SCIENCE ERRORS IN THE URANTIA BOOK
PART III: ADVENTURES IN FANTASYLAND
(Scientific Errors that Compromise the Historical Account and/or the Religious Backdrop presented in The Urantia Book)
“We full well know that . . . the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come . . . .”
(The Urantia Book, 101:4.2)
INTRODUCTION
The third and final category of scientific errors to be found in The UB focuses on those mistakes that are the most disturbing to the Urantian paradigm. It is this category that overtly compromises The UB’s view of reality. Specifically, two subcategories must be dealt with. The first subcategory includes those errors that falsify aspects of the historical account provided in The UB. The inherent scientific inaccuracies that follow are couched within The UB’s discourse on the history of planet Urantia (Part III) and are, by virtue of the authors’ own reckoning, exempt from coverage under their disclaimer: “We will use the nearest whole numbers as the better method of presenting these historic facts” (57:0.2, emphasis added; cf. “chronological narrative,” 64:5.4, re: human evolution). Thus, the UB authors are taking a bold stand in these cases, providing no excuses for any perceived inaccuracies in their historic narrative. We will introduce the other subcategory momentarily, once the historic errors have been addressed.
Part III is rife with scientific errors that connote historical significance. Below are just a few of the more flagrant mistakes, provided in order of chronology.
A
Long, Long, Long, Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Not So Far Away
How old is the universe, according to The UB? We are told, first of all, that what is referred to as the “Central Universe” (the location of which is at the “center of all things” and the abode of the Gods of Paradise and myriad celestial beings, a.k.a. “Havona”) is eternal (see Papers 12 through 14). However, the Central Universe is supposedly invisible to us and our access thereto remote. The question as to whether the Central Universe actually exists is of cosmographic significance, and is beyond the scope of this series. So the question must be rephrased: How old is the visible universe? According to UB cosmology, the visible universe consists of seven inhabited “superuniverses,” one of which is our own Milky Way Galaxy, plus the uninhabited “outer space levels” which comprise the remaining visible galaxies beyond our own. The other six “superuniverse” galaxies are also presumably not visible from our vantage point because they rotate with our Galaxy along a common concentric orbital path around the Central Universe, which in turn is obscured by a wall of “dark gravity bodies” that orbit between Havona and the seven superuniverses (14:1). Therefore, the other six “superuniverses” are supposedly obscured by this wall of dark gravity bodies by virtue of their relative position along the orbital path.
The UB claims that the visible universe (including our own Milky Way Galaxy and the outer galaxies) is in a constant state of progressive creation. That is, new “nebulae” are constantly being “created” and solar systems formed. The UB does not actually state when this progressive creation process began, so we are not informed of the age of the visible universe. Therefore, the age of the visible universe could be anywhere between zero and eternal. We are, however, given a specific age for a particular region of our Galaxy (that being our own region).
In Part III of The UB, which begins the celestial account of the history of planet Urantia, we are introduced to the “Andronover Nebula” (57:1), a gigantic cloud of matter from whence our celestial neighborhood derived including, eventually, our own Solar System. Accordingly, the Andronover Nebula came into existence some 875 billion years ago (57:1.6). It was nearly one trillion years ago that favorable conditions were being prepared by certain celestial agents for the materialization of the Andronover Nebula (57:1.3), which implies that other portions of our Milky Way Galaxy (referred to as Orvonton in The UB) were already in existence prior to that time.
But modern science provides a significantly different history of the universe. From the ancients until Einstein, people who had not been influenced by the Bible assumed that the universe has existed eternally, relieving them of the burden of dealing with ultimate origins. However, the actual trend in 20th-century cosmology has been to turn from a view that was inconsistent with the Genesis creation account (Gen. 1:1) to one that follows this ancient scenario very well. Several compelling discoveries made before, during, and since the penning of The UB have led the scientific community to hold that the entire universe was created from nothing a finite time ago by a Causative Agent operating outside the boundaries of time, space, matter, and energy. Today, overwhelming evidence has forced the vast majority of cosmologists to subscribe to the theory of a singular creation event known as the “Big Bang.”
As it turns out, The Bible is the only religious source coming to us from ancient times that fits the modern cosmological picture. Discoveries made during the 1920s led to the understanding that the universe could not be eternally old, but that it must have had a relatively recent beginning. A universe with a beginning requires a Beginner, making it difficult to reconcile with atheism or pantheism, while pointing most naturally to a theistic Creator that exists outside the universe.
The estimated range for the age of the universe has continued to shrink over time since the Big Bang theory was introduced by Georges Lemaïtre in 1927. Until near the end of the twentieth century, the estimated age ranged between 2 and 20 billion years. Measurements made during the 1990s had reduced this range to approximately 1.5 billion years, fixing the creation date somewhere between 13.0 and 15.5 billion years.[1] Then, during 2001, a group of American astronomers zoomed in on a remarkably accurate 14-billion-year age figure, varying by no more than a half billion years in either direction.[2] Today, analyses of a new high-resolution map of microwave light emitted only 380,000 years after the Big Bang event appear to define our universe more precisely than ever before. The eagerly awaited results announced in 2004 from the orbiting Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) resolve several long-standing disagreements in cosmology rooted in less precise data. Specifically, present analyses of the WMAP all-sky image indicate that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, with an accuracy of one percent. This high degree of precision tells us that the “ballpark” range for the age of the universe has shrunk significantly, to within a few hundred million years.
