A REVIEW OF DR. IRWIN GINSBURGH’S “SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS OF THE URANTIA BOOK—PART II”[1]
(or, “HINDSIGHT IS 50/50”)
Review by Dale E. Essary
INTRODUCTION
In the Summer 2000 issue of “The Fellowship Herald” is an article written by Dr. Irwin Ginsburgh discussing seven scientific discoveries that were supposedly predicted by the authors of The Urantia Book (The UB). The article also boasts eighteen other scientific facts that have yet to be discovered, but that Dr. Ginsburgh confidently predicts will in fact be discovered to be true in due time. Ginsburgh considers these predictions as “quite miraculous” and “beyond the capabilities of humans” (p. 9) in light of recent scientific discoveries. This claim of scientific prophecy of course flies in the face of the disclaimer provided by a Melchizedek of Nebadon who graces us with the following:
“The laws of revelation hamper us greatly by their proscription of the impartation of unearned or premature knowledge. . . . Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. . . . [W]ithin a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries.” (The UB, 101:4.1,2)
Despite this self-imposed mandate, Dr. Ginsburgh has taken it upon himself to wrest some degree of prophetic dignity from the science pages of the so-called fifth epochal revelation. How does Ginsburgh justify such wanton disregard for these statements presented by no less than a Melchizedek Son of God? Although Ginsburgh is apparently aware of the disclaimer, he puts words in the Melchizedek’s mouth by stating that it is because of the difficulties encountered by the revelators during the process of translating their thoughts into the English language that some of their ideas “may not have gotten through clearly or correctly” (p. 10). (But nowhere in the disclaimer does the Melchizedek indicate that a language barrier was at issue.) Perhaps, Ginsburgh imparts, it is because there are a number of celestial authors from various levels of the celestial hierarchy providing their individual input to the book, that “some may be more skillful at revelation than others” (ibid.). However, a closer look at the disclaimer puts this wishful thinking into proper perspective, as we see the Melchizedek clearly implying that all revelators involved were subjected to the mandate imparted by their superiors. It is obvious, then, that Ginsburgh is not interested in preserving the context of Melchizedek’s message, but speaks out of turn for the sake of discovering the miraculous. It remains to be seen whether the ends justify the means.
Dr. Ginsburgh gushes on by stating that these prophetic scientific concepts promoted in The UB either disagreed with modern science at the time the information was first revealed and were later discovered to be true, or were presented long before human scientists were even aware of them. By virtue of the prophetic nature that Ginsburgh attempts to assign these discoveries, Ginsburgh sees no possibility for any of these concepts having been in line with current scientific thought at the time of their “revelation.” He also brushes off early discoveries that were not promoted by the scientific community as too obscure to count as valid contributions to human knowledge. But again, Ginsburgh speaks out of turn, for if the revelators were capable of selecting “one thousand human concepts” of the “highest and most advanced planetary knowledge” (0:12.11), it would seem, in this author’s opinion, that the capacity to pick up on the most obscure of human discoveries would be a much more impressive demonstration of superhuman prowess than relying on those ideas that have been well-established through mass promotion in scientific textbooks and periodicals.
Be that as it may, the dissemination of these “predictions,” Ginsburgh asserts, will enhance the believability of The UB, and should henceforth be used to promote its authenticity and recruit more readers thereof. One other observation that Ginsburgh makes in the middle of all this posturing, however, needs to be noted and for the time being kept on the back burner: “There was risk for the compilers of The UB to make these predictions, because if they turned out to be wrong, it would reflect on the authenticity of the rest of the book” (p. 9).
With these thoughts in mind, let us review the information Dr. Ginsburgh has gathered for our consideration. The article is divided into three predictive categories, as follows: 1) predictions that disagreed with science in the year of The UB’s publication (1955) and now agree with science (of which there are three); 2) predictions that were unknown to science in 1955, and are now known to science (four in all); and 3) “predictions” still unknown to science (Ginsburgh lists no less than 19 in this latter category). For the sake of brevity, this essay deals only with the first two categories, which Ginsburgh claims are predictions that have already come to pass. The third category, although containing some scientific theories that were popular prior to 1955 and that modern science now disagrees with, is beyond the scope of the purpose of this essay. Moreover, some of the topics in category three are inadvertently covered in my discussion of Category One and/or Category Two topics.
In the interest of fair representation, I have quoted each alleged prediction in its entirety as it appears in Dr. Ginsburgh’s article prior to commenting thereon. I do this to eliminate the potential for misrepresenting Dr. Ginsburgh by paraphrasing his ideas. As Ginsburgh explains in his preamble, the subtitle of each topic is followed by a parenthetical that contains the relevant field of science and the page number of The UB in which the subject matter can be found (followed by Paper:Section.Paragraph in brackets for those who have access to a Uversa Press edition of The UB).
