DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

SCIENCE ERRORS IN THE URANTIA BOOK

PART I: IT’S NOT OUR FAULT!

(Disproved Scientific Theories in The Urantia Book)

“Faith does not shackle the creative imagination, neither does it maintain an unreasoning prejudice toward the discoveries of scientific investigation.” (The Urantia Book, 101:8.4)

Introduction

One of the more peculiar attributes of The Urantia Book (The UB) as an entry of spiritual literature is its vast amount of scientific information. Fields of science addressed in the book include anthropology, archaeology, astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, and particle physics. In its cataloguing of scientific knowledge, however, The UB could be seen as a measure of its times. During the early part of the twentieth century, discoveries in science and technology were occurring at an increasingly rapid rate. Many of these discoveries clearly left impressions on the authors of The UB, as the record shows. Most of the science in The UB reflects theories that prevailed up until 1955 when The UB was first published. And yet, The UB’s science content stops just short of the half-century mark, as none of the great scientific discoveries of the last half of the twentieth century are predicted by its authors.

As has always been the case for the scientific method, much of yesterday’s “science” becomes nothing more than a snapshot in time along the parade of blunders encountered during the human endeavor to learn more about the world of nature. Indeed, some of The UB’s scientific information has remained viable over the decades, while much of it has not. Since its publication in 1955, there has been a steadily growing and increasingly sophisticated body of literature in defense of The UB’s outdated scientific content. More often than not, however, modern research has disproved The UB’s scientific claims. Of course it goes without saying that, short of genuine inspiration, with any large work like The UB odds are that there are bound to be a few lucky hits among the hundreds of misses. Due in large part to this exposure of The UB’s faulty science, Urantians have recently begun to split into two camps: the “liberals,” who freely admit that The UB contains serious scientific errors, while at the same time claiming that this “setback” does not at all detract from its spiritual claims; and the “fundamentalists,” who tirelessly attempt to demonstrate that The UB’s science is not only error-free, but in many cases is far ahead of its time. As more knowledge is gained, however, the fundamentalists are rapidly losing ground.

By what authority, then, do the liberal Urantians deal with this strange amalgamation of fact and fiction? To explain the hits and misses of scientific theory (as opposed to the pure record of achievement that might be expected from divine authors), The UB contains a disclaimer that turns on the notion of “unearned” science. For detractors (yours truly included), this caveat is transparently clever, sparing the book from any objective evaluation. If its scientific theories are disproved, they can be ascribed to the limited science of the times; if they pan out, they are pointed to as evidence of prescient intelligence.

Ironically, no one spelled out the weaknesses of such a ploy more plainly than William S. Sadler, noted psychiatrist and resident of 533 Diversey Parkway in Chicago, U.S.A., from whence The UB came to be. In his 1923 book The Truth about Spiritualism, which remains one of the strongest attacks ever written on fraudulent mediums and their methods, Sadler complained of the “spirits” of spiritualism:

“If the spirits are so wise, why have they never whispered the principles of some new and great invention to the mediums? Why is it that our mechanical inventions all originate in the brains of our natural-born geniuses, or are worked out in the persistent sweat of such men as Thomas A. Edison? What a time and labor saving it would be if the secrets of the wireless-telegraph, or the principles of an internal combustion gas engine, could be secured at a spiritualistic séance. Why is it that these discarnate sprits and spirit beings of invisible space, if they are so interested in human kind, do not whisper to the mediums the cure for cancer, the remedy for infantile paralysis, or the most successful method of treating pneumonia? Why do not these all-wise, omnipresent spirits that hover about our earthly forms, take a greater interest in things that are worth while? Why do they spend so much time telling us where to find lost jack-knives, and other useless trinkets? Why do they waste so much energy in telling us the date on an ancient coin, or the foolish thoughts that went through our heads at some given moment, when there is so much that is worth while that needs to be done on this planet and for its inhabitants? An intelligent visitor cannot go to an average spiritualistic séance, without leaving with the impression that the entities of the spirit land are either infantile, or pure and simple ‘boobs,’ when, after all their laborious effort to contact with the living, they indulge in such puerile and juvenile communications.”[1]

One would think, then, that Sadler, an established debunker of paranormal quackery and the so-called “custodian” of the “Fifth Epochal Revelation” (i.e., The UB), would have exercised the same scrutiny with the Papers while they were being “revealed” by “angels” as he did with the spiritual mediums of his day. Sadly, such is not the case, as the foregoing exposé will reveal that Dr. Sadler must have turned a blind gimlet eye to the Urantia Papers.

We can group the scientific errors of The UB into three broad categories. The first category includes the ever-growing number of scientific theories and/or “facts” that were once held in popular regard during the early twentieth century, but have subsequently been discovered to be incorrect. It is this group of theories that have been under the highest degree of scrutiny subsequent to their discovery, and for which the infamous disclaimer (101:4) was apparently intended. (See my discussion of this weak attempt at saving celestial face below, under the heading “Caveat Emptor!”)