If the Big Bang theory is correct, as almost all astronomers believe, the universe is less than 14 billion years old. The UB ascribes the age of our universe to be at least one trillion (1,000,000,000,000) years. Not surprisingly, this estimate was not too far-fetched in the 1930s. Writing before the Big Bang became the standard model, Sir James Jeans estimates the age of the universe at 200 trillion years in his 1929 book The Universe Around Us, with stars of the Milky Way forming about five to ten trillion years ago.[3] We could therefore technically count this discrepancy as one of those entries of “unearned science” for which the disclaimer, discussed in Part I of this series, applies. However, the implications of this error go well beyond the need to “protect” us from gaining knowledge beyond our own capacity. The very fabric of the cosmos, its structure, and its history as it pertains to the “celestial” authors of The UB and their origins are all at stake now. The murkiness of the past in turn places our own destiny in jeopardy, as well. For if we cannot trust their testimony as to what has already transpired during their watch, then what does this say about what they tell us will happen to us when we die?
Out
of This World
In Paper 57 of The UB we are introduced to “Monmatia,” the name given our Solar System, its described origin resembling a theory once popular among early 20th century astronomers. The Tidal Theory, advanced by James Jeans in 1916, hypothesized that another star had passed close enough by our Sun to draw out a string of gaseous bodies from the Sun that later condensed into the planets of our Solar System. Jeans presented the Tidal Theory in an effort to overcome perceived problems associated with the previously accepted Nebular Hypothesis, which held that the Solar System formed from a collapsing gas nebula. It is the Tidal Theory that finds full endorsement by the “revelators” as their “eye-witness account” of how our Solar System was formed. As though snatched from the annals of the pursuit of human knowledge and ratified for all time, Jeans’ Tidal Theory finds itself reworked as a true and accurate account under authority of the celestial historians (see 57:5).
Unfortunately for the “celestial” authors, the Tidal Theory is now considered a washout. Jeans’ close encounter theory met with serious difficulty as early as 1935. The Tidal Theory, in turn, has since lost its once popular support in light of other theoretical and observational considerations that favor a revised version of the Nebular Hypothesis. (For a detailed critique of The UB’s version of the origin of our Solar System, see “Dark Star” on this webpage.)
Bad
Timing
Paper 58 provides us with a detailed account of how life originated on planet Urantia. The account tells us that life first appeared on our planet at about 550 million years ago (mya) in the form of primitive marine vegetable life. This form of life was flourishing by about 500 mya, and by 450 mya a transitional type of life somewhere between vegetable and animal life appeared in the form of slime molds and spongelike organisms, which soon evolved into corals and Protozoa. The geologic era in which these life forms emerged is called the Proterozoic. Prior to this era, the UB authors reckon the history of Urantia to be in what is referred to as the “prelife era,” which spans between one billion years ago and 550 mya (59:0).
It seems that a great deal of oversight from the celestial bureaucracy was expended during the course of these events as well. At about 600 mya, a group of celestial agents called “Life Carriers” arrived from their home planet to study planet Urantia’s physical conditions in preparation to establish life thereon. It was determined at the time that the oceans were not yet salty enough and that the supercontinent land mass had not yet sufficiently broken up to allow enough inland seas and sheltered bays to optimize the proliferation of life once it had been implanted on the planet. The Life Carriers subsequently went back home, only to return 50 million years later to seed the planet. Life was implanted in three strategic locations in the sheltered tropic bays of the central seas along “the east-west cleavage of the breaking-up continental land mass . . . to assure that each great land mass would carry this life with it, in its warm-water seas, as the land subsequently separated” (58:4.4).
Contrary to the exorbitant description provided in Paper 58, modern scientific evidence now tells us that life first appeared on Earth some 3.8 billion years ago with the appearance of cyanobacteria (“blue-green algae”) and stromatolites, both a form of primitive marine vegetative life. This leaves about a 3.3 billion-year gap between what we know now and what the celestial account claims regarding when life first appeared on Earth, by means of their own efforts, no less. By about 550 mya, according to the modern scientific account, planet Earth was leaving the Proterozoic Era and entering the Paleozoic Era, which began with the Cambrian period, during which time a wide variety of complex sea creatures appeared, including the first hard-shelled animals (trilobites, etc.). The UB places the Cambrian period beginning at about 400 mya (59:1). A comparative overview of the timeline presented in The UB and those of geology textbooks written in the 1930s aptly demonstrates that the UB authors were not providing a first-hand account of “historic facts.” Instead, they were relying heavily on the scientific information that was available at the time, which has since become grossly outdated.
According to celestial reckoning, the Jurassic Period extended roughly from 125 to 100 mya. This period saw the peak development of the dinosaurs, followed by the beginning of their decline. Exactly how and when did the dinosaurs meet their demise? The UB posits that the cause of the dinosaurs’ eventual demise was that “they required such an enormous amount of food and the land was so overrun by them that they literally starved to death and became extinct” (60:2.3). The narrative from on high continues:
“65,000,000 years ago there occurred
one of the greatest lava flows of all time. The deposition layers of these and
preceding lava flows are to be found all over the
However, said volcanic activity did not mark the end of the Cretaceous, according to The UB. In fact, according to Section 4 of Paper 60, the end of the Cretaceous did not occur until about 50 mya, having begun about 100 mya and lasting 50 million years. The “celestial” author goes on to say that the end of the Cretaceous period was marked by “the end of the great sea invasions of the continents” (60:4.1), with no discussion whatsoever of volcanic activity at the time. Nor is there any mention of any catastrophic extinction event. Modern science instead states that the Cretaceous lasted for approximately 80 million years, between about 145 and 65 mya, culminating in a global extinction event that wiped out about 65% of all species, including all dinosaurs.