CATEGORY I – PREDICTIONS THAT DISAGREED WITH SCIENCE IN 1955 AND NOW AGREE
“1. End
of Cretaceous period and death of the dinosaurs. (Geology, p. 690
[60:3.16]) The Urantia Book claims that the Cretaceous period ended with
one of the greatest volcanic magma flows of all time; it covered several continents.
Science originally agreed with this; but late in the twentieth century, science
found a tantalizing new solution to the problem. The cretaceous period
supposedly ended when a ten mile diameter meteorite plunged into the
First of all, The UB does not claim that the Cretaceous period ended with one of the greatest volcanic magma flows of all time that covered several continents. Dr. Ginsburgh is relying on what an alleged Life Carrier states on page 690 to draw this misleading inference:
“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 million years ago (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 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. Dr. Ginsburgh is inferring that The UB claims mass volcanism is what caused the wiping out of much plant life in the food chain, which in turn led to the death of many animal species. But again, The UB says no such thing! 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 Dr. Ginsburgh is proposing. 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 (just as the disclaimer on page 1109 [101:4] tells us), which was unaware at the time of any mass extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous. Count this “prediction” as a celestial rumination that agreed with science in 1955 and now disagrees.
“2. Plate Tectonics or Continental Drift (Geology,
pp. 663 [57:8.23-25], 668 [58:4.3-4; 58:5.1]). The book says that the
continents drift slowly over the surface of the earth (several inches per
year). This was proposed in the early years of the twentieth century and had
not been proved by 1955. However, a look at the east coast of
In this case, Dr.
Ginsburgh is attempting to equate continental drift, a theory that was proposed
in the early-twentieth century, with plate tectonics, the mechanism by which
continental drift occurs that was established in the latter half of the
twentieth century. German meteorologist
Alfred Wegener (1880-1930) is credited for developing the concept of
continental drift. In constructing his
theory, he began with the well-known similarity of the
Although Wegener had no forthright answer to the question of the driving mechanisms behind the continental drift, he did not hesitate to speculate in an effort to establish the plausibility of his hypothesis. The first of two possible components he came up with was a “flight from the poles” force that caused the continents to drift towards the equator. The other component, addressing the westward drift of the American continents, was the tidal friction created by the slowing of the Earth’s rotation. Wegener’s suppositions left the issue open for others to speculate as well. Among the various ideas presented, British geologist Arthur Holmes played a significant role in promoting the drift hypothesis by proposing a far more plausible mechanism of continental movement than those put forward by Wegener. In a 1931 publication[8] of a lecture he gave to the Geological Society of Glasgow in 1928, Holmes appealed to the thermal effects of radioactivity. He proposed a model of convection currents in the substratum that, if rising beneath continents, could cause continental drift.[9]
But this was not
the first hint of a viable driving mechanism for continental drift that the
revelators had at their disposal. Frank
Bursley Taylor (1860-1938) of the U.S. Geological Survey came forth with the
first coherent hypothesis involving what we would now call continental
drift. Having anticipated Wegener’s
theory by two years, he noticed the position of the mid-Atlantic ridge, a
submerged mountain range traversing the
However, none of these hypotheses are to be gleaned from The UB’s geologic treatises when it comes to explaining the mechanism behind continental drift. Indeed, the revelators appear to be unaware of the roles that convection currents in the mantle and mid-ocean spreading ridges play in the modern theory of plate tectonics. Instead, the celestial prognosticators rely on a hybridized version of the concept known as isostasy, a nineteenth-century throwback that was used to describe the means by which land masses are elevated. Clarence Dutton (1841-1912) invented the term “isostasy” in 1889 to denote the concept that as mountains are stripped of their substance by erosion and are lightened, their area tends to rise. Conversely, as their substance is loaded onto the shelves of the sea, the shelves tend to sink. Below is a classic example of isostasy from the pages of the fifth epochal revelation:
“The sea bottoms are more dense than the land masses, and this is what keeps the continents above water.” (58:5.6)
To be sure, the concept of a molten substratum on which the continents float was picked up by the UB authors:
“The outer crust was about forty miles thick. This outer shell was supported by, and rested directly upon, a molten sea of basalt of varying thickness, a mobile layer of molten lava held under high pressure . . . .” (58:5.3)
But the revelators elicit poor judgment when attempting to amalgamate this phenomenon with isostasy as their explanation for the mechanism that drives continental drift. The above passage continues: “. . . a mobile layer of molten lava held under high pressure but always tending to flow hither and yon in equalization of shifting planetary pressures, thereby tending to stabilize the earth’s crust.”