We shall be introduced to the other two categories of mistakes in Parts II and III of this series to follow. For now, let us take inventory of those ideas in The UB that were once thought to be salient by human scientists (and that were ratified by our celestial visitors), but were later discovered to be incorrect.

So Close, and Yet So Far (Distance to Andromeda Galaxy)

A “Universal Censor” hailing from “Uversa” provides us with some rather near-sighted cosmic insight:

“This far-distant nebula [Andromeda galaxy] is visible to the naked eye, and when you view it, pause to consider that the light you behold left those distant suns almost one million years ago.” (15:4.7)

Some stars are very useful for finding distances to star clusters and galaxies because they have a known large luminosity and can be seen from great distances. Bright objects of a known luminosity are designated as “standard candles.” Certain types of “standard candle” stars are in the last stages of their life and pulsate by changing size as they attempt to re-establish hydrostatic equilibrium. As the star’s thermal pressure exceeds its gravitational compression, the expanding star overshoots the equilibrium point. The star’s gravity then compensates and contracts the star. But gravity overcorrects the star beyond its equilibrium point which in turn leads to excess thermal pressure, and the cycle repeats itself.

In 1912 Henrietta Leavitt published results of her study of variable stars in the Magellanic Clouds, two small satellite galaxies orbiting the Milky Way. Leavitt discovered a useful relationship for a certain type of variable star called a Cepheid variable, named after the prototype found in the constellation Cepheus. Leavitt reasoned that the more luminous Cepheids pulsated more slowly, which led to the period-luminosity relation of Cepheid variables. Leavitt did not know the actual distances to the Magellanic Clouds, and therefore was not able to quantify her findings. A few years later, Harlow Shapley calibrated Leavitt’s relation using Cepheids in our galaxy for which the distances could be determined. With a calibrated period-luminosity relationship, astronomers were capable of using Cepheid variables to determine the distances to star clusters and even other galaxies. The luminosity of Cepheids can be easily derived from its pulsation period, which is useful for finding distances to the galaxies in which they reside. By comparing a Cepheid’s apparent brightness with its luminosity, we can determine the star’s distance from the inverse square law of light brightness.

In the 1950s, astronomers discovered that there are two types of Cepheids: 1) Type I or “classical” Cepheids, which evolve from young metallic-rich stars, and 2) Type II or “W Virginis” Cepheids, which derive from older metal-poor stars and are about four times less luminous than Type I Cepheids. Early measurements of the distances to galaxies did not take into account the two types of Cepheids, and astronomers subsequently underestimated the distances to the galaxies. Edwin Hubble first estimated the distance to the Andromeda Galaxy in 1923 by observing and measuring Type I Cepheids, but was actually using the period-luminosity relation for Type II Cepheids to derive his results. The “Universal Censor” likely drew inspiration from William Francis Gray Swann’s 1934 book The Architecture of the Universe, which memorializes Hubble’s inaccurate estimate this way:

“Silhouetted against the sky in the constellation Andromeda is a tiny patch of light, hardly visible to the eye. It is the great nebula of Andromeda—one of the giants of the universe, a thing so large that light . . . takes nearly a million years to reach us, so that we see that nebula not as it is today, but as it was a million years ago.”[2]

When the distinction was later discovered between the two types of Cepheids, the distance to Andromeda was increased by over 100 percent to about 2.3 million light years. Current astronomical knowledge estimates the distance to Andromeda at 2.39 + 0.09 million light years, based on an average of five different types of determinations.[3] How the “Universal Censor” made it to planet Urantia all the way from “Uversa” with such grossly inaccurate star charts, nobody will ever know.

Hanging by a Thread (Number of Human Chromosomes)

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 University of Texas, confidently reported that he had counted 48 chromosomes in fresh cells obtained from the testes of patients that had been castrated at the state’s mental institute. Other cytogeneticists confirmed Painter’s count shortly after he had published a full report of his findings in 1923. For the next thirty years, most everybody believed or assumed the human chromosome count to be 48.[4]

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.[5]

Although interstellar gas had first been found to consist of calcium and sodium, Edward Dunham and Struve suggested that it probably contained mostly hydrogen. In the 1930s, Dunham and Adams at Mount Wilson discovered that interstellar gas consisted not only of atoms, but also of molecules when they found methylidyne (CH) and cyanogen (CN). In 1944, the Dutch astronomer Hendrik van de Hulst predicted the wavelength of interstellar hydrogen, but it was not until 1951 that this radiation was discovered by Harold Ewen and Edward Purcell at Harvard University. Further discoveries awaited the development of infrared and ultraviolet detectors mounted on spacecraft, and of radio telescopes. Subsequently, the hydroxyl (OH) molecule was discovered in 1963, water (H₂O) and ammonia (NH₃) were found in 1968, formaldehyde (H₂CO) in 1969, the hydrogen molecule (H₂) and carbon monoxide (CO) in 1970. Since then, ever more complex molecules have been discovered in interstellar gas, a large number of which are organic.

