, yields Higgs Bosons which are fictitious and cannot exist in nature. This is a great flaw in Higgsâ€™ theory since his adopted GA (4,F) group has infinity of such unreal irreducible representations, from which it is impossible to obtain a real result. My subsequent question was, â€œIf Higgs bosons are theoretically impossible, what is it that was observed to claim they have been confirmed?â€ Sir Davidâ€™s response was, â€œThat which was observed was really nothing other than ordinary gauge boson coupling which ought to be expected. That which was told the public was absolute academic nonsense! (emphasis added). Telling such delusional lies ---that is beyond my comprehension, and delusion ought not be part of the sciences. There was seen a Gaussian distribution gauge of bosons coupling as they ought in thermal equilibrium.â€ Note that what was seen experimentally was not related to Higgs Bosons.
The following are Dr.Threlkeldâ€™s statements from the Introduction to the book â€œFallacies of Creationism,â€ and my responses to them:
1. Statement: The recognition that man is a product of biological evolution, and some knowledge of the evolutionary biology of man, will without a doubt, improve our understanding of what is known as the phenomenon of man.
Response: The first part of this statement is a de facto belief that man actually is a product of biological evolution. But most of us already know that there is no valid scientific evidence in support of this belief. Consequently, there is no â€œevolutionary history of man,â€ and the â€œphenomenon of manâ€ is readily explained in terms of Special Creation.
2. Statement: Young provides arguments not only as a physicist, but those from biologists and geologists as wellâ€¦.in general (Young presents) arguments of science as opposed to non-science or anti-science, of rational thought as opposed to irrational thought.
Response: The arguments presented in the book simply regurgitate the same old arguments for evolution, none of which have any valid scientific support. For this to be called science is an oxymoron, and what evolutionists claim as â€˜non- scienceâ€™ or â€˜anti-scienceâ€™ is actually the real science which is opposed to evolutionary belief. To claim that evolutionary arguments are products of rational thought as opposed to irrational thought (i.e., Creation Science) is a complete misrepresentation, which not only flies in the face of true science, but also is contrary to logic, for even logic defies evolution.
3. Statement: The book presents us with a choice between using our minds and thinking for ourselves, or letting someone else do the thinking for us, so we may be seduced into uncritically accepting authoritarian viewsâ€¦.It is this choice, whether we will to use our minds or not, that is paramount to our survival, and each one of us must play a part.
Response: The presumption that thinking for ourselves is the only way to use our minds is totally contrary to what Scripture has to say about the human mind (Mark 7: 21, for example). A personâ€™s thinking can be totally corrupted and guided away from the truth. The rest of this statement is a blasphemy against Biblical inerrancy (i.e., â€œauthoritarian viewsâ€). What is â€œparamount to our survivalâ€ is to know God and to accept Jesus Christ as mankindâ€™s only way to salvation.
4. Statement: The â€œFallacies of Creationismâ€ shows us the force of arguments based on the scientific analysis of observation and measurements, and the way in which such analysis leads to acceptable conclusions.
Response: This is a totally erroneous statement. The conclusions drawn from evolution are not based on scientifically valid evidence deduced from observations and measurements. All evidence in support of evolution is totally contrived and opinionated.
The remainder of this analysis will follow in the next RMCF Newsletter.
Blessings in HIs Holy Name, Ed
Dr. Ed Boudreaux, RMCF President