One might argue that 15 million years is not a lot of time in geologic terms, and perhaps a great upsurge in volcanic activity about 65 mya can be considered to have happened “near enough” the end of the Cretaceous (at 50 mya, according to the UB account) to be considered an aspect of its terminus. Therefore, could we not still consider mass volcanism to be the cause of mass extinctions at the end of the Cretaceous? Well, perhaps we could; however, the issue is rather moot when considering what The UB has to say on the subject. In fact, the status of life on Urantia went in quite the opposite direction immediately following the “greatest lava flows of all time.” Let us refer once more to the words of the presupposed celestial historian:
“The land
animals were little changed, but because of greater continental
emergence, especially in
So much for mass extinction of land animals. But what about plant life? Surely the “greatest lava flows of all time” had done major damage to the flora of that age, leaving the land mammals with the prospect of starvation, as was supposedly the case for the dinosaurs. Don’t bet on it:
“Great plant-life evolution was taking place. Among the land plants the angiosperms predominated, and many present-day trees first appeared, including beech, birch, oak, walnut, sycamore, maple, and modern palms. Fruits, grasses, and cereals were abundant . . . . Suddenly and without previous gradation, the great family of flowering plants mutated. And this new flora soon overspread the entire world.” (60:3.19; emphasized added throughout for obvious reasons)
As one can plainly read from the text, The UB makes no mention of any mass extinction at 65 mya, when mass volcanism is supposed to have taken place. Nor is there any indication of a mass extinction event at The UB’s time line for the close of the Cretaceous (50 mya). And the lack of a mass extinction event at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary looms large in The UB’s account of natural history as regards dinosaurs. Evidently, the Life Carrier who sponsored Paper 61 is of the opinion that the dinosaur population hung around long after the close of the Cretaceous, and began to only gradually decline about 35 mya during the Miocene, apparently as the result of underdeveloped brains and competition with mammals (61:2.5,6).
A survey of the
history of geology will show that these explanations for the dinosaur
extinction were, in fact, the prevailing ideas during the penning of the “fifth
epochal revelation.” A widely accepted
theory during the early nineteenth century, called catastrophism,
related mass extinction events to environmental disturbances that were provoked
by sudden episodes of mountain upheaval.
But instead of affirming the idea that all inhabitants of the Earth had
been swept away by catastrophes at successive periods,
As paleontologists
became increasingly familiar with the extinctions that mark the
Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, various suggestions for modes of mass extinction
began to appear during the late 1950s and into the 1970s, from nearby
supernovae explosions to meteorite and comet impacts. Not surprisingly, in light of the lack of
tangible evidence, they were also all virtually ignored. Not until 1977 did the situation change
dramatically when geologist Walter Alvarez discovered a pencil-thin layer of
clay at the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K/T) boundary outside of the town of
Other kinds of
evidence in support of the asteroid impact theory have subsequently been
discovered, such as the widespread occurrence of shocked quartz grains and a
layer of soot that may be the residue of vegetation burned in fires caused by
the impact. Moreover, a large crater
produced by the impact that supposedly caused the mass extinction has been
located near the town of
On the other side of the debate, however, geologists have found evidence that iridium in clays may have its source in the Earth’s mantle, from which it can move to the surface by way of volcanic vents and blast into the atmosphere as iridium-rich volcanic ash and dust. Volcanism was indeed very prevalent during the late stages of the Cretaceous, as geologists began to discover near the turn of the twentieth century. Proponents for a volcanic source for the iridium at the K/T boundary note that the element is often distributed across sedimentary thicknesses of 30 to 40 cm, suggesting that the deposition of ash-derived iridium took place over a span of several thousand years. Such a time span would be reasonable for global volcanism, whereas if the iridium was of meteoric origin, one would expect to find it confined to a thin layer of sediment. Those favoring the volcanic hypothesis also note the presence of antimony and arsenic in some of the beds containing the iridium. Although common in volcanic ash and lava, these elements are exceedingly rare in meteorites. However, this evidence is countered by analyses of the thin clay layer under investigation that reveals an abundance of other platinum-group elements (of which iridium is one) at ratios that emulate meteoric material and do not match those of volcanic dust.
But regardless of where one casts their vote on the debate of what caused the dinosaurs’ demise, the issue does not pertain to the augury of The UB. The heavenly hosts were merely echoing the extent of human knowledge at the time, which was unaware at the time of any mass extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous.
Meet
the Parents
Although The UB asserts that
Adam and Eve were historic characters, they were not the first humans as
portrayed in the Bible. If Adam and Eve
were not the first human beings and hence not the parents of all mankind as the
Bible purports, who was? Instead of Adam
and Eve, the first human beings according to The UB were “Andon” and “Fonta,” a mating pair of hominids who evolved from lower
primates almost one million years ago:
“. . . after almost nine hundred generations of development,
covering about twenty-one thousand years from the origin of the dawn mammals,
the Primates suddenly gave birth to
two remarkable creatures, the first true human beings. . . . From the year A.D.
1934 back to the birth of the first two human beings is just 993,419 years.”
(62:4.6; 62:5.1)
“Andon and Fonta
were . . . the actual parents of all mankind . . . .” (63:1.1)
So, which hominid species do the celestial observers rate as
the first “true” humans to inhabit planet Urantia? We are given clues in Paper 64. As it turns out, by about 950,000 years ago
the descendants of Andon and Fonta
had migrated as far east as Java, “where their bones were so recently found—the
so-called Java man . . .” (64:1.6). This
passage no doubt refers to what early twentieth-century evolutionists had once
pitched as their primary candidate for the missing “ape-man” link, the fossil
find that went by the nickname “Java Man.”
