Canceled Science: What Some Atheists Don’t Want You to See

Dr. Hedin is no an intellectual slouch. He specializes in experimental plasma physics, dimensional physics, and nano-electronics. He was the perfect person to teach an honors level, university course that challenged students to examine the intersection of science and and life's big questions. The very kind of deep thinking universities should require of their students. For years it went well, with Hedin as the referee and mentor, as students challenged each other and themselves.Then activists got wind that academic freedom and thought was occurring in this class. They began a militant campaign to put an end of it, making up false nonsense about what the class was about, and how it was taught. The university, which had approved the course, and had the many supportive testimonies of students, abandoned their charter of academic freedom and ended the class.Why were the activists so enraged? Was Hedin really pushing his beliefs? No, he wasn't, and in fact provided both sides for the students to consider. This is what the activists hated: The fact that the students might question and see the fallacies in the activists' beliefs. You see, they are philosophical naturalists camouflaging their beliefs in science, pretending their beliefs are science. Freedom to think and question — what science really is — is a dire threat to such fundamentalists.In Canceled Science, Hedin details the science that so angered the fundies. He covers a wide swath, from astronomy to physics to biology. Even if you aren't a science person, he explains with ease and makes it understandable. He will give you a lot to think about, and show readers modern science has revealed some wonderous discoveries. One can only imagine, if this science was taught, instead of the philosophy of the activists, the explosion in science enthusiasm that would erupt. See also Fuz Rana's The Cell's Design, and Origins of Life; and see Hugh Ross' Why the Universe is the Way it Is, Improbable Planet, and More Than a Theory.

Dr. Hedin’s is an experimental plasma physics professor. He has published in numerous leading peer-reviewed scientific publications. Several years ago Hedin was selected to teach an honors- level university course that challenged students to examine the intersection of science and life's big questions, such as “did we evolve or were we created?” For years the course progressed, with Hedin as the referee and mentor, as students challenged each other and themselves. His student ratings at Ball State were 4.5 out of 5 for helpfulness and, as a physics class, 3.6 for easiness, meaning it was a difficult class. In short, he was a very good well-liked professor teaching what most people regarded as a very difficult class.When they found about the class some anti-theists were enraged. They claimed Hedin was advocating his own beliefs in the course, which most professors do to some extent. The problem was his nemesis assumed that he was advocating a different worldview than theirs and this is what they objected to. The problem was Hedin, asked students to read articles by not only anti-theists but also intelligent design proponents. Hedin noted a motivation for the course was students are fascinated by modern discoveries in physics related to the origin and fine-tuning of the universe, and by questions raised by those discoveries, questions concerning purpose and the meaning of life. They wanted not only to censor material supportive of intelligent design but anything written by scientists whose personal beliefs supported a theistic worldview. Actually, Hedin’s approach is very good pedagogy, specifically, the dialectical method (from dialogue), a discourse between two or more people hold different views about a subject whose goal is to establish the truth by reasoned argumentation. Dialectic resembles debate, but dialectic method excludes subjective elements such as emotional appeal. A major reason given to object to Hedin is the establishment clause, called the separation of church and state requirement. In reality, the establishment clause only refers to establishing an official state church, such as existed in England and several of the original colonies in America the state church was congregational. However, today its meaning has been distorted to refer to speech by private citizens. An example of a "violation" of the establishment clause was an extra credit question asking students to identify one of the Ten Commandments in a history class. A media attack against him and rumors spread quickly through the internet. Before long, the media got wind of the story, and more than a few news reporters played along with the atheists hit pieces. If Darwinism is factually beyond doubt as its supporters contend, they would not need to censor the opposition. Science progresses only when the evidence is king and debate is not only allowed, but encouraged. This is especially true in the college setting. In the end, his course was canceled and Professor Hedin left Ball State University and now teaches at Biola University in La Mirada California.

I had two copies. I gave one to a high school science teacher who had been "warned" by an evolutionist 25 years ago to not teach or mention creationism. Anyone from north central PA has heard of Clyde Peeling's Reptile Land. Clyde's "Mr. Evolution," even appeared a few times on Johnny Carson.Well, Eric Hiden's book makes mincemeat of evolution. He's an astronomer and devotes the first half of the book to destroying modern cosmology, including their multiverse theory (which is so fantastic because it provides an answer for anything and everything...just click your heels together 3 times and there's a universe that serves up your wishes).Like a pit bull, Eric then moves on to biology. Why does the generalized 2nd Law of Thermodynamics apply to every science except biology? Because that's what they have to resort to in explaining how life came about. But it all boils down to information. Nature can't conjure up information....period.Eric's story is compelling. There's enough personal information divulged to make a connection (even a tearful one) with the reader. Give this to anyone and everyone who's got a passing interest in science. No mathematical formulas....not even one.

I was very excited to get this book, and once received, to start reading it. The beginning of the book was very encouraging, where Hedlin writes about Jerry Coyne (through a letter to Ball State) essentially wrecking his innovative class. As I read through the body of the book, I was very disappointed to learn that Hedlin had compromised his understanding of the Bible in deference to his background in astronomy, and allowed astronomy to determine how he thought about the age of the earth and universe.