Astronomers now tell us that galaxies are formed mainly of stars that are immersed in a relatively diffuse and cold gaseous medium. What scientists today call the interstellar medium is comprised of about 99 percent gas, the rest being “dust.” Of the gas fraction, about 75 percent of it is hydrogen (either molecular or atomic), and 25 percent is helium. The hydrogen gas is observed in a variety of states, including ionized, neutral atomic, and molecular forms; most hydrogen is of the neutral atomic or molecular varieties. Emission nebulae, such as the famous Orion Nebula, are regions of hydrogen gas that glow from the fluorescence of the ionized hydrogen atoms reacting to the light of nearby stars (thus giving its characteristic red color).

The “dust” fraction of the interstellar medium consists of traces of other elements and some compounds ejected by stars in supernova explosions and stellar winds. In the late 1920s, Robert J. Trumpler of the Lick Observatory was studying open star clusters in the plane of the Milky Way and concluded in 1930 that the Milky Way contained interstellar dust like that causing the dark bands in spiral galaxies. Today, the interstellar dust particles are known to be extremely small, irregularly shaped particles just a fraction of a micron across, or roughly the size of the wavelength of blue light or smaller. Each particle is composed primarily of silicates, carbon, and/or iron compounds coated with water ice. The dust is probably formed in the cool outer layers of red giants and dispersed in the red giant winds and planetary nebulae. Hindsight tells us, then, that the “chief element of the matter-permeation of space” throughout the Milky Way galaxy is not calcium, but hydrogen, followed by helium, with heavier elements comprising a small fraction of the interstellar medium.

Shell Game (Calcium in Sun’s Chromosphere)

Upon further reading of Paper 41, we come to learn that the same “Archangel” author thereof appears to hold a calcium fixation, for he seems to see the light metal wherever he gazes his celestial eyes:

“. . . [T]here is a calcium layer, a gaseous stone surface, on the sun six thousand miles thick; and this despite the fact that nineteen lighter elements, and numerous heavier ones, are underneath.” (41:6.3)

Apparently, according to this angelic author, calcium’s unique atomic structure allows it to “escape” from the photosphere and literally hitch a ride on the emitting beams of light therefrom. As strange as this proposition sounds, could it be that the celestial authors are revealing some extraordinary process that we mortals have yet to discover?

As it turns out, the information from whence this odd phenomenon derives is from yet another hypothesis invented by humans that was long abandoned after further scientific discoveries revealed its fatal flaws. Back in the 1920s, it was thought by certain prominent astrophysicists that the solar chromosphere was largely supported by radiation pressure on calcium.[8] Radiation pressure was then thought to be the mechanism by which the observed extension of the solar chromosphere occurred. The same perceived phenomenon should have also led to considerable separation of elements; however, it soon became evident upon further observation that the chromosphere was not made up of pure calcium. The model was subsequently modified to minimize the separation effect of radiation pressure while keeping its essential aspects.[9] It was also later verified that radiative acceleration could not support the entire mass of the chromosphere, and alternatives involving hydrodynamical motions were presented.[10] The mechanism by which element separation takes place in the solar chromosphere is now believed to be atomic diffusion. Perhaps the “Archangel” has been staring at the Sun too long.

Nuclear Meltdown (Sun’s Energy Source)

The one question that bothered nineteenth century astronomers most about the Sun was: How does the Sun generate its heat? It was established that the Sun could not generate enough heat by mere combustion, as this would have not allowed it to exist for more than a few thousand years. So how had the sun managed to produce heat and light for at least the age of the Earth, which was thought by then to be millions of years old? The generally (though reluctantly) accepted theory was first proposed by the Scottish engineer John Waterson, who suggested that the Sun was generating heat by gravitational contraction. Hermann von Helmholtz further developed Waterson’s idea by calculating that the reduction in diameter required to produce its present heat output was about 75 meters per year. Unfortunately, this theoretical mechanism could only have kept the Sun producing heat at the required level for something like 25 million years. This length of time did not seem adequate, judging by estimates of the amount of solar energy received on the Earth’s surface. Scientists suspected that some as yet undiscovered mechanism had been fueling the Sun’s heat for a much longer period.

Eddington had suggested two alternative mechanisms for energy generation in the Sun back in 1920. Based on Ernest Rutherford’s and Francis Aston’s research into atomic structure at Cambridge University, energy could be produced either by the mutual annihilation of protons and electrons, or when hydrogen atoms fuse to make helium atoms. The Sun could go on shining using either process for billions of years. When the “Archangel” was “presenting” Paper 41, the more popular belief held by mortal scientists was that the Sun’s radiant energy came from the annihilation of atoms and protons. As Sir James Jeans put it in his 1929 book The Universe Around Us, the Sun’s energy originates “out of the annihilation of electrons and protons.”[11] This notion that matter is being converted to energy by the Sun is the view taken in The UB. The main source of the Sun’s energy, The UB asserts, is the “annihilation of atoms and, eventually, of protons” (41:7.3).