Several passages from The UB reflect the “celestial” authors’ lack of understanding of the driving mechanism behind continental drift. For instance, a “Life Carrier” promoting isostasy but totally ignoring continental drift in the present tense graces us with these pearls of ignorance:
“[I]f the continents were not lighter than the ocean beds, gravity would draw the edges of the oceans up onto the land, but such phenomena are not observable.” (58:5.6)
“[A]ll continents tend to creep into the oceans. . . . [D]ifferential pressures tend to cause the continents to slide toward the ocean beds.” (58:5.7)
Both of the above
statements are contradicted by the existence of the
We can also see
why the “Life Carrier” chose to ignore continental drift in the above passages
with this account of geologic history: “75,000,000 years ago marks the
end of the continental drift” (60:3.12; emphasis original). In other words, the celestials are of the
opinion that the mechanism of continental drift ceased way back in the
Cretaceous! We see this opinion
reflected in the previous passage quoted above, which places the existence of
the “molten sea of basalt” in the past tense.
Had continental drift ceased about 75 mya as the revelators proclaim,
the Indian continent would not have collided with
Unlike the case for “prediction” 1 above, which did agree with early-twentieth-century science to some degree, this one should be categorized as that which disagreed with science in 1955, but now disagrees even more.
If the UB authors really wanted to impress us with their prescient knowledge, they could have “predicted” the other “supercontinents” and their chronology that geologists have discovered subsequent to the discovery of Pangaea. Today’s geology textbooks tell us that Pangaea is the supercontinent of Permian and Triassic time that formed by the collision of Gondwanaland with Laurasia, which subsequently fragmented near the end of the Paleozoic, or about 200 mya. (It was South African Alex du Toit who, as far back as 1937 with the publishing of his well-received book Our Wandering Continents, postulated the existence of a southern and northern supercontinent he named Gondwanaland and Laurasia, respectively, which had been separated since the late Paleozoic and which subsequently formed the present continental configurations.) Prior to that, another supercontinent named Rodinia had formed during the early Proterozoic (about 900 mya) and fragmented just before the Paleozoic began (about 600 mya). Even earlier than this was the supercontinent known as Pannotia, which assembled near the end of the Precambrian (2,500 mya). The fact that the UB authors only recite the breakup of one supercontinent beginning at about 750 mya (57:8.23) points to the unimpressive reality that they were taking liberties with the timing of Wegener’s Pangaea in an attempt to come up with something “original.”
“3. Dark matter in the universe. The visible matter that we see in the sky is now thought to be a minor fraction (less than 5%) of the mass (stuff) in the universe. The rest of the mass is not visible, and is referred to as dark matter. It is needed for its gravitational attraction to keep rotating galaxies from tearing themselves apart. The first clue came in the thirties, but it was ignored by astronomers for decades. Recent measurements made on a large number of stars in the large Magellanic Cloud showed that some stars would disappear for a short time; this clearly implied that some dark matter moved in front of the missing star. The nature of the dark matter is not precisely known. The Urantia Book calls this subject the dark islands of space, and says that they are mostly dead suns. Science has to explain why there are so many dead suns.”
In actuality, The UB states that the “dark islands of space” fall into three categories:
(a) “Some of the dense dark islands are the direct result of the accretion of transmuting energy in space.” (15:5.10)
(b) “Another group of these dark islands have come into being by the accumulation of enormous quantities of cold matter, mere fragments and meteors, circulating through space. Such aggregations of matter have never been hot and, except for density, are in composition very similar to Urantia.” (15:5.10)
(c) “Some of the dark islands of space are burned-out isolated suns, all available space-energy having been emitted. The organized units of matter approximate full condensation, virtual complete consolidation . . . .” (15:5.11; emphasis added)
We can ignore category (a) above as a candidate for dark matter because its description (the transmutation of energy into dense matter) is militated against by Einstein’s general relativity theory and the laws of thermodynamics, which would at best allow for the creation of some form of unstable (and therefore short-lived) matter. Of course, we could appeal to a metaphysical argument such that the “accretion of transmuting energy in space” is a description of some unobservable phenomenon. However, such an appeal would be useless for our purpose, since it is Ginsburg’s intent to fulfill a prophetic description of dark matter to The UB. Furthermore, an explanation such as this would again place the celestial authors in violation of their self-imposed mandate not to disclose unearned knowledge to us mortals.
Category (b) would fit under the realm of plausibility, since both common sense and direct observation (comets, meteors, asteroids, etc.) tell us that some of this type of matter exists as remnants of the birth of solar systems. It was easy enough to theorize the existence of these material remnants during the early part of the twentieth century, and to even envision the possibility of whole planets being formed in deep space from the accumulation thereof. Indeed, The UB contends that a dark island of space composed of this type of material would be formed by the “accumulation of enormous quantities of cold matter” (15:5.10). Some of these accumulated dark islands are even said to be “enormous in mass,” their density being “well-nigh unbelievable,” exerting a powerful gravitational influence such that they act as “powerful balance wheels, holding large neighboring systems in effective leash” and in fact holding the “gravity balance of power in many constellations” (15:6.6). Here, then, is a viable candidate worthy of contention. However, it would seem reasonable to assert that the early 20th century human astronomers would be capable of detecting the presence of such unseen local space bodies by virtue of their localized gravitational influence. The relatively tiny planet known as Pluto was discovered in 1930 because astronomers knew where to look by virtue of its gravitational influence on the Solar System’s outer planets. But because no enormous dark space bodies that hold several suns in their place have been detected to date, their existence has so far not been taken under serious consideration.