Discovered by Dutch anthropologist Eugene Dubois on the
Dubois’ initial fossil discoveries did not even make it into the twentieth century before becoming the source of heated debate within the scientific community. Not all were convinced that the skullcap and the femur belonged to the same species, much less the same individual. And while Dubois claimed that Java Man was in the direct line of human evolution, others maintained that the species was an evolutionary dead end with no direct bearing on human origins. Still others thought it was already fully human but belonged to an inferior race. Lastly, the geological age of Dubois’ find was not well-established upon its discovery. Dubois had mistakenly assigned the fossil-bearing stratum to a much older geological period than later investigations determined it to be.
In an effort to increase the limited amount of information
regarding Java man, an expedition party was sent to Java where Dubois had found
Pithecanthropus in a search for more
fossils. Initiated by Professor Emil Selenka, a
Although the original intent of the expedition was to confirm Dubois’ findings, its results actually contradicted his claims. While no more remains of Java Man were found during the expedition, the paleontologic and geologic evidence indicated that the stratum in which Pithecanthropus was discovered was rather recent. Based on the evidence, the report concluded that modern humans and Pithecanthropus both had lived at the same time, and that Pithecanthropus played no part in human evolution. It was Sir Arthur Keith himself who, upon reviewing the results of the Selenka expedition, noted the ongoing controversy surrounding Pithecanthropus erectus: “While one school of experts places it in the direct line of human evolution, another regards it as part of a side stem which ended in extinction.”[9]
Under
the shadow of this shaky outcome, many scientists followed Haeckel
in hailing Java man as stunning proof of
It would be well into the 1920s and 1930s before substantial evidence of Homo erectus was discovered. Other fossil finds from Sangiran and the remains of an infant from Mojokerto (found in 1936) indicate that Homo erectus occupied Java during the middle Pleistocene Epoch (about 1,000,000 to 500,000 years ago). But by the 1930s many, if not most, of the popular books written about human origins portrayed Homo erectus as a side-branch of the human evolutionary tree that went extinct long before modern humans appeared.[13]
What’s more, subsequent discoveries of this species of
bipedal primate present a migration history that is not at all in agreement
with that of The UB’s account. The history of Homo erectus has been documented directly from the many sites that
have yielded their fossil remains subsequent to Dubois’s original
discovery. During the 1930s and 1940s,
it became “common knowledge” that
So
why did the UB authors commit to all these premature efforts to remove
Adam and Eve from the human lineage? One of the most fundamental doctrines of
Christianity is original sin, or the belief
that all mankind has inherited a sinful nature brought about by the fall of
Adam and Eve (Gen. 3; Isa. 43:27; Rom. 5:12,19; 6:23;
1Cor. 15:21,22). Yet The UB authors view this position as
inherently unjust. To punish billions
for the acts of one, so they would claim, is unwarranted: “Adam should not be
regarded as the cause of a curse on the human race” (75:8.3). This same sentiment is carried over into Part
IV and expressed in a passage that “explains” how the fact that Jesus of The
UB was about to be crucified on the Day of Passover was merely a
“coincidence”:
“Jesus is not
about to die as a sacrifice for sin. He is not going to atone for the inborn
moral guilt of the human race. Mankind
has no such racial guilt before God.” (186:5.7; emphasis added)
In
fact, the position held by The UB is
that “Adam and Eve” were not the first humans whose fall into sin had
repercussions on all of humanity, nor does man have a fallen nature that is
passed from Adam and Eve. Instead, “Adam
and Eve” are presented as extraterrestrials who tasted death as a result of
their “default” by procreating with the natives. This “default” is not construed as a
“sin,” but only as an “unfortunate and unwise” career
choice (51:1.4). Therefore, to “blame”
Adam and Eve as those responsible for passing a sinful nature onto the human
race is looked upon by the celestials as a false accusation:
“Adam and Eve did default, but no mortal subsequently born
on Urantia has suffered in his personal spiritual experience because of these
blunders.” (67:7.7)
“Adam and Eve did fall from their high estate of material sonship down to the lowly status of mortal man. But that
was not the fall of man. The human race has been uplifted despite the immediate
consequences of the Adamic default. . . . There has
been no ‘fall of man.’ The history of the human race is one of progressive
evolution, and the Adamic bestowal left the world
peoples greatly improved over their previous biologic condition.” (75:8.1,2)
The
Bible, on the other hand, affirms that human death is a consequence of the sin
of Adam and Eve, having affected all of mankind (Genesis 2:17; 3:19;
Ezekiel 18:4; Romans 5:12,19; 6:23; James 1:15). The great suffering and pain inflicted on one
another throughout all of human history is irrefutable proof of the validity of
the Bible’s position on the sinfulness of man.
In
the same rationalistic vein, The UB
must also re-define Jesus’ attitude towards these concepts such that his views
are in tandem with those of the authors:
“The doctrine of the total depravity of man destroyed much
of the potential of religion for effecting social repercussions of an uplifting
nature and of inspirational value. Jesus sought to restore man’s dignity when
he declared that all men are the children of God.” (99:5.5)
“Jesus led men to feel at home in the world; he . . .
taught them that the world was not fundamentally evil. . . . Jesus did not
share Paul’s pessimistic view of humankind. The master looked upon men as the
sons of God. . . . He saw most men as weak rather than wicked, more distraught
than depraved. But no matter what their status, they were all God’s children
and his brethren.” (196:2.9)
In
stark contrast, the Bible portrays the natural world as a “very good” creation
(Genesis
But The UB’s view of Adam and Eve runs contrary
to both biblical history and empirical evidence. The biblical account presents Adam and Eve as
the first humans created directly by God on planet Earth (Genesis 2:7), not as
extraterrestrial visitors from another planet.