But in 1938, Hans Bethe in America and Carl von Weizsäcker in Germany independently proposed a fusion theory which was so convincing that the alternative mass annihilation theory rapidly fell out of favor. The theory suggested that solar energy is produced by hydrogen nuclei being transformed into helium nuclei, using carbon as a catalyst. Further work has shown that the proton-proton cycle proposed by Charles Critchfield is dominant in the Sun, rather than the carbon cycle assumed by Bethe and von Weizsäcker. This process does not involve the destruction of electrons or protons.

In this case, the “Archangel” was not honoring the celestial taboo against providing us with “unearned science,” because the fusion theory had already been hypothesized as early as 1920 by Eddington. Instead, the “Archangel” endorsed the incorrect theory over the correct one, based solely on its popularity at the time. What does this say about celestial wisdom? It simply does not exist in this case.

The Century Mark (Number of Possible Elements)

As though the above elemental misgivings were not bad enough, a Mighty Messenger also misinforms us of a physio-chemical phenomenon, one that was unknown to human scientists at the time that Paper 42 was presented:

“The local universes are of decimal construction. There are just one hundred distinguishable atomic materializations of space-energy . . .; that is the maximum possible organization of matter in Nebadon. These one hundred forms of matter consist of a regular series in which from one to one hundred electrons revolve around a central and relatively compact nucleus. It is this orderly and dependable association of various energies that constitutes matter.” (42:7.4)

In other words, the above passage is claiming that only a maximum of 100 elements can possibly exist on planet Urantia, because the local universe in which it exists (Nebadon) is “of decimal construction.” But this absolute statement is later qualified by noting how the physical world works in the entire superuniverse in which our local universe is a part:

“In Orvonton it has never been possible naturally to assemble over one hundred orbital electrons in one atomic system. When one hundred and one have been artificially introduced into the orbital field, the result has always been the well-nigh instantaneous disruption of the central proton with the wild dispersion of the electrons and other liberated energies.” (42:7.7)

The Mighty Messenger here points out the instability of the heavier elements, especially those that are synthetically derived. The qualification is that, although atoms having more than 100 electrons can be artificially assembled, they are too unstable to last long enough to be considered viable matter. But even given said qualification, the Mighty Messenger is in mighty big trouble.

Nuclear physics tells us that the instability of radioactive elements occurs because of radioactive decay, a process involving the release of energy and subatomic particles by which the atoms break down into simpler elements. To be sure, the radioactive metal uranium is the last of the naturally-occurring radionuclides in relative abundance on earth, and was first isolated in 1841 from the mineral pitchblende.[12] The remaining elements beyond uranium on the periodic chart had to be synthesized in order to obtain sufficient quantities for analysis. For instance, the next element on the periodic chart (atomic number 93) is neptunium, which was first produced in 1940 at Berkeley, California.[13] Isotopes of neptunium with mass numbers from 228 to 242 are known. The most stable, neptunium-237, has a half-life of 2.14 million years. This long-lived isotope served as a useful research tool in the atomic bomb project and is used in studies of chemical reactivity. Neptunium occurs in nature in trace amounts in uranium ores but is produced artificially. After neptunium comes plutonium. Isotopes of plutonium were first prepared and studied by the American chemist Glenn T. Seaborg and his associates at the University of California at Berkeley in 1941. Trace amounts of the element have since been found in uranium ores, but plutonium is prepared in relatively large quantities today in nuclear reactors. The most important isotope, plutonium-239, has a half-life of 24,360 years, and is the most economically important of the trans-uranium elements because it can be used in nuclear power plants and for making nuclear weapons.

None of the trans-uranium elements beyond plutonium are known to exist naturally on planet Earth, and can only be artificially manufactured. The elements americium (atomic number 95), curium (96), berkelium (97), californium (98), einsteinium (99), and fermium (100) were discovered in the 1940s and 1950s, and have isotopes with half-lives ranging from less than one minute to several thousand years.