This is a very well-written book. My background is in biology, and most biologists that I've known struggle with Physics and Maths. Prof. Hedin's field of research is in those areas, and his knowledge of astronomy is phenomenal - but, for the first time, I pretty much understood everything I read. I put this down to the author's natural communication skills, his intense love of his subject, and - probably - through having a good editor. I have read Stephen Hawking, and whilst appreciating his writing, struggled with its comparative aridity - 'Canceled Science' was a much more readable treatment of the origins of the universe. It is also extremely well footnoted, helping the reader towards a much wider familiarisation with the relevant scientific literature.The title of the book reflects the difficult circumstances which led to its writing - the activities of atheistic ideologues in closing down science courses that did not wholly and uncritically comply with their naturalistic philosophical presuppositions. Thankfully, Prof. Hedin's academic career has subsequently flourished, even if his university's administration caved into this kind of well-funded bullying - but, as he himself observes, others have been much less fortunate. In our current culture, we are lamenting the evils of 'cancelation', the ethos of censorship that uses mass-action, and the mobilisation of the horde to silence dissenting voices - Prof. Hedin's experience back in 2013 shows that atheism has been utilising precisely these tactics to impose its own views upon the scientific establishment.The remarkable fact that becomes evident as one reads this book, is that Prof. Hedin argues for the grandeur and internal consistency of his view of the universe based upon the science, whereas the atheist activists very much based their case upon the kinds of philosophical presupposition which would more reasonably be described as 'religious'. Indeed, throughout this book, what you get is the science - and only, right at the end, a brief consideration of the philosophical implications from great thinkers such as Thomas Nagel, Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne.This is a compelling read. Anyone concerned about the freedom of scientists to pursue the evidence ought to find plenty of inspiration here.

Eric Hedin is a PhD physicist originating from the University of Washington. He's done post-doctoral research on plasma physics at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden.Eric has just published this book through the Discovery Institute in Seattle. He began a course at Ball State University, with the approval of the University authorities. 'Boundaries of Science' was an exploration of where science might fade off in efficacy. This is a theme that also interests me of course. Science has become 'god' for many. Adherents to a 'hard scientific worldview' consider it to have limitless capacity and potential for uncovering truth and dismissing superstition and blind faith. They look at technical progress, and understandably perhaps, make a leap of reasoning. They assume science can answer all questions and, with technology, solve all problems. Provided of course we stay the course and don't lose faith in science itself. And there, of course, lies the rub. Is it appropriate and reasonable to have this sort of pervading faith in the scientific method?Hedin sought to examine issues here, rather than indoctrinate people into his own Christian faith. However, he was accused by Jerry Coyne, a well-known atheist and evolutionary biologist, of proffering a 'religiously infused science course'. This was an interesting accusation, and it is certainly very possible Mr Hedin was partially motivated by a desire to steer minds into further thought; examining the case for the Biblical Creator.Actually atheists and agnostics have written on the limitations and possible blind spots of the scientific method as well. I have previously mentioned two popular-level books addressing such concerns. The first is 'a Different Universe' by Robert Laughlin, the second 'What We Cannot Know' by Marcus du Sautoy.Why is Coyne so edgy and keen to shut this sort of thing down? Does he have logical and reasonable grounds?More profoundly, is the near absolute reverence for the scientific method, held by many scientific thinkers, well-founded? Is it as logical and rational as they say? I've addressed this before, but Hedin states the paradox embedded in scientific naturalism very succinctly. I don't know if the way the argument is presented is original to Hedin. But I'll re-state the essence of it here. Naturalism, incidentally, is a science-related term for the quest to explain everything by purely natural means, i.e. to exclude the supernatural or mystical.Hedin basically says, very simply:1) Science seeks explanations of observed phenomena that rely solely on natural causes.2) A scientific model makes testable predictions about natural phenomena allowing us to revise or abandon the model if the predictions do not agree with observations.Makes a lot of sense on the surface. But definitely not complete sense. The Big Question. Is definition 1) subject to the scrutiny of definition 2)? In other words, is science subjected to its own constraints? If we define and treat science itself as a scientific model, do we then subject it to the scientific tests and possible adjustments set out in 2)? The answer, in the general thinking of most scientists, is 'No'. We don't use the method of science to prove or disprove the scope of science itself. If we tried to, the case for the all-sufficiency and supremacy of the tool of science would disassemble. It's an unwarranted precondition (or at best, a tentative working assumption) to say that any model of reality must be based only on what we presently consider to be natural causes. To assume point 1) is actually a constraint on our truth-searching, if our aim is to pursue reality by any and every possible means. This assumption that point 1) can be adopted, without limiting our thoughts, postulates and activities, is widely made but usually not explicitly stated. It's a precept which must be adopted before we can get started with science. But it's actually an arbitrary precept. It came out of 'thin air'. Science is a way of looking at reality, but in truth it is only an arbitrarily constrained way.Scientists usually start with this assumption and work with it in the background. A little thought shows that what we defined with point 1) is actually only a restrictive patch of reasoning, not the sum total of all possible logical reasoning.We can see that the scientific method is not saying, 'let's look at everything we might glean about reality using logical thought'.Instead, it's saying, 'let's assume everything about reality can be explained using what we already know about reality'.This really (sorry) is not nearly as logical as hard science reductionists like to think, or to tell us.This is a paste from my science and logic blog.

What I read shows an honest perspective and displays the horrible state of affairs that society has broken down into. We have devolved from general respect for others belief systems and points of view down to canceling ANY opposing view. The events documented should not have been allowed to happen.Buy this book and learn something that goes deeper.

I enjoyed this account by Eric Hedin detailing interesting information about physics of the formation of the Universe and the fine tuning needed for the formation of the earth as a place hospitable to life. Eric Hedin also reported on the support he had from academic colleagues and friends when he was attacked for presenting a Boundaries of Science course.

The book is very science-oriented, which may be heavy going for non-scientists, but the author is making a point that certain facts are being withheld deliberately so that the atheist-materialist paradigm will not be seriously threatened. Anyone with interests in biology and astronomy would do well to read this; just be careful about quoting it in class!