We also have the enormous problem of finding sufficient material or the necessary kinematics to form a roving terrestrial planet large enough to qualify as a heavyweight encounter of the darkest kind. It is highly unlikely that sufficient quantities of heavy element material could form beyond existing or forming solar systems, or could escape the gravitational grasp of its parent star. Any body of significant mass would likely attract more hydrogen than any other element, which in turn would either become a gas planet or a star in its own right. Tangible evidence of this theoretical outcome has recently been discovered. The young Trapezium star cluster in the Orion Nebula is host to what astronomers have identified as over 100 extremely low mass objects, most of which are candidates for brown dwarf stars (to be discussed in more detail below), but many of which show evidence of falling in a range more commensurate with giant planets. These drifting, “free-floating planets” are perhaps as little as eight times as massive as Jupiter and likely formed along with the cluster stars a million or so years ago. They are detectable in the infrared because they are still hot from formation, but will eventually cool and fade. If Trapezium is typical of young star clusters, then the survey results suggest that free-floating planets may be fairly common.[12] Note, however, that the mass of these free-floating planets is constrained to a small fraction of the Sun’s mass, and therefore would not meet our criterion as a “dark giant of space.”
Which leaves us with the last of the three categories of dark
islands of space to consider.
This latter category (burned-out suns) is apparently what Dr. Ginsburgh
thinks comprises the vast majority of dark matter. But what are the revelators referring to
specifically? One might think immediately
of white dwarfs, which are the remnant cores of main sequence stars, such as
our sun, after they have exhausted all their nuclear fuel. But we can eliminate white dwarfs as
candidates for evidence of prophecy because they were well-known and some even catalogued
by human observers beginning in the 1920s.
Moreover, white dwarfs are still luminous objects that emit enough
thermal radiation not to be considered completely “burned-out isolated suns,
all available space-energy having been emitted.” Even an
We can also ignore the more recently-discovered brown dwarfs, which are not “burned-out suns” but proto-suns that do not contain enough mass to induce nuclear fusion, and thereby have not burned any nuclear fuel whatsoever. On the contrary, brown dwarfs serve as a category of space body that the divine revelators were either unaware of or chose not to reveal, for nowhere in The UB is such phenomenon described. (It would be nonsensical to assert that brown dwarfs serve as a demonstration of the celestials’ predictive prowess if the “prophets” failed to mention their existence in the first place!) Brown dwarfs are failed stars with masses so low (about 8% of the Sun’s) that they cannot sustain nuclear hydrogen burning, although brown dwarfs are thought to be still massive enough to burn deuterium for energy. And though many brown dwarfs have recently been found in places like the Orion nebula, their very low masses disqualify them from being considered a “dark giant of space.”
What
the term “burned-out suns” most likely refers to is the “black dwarf”
hypothesis postulated by Ralph Fowler of
As it
turns out, the latter two of the above categories of “dark islands of space”
meted out of The UB may qualify as
candidates for what today is referred to as “ordinary” matter. These varieties of ordinary matter would
comprise only a small fraction of the total mass that makes up the universe,
assuming their existence were ever to be proven. The dark matter issue is the stuff of mystery
on a much grander scale. The existence
of dark matter was first posited in 1933 by astronomer Fritz Zwicky through his
studies of the galactic cluster in the Coma constellation. His measurements of galactic velocities
indicated that the mass of the cluster is too small by about a factor of 10 to
retain the cluster as the gravitationally-bound structure it appeared to
be. Zwicky concluded that there was a
considerable amount of invisible material he dubbed the “missing mass” binding
the cluster together. This hypothesis is
what Dr. Ginsburgh is probably referring to when he states that the “first clue
came in the thirties” but was “ignored by astronomers for decades.” Indeed, it was not until the early 1970s that
Vera Rubin and Kent Ford of the Carnegie Institute started to study the rotation
of the galaxies and concurred that there must be more
mass in the galaxies than in their visible discs to explain their rotation
rates.[14]
The candidates for “dark” matter can be placed in two basic
categories. “Ordinary” cold matter comes
in a variety of possible sizes, including ionized gas, dust grains, asteroids,
black dwarfs, brown dwarfs, white dwarfs, small black holes, and massive
compact halo objects (MACHOs). The more
“exotic” varieties of dark matter would comprise the veritable zoo of
theoretical subatomic particles with names such as photinos, neutrinos,
gravitinos, axions, magnetic monopoles, and weakly interacting massive
particles (WIMPs).