The Mighty Messenger’s decree that no elements are possible beyond an atomic number of 100 was shot down by mere mortals in the very year of The UB’s initial publishing date. Named for the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleyev who invented the periodic chart, mendelevium (element 101) was discovered in 1955 at the University of California, Berkeley. It was produced by bombarding einsteinium-253 with alpha particles accelerated in a cyclotron. The isotope produced (mendelevium-256) had a half-life of about 1.3 hours. To date, 15 radioisotopes of mendelevium have been characterized, with the most stable being Md-258 with a half-life of 51.5 days, Md-260 with a half-life of 31.8 days, and Md-257 with a half-life of 5.52 hours.[14]

But wait, should we not give the Mighty Messenger the benefit of doubt with regard to the qualification offered, that elements above an atomic number of 100 are difficult, if not impossible, to attain? Unfortunately, granting such leniency would require a stretch of credulity beyond acceptable bounds. The notion that artificially manufactured elements beyond an atomic number of 100 always result in its “well-nigh instantaneous disruption” requires a definition of “well-nigh instantaneous” that would exclude those artificially manufactured elements with atomic numbers of 100 or less. Unfortunately, reality does not grant said exclusion. The most stable isotope of mendelevium (258) has a half-life of 54 days, which exceeds those of americium-232 (0.9 minutes), berkelium-243 (4.6 hours), californium-245 (44 minutes), and einsteinium-253 (20 days). It seems, then, that the Mighty Messenger needs to brush up on his nuclear chemistry!

Even heavier elements have been discovered, including nobelium (element 102) in 1957, the most stable isotope of which (259) has a half-life of 58 minutes; and lawrencium (element 103) in 1961, with a half-life of its most stable isotope (260) at three minutes. These two elements complete the group of trans-uranium radionuclides known as the actinide series, which are included in today’s periodic chart.

An intriguing sidebar to this discussion is the way in which the alleged Mighty Messenger attempted to cover his tracks in regards to this error. The term “well-nigh” in the phrase “well-nigh instantaneous disruption” was not seen in The UB until the second printing (1967) and thereafter. The subject sentence in the 1955 first printing reads as follows: “When one hundred and one have been artificially introduced into the orbital field, the result has always been the instantaneous disruption . . .” (emphasis added). It is interesting to note that the revision was not made until 1967, a few years after mendelevium, nobelium, and lawrencium, with their not-so-instantaneously disintegrating isotopes, were discovered. Of course, as we have already deduced, the change was too little too late. The mighty message has been rendered moot.

Spin Doctor (Electron Orbitals)

The Mighty Messenger continues to expose his mighty ignorance on matters of atomic theory:

“The thirty innermost orbital electrons have individuality, but their energy systems tend to intermingle, extending from electron to electron and well-nigh from orbit to orbit. The next thirty electrons constitute the second family, or energy zone, and are of advancing individuality, bodies of matter exerting a more complete control over their attendant energy systems. The next thirty electrons, the third energy zone, are still more individualized and circulate in more distinct and definite orbits. The last ten electrons, present in only the ten heaviest elements, are possessed of the dignity of independence and are, therefore, able to escape more or less freely from the control of the mother nucleus. With a minimum variation in temperature and pressure, the members of this fourth and outermost group of electrons will escape form the grasp of the central nucleus, as is illustrated by the spontaneous disruption of uranium and kindred elements.” (42:7.9)

The above passage draws primarily from the Bohr model of atomic structure developed by Danish physicist Niels Bohr, first published in papers between 1913 and 1915, and for which Bohr received the Nobel physics prize in 1922. Bohr’s atomic model drew on Rutherford’s nuclear model of the atom, in which the atom is seen as a compact nucleus surrounded by a swarm of much lighter electrons. The model made use of quantum theory, and posits that an atom emits electromagnetic radiation when an electron in the atom jumps from one quantum level to another. Although the Bohr model was able to explain certain qualities of discrete emission for hydrogen, it failed completely for other elements. Schrödinger’s model, in which electrons are described not by the paths they take but by the regions where they are most likely to be found, can explain certain qualities of emission spectra for all elements. It was Schrödinger and others whose contributions led to the concept that electrons exist in shells and that the electrons in the outermost shell determine an atom’s chemical properties.

The current model for the electronic structure of the elements hardly resembles that which is offered from the Mighty Messenger’s recollection. Electron orbits correspond to “shells” that surround the nucleus, for electrons do not follow a simple, single path as the planets do around the Sun but can be considered to occupy, at various instants, points on a sphere, or spheres, around the nucleus. As atomic number increases, so does the number of electrons as does the number of shells. The K-shell holds a maximum of two electrons, followed by the L-shell which can hold up to eight electrons. The first two shells, K and L, fill up in order as the atomic number of the elements increases from hydrogen to neon. After that, from sodium (atomic number 11) to argon (atomic number 18), the next eight electrons start to fill up the M-shell. Then the regular order is interrupted and the N-shell starts to fill before the M-shell is completed. Then electrons are added to both M and N shells, until M is filled, whereupon with increasing atomic number, the O-shell starts filling and N continues being completed. The fill sequence becomes increasingly complex as the atomic number goes up and with the introduction of the remaining two shells (P and Q). This complication of shell filling helps to explain why the chemistry of the heavier elements is somewhat more varied and complex than that of the light elements, those with only two or three shells.

Caveat Emptor!

