Stephen Foord

The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) is Parliament’s in-house source of scientific advice. POST is to bridge scientific law and the judiciary. POST has prepared this summary on court accreditation of scientists covering the Frye and Daubert tests used in the USA:

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn248.pdf

This POST note may allow for justice to exist to serve science, or, for science to exist to serve justice. However, if a just God exists then only the latter is true and the former position is criminal. Thus, a test for the existence of God is to test the criminality of ‘science’ by expert help of courts.

Testing the criminality of ‘science’ is a duty of courts to protect the fair public from authoritarian claims on reality by ‘scientists’ of criminal prejudice. ‘Science’ can degenerate into organised crime to run environmental protection or eugenics movements. That test should then be part of court accreditation for scientists. It does not infringe freedom of faith. It allows religion with contempt for justice and fair theology to continue in such ‘faith’. However, fair theology works so well that it may be destined to bankrupt both selfish ‘science’ and tyrannical religions in court.

The theory of a just God implies that a ’science’ with crooked failings teaches a false cause and effect law. A false law is recognised by its support for unfair or selfish life like, say, evolutionary science does. Book 2 offers a fair map of the world of reason for graphic recognition of false or partial theories. Those theories may act as a cheat’s charter for mass delusion. To apply them cheats simply adopt selfish criteria of success for the theories that occult an overall criminal bent. Mathematical skills can be used like that. Cheats overegg value of their expert knowledge for authority over the public to take public funding for a criminal tyranny.

Courts are ideally on a war footing against accreditation of crooked scientists as life in a conspiracy to pervert course of justice. Until scholars can disprove fair justice as the one true foundation for science courts should assume that it is. How else can they uphold justice? A fair error estimate for a theory does then include its criminality or who, apart from fair courts or God, it sets out to cheat to survive.

Book 1 gives a concise argument for God by design to show that scientific and religious tyrannies share a common need to cheat, pervert or kill fair Jews or fair gays and fair judges. The latter are leading groups with a cultural interest in progress in fair reason to confront tyrannies in court. That implies that all tyrannies are associated with spiritual prejudices witnessed to in pertinent hate-crime or events like the holocaust. Tyrannical ‘sciences’ thus act as spiritual cult religions that cause social inequality and hate-crime. By contrast courts that swear in by God may aspire to be a spiritual force for fair justice. This fair theory entitles courts to insist that a fair treatment of spiritual forces is part of accreditation for scientists.

A simple question shows whether spiritual forces are relevant to accreditation of scientists. It is to ask if scientists bother with a fair case to deny spiritual forces exist else rely on cult dogma or political principles to deny it? Cults may be deaf to fair reason but if they seek public funds then the public are entitled to be warned of cult-criminality. That protects them from being deceived into thinking they fund true science when they actually fund technical cult-religion.

POST approach accreditation as for giving the right scientists an inside track with courts to establish a legitimate ‘science’ with society. This work helps courts to see that peer review under criminal law is all that is required of legitimate science same as for other professions. That supports fair rights against a would-be criminal master race as in WWII. Such a master race is tacit to the lawless creed of ‘survival of the fit’ for evolutionary and material genetic ‘science’. Do experts in material genetic law know the meaning of ‘fair’ to be able to select for ‘fair’ genes? If not then life is far more complex and spiritual than ‘science’ today allows for. It is hidden by a superstitious reverence for statistical clinical laws. Faith in those laws is partial and so sends spiritual attack on fair minds. Spiritual attack is felt by children in schools to make selective exams that invoke it unfair. Scientists have a duty to be fair on this issue to avoid being a cult-priesthood for brainwashing children.

Scientists today model for scientific tyrannies that shape ‘the system’ so everyone frames the right or ‘natural’ hypotheses or models. It is the fruit of a specialised selection process for scientific experts that lacks fair checks. The Nuremberg trial defence of obeying ‘the system’ is in practice how every selfish ‘science’ oppresses fair research. ‘The system’ is to defend reputation for good ‘science (propaganda) at expense of fair progress. Scientists who specialise to block fair research practice in their own backyards should not qualify for court accreditation. When work like this to indict tyrannical practice is easily denied a living then the whole establishment may be crooked or evil. For example their research councils may fund only evolutionary material models of origins for life where fair courts are given a back seat. However, scrupulous fair deductive science does yield competitive spiritual models for origins subject to fair courts as book 2 shows.

