NEWS & UPDATES
Thanks to the mediation efforts of skeptic leader David Gluck of the Skeptic
Friends Network, the impasse between the Center for Inquiry and myself has
Responding to an inquiry about this website, CFI Executive Director of
Investigations, James Underdown, proposed to David a new metric upon which to
evaluate the merits of my claimed discovery of an alien bible code, one that
everyone can agree to, that doesn’t involve predictions or prize money.
The previous disagreement between the Center for Inquiry and myself was based
on a CFI demand, imposed late in its investigation, that the Newton Bible Code
needed to be predictive in order to qualify for its $100,000 Challenge.
This verdict came as a complete shock to me. In the original body of evidence I
submitted to CFI, I made the following statement:
In a nutshell, I was a seminary student who didn’t believe in Bible codes,
submitting a proposal to professors who didn’t believe in Bible codes, who taught
at a seminary that didn’t believe in Bible codes, attached to a denomination that
didn’t believe in Bible codes – being told that what I had discovered was a Bible
code! Not a Bible code that featured sensational prophecies, mind you, but one
meant to be used as an interpretive tool to uncover the Bible’s deepest truths.
How CFI investigators could possibly overlook this clear statement might be due
to the fact that all previous bible code schemes CFI investigators have come
across have been predictive. Not surprisingly, they had a collective mindset that
all bible code schemes must be predictive, a subconscious bias that led them to
believe that the Newton Bible Code is predictive.
It is absolutely not.
Based on the CFI standard that all bible code claims must be predictive to qualify
for its $100,000 Challenge, my submission was rejected. I freely concede that if
winning is based on a test of predictability, my claim is untestable.
So, how do we move forward? How can we get past this misunderstanding?
I contacted David Gluck and told him about the CFI investigation. As a good
skeptic should, David contacted James Underdown and asked him about my
concerns. James replied, after which David sent me the following:
“I contacted Jim Underdown and he shared a letter that was sent to your
lawyer but was never answered with regard to your claim. I pressed for
clarification by asking if the CFI IIG group ever tested your claim. His
answer: ‘No we didn't test this. There's no way to test this. Anyone can
write a program that will find some fun word combinations in a large block
James told David the same thing that I was told, that the Newton Bible Code was
not tested because it is untestable, referring, of course, to the fact that it is non-
But then James offers something that is a game-changer. He says: “Anyone can
write a program that will find some fun word combinations in a large block of
text.” With this statement, James introduces a new way to test the Newton
Bible Code that doesn’t involve predictability!
James, apparently agreeing with me that the Newton Bible Code demonstrates a
remarkable degree of symmetry that demands an explanation, claims that it was
artificially generated by a computer, loaded with an algorithm designed to create
fun word combinations in a large block of text.
In saying that “Anyone can write a program” that will find word combinations in a
large block of text that equates to the Newton Bible Code, James introduces a
new way to test my claim that I wholeheartedly embrace and accept.
When James says “anyone,” he, of course, includes himself, and, beyond that, he
includes skeptics from all over the world. My response?
I hereby accept the “James Underdown Test,” and
demand that James, or any other skeptic, does
what he says anyone can do – write a program that
generates a product comparable to the Newton
If James or any other skeptic can prove that the
Newton Bible Code is algorithmic, I will concede
defeat. If not, I will consider my claim provisionally
confirmed, knowing that in science there is no such
thing as an absolute confirmation. The closest one
can ever get to confirmation is a failure of skeptics
My sincere thanks to James Underdown for creating a new way forward, and to
David Gluck for his positive intervention that broke the gridlock between CFI and
myself. We are now into CFI Invest 2.0. It’s a new day and a new start!
To advance CFI Invest 2.0, I serve the following notice to the CFI and James
Because all previous bible codes you came across were predictive, you wrongfully
assumed that the Newton Bible Code is predictive. It is not. Now you think that
because all previous bible codes you came across were algorithmic, you conclude
that the Newton Bible Code is algorithmic. You are wrong about this as well. The
Newton Bible Code is non-predictive and non-algorithmic.
I have notified James that I have accepted his proposed algorithm test. Now, as
this new test begins, we find ourselves in total agreement about terms and
conditions. With no prize money involved, James Underdown and the CFI must do
what they claim they can do – prove that the Newton Bible Code is algorithmic. If
they can, they win. If they can’t, I win.
I have asked David Gluck, who I consider an honest truth seeker, to judge all
computer generated codes submitted by James or any other skeptic as to
whether they succeed or fail in proving that the Newton Bible Code is algorithmic.
CFI Invest 2.0 will be monitored and developments recorded on the Underdown
Countdown tab on the left.
I offer my best to James and all other participants. Our collective goal is to get to
the truth about whether or not the Newton Bible Code is algorithmic, and we will.
In memory of Carl
This site is dedicated to the memory of Carl Sagan, who, nineteen years ago, passed away in an untimely death. The latest biographical research reveals that, in every fiber of his being and until the day he died, Carl was convinced that extraterrestrials exist and have visited Earth. Throughout his life, almost no one in mainstream science shared that opinion. Most argued that, though it is highly probable that ET’s exist, they are too far away to ever physically reach our planet.