Amidst Paper 101 (“The Real Nature of Religion”), roughly halfway through The UB, is a section that puzzlingly veers off the main subject at hand and plunges into a topic that was thought to have been adeptly covered in a previous part of the book. Section 4 of Paper 101, entitled “The Limitations of Revelation” reads very much like a response to a series of questions that many a reader, having gotten this far but subsequently looked elsewhere into some of The UB’s scientific content out of curiosity, would have likely asked a revelator, were they given the opportunity to do so. The topic for which Section 4 of Paper 101 devotes itself is revelatory scientific knowledge and its purported “limitations.” In particular, the treatise speaks of that branch of knowledge commonly known as cosmology, specifically that knowledge which has been “revealed” by the celestial authors.

Because the science disclaimer is such an important aspect of the discussion at hand, I have cited pertinent paragraphs below in their entirety to allow the passage to speak for itself prior to providing comments:

“Because your world is generally ignorant of origins, even of physical origins, it has appeared to be wise from time to time to provide instruction in cosmology. And always has this made trouble for the future. The laws of revelation hamper us greatly by their proscription of the impartation of unearned or premature knowledge. Any cosmology presented as a part of revealed religion is destined to be outgrown in a very short time. Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented.” (101:4.1)

“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. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within 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. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co‑ordination and sorting of present‑day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve.” (101:4.2; emphasis original)

Before we respond to the above disclaimer, we must first discern how the revelators are defining cosmology. As it turns out, there are two basic definitions of cosmology that have developed since the word’s inception nearly two hundred years ago. Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, of which the first edition was published in 1828, defines cosmology as follows:

“Cosmology — The science of the world or universe; or a treatise relating to the structure and parts of the system of creation, the elements of bodies, the modifications of material things, the laws of motion, and the order and course of nature.”[15]

It sounds as though one could summarize Webster’s definition to include “the science or theory of everything physical.” And we would rightly “limit” this definition to all things physical, with which Webster’s British counterpart concurred beginning in 1893:

“Cosmology – The science or theory of the universe as an ordered whole, and of the general laws which govern it. Also, a particular account or system of the universe and its laws.”[16]

We therefore have accordance that this definition refers to the physical laws that govern the universe. The Oxford entry, however, introduces a second definition for the word cosmology, which reads:

“(Philos.) – That branch of metaphysics which deals with the idea of the world as a totality of all phenomena in space and time.”[17]

The subheading “(Philos.)” symbolizes that the definition which follows is to be understood within a philosophical context. Webster’s Second Edition (1953) elaborates on this second definition:

“Cosmology – That branch of metaphysics which treats of the character of the universe as an orderly system, or cosmos; esp., that which treats of the processes of nature and the relation of its parts, as distinguished from ontology which treats of the ultimate nature of the real; also, a particular theory or body of doctrine relating to the natural order.”[18]

For the sake of clarification, metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with first principles which are speculative or esoteric in nature. Metaphysics can include ontology, which is the abstract study of the nature of existence and being (e.g., the existence of the soul). Metaphysical aspects of cosmology, then, would include the abstract, speculative, or esoteric nature of the universe—that is, those aspects which cannot be readily measured quantitatively or which are not widely known.

We therefore have two definitions for the word cosmology: one that deals with the physical, and one that pertains to the metaphysical. So, which definition applies when the UB authors use the term? The issue is important, as The UB provides volumes of information that pertain to both quantifiable physical phenomena and metaphysical attributes of the cosmos. The “cosmology caveat,” as I refer to it, provides an answer: “We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. . . . [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” (101:4.2; emphasis added). In other words, the disclaimer focuses on those aspects of cosmology which are, or are anticipated to someday be, verifiable. We should therefore give the UB authors full benefit of doubt and assume that their self-ascribed “limitations” pertain only to the physical aspects of the cosmos, and not the metaphysical. And why not? After all, acceptance of metaphysical doctrine would require belief in something which is beyond the reach of that which can be observed. With this backdrop in mind, let us press on with our discussion of why the disclaimer does not hold water.

Split the Difference

The UB’s cosmology caveat begins its attempt at damage control by asserting a self-refuting axiom: “Any cosmology presented as a part of revealed religion is destined to be outgrown in a very short time” (101:4.1). We can immediately see from this claim that the “celestial” author is making a terribly terrestrial mistake. For if the cosmology being presented is indeed part of a revealed religion, then said revealed religion must suffer the same fate as is rendered any cosmological aspect thereof. Any self-ascribed “revealed” religion can be true or false, based on the veracity of its truth claims. On the other hand, if the cosmology being presented is not an aspect of the revelation, then the authors have no business presenting it as such. Because The UB is being presented as a “true” revelation (as The UB claims throughout), it should go without saying that the information received is meant to be taken as unchangeable truth. We would expect no less from God and/or His duly appointed representatives. This would include any and all information received, whether it consists of details pertaining to the physical universe or the spiritual realm. If God or His celestial agents were, for instance, to proclaim that “The universe has always existed” (as was the opinion held by many cosmologists of the early twentieth century), then we would expect to discover that such is the case, and not that it had a finite beginning. If an eternal, infinite universe is presented as a vital aspect of the “revealed” religion (as is the case for The UB’s eternal abode of the Gods within the center of the eternal, infinite universe), and if mankind later discovers that the universe is neither eternal nor infinite, then the very existence of the Gods of Paradise and their celestial playground of infinite non-pervaded space is placed in serious question.