The name “Adam” literally means “man” in Hebrew; hence, it is The UB that is taking liberties by
borrowing a name and applying it to an invented character, not the other way
around. Jesus confirmed the Genesis
account when He said that “‘He who made them at the beginning “made them male and
female”’” (Matthew 19:4), quoting Genesis 1 as authoritative about
the origin of mankind. First Corinthians
From a scientific point of view, the placement of Andon and Fonta at approximately one million years ago would place them as belonging to the hominid species Homo erectus, which paleontologists have long recognized as a side-branch of the hominid family that went extinct independently of the arrival of modern humankind (Homo sapiens), and which played no part in modern human evolution.[16] Moreover, The UB portrays Andon and Fonta as capable of planning for the future (63:2) and their descendants as having developed “a well-developed language” (63:4.6). However, modern analyses of H. erectus specimens indicate that they were incapable of speech[17] and lacked the advanced cognitive abilities of modern humans.[18] The combined anatomical and archeological data indicate that these were non-human hominids distinct from modern humans.
This blunder is a big one, folks, one that should be considered nothing less than the crux of a grand deception. In their attempt to steer humanity away form biblical Adam and Eve (and our unpalatable sinful nature inherited therefrom), The UB authors apparently invented “Andon” and “Fonta,” a mating pair of non-human hominids belonging to the extinct species Homo erectus as the parents of all humankind. And in spite of the evidence already in existence at the time The UB was being penned that questioned the validity of Homo erectus as an ancestral precursor to modern humans, the authors of the “firth epochal revelation” placed their stamp of approval on this fable, replete with human characteristics (i.e., spoken language and advanced cognitive thought) that science now tells us were nonexistent characteristics of the species.
According to The UB,
another Andonic (i.e., human) strain called the Badonan tribe, named after their leader who was a fourth-generation
direct descendant of “Andon,” resided in the
foothills of northwest
Neanderthals are a group of extinct bipedal primates that,
according to modern scientific estimates, inhabited
The scent of the descent trail became fainter in 1996 when anthropologists Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey Schwartz measured the nasal characteristics of 13 complete Neanderthal skulls.[19] Their findings indicate that Neanderthal’s nasal capacity was significantly larger than that of any other primate species. Tattersall and Schwartz concluded that not only are Neanderthals unrelated to humans, but neither can their nasal features be related to any primate alive today or discovered in the fossil record.
In addition to these morphological studies, analyses of genetic variations in the genomes of contemporary human populations have generally supported the view that Neanderthals were a separate species that went extinct without contributing genes to modern humans.[20] But a more direct way to address the question of the relationship between modern humans and Neanderthals would be to analyze DNA sequences from the remains of Neanderthals. The retrieval of ancient DNA sequences, while unthinkable during the first half of the twentieth century, was still thought to be nearly impossible until the invention of the polymerase chain reaction in the late 1980s. This method makes the retrieval of DNA sequences as old as 100,000 years theoretically possible.
How ironic it seems, then, that from the very same
Neanderthal fossil that catapulted
A second successful extraction of mtDNA
from archaeological bone material of a Neanderthal was recovered from a cave in
the northern
The limited range of variability between the new Neanderthal DNA sequence and the Feldhofer one argues against the idea that modern Europeans are at least partly of Neanderthal origin. Although the two sequences were taken from specimens that are both geographically and temporally distant from one another, the number of differences between the sequences indicates that these two individuals were from a single gene pool. Details of the more recent sequence also support the contention that there was no contribution of Neanderthals to the modern human gene pool.
And as if that were not enough to ponder, a third sample of mtDNA from the remains of a Neanderthal, discovered in
As a result of almost unimaginable advances in molecular biology (which the alleged celestial authors of The UB apparently did not foresee coming to fruition), we have come to realize that the evolutionary link between humans and Neanderthals has been severed. The repercussions of this reality check are that: 1) “The Neanderthal Races” (title of 64:4) were not “early man” or “human species” (64:4.5), nor were they “primitive man” (64:4.6), nor were they “man” (64:4.9,10), nor “primitive peoples” (64:4.11), nor “mankind” or “people” (64:4.12), nor were they specimens of “manhood” or “womanhood” or “tribesmen” (64:4.13); and 2) The UB’s contention that the so-called “Blue Race,” one of the six “Evolutionary Races of Color” (title of Paper 64) were themselves not human after all, as they were the race that had “invaded Europe in successive waves, occupying most of the continent” (64:7.8), where “they soon encountered the Neanderthal descendants of their early and common ancestor, Andon” (64:7.9) and “produced that marked improvement in the Neanderthal peoples exhibited by the successive waves of increasingly intelligent tribes that swept over Europe” (64:7.10). The outcome of this professed “chronological narrative” (64:5.4) from on high in turn casts serious doubt as to the very existence of Caligastia, the alleged Planetary Prince of Urantia and supposed celestial promulgator of the “first epochal revelation” (92:4.5): “The early blue men were responsive to the persuasions of the teachers of Prince Caligastia’s staff and were thrown in to great confusion by the subsequent perverted teachings of those traitorous leaders” (64:6.22). Needless to say, the severed link of Neanderthal as a human ancestor hurdles The UB’s account of human history (and even of celestial history as it pertains to planet Urantia) into virtual chaos and doubt.
But the religious pratfalls of The UB do not end here, as the section below will attest.
RELIGIOUS ERRORS
Last but certainly not least, we come to the second subcategory of scientific errors that overtly compromise the UB paradigm. This second subcategory includes those errors that compromise The UB’s religious backdrop. More specifically, this subcategory includes scientific information that places serious doubt on the validity of the celestial worlds from whence the UB authors allegedly hail and hence falsifies its religious precepts. Our first two entries will require that we re-visit topics introduced in Part I of this series.