Dr. Ginsburgh refers to a method used to detect dark matter
passing in front of the Large Magellanic Cloud, our nearest neighbor
galaxy. The dark objects were detected
by observing a phenomenon called gravitational lensing, in which a relatively
large gravity body will cause light coming from a distant object directly
behind it to bend and focus the incoming light around itself according to
Einstein’s theory of relativity. The
objects “microlensing” light coming from the Large Magellanic
Cloud were MACHOs, a type of space body of the “ordinary” category that
is more massive than Jupiter but not massive enough to burn nuclear fuel
sufficiently enough to shine brightly.
After watching for this phenomenon for years, researchers were only able
to detect eight such events. The rarity
of the observed phenomena led the researchers to surmise that MACHOs, whatever
they are, constitute only a small portion of the total dark mass observed. Since the initial discovery of the existence
of MACHOs in 1993, the conclusion has been drawn that, although a few are red
dwarfs, most of them are brown dwarfs and are therefore probably more difficult
to detect. In any case, the objects
detected in front of the LMC were not “burned-out suns” as Dr. Ginsburgh
contends.
Today, dark matter is believed to consist of a hitherto
undiscovered type of elementary particle and permeate throughout galaxies. The reason that dark matter still eludes our
detection is that even after compensating for all known forms of “ordinary”
cold dark matter, both observed and theoretical, something else is out there of
the more “exotic” variety that is exerting an enormous pull on and in galaxies
that has yet to be fully accounted for.
The nature and frequency of black dwarfs, for example, is such that they
would only exert minuscule gravitational pulls and on tightly confined spheres
of influence.
Of the known elementary particles, not more than a small
fraction of the dark matter can be neutrinos, a light-weight breed of particle
that zips through space and is unattached to any atom. Neutrinos were once a prominent possibility
for dark matter, and their role remains a matter of discussion, but experiments
have found that they are probably too lightweight. Moreover, they are “hot” particles—that is,
in the early universe they were moving at a velocity comparable to the velocity
of light. Hot particles were too elusive
to have settled into observed cosmic structures.
The best fit to the astronomical observations involves
“cold” dark matter, a term that refers to some undiscovered particle that, when
it formed, moved sluggishly. The
Standard Model of elementary particles contains no examples of particles that
could serve as cold dark matter, but extensions of the Standard Model offer
many plausible candidates. Dark matter
is pervasive throughout galaxies and perhaps even in intergalactic space. Recent studies have determined the
distribution of dark matter in the universe, revealing invisible halos
extending 1.5 million light-years from each galaxy’s center and containing at
least as much mass as 5 trillion suns.
Using the technique known as gravitational lensing, astronomers have
detected gravitational distortions in the arrangement of superclusters of
galaxies that stretch 10 million to 100 million light-years across the
sky. The technique of gravitational
lensing has also allowed astronomers to develop detailed maps of the
distribution of dark matter.[15]
But admitting that dark matter exists and asserting that
the celestial revelators were predicting its existence is a dangerous thing to
do in theological terms. Dr. Ginsburgh
is taking his readers down a dark chasm of celestial incredulity by lobbying
for the existence of that which refutes the eternality and potential infinitude
of the universe of universes. The
accumulation of enormous quantities of dark matter stands in stark defiance of
the recycled matter phenomenon that is revealed by a Perfector of Wisdom:
“All physical force, energy, and matter are one. All force-energy originally proceeded from
nether
In summary, then, these so-called “dark islands of space”
are not precursors to the modern discovery of dark matter. Instead, the descriptions of these dark
islands do not transcend the extent of scientific knowledge at the
mid-twentieth century mark. The
phenomenon observed by early twentieth century astronomers that triggered the
discovery of dark matter is nowhere described in The UB. Nor do any of the
descriptions of the dark islands of space match a description of dark matter
and its influence on large-scale bodies such as galaxies and galactic clusters,
but rather describe local phenomena that would exert their influence only on
their celestial neighbors. We must
conclude, then, that the revelators were not describing what future mortal
astronomers would discern as the discovery of dark matter. This “prediction” therefore falls under the
category of that which merely was the extent of knowledge before 1955, but was
not a prediction of future discovery.
CATEGORY II -- PREDICTIONS UNKNOWN TO SCIENCE IN 1955 AND
NOW KNOWN
“1. Large scale structure of the
universe. In the thirties, the
astronomy books said that galaxies are uniformly distributed throughout space.
This was based on the relatively short distances that telescopes were able to
see. Modern long-range telescopes can peer at matter that is thought to be
billions of light years (distance light travels in one year, about 6 trillion
miles) away. Studies of relative motions of distant galaxies beyond the Virgo
constellation show what seems to be a massive gravity center (Virgo Cluster)
that is about 50 million light years away and attracts hundreds of galaxies.