Fair scientists look to justice as an adversarial system giving voice to fair questions. Modern ‘science’ is in the trap of technical reason removed from fair principle which suits the great tyrannies of the age. If scientists wish to claim to be better than a cult then they should have rigorous definitions to set a line between science and religion that stands cross-examination in court. The author’s books began on technical reason to find there is no such line. The line relates to role of the observer in experimental ‘reality’ which book 2 covers. Without that line natural cause and effect law is cult dogma or delusion not true science.

The case given in book 1 to end natural history in court also ends ‘science’ based on a natural cause and effect law or on material genetic law. The crime-potential to natural cause and effect law is on the level of a black-hole for justice. Scientists for that may like to suggest either that their law is approximate in a benign way to fair science, or, the power that their ‘science’ promises or unleashes sets it above courts on earth. The former may be a perjurious claim and the latter a tyrannical ‘science’ for prosperity at expense of fair rights so of inequality or slavery for some groups.

These books establish fair science for courts to judge ‘science’ set in natural history. Meanwhile, natural ‘science’ is a disastrous not benign approximation to fair science. It is genocidal as WWII shows. A helpful picture deriving from Morris Kline in “Mathematics: the loss of certainty” likens modern scientists to spiders spinning webs in a castle dungeon. Many believe their webs are holding the castle up not holding life in the dungeon to die like flies. Meanwhile ‘scientists’ pose as good by helping social groups strategic to their aims for power. They help courts trap less fit crooks using gene ‘science’ but which may lead to a master race of tacit crooks if unchecked. WWII suggests ‘science’ with a genocidal cause is far more dangerous to civilisation, causing more murders, than mundane criminals. Some mundane criminals may be driven to crime partly as people deprived of a fair education or decent living by crooked scientists and scholars. Are mundane crooks necessarily worse sinners than some authorities of high reputation? The position of Jesus in Luke 23, 39-43 suggests not.

By asking the right fair questions it may be easy to trap as perjurious the scientists who base their research in natural history. If ‘natural’ scientists really support criminal law and fair research practice then why must they frame research in violation of those tenets? and what difference does fair research make to the cause and effect laws they frame? Such questions may follow the court-oath wherever they pose as fair witnesses. If they are not fair witnesses then they make false witnesses as in Exodus 20, 15 or false teachers of Christian prophesy. They must be anti-fair-religion that is based on Judaic-root scriptures or with the antichrist. If that is true for courts on earth then it will be true at the Judgement Day based on fair justice. All religions that support fair justice may fear that.

’God’s word’ is a leading data area for a just God as a testable theory. It claims to set God’s plan as a prophetic science that is legally coded under scrupulous fair Justice. ‘Science’ today is at sea with that as only marginally based on fair justice. It sets its path to the issue via problems to do with a technical foundation far removed from justice as detailed in book 2. Book 1 is a quick path to help courts see that any expert witness for ‘science’ set in natural history may be a few questions from trapped as perjurious in court. It applies for forensic scientists, physicists, doctors, psychiatrists, etc.. Their ‘science’ is delusional by the case to end natural history in book 1. The issue could also be raised in individual cases wherever expert ‘science’ testimony, e.g. fingerprint evidence, is involved. If the forensic expert is a bigger crook than those they finger then courts have a problem.

In summary, research to frame a universe where justice is marginal to ‘science’ should be suspected a conspiracy to pervert justice. It has fruited in scientific tyrannies genocidal to key fair cultures. Such ‘science’ is tacitly ant-Semitic if Judaism is the leading religion that claims Justice exists. The ‘science’ then has to be corrupting or genocidal to Jews to break prophesies of Jews returning to a fair God. That makes WWII evidence that a fair God exists opposed by ‘scientific’ evil. Evil is life that will try any ‘science’ and war to break God’s plan of prophesies on the due course of Justice to establish God’s right to rule openly on earth, Psalm 98. Evil religion can also share that aim by readings of God as an Almighty tyrant friend to ‘the righteous’. A fair universe or God allows life to choose between a tyrannical or fair kingdom.

The scientists fit to stand in a fair court are ones who put a fair foundation for science first. Newton may be such a scientist reluctant to frame hypotheses or falsify cases. His proof for God, rediscovered in book 2, shows modern ‘science’ has gone astray. Book 2 is about paths to uncover the reality to fair science.