Divine Numbers
As described in Part I of this series (see the subheading
“Hanging by a Thread” in Part I), The UB
informs us that the number of chromosomes in the human genome is 48, not 46 as
was first determined in August of 1955 (only two months prior to The UB’s initial publishing). Some Urantian
apologists may be tempted to write this error off as one of those examples of
“unearned science” that the revelators just could not reveal to us, reluctant
though they were to remain silent (see “Caveat Emptor!” discussion in Part
I). But I wouldn’t be so eager to give them
the benefit of doubt. It seems the
celestial cohorts really meant what they said when they relegated 48
chromosomes to our genetic makeup. As it
turns out, this number bears an inviolate pattern of significance in the cosmic
scheme of things. In describing the
worlds from whence the Life Carriers (those which supposedly brought the basic
ingredients necessary to initiate life to planet Urantia) hail, we are
bedazzled with a generous helping of unearned scientific knowledge regarding
how life in the universe works:
“The domain
of life is characterized by three, seven, and twelve or by multiples and
combinations of these basic numbers. . . . There were, originally, twelve
distinct and divine concepts of
transmissible life. This number twelve, with its subdivisions and multiples,
runs throughout all basic life patterns of all seven superuniverses. . . . The Orvonton life patterns are configured as twelve inheritance
carriers. The differing orders of will creatures are configured as 12, 24, 48,
96, 192, 384, and 768. On Urantia there
are forty-eight units of pattern control—trait determiners—in the sex cells of
human reproduction.” (36:2.4; emphasis added)
So you see, the “Vorondadek Son” of Paper 36 could not have suggested 46 chromosomes, as this number is not a multiple of three or seven or of twelve, which is the basic pattern of life in our “superuniverse” known as Orvonton. Perhaps this is why so many Urantian apologists remain resolute on this issue—for if the right number is not 48, then perhaps all of Orvonton and its myriad inhabitants are amiss!
A
Spiritual Matter
And as we also learned in Part I of this series (see the subheading “The Century Mark” in Part I), The UB emphatically states that there are only 100 possible atomic elements that comprise physical matter (42:7.4,7). But we have known since 1955 (ironically, the year that The UB was first published) that more than 100 elements exist. Having fostered such a magnificent scientific blunder is reason alone to suspect that The UB was forged by human hands and is not of angelic authorship, as purported. However, the “Archangel of Nebadon” who “presented” Paper 47 not only confirms that the number of possible elements on planet Urantia is exactly 100, but takes things a step further by using this count as a premise for the makeup of matter on the so-called “architectural spheres,” from whence the celestial author supposedly hails:
“All of these worlds are architectural spheres, and they have just double the number of elements of the evolved planets. Such made-to-order worlds not only abound in the heavy metals and crystals, having one hundred physical elements, but likewise have exactly one hundred forms of a unique energy organization called morontia material. The Master Physical Controllers and the Morontia Power Supervisors are able so to modify the revolutions of the primary units of matter and at the same time so to transform these associations of energy as to create this new substance.” (48:1.3; emphasis original).
In other words, not only does this alleged archangel get things wrong as pertains to our physical existence, but perpetuates the error when it comes to describing the great beyond! Question: If these alleged representatives of the celestial government can’t even get things right about certain aspects of the very realm in which they live, why should we trust their testimony regarding the “morontia” life in any respect?
It’s Elementary
Though this topic could have readily fit into the second category of scientific errors in The UB (inexcusable scientific errors), it is more appropriate to place it here because of the extent of damage to The UB’s credibility rendered thereby.
“The number seven is basic to the central universe and the spiritual system of inherent transmissions of character . . . . [T]he atomic world does display a certain periodic characterization which recurs in groups of seven—a birthmark carried by this material world indicative of its far-distant spiritual origin.” (42:9.2)
“This sevenfold persistence of creative constitution is exhibited in the chemical domains as a recurrence of similar physical and chemical properties in segregated periods of seven when the basic elements are arranged in the order of their atomic weights. When the Urantia chemical elements are thus arranged in a row, any given quality or property tends to recur by sevens. This periodic change by sevens recurs diminishingly and with variations throughout the entire chemical table, being most markedly observable in the earlier or lighter atomic groupings. Starting from any one element, after noting some one property, such a quality will change for six consecutive elements, but on reaching the eighth, it tends to reappear, that is, the eighth chemically active element resembles the first, the ninth the second, and so on. Such a fact of the physical world unmistakably points to the sevenfold constitution of ancestral energy and is indicative of the fundamental reality of the sevenfold diversity of the creations of time and space.” (42:9.3; emphasis added)
In these passages, the “Mighty Messenger on duty in Nebadon” is attempting to “spiritualize” the fundamental components of material nature, the elements. The claim is that the elements exhibit a sevenfold repetition of properties, which is an indication of the spiritual character in nature. But anybody familiar with the periodic chart of the elements and what it represents knows better. The periodic table arranges the elements in horizontal rows, or periods, according to their atomic number. The elements are also grouped in vertical columns according to some shared trait, such as a physical property or the way they form compounds. The column groups are also divided into two groups (A and B), based on their electronic structure.
Let us consult a periodic chart of the elements to observe the first 37 elements in increasing order of their atomic number, which is essentially congruent with increasing atomic weight (now called relative atomic mass). If various physical or chemical properties of the elements are listed along with their atomic number, some interesting trends occur. For instance, the atomic radius of an element generally decreases with increasing atomic number. At certain intervals, however, the atomic radius of an element dramatically increases in comparison to its predecessor. The elements that follow continue the general trend downward until another leap in size occurs. These jumps are associated with lithium (atomic number 3), sodium (11), potassium (19) and rubidium (37).