We come to the sobering conclusion, then, that what is really going on here is that the author of Paper 101 has confounded unchanging, factual truth with the ever-changing human perception of scientific knowledge. From this realization, we can deduce that the UB authors had been referring to some aspects of the natural world that were incorrectly perceived by humans at the time, rather than the true state of physical reality, and attempting to weave them into the fabric of their “revelation.” But what purpose did it serve for the superhuman authors to elicit false scientific information if they knew the information was false to begin with? A superior intellect with benevolent intentions would choose to either get it right the first time, or remain silent on the subject altogether and let us figure it out for ourselves instead of feeding us useless and perhaps counterproductive information. Only when these authors had been caught espousing some of these scientific errors early on during the revelatory process did they try to explain away their mistakes. But when they were confronted with these problematic details, they were left with no choice but to disassociate themselves from that which they had already laid down as divine truth!

The first paragraph of the disclaimer continues: “Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented” (101:4.1). Ah, there’s the rub, folks! It’s obvious that the authors do not want us to look in their closet of shame. However, by virtue of their own human ineptness, they draw too much attention to their dirty little secret by pointing directly at the problem and exclaiming “Don’t look in there! There’s nothing to see behind that door!” As such, devotees are instructed to bite off the spiritual manna offered and swallow it whole, while the spitting out of unsavory nuggets one encounters when chewing becomes a necessary option. But as we have already seen, separating the “wheat” from the “chaff” is not so simple a task when dealing with The UB.

The remainder of the cosmology caveat falls flat on its face, once it is realized that the premise for which it was written is a fabrication born of desperation. With proper hindsight, the statement “We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years” (101:4.2) becomes “We are not capable of anticipating the scientific discoveries of a thousand years.” If it is true that “These new developments [additional scientific developments and new discoveries] we even now foresee” (ibid.), then their intention not to burden us with the “impartation of unearned or premature knowledge” would have been better served had they not spoken on the subject at all. The temptation to “discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because [humans] discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented” could have been avoided altogether, had these “revelators” not imparted the erroneous information in the first place!

Unearned Science?

But the most damaging aspect of the cosmology caveat is that it places the authors of The UB at sharp discord with one another. Despite The UB’s self-imposed directive not to reveal any unearned science, readers thereof are granted several undeserved glimpses of scientific knowledge not of our own discovery. For example, in the 1930s, it seemed that protons, neutrons, and electrons were the smallest objects into which matter could be divided. Matter is made of atoms, atoms are made of a nucleus plus electrons, and electrical forces between the nucleus and the electron explain the structure and stability of the atom. The nucleus is made of protons and neutrons, but what force holds them together in the nucleus? Investigation of this question led to the discovery of many more types of matter, and even “antimatter,” a set of fundamental building blocks for which The UB makes no mention. Instead, we were told by a “Mighty Messenger” that the typical electron that circles an atomic nucleus is made up of even smaller subatomic particles called “ultimatons.” We are even given a precise makeup of ultimatonic arrangement in a typical electron, such that “there are never more nor less than one hundred ultimatons in a typical electron” (42:6.5). However, such knowledge was not known to man at the time of The UB’s dispensation, placing said information into the taboo category of “unearned or premature knowledge,” which the revelators were not supposed to impart us with!

Moreover, mankind has yet to discover these elusive building blocks of matter. Research in subatomic physics has led to the discovery of several other fundamental particles since 1930. However, none of these new members of the subatomic family fit the description of the ultimaton. The attempt to understand and classify the many particles discovered has led instead to the recognition that protons and neutrons are not the fundamental particles they were thought to be in the 1930s, but are made of smaller objects called quarks. In other words, the “Mighty Messenger” picked the wrong subatomic particle to divide into even smaller parts! While we humans have been able to detect the presence of particles as small as electron-neutrinos, which are bout 50,000 times smaller in mass than electrons, we have yet to detect these predicted particles called “ultimatons,” 100 of which are said to be housed within the space occupied by an electron.

By the way, electron-neutrinos cannot be ultimatons because by celestial definition, ultimatons must elicit a negative charge; neutrinos have no charge. The only other fundamental particles known to exist to date that have a negative charge are the muon and the tau, both of which are much larger in mass than the electron. Current theories regarding quantum mechanics do not hold any hope for the discovery of 100 ultimatonic particles in each electron. The electron is still considered an irreducible fundamental particle.