We now know that that isn’t true, quite the opposite. If ET’s exist, there is almost no possibility that they haven’t been here. All that was needed to prove an alien visitation to Earth was to find what Carl called “ironclad” evidence of their presence. That evidence has now been found, in precisely the place where Carl thought it might exist – in the Bible.
In 2018, 46 triadic sequences in the Old Testament were investigated by the Center for Inquiry, an organization that can trace its origins back to Carl Sagan, a pioneer professional skeptic. After ten months, CFI’s written conclusion is that what I call the Newton Bible Code is real, and that it is extraterrestrial in origin.
This is where we are at, and, now, it’s on to the next phase: A global outreach to ancient alien skeptics of all scientific and religious persuasions, asking them to engage 46 triadic sequences scattered throughout the Old Testament that share an extraordinary symmetry. I am asking skeptics to test the data, share their results with the world, and perhaps make a little money to boot.
The first skeptic I contacted is a man who openly credits Carl Sagan for turning his life around, from a belief in religious superstition to trust in the scientific method. It is a man who, along with Carl, convinced me that the experimental method is the best way to ascertain truth; for grasping a sense of reality based on science and reason rather than myth and emotion. That man is Michael Shermer.
Everyone needs a whisperer, a comforting voice inside one’s head that guides and informs. When it comes to the Newton Bible Code and my ancient alien research, my internal voices are those of the legendary Humanist icon, Carl Sagan, and skeptic leader, Michael Shermer. When I left the ministry and began learning about the scientific method, Sagan’s book, The Demon-Haunted World, and Shermer’s trilogy: Why People Believe Weird Things, The Believing Brain, and How We Believe, were critically beneficial. If you want to know what science and the scientific method are all about, I urge you to read these four books.
In 2006, when I first began publically vetting my research, every major decision I made was attached to the question: What would Carl and Michael think of this? If they were trying to advance an extraordinary claim supported by extraordinary evidence, how would they go about their business? I attribute much of my success to these two men.
Carl, sadly, is no longer with us, but Michael is, and because he has been my mentor, and because he had written specifically about ancient aliens, I have chosen him as the first ancient alien skeptic to contact in my Challenge to Skeptics.
I’m not sure if he considers this an honor. Probably not, considering the ancient alien claim I am asking him to critique is not based on the Von Däniken model that he is familiar with and that he has been highly successful in debunking. It is, rather, based on the Sagan model, that he and other ancient alien skeptics are just beginning to wake up to.
Michael and I have exchanged emails, so he knows who I am and what I am up to. But, to date, the only comment he has made on the Newton Bible Code is that he considers it an example of what he calls “patternicity,” a term he coined that refers to the uniquely human ability to detect patterns.
My understanding of the term is that it is positive. If humans lost this ability, science as we know it would come to a screeching halt. That said, most patterns that appear mysterious and extraordinary are not that at all, and can easily be explained away. However, a very small percentage do defy a simple explanation, and it is the systematic investigation of these unusual anomalies that occasionally result in discoveries that advance human knowledge.
If Michael were in my shoes, I’m confident that he’d be doing the same thing I’m doing. If you believe in your research, you seek out the most qualified skeptics you can and challenge them to engage the data, with the goal of eliciting a studied response. As you collect verifications, with no falsifications, the credibility of your extraordinary claim grows, and, as it grows, it attracts more attention that generate more investigations.
Michael, for a variety of reasons, may choose to ignore my request to scientifically investigate the Newton Bible Code, or he might pass the matter on to colleagues. Either way, he will always have my respect. He has paid his dues.
On the religious side of the equation, I selected William Lane Craig as my first ancient alien skeptic to challenge.
William Lane Craig
William Lane Craig is widely regarded, both by theists and atheists, as one of the world’s leading evangelical apologists. Atheist leader Sam Harris stated: “William Lane Craig is the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists”.
I chose Dr. Craig as the first religious skeptic to contact because of his brilliance, his willingness to engage tough issues, and his writings on extraterrestrials, including his belief that aliens may exist as creations of God. Following are a sampling of his thoughts on the subject:
“It is really the theist who is, I think, a lot more open to the possibility of extraterrestrial life than the non-theist.”
“I think [the Bible] is silent [on the issue of extraterrestrial intelligence]. The Scriptures are given to human beings as God’s revelation to people on this planet. Therefore, there is no reason to think that there could not be persons that God has created in some unknown galaxy that we have no idea about, and he has provided a revelation of himself to them as well. I think it would be presumptuous to say that we know that he hasn’t done that.”
“But, as Christians, I think we need to be open to the possibility that God has specially and marvelously done something that scientifically would be highly, highly unlikely to occur – namely create life somewhere else in the cosmos.”
“A good many people have said that if there is intelligent life on other planets then it should have been here already. It should already have arrived. We ought to be in contact with them now. We ought to see their spacecraft here clearly and so forth. The fact is that this isn’t the case – that all we have are these uncertain UFO reports – suggest in fact that they are not really out there and that we are alone. That, I think, in itself is a very sobering thought.”
William Lane Craig knows a lot about extraterrestrials, and he knows even more about the Bible, making him the perfect person to go to for help in evaluating the Newton Bible Code. I am excited over the possibility that he may accept my Challenge to Skeptics.