A similar, although reverse, pattern emerges if we compare the ionization potential of each element. The ionization potential generally increases with increasing atomic number. With the same elements at which atomic radii jump, however, the ionization potential dramatically drops. It is for these and other property patterns among the elements that the periodic chart is grouped into a series of horizontal rows, each of which is called a period.
The elements are also arrayed in columns arranged according to their atomic valence. The element’s valence is a function of the number of electrons in the outermost shell of a given atom and dictates the ability of the atom to combine with other atoms to form molecules. Because this preference of an atom dictates many aspects of its physical and chemical behavior, each vertical column, called a group, represents a set of elements that have similar properties. The periodic chart contains 18 such groups, which means that elements can behave in as many as 18 different and predictable ways.
The first periodic chart was produced by Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleyev in 1869. He arranged all the then-known elements in an array similar to the one we see today, leaving gaps that no known element could fill. Mendeleyev was so confident that his chart reflected the true nature of the elements’ behavioral patterns that instead of viewing these gaps as theoretical or natural defects, he left the spaces blank in anticipation that these elements had yet to be discovered. In many cases, it was his predictions of these unknown elements’ properties that led to their discovery. Mendeleyev’s chart, recognized as a major achievement of modern science, helped confirm the atomic theory of matter and led to further understanding of atomic behavior.
Getting back to the point, nowhere in the periodic chart can a sevenfold pattern of chemical or physical properties be discerned. The first period contains only two elements (hydrogen and helium) before the next period starts and a cycle of similitude begins to emerge. The next two periods contain eight elements in the cycle. Once we get to potassium and the heavier elements beyond, the number of groups increases to eighteen because these elements begin to exhibit more complex electron configurations. None of the other physical properties (mass density, melting point, boiling point, etc.) fit a seven-fold pattern of repetition.
Where on Urantia, then, did the Mighty Messenger get such a notion? Perhaps he got it from a hasty perusal of William Francis Gray Swann’s 1934 book The Architecture of the Universe. Beginning on page 62, in his discussion of early atomic models, Swann describes a time not so long ago when the atom was considered to be the smallest indivisible particle of matter. And yet, subsequent observations determined that not all atoms were alike, those of copper exhibiting different characteristics than those of iron, and so on, suggesting a more profound structural complexity. Swann then goes back further in time with his historical treatise:
“And then, it had long been known by chemists that if the elements were arranged in a row in the order of the weights of their atoms, the properties showed a periodic change. Starting from any one of them, and noting some property such as the melting point, for example, the property would change as we went along the row, but as we continued it would gradually come back to a condition very similar to that from which we started; and, as we continued our journey along the row, the same story would be repeated again and again. The eighth element was in many respects like the first, the ninth like the second, the tenth like the third, and so on. Such a state of affairs pointed not only to a varied internal structure, but also to a certain harmony in that variation suggestive of some organized plan in building the atom.”[24]
Note closely the similarity between Swann’s words cited above in italics and those of the “Mighty Messenger” cited previously. Does this mean that Swann was also incorrect in his assessment of the elements? It is likely that Swann was referring to what scientists knew regarding the chemical elements at a time prior to the development of the atomic chart, when many of the elements were not known. Indeed, as early as 1864, the British chemist John A. R. Newlands listed the elements in the order of increasing atomic weights and noted that a given set of properties recurs at every eighth place. He named this periodic repetition the law of octaves, by analogy with the musical scales. But the “Mighty Messenger” would have known that Swann was referring to the erroneous ideas of old had he read a bit further into Swann’s Architecture of the Universe. (Or more precisely, he should have known as such because of his alleged higher capacity for knowledge!) On page 70, Swann correctly points out that the element lithium (the third element) exhibits chemical properties that are very similar to those of sodium (the 11th element), potassium (element number 19), rubidium (37), and cesium (55). Moreover, Swann’s book provides a periodic chart as it appeared in 1934 on page 69. The chart shows all the then-known elements up to and including uranium, with blank spaces left in the correctly predicted spots for the as-yet undiscovered radionuclides technetium (element number 43, discovered in 1937), promethium (element 61, identified in 1945), rhenium (75, a non-radioactive metal which existence was not yet confirmed because of its affinity with platinum), astatine (85, synthesized in 1940), and francium (87, discovered in 1939). The known elements follow a repetitive sequence of two, eight (not seven), 18, and 32, as predicted by the modern periodic chart. Even a quick check of Swann’s incomplete periodic chart on page 69 would have prevented the Mighty Messenger from making this mighty mistake!
Take Your Mark
In
Section 2 of Paper 46, an archangel of Nebadon is describing the wondrous
beauty of Jerusem, the capitol world of Satania, our local system.