This structure tends to be somewhat flattened. The Milky Way is remote from the
center of this structure; the entire structure is called the Virgo
supercluster. This sounds like a major sector discussed in The Urantia Book.
Astronomers have even found a larger structure (the Great Attractor) which
could be the center of our superuniverse. This is a subject that science only
recently discovered. The Urantia Book was clearly years ahead of its
time. (See Fellowship Herald, Vol. 2, #1, 1999-2000 for
detailed information.)”
Many of the statements made in this categorical treatise
are patently false. The astronomy books
of the 1930s were not portraying a uniform distribution of galaxies, nor were
the telescopes of that day incapable of peering long distances. Moreover, the description of the universe of
universes falls woefully short of the current breadth of knowledge regarding
the architecture of the universe.
It was Immanuel Kant who first suggested in the eighteenth
century that the “nebulae” observed by astronomers were galaxies of stars, like
the Milky Way, but at distances so great that their individual stars could not
be resolved. These nebulae, which tended
to have a compact spiral structure, were thought by some astronomers around the
turn of the twentieth century to be distant star systems like the Milky Way,
but others thought they were gaseous objects within the Milky Way. Evidence for both of these two positions
began to mount. In 1911, F. W. Very
estimated the distance to the Andromeda nebula at 8,000 light years by estimating
the brightness of the nova that had appeared in Andromeda in 1885. This estimate led Harlow Shapley and others
to place the Andromeda nebula within the confines of the Milky Way. Heber Curtis, on the other hand, utilizing
more recently discovered novas in Andromeda that had been discovered in 1917,
estimated Andromeda to be 500,000 light years away and thus well outside of the
Milky Way. The merits of these two
opposing scenarios were defended in a famous debate that took place between
Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in April 1920 at the National Academy of
Sciences. Shapley maintained that spiral
galaxies were masses of gas associated with the Milky Way, while Curtis held
that they were stellar systems like the Milky Way, but at very great distances.
The result of the 1920 debate was largely inconclusive, but
subsequent discoveries proved Curtis correct.
The nature of spiral nebulae was resolved by Edwin Hubble, who between
1919 and 1924 made a series of photographs of Andromeda and another nebula at
the
What’s more, galaxy surveys in the early part of the
twentieth century indicated that the spiral galaxies often appeared to occur in
groups, which were at first called super-galaxies (now called galactic
clusters). The nearest of these galactic
clusters appeared to be in Virgo (discovered in the 1920s by Hubble), numbering
about 500 galaxies, with an estimated distance of 7 million light years. Hubble and Milton Humason estimated the Pegasus
cluster to be 23 million light years away, and by 1936 the team had measured
the distance of some clusters at over 200 million light years.[16]
It turns out that the distances of galaxies provided in The UB fit well within the range estimated
in the 1920s and 1930s. An alleged
Perfector of Wisdom describes the structure of the master universe precisely as
follows. Between the outer periphery of
the inhabited superuniverses and the first outer space level of uninhabited
galaxies is a zone of empty space about one-half million light-years wide. The first outer space level is about 25
million light-years wide. Between the
first and second outer space levels is another empty zone about 50 million
light-years wide (12:1.8,9). (The narrative does not provide any details
regarding the structure of the outer three levels of outer space.) Therefore, the distance to the Virgo and
Pegasus clusters would place them within the first outer space level, with the
others subsequently discovered with distances of up to 200 million light years
in the second outer space level or possibly beyond.
However, how does The
UB’s cosmologic model fit
with today’s more accurate estimates of galactic distances? Well, since Dr. Ginsburgh has brought up the
Virgo cluster, let’s look at that as an example. Modern scientific estimates place the Virgo
cluster of galaxies at between 40 and 70 million light years away, depending
upon the galaxy. (Ginsburgh places the
cluster at an average of 50 million light years away, in close agreement.) Recall that The UB model places an empty space corridor fifty million light
years wide between the first and second outer space levels, beginning at the
outer periphery of the first outer space level, which is about 25.5 million
light years away. This means that the
empty space corridor is from 25.5 to 75.5 million light years away, which is
precisely where the Virgo supercluster should be!
Regarding the structure of the Virgo cluster itself, Dr.
Ginsburgh states that it “tends to be flattened.” This statement is also flat-out false. Go to any astronomy textbook with a decent
image of the Virgo cluster, and you will see several galaxies in a wide band of
space, their galactic planes facing various positions from oblique to edgewise,
and their axes angled from “level” to various “tilted” positions. Moreover, each of these galaxies (of which
there are about 3,000 catalogued so far) is at a unique distance independent of
the others. Ginsburgh is attempting to casually
suggest that the structure of the Virgo supercluster is in harmony with the
cosmological model of The UB (we will
get back to this issue a little later).