And as goes with things unheard of regarding the smallest particles of the physical universe, so it goes with the largest objects. Part I of The UB boasts a fantastic model of the universe involving concentrically orbiting galaxies that surround a “central universe.” Because mankind was still somewhat ignorant regarding the structure of the universe during the early twentieth century, this comprehensive model would also be classified as “unearned or premature knowledge.” However, with the invention of ground-based radio telescopes and of orbiting devices which are capable of viewing the full spectrum, the structure of the universe is looking less and less like anything resembling that which is described in The UB.

Anti-Disclaimers

And last but not least, we have other passages in The UB that contradict the cosmology caveat outright. Below are passages that elaborate on The UB’s purported purpose, which is to align science and religion into one unifying, all-encompassing system of beliefs. Indeed, it is the success of this alignment effort upon which the revelators depend as evidence for the veracity of their claim to authority:

“The proof that revelation is revelation is . . . the fact that revelation does synthesize the apparently divergent sciences of nature and the theology of religion into a consistent and logical universe philosophy, a co-ordinated and unbroken explanation of both science and religion, thus creating a harmony of mind and satisfaction of spirit which answers in human experience those questionings of the mortal mind which craves to know how the Infinite works out his will and plans in matter, with minds, and on spirit.” (101:2.1; emphasis original)

“Revealed religion is the unifying element of human existence. Revelation unifies history, co-ordinates geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, and psychology.” (102:4.6)

[1]. Sadler, William S., The Truth about Spiritualism (Chicago: McClurg, 1923), pp. 167-168.

[2]. Swann, W. F. G., The Architecture of the Universe (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1934), p. 232.

[3]. See http://www/earth.uni.edu/astro/cosmos/part6.html.

[4]. Hsu, T. C., Human and Mammalian Cytogenetics: An Historical Perspective (Springer-Verlag, 1979), pp. 27-28; Kottler, Malcom Jay, “From 48 to 46: Cytological Technique, Preconception, and the Counting of Human Chromosomes,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine, Vol. 48 (1974), pp. 467-471; Painter, Theophilus S., “Studies in Mammalian Spermatogenesis,” The Journal of Experimental Zoology, Vol. 37 (Jan.-July 1923), pp. 291-321; Hogben, Lancelot, Genetic Principles in Medicine and Social Science (Williams and Norgate, 1931), p. 41. Cited in Kevles, Daniel J., In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity (Cambridge, Mass., London: Harvard University Press, 1985), pp. 238-239 [en 1-4].

[5]. Kevles, pp. 239-241.

[6]. Anderson, Kermit, “48 Trait Determiners vs. 46 Chromosomes,” Scientific Symposium I, 1988 [http://www.ubfellowship.org/archive/science/kanders1.htm].

[7]. Glasziou, Ken (ed.), “Cosmic Reflections: 48 Chromosomes? Or Jumping to Conclusions,” Innerface International, Vol. 4, No. 6 (1997), pp. 14-16 [http://www.ubfellowship.org/archive/newsletters/innerface/vol4_6/page14.html].

[8]. Milne, E. A., “The Equilibrium of the Calcium Chromosphere,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 85 (1924), pp. 111-141; Milne, E. A., “The Equilibrium of the Calcium Chromosphere. II,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 86 (1925), pp. 8-28; Eddington, A. S., The Internal Constitution of Stars; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926, pp. 252-254. Cited in Michaud, G., and Vauclair, S., “Element Separation by Atomic Diffusion,” in Cox, A. N., Livingston, W. C., and Matthews, M. S. (eds.), Solar Interior and Atmosphere (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1991), p. 305.

[9]. Chandrasekhar, S., “The Solar Chromosphere,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 94 (1934), pp. 14-35, 726-737. Cited in Michaud, G., and Vauclair, S., “Element Separation by Atomic Diffusion,” in Cox, A. N., Livingston, W. C., and Matthews, M. S. (eds.), Solar Interior and Atmosphere (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1991), p. 305.

[10]. McCrea, W. H., “The Hydrogen Chromosphere,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 89 (1929), pp. 483-497; McCrea, W. H., “Theories of the Solar Chromosphere,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 95 (1934), pp. 80-84. Cited in Michaud, G., and Vauclair, S., “Element Separation by Atomic Diffusion,” in Cox, A. N., Livingston, W. C., and Matthews, M. S. (eds.), Solar Interior and Atmosphere (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1991), p. 305.

[11]. Jeans, James H., The Universe Around Us (New York: Macmillan, 1929), p. 179.

[12]. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 64^th ed. (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc., 1983), B-37, s.v. “Uranium”.

[13]. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, B-22, s.v. “Neptunium”.

[14]. Wikipedia, s.v. “Mendelevium,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelevium (downloaded 6 May 2008).

[15]. Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (New York, London: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1970 [originally published 1828]), s.v. “cosmology.”

[16]. Murray, James A. H. (ed.), Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1893), s.v. “cosmology.”

[17]. Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “cosmology.”

[18]. Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Unabridged Edition (Springfield, Mass: G. & C. Meriam Company, 1953), s.v. “cosmology.”