© 2014 Jean Royer
© 2014 French-speaking Association of Readers of the Urantia Book
The Spanish version of Wikipedia, in the article El Libro de Urantia gives a dozen scientific points which it claims have been proven false by science.
What is it really?
The terms used (demostradas falsas) are generally abusive. In fact, we can retain two arguments:
The notions of time or gaps are undoubtedly very different among developers than among men.
The other points are perhaps troubling in relation to the science of this beginning of the 21st century but we must not forget that what is generally accepted is not necessarily demonstrated. Thus the origin of the solar system is generally accepted as being that of a protosolar nebula, but that this does not explain the retrograde movements of certain planets nor the inclination of the axis of Neptune.
The big bang is not even mentioned, the article tells us. Of course, since it is only an extrapolation of the expansion of the universe and all new discoveries force the defenders of the big bang to introduce new parameters exactly as the discoveries before Galileo had forced scientists to introduce more and more epicycles to explain the movement of the planets around the Earth.
The evolution of life, both by gradual changes and by leaps, is not a theory that has lost all credibility, it is simply technically difficult to demonstrate.
The implantation of life by the Life Carriers cannot obviously be proven by science, but we know that they used a pre-vital level of the elements existing on Earth. It is quite possible that certain photosynthetic activities
existed well before the intervention of the Life Bearers, as we see crystals grow and develop which are however not alive in the sense that we understand it.
The question of the tenth planet in the solar system is more a question of vocabulary than of scientific truth, as shown by the fact that Pluto lost its status as a planet at the start of the 21st century.
The origin of humanity with Andon and Fonta from the Indian subcontinent has little chance of being truly verified and must be part of those revelations which restore important fractions of lost knowledge concerning historical events of the distant past.
As for the refutation by the DNA analysis technique of the origin of races, it resembles the story of the man who looked for his keys under a street lamp because at least there he could see clearly.
The day when, instead of searching in Africa, we search elsewhere, perhaps things will change.
One last thing, but this is totally wrong, the penultimate criticism of this Wikipedia concerns Mercury and says that the UB claims that Mercury always presents the same face to the sun while the science of 1965 showed that Mercury is still rotating slowly. This legend comes from the fact that the first readers of the book read what they wanted to read and which was in accordance with the beliefs of the time, but a careful reading shows that the UB clearly distinguishes the moon which presents the same face to the Earth, from Mercury which is one of the planets which rotate more and more slowly. (see UB 57:6.2)
I would add to this false information another legend that continues to flourish on the net according to which the UB speaks of 48 chromosomes while we know that man has 46 chromosomes. Here again, a careful reading shows that the UB does not speak anywhere of 48 chromosomes in relation to man but of forty-eight archetypal control units, the determinants of characteristics, carefully avoiding using the term chromosome which it nevertheless knows.
Jean Royer