Random nature of the universe or deliberate universe?

It is now beginning to be clear to most people that the world, the universe we live it has intelligence, personality is marked above. The truth that science has tried to hide from people from these many years, is discovered by the coaches of personal development. First Napoleon Hill's research series practice compiling Think and Grow Rich has discovered that there is an infinite intelligence. Coaching personal development nowadays most will tell you at the outset that there is God in this universe. Universities, the pillar of science are still in denial that there is a personality in the world.

Carl Callenman, Dr. before he broke away from becoming a free independent researcher was a senior researcher with the University of Washington and know how truth is suppressed by outlets research universities. In his book the deliberate universe Callenman shows how scientists are locked in the concept of the random nature of the universe. According to this concept, the Earth has exploded and by random mutations accidentally become Earth what it is, what organizations including yourself as a human being have emerged. This view should be stamped by the winner of the Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg rubber. Weinberg in his very famous description of the origin of the universe, The First Three Minutes concluded: "the universe seems understandable, most apparently also unnecessary." This means that more scientific studies are made on the universe, more it is revealed by these studies that the universe is nothing - there are no marks on the world - and therefore it will in addition there was no point in our lives!

Callenman himself as a scientist though free independent together, consider this point of view is Weinberg:

"Why a view of our universe presented by modern physics will seem so useless? This is not a very difficult question. Modern science simply rejects to immediately any idea might be a goal, or intelligent design in the universe as a "scientist". If you try to enter a comment in a scientific article which implies that there is some sort of purpose of the universe, you can be assured it will be rejected by the magazine. "It seems clear that works more generally as Weinberg, ends that science does not see purposes higher than anywhere in the universe".

It's like the famous philosopher and theologian, Francis Schaefer shows that in most cases when people refer to concepts "scientific" or "scientific", it is just a means of closing and cut people.