Ocean
levels were used in
On the Air
An
archangel of Nebadon describes a certain atmospheric phenomenon observed on Jerusem, stating that its lighting system should not be too
difficult for us to comprehend. Having
no diurnal cycles or seasons that we are familiar with on our evolutionary
planet of solar origin (i.e., planet Urantia), Jerusem’s
source of light derives from “rarefied energies . . . projected upward through
the planetary atmosphere, undergoing certain changes, until they reach the
electric air-ceiling of the sphere; and then these energies are reflected back
and down as a gentle, sifting, and even light of about the intensity of Urantia
sunlight when the sun is shining overhead at ten o-clock in the morning”
(46:1.4). The problem with this analogy
is that it is meaningless, because we are not told at what time of year and at
what latitude on Urantia this degree of light corresponds to. At
But to continue the archangel’s lesson in Jerusem meteorology:
“The gases which reflect this light-energy from the Jerusem upper ionosphere back to the ground are very similar to those in the Urantian upper air belts which are concerned with the auroral phenomena of your so-called northern lights, although these are produced by different causes. On Urantia it is this same gas shield which prevents the escape of the terrestrial broadcast waves, reflecting them earthward when they strike this gas belt in their direct outward flight. In this way broadcasts are held near the surface as they journey through the air around your world.” (46:1.6)
This paragraph reads as though it was composed not by the mind of an archangel of Nebadon, but by a mere mortal of Urantia whose scope of knowledge is limited by his or her breadth of formal learning and by temporal and geographic constraints imposed by early twentieth-century civilization in North America. For one thing, the author is comparing the alleged global occurrence of atmospheric illumination on Jerusem with that of the northern lights, otherwise known as the aurora borealis. The same phenomenon is observed in the southern hemisphere, where it is called aurora australis. These wisps of light occur because of a unique atmospheric condition that exists in the zones that lie between about 65E and 70E north and south magnetic latitudes. They derive from encounters between the upper atmospheric atoms of nitrogen and oxygen with charged particles that were ejected from the Sun in the form of the solar wind. As these charged particles enter the Earth’s atmosphere, they become trapped by the Earth’s magnetic field, called the magnetosphere. The principal zones of the magnetosphere are known as the Van Allen radiation belts, which encircle the Earth in two donut-shaped regions centered about 2,500 and 10,000 miles from the Earth’s surface and converge along the Earth’s magnetic poles. The charged particles are precipitated out of the magnetosphere into the auroral latitudes, which are coincident with the magnetic poles. The Van Allen belts are named after the American physicist J. A. Van Allen, who discovered their existence in 1958 from Explorer satellite data. Although the aurorae do occur within the ionosphere, this “gas belt” as the archangel calls it is not the cause of the phenomena. Furthermore, the reason for their exclusive appearance in the auroral latitudes near the north and south poles was not known until Van Allen’s discovery.
The other item of contention in the above-cited paragraph reveals not merely ignorance, but an outright error on the part of the archangel of Nebadon. The ionospheric “gas belt” is also blamed for bouncing broadcast waves back to earth, hence limiting radio transmission waves to an earthbound existence. But such is not always the case. Radio waves at frequencies less than about 30 megahertz transmitted from the Earth’s surface are turned back by their interaction with various ionospheric layers; the higher the frequency, the higher the waves can penetrate the ionosphere before being bounced back. These reflections make possible long-distance communication to stations well beyond the horizon on the earth’s surface. However, frequencies higher than 30 megahertz pass through the ionosphere into space with little or no distortion. Because these frequencies are unaffected by ionospheric interference, they are widely used as line-of-sight transmissions in the field of satellite communications. It was the British physicist Edward Appleton who demonstrated that short-wave (high-frequency) radio transmissions penetrate the ionosphere in 1924.[26] Would this not have been common knowledge among a group of other-worldly visitors who have been keeping track of our technological advances so as not to divulge any unearned science during their revelations?
Dead
on Arrival
The UB is rife with unverifiable “scientific” assertions regarding angels and other higher beings. We are told, for example, that seraphim can travel at speeds of up to 558,840 miles per second, or about three times the speed of light (23:2.15; 23:3.2). Upon cessation of our physical existence here on planet Urantia, transport seraphim are the means by which our sleeping souls are transported to the mansion worlds for amalgamation with our new “morontia” bodies (112:5.19). Of course, we cannot verify that seraphim can actually travel at three times the speed of light, so we must therefore take it on faith that the celestial authors are true to their word—assuming, of course, that their story is not somehow self-refuting. But according to The UB, this process of repersonalization occurs on the first mansion world, which orbits Jerusem, “on the third day after natural death” (49:6.9). And because the seraphim can travel at three times the speed of light, the first mansion world is at most nine light-days from planet Urantia, or nine days away if one were to travel at the speed of light. Now as most amateur astronomers know, Proxima Centauri, the star closest to our solar system, is about four light-years away. It would therefore take a seraphim traveling at three times the speed of light more than one year to get to our nearest star. On the other hand, our planet Urantia is said to reside “on the outskirts of Satania” (the system of 2000 stars hosting 619 inhabited planets, of which our planet is one, and of which Jerusem is the headquarters architectural world) and is, with one exception, “the farthest removed from Jerusem” (41:10.5). How is it, then, that the same seraphim can reach Jerusem in just three days, which is presumably much further away than Proxima Centauri?
Attempts have been made by Urantian apologists to rectify this apparent contradiction of angelic proportions. Troy Bishop pontificated on the topic in “Seraphic Velocity,” an article in the Fall/Winter 1982-83 issue of Ascender. Bishop points out that traveling faster than the speed of light presents no problem, despite the theory of relativity which holds that no object can travel beyond light speed. The UB “removes” this obstacle simply by stating that the speed of light is the limiting speed “for most nonenseraphimed beings” (23:3.2). In other words, seraphim are exempt from the universal speed limit.
That having been said, we have yet to resolve the problem at hand. Bishop dismisses this and other problems to be found in The UB’s narrative involving seraphic velocities by citing some factor yet unknown to human scientists involving light speed. Perhaps Einstein was wrong after all, and perhaps time or distances change for objects and beings traveling at hyper-light speeds in ways that we just can’t fathom. Justification for this argument from ignorance is provided once again by The UB, which warns us of the “vulnerability of materialism” in that we should not let our “dabblings with the faintly glimpsed findings of ‘relativity’ disturb” our “concepts of the eternity and infinity of God” (195:7.5). However, such an approach begs the question: If we humans cannot comprehend the truth, beauty, and goodness of the various narratives involving seraphic velocities and their apparent inconsistencies with distances traveled, then why provide us with such elaborate details thereof in the first place? To provide us with such details, as has been the case, is tanta