Size Does Matter
On a tangential note, Dr. Ginsburgh refers us to his previous
article in the Winter 1999-2000 issue of the Fellowship Herald entitled
“Two Cosmologies—Astronomy and The Urantia Book,” in which he presents
his interpretation of UB
cosmology. It is apparent from reading
the article that Ginsburgh intends to demonstrate the “harmony” that exists
between the breadth of current scientific knowledge and The UB so far as the structure of the universe is concerned. But Ginsburgh’s interpretation of The UB’s cosmological model is seriously
flawed in several ways. One reads from
the article that Dr. Ginsburgh assigns our Milky Way galaxy as a minor sector
of the superuniverse known as Orvonton, which is comprised of ten major sectors
of 100 minor sectors each. Our “minor
sector” galaxy is a flat disk 100,000 light years in diameter, while the
Orvonton superuniverse is also a disk that has a diameter of 500 million light
years.[17] This geometric assignment allows Ginsburgh to
fit the Virgo galaxy cluster in the center of our major sector with our Milky
Way and all other appurtenant minor sectors in a rotational orbit around the
Virgo supercluster. The Virgo “major
sector” supercluster in turn revolves around the “Great Attractor,” which
becomes the center of the superuniverse called Orvonton. Such an arrangement of the cosmos would grant
harmonious accord between The UB and
modern science, in Dr. Ginsburgh’s mind.
However, a Mighty Messenger would beg to differ with this setup:
“From the outermost system of inhabited worlds to the
center of the superuniverse is a trifle less than two hundred and fifty
thousand light-years.” (32:2.11)
In other words, Dr. Ginsburgh has overestimated the size of
Orvonton by a full three orders of magnitude!
The UB authors make it clear
that they assign the Milky Way galaxy to be the superuniverse called
Orvonton. A Universal Censor at first
calls the Milky Way the “central nucleus of Orvonton” (15:3.1), which could not
be the case in Ginsburgh’s model. If the
Milky Way is merely a minor sector rotating around the nucleus of a major sector
(The Virgo supercluster), which in turn rotates around the center of Orvonton,
then the Milky Way is clearly not the central nucleus of Orvonton. The Universal Censor later clarifies the
stated position by affirming that the vast Milky Way and its great
agglomeration of stars, globular clusters, and nebulae constitutes “about one
seventh of the inhabited evolutionary universes” (ibid.). Because a Perfector
of Wisdom in Paper 12 denotes each superuniverse as being approximately equal
in size and comprising one seventh of the superuniverse creation (12:1.6), we
can safely conclude that the Milky Way is Orvonton (otherwise, we are
forced to contend that the celestial authors mentioned contradict one
another). This one-to-one correlation of
the Milky Way with the superuniverse Orvonton is affirmed elsewhere in The UB
(e.g., 15:4.8,9).
Apparently, then, even the celestial authors themselves have the
dimensions of the Milky Way slightly wrong, giving it a diameter of about
500,000 light years (the current estimate is about 100,000 light years, perhaps
as much as 130,000 light years if we include the halo of open clusters
surrounding it). It is for this reason
that Ginsburgh may be attempting to pass off this alternative model, just as
other Urantian apologists have previously discussed this problem to little or
no satisfaction.[18]
Another problem with Dr. Ginsburgh’s model is
location. In order to fit the
superuniverse model, both the Virgo cluster and the Great Attractor cluster
would by definition have to be within (or at least very near) the same plane
that the disk of the Milky Way is.
Although the Great Attractor is behind the Milky Way disk and therefore
could be considered to be within the galactic plane, the Virgo cluster is about
75 degrees “north” of the galactic plane.
In conclusion, then, scientists were already becoming
familiar with the large-scale, non-uniform structure of the universe in the
1930s by virtue of telescopes capable of peering deep into the cosmos and
discerning myriads of galaxies. The
galactic distances provided in The UB
match those that were estimated in the early half of the twentieth century, but
do not match today’s measurements. In
addition, the sizes and locations of the Virgo cluster and the Great Attractor
galaxy clusters are not compatible with Ginsburgh’s interpretation of the UB model of the cosmos. We must therefore throw this “prediction” on
the ever-growing pile of outdated science.
“2. DNA for future development of the human race
(Genetics p. 734 [65:3.6]) The Urantia Book says the human race has
developed slowly by evolution, and by some crossbreeding with a pair of racial
uplifters, Adam and Eve. The book also says that future human development will
come from technical developments, rather than evolution. Since we are starting
to understand the molecular structure of human DNA, it is highly likely that
this will be the technology used.”
The differences between what The UB and modern science have to say about the human race continue
to grow by leaps and bounds. And we owe
much of this divergence to the very recent efforts made toward the mapping of
the human genome. But before we go
there, let us look at a more fundamental flaw in UB genetic theory.
A “Vorondadek Son” informs us that “On Urantia there are
forty-eight units of pattern control—trait determiners—in the sex cells of
human reproduction” (36:2.4). It sounds
as though the celestial author is referring to the number of chromosomes in a
human cell. And indeed, the number 48
was the accepted count for several decades prior to 1955. Early counts had yielded numbers that
centered around 48, a number that is consistent with those obtained from other
mammals. Cytologists had started
counting human chromosomes in the 1890s.
The problem encountered during these early counts was that cytologists
made their counts with tissue taken from corpses, usually those of executed
criminals. Once mammalian cells are
dead, their chromosomes quickly bunch up, thus making it extremely difficult to
obtain an accurate count even with the aid of a microscope. Cytologists began using fresh tissue obtained
during surgery to solve the problem.
Theophilus S. Painter, a cytogeneticist at the
But in August 1955, just months before the initial
publishing of The UB, a group of
cytologists in a Swedish lab had counted two sex chromosomes plus 22 pairs of autosomes
(nonsex chromosomes) in normal human cells, the sum of which totals 46. Improvements in sample preparation and
observation techniques enabled the Swedish team to obtain unambiguous results
in 1955. Further experiments yielded
consistent counts, and in 1956 they published their results.[20]
Unfortunately, the Vorondadek Son who indited Paper 36 was
apparently unable to submit a late revision to the printer’s press in time for
this late-breaking update. A few UB apologists have attempted to make 48
the correct number in an effort to vindicate the celestial author’s
indictment. In a lecture given at the
first Urantian Science Symposium held in
Now, let us get back to the human genome project. Dr. Ginsburgh correctly asserts that The UB traces mankind’s roots through
the course of natural evolution. The
popularity of the idea that humans evolved from primates and hominids began to
increase in the late nineteenth century as fossil remains of what were thought
to be the “missing links” between primates and humans were being
discovered. One of these links, the
Neanderthal species, was immediately hailed as proof of human evolution from
primates upon its initial discovery in 1856 near Düsseldorf, in western
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 in the decades following its
discovery in 1953 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.
A 1997 issue of Cell magazine reports that
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) was extracted from the Neanderthal fossil specimen
that had been found in 1856 near Düsseldorf.
Sequence comparisons of the extracted sample with modern human mtDNA
sequences indicate that the Neanderthal sequence falls outside the range of
variation for modern humans. Moreover,
phylogenetic analyses using the new evidence suggest that Neanderthals went
extinct without contributing mtDNA to modern humans.[24]
A second successful extraction of mtDNA from archaeological
bone material was recovered from a Neanderthal that was found in a cave of the
northern
With so much corroborative evidence, we are forced to hold
the testimony provided by the “Life Carrier” who presented Paper 64 under
suspicion, since the account places Neanderthals in a pivotal role during human
evolution. An “Archangel of Nebadon”
will also need to be placed under the same scrutiny for his/her/its part in
promoting Neanderthals as part of our ancestral heritage, for according to
Paper 78, the Neanderthals were “absorbed” by the
“blue” human race (78:1.8). What is
more, since modern science dictates that the link between Neanderthals and
modern humans must be severed, then so too must go the ancestral links of
Neanderthals, which by The UB’s
account would include the “Badonan” tribes (64:3) and their progenitors, the
“Andonites” (64:1,2).
Dr. Ginsburgh might wish to reply by bringing up what is
known in anthropological circles as the “Lagar Velho” child. The term refers to the skeletal remains of a
four-year-old child that appears to have been buried in a cave near
Another sad commentary regarding celestial opinion is the
knowledge recently gleaned from genetic research in the area of alleged racial
differences. Worldwide human genetic
studies undertaken as part of the human genome project have revealed that there
are essentially no genetic differences between the various ethnic populations
(what The UB calls races) among the
human population. The subtle differences
between “races” are literally only skin deep; that is, they pertain only to
such things as variations in pigmentation and eye color. Scientists involved in the genome project
explain that these traits that are used to distinguish one race from another
changed rapidly in response to extreme environmental pressures during the short
course of human history. Thus,
populations with dark skin who lived in hot, tropical climates developed dark
skin as protection against ultraviolet radiation, while people in northern
latitudes adapted with pale skin, the better to produce vitamin D from pale
sunlight. Other differential characteristics,
labeled group differences, are attributed to what is termed the “founder
effect.” These can include facial
features or the tendency of certain population groups to develop certain
diseases. The more significant
variations among human populations such as intelligence and stature cross all
ethnic boundaries and cannot be “pigeonholed” into any specific ethnic
strain. In other words, the term “race”
has little or no biological meaning beyond the fact that we are all part of one
race—the human race.[28] It has become more evident, then, that the
apostle Paul was correct when he wrote: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave
nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).