What Nobody Reads
The International Organisation for Standardisation maintains over 250 technical committees covering virtually every domain of human activity. From screw threads (TC 1) to the governance of organisations (TC 309) to sustainable finance (TC 322), the ISO committee catalogue maps onto human life from birth to death — what you eat, drink, breathe, wear, build, learn, earn, spend, save, and leave behind.
Every domain has a corresponding technical committee. Every committee produces standards, and every standard follows the same structural template.
The ISO essay documented how this architecture works: who holds the secretariats, who writes the standards, who sits on which committees, and how the financial system enforces compliance.
What follows extends that analysis in two directions — backward into the intellectual and institutional origins of the architecture, and forward into its convergence with artificial intelligence and programmable money.
The Intellectual Infrastructure
In the essay on Maxwell, we discussed how Maxwell’s Pergamon Press controlled a critical node for the academic disciplines that would later serve the entire governance architecture.
General systems theory provided the framework for describing any managed system.
Input-output analysis provided the methodology for real-time measurement.
Cybernetics provided the steering mechanism — the feedback loops through which a system corrects itself.
Operations research provided the optimisation logic.
Through the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth, the destination was supplied: a managed planet, governed by experts, justified by science.
Each of these disciplines maps directly onto an ISO implementation.
General systems theory became ISO Standards, including Annex SL1 — the universal template that every ISO management system standard must follow.
Input-output analysis became the measurement infrastructure: GEOSS earth observation2, OECD indicators3, ISO 20022 financial messaging4.
Cybernetics became the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle5 embedded in every Annex SL standard, and the NGFS climate scenarios6 that central banks use to calibrate capital requirements.
Operations research became the IIASA integrated assessment models7 that process raw earth observation data into policy-relevant scenarios.
The theory was distributed through academic publishing. The implementation was distributed through technical standards. The two channels serve different professional communities that rarely read each other’s output, which is why the connection between them has essentially gone wholly unnoticed.
The Institutional Sequence
The architecture began with a number of institutions established within four years of each other in the late 1940s, each performing one of three functions: formatting, measuring, and governing.
ISO was founded in 1947 to standardise industrial specifications — the formatting function.
The Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC) was created in 1948 to administer Marshall Plan aid8, which required standardised economic metrics across recipient countries — the measurement function.
The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was established in 19519, placing French and German coal and steel production under a supranational High Authority that fixed prices, set quotas, and fined non-compliant firms — the governance function.
The ECSC was not primarily about coal and steel. Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet said so explicitly: pooling production would make war between France and Germany ‘not only unthinkable but materially impossible’10. Steel was the vehicle, supranational integration was the destination.
Monnet described the method as ‘engrenage’11 — the gearing mechanism — in which each integration step creates the institutional conditions for the next. Start with a narrow, unchallengeable domain. Build supranational governance around it. Let the governance generate demand for further integration.
The pattern would be repeated at the global level through ISO over the following seven decades: start with compatible screws, build management systems around them, let the management systems generate demand for governance of the management systems themselves.
The OEEC became the OECD in 196112, shifting to measuring everything: GDP methodology, trade statistics, education benchmarks, governance indicators, and eventually well-being and green growth metrics. The European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) was also founded in 196113, creating a bridge between European and international standards that persists through the Vienna Agreement14, under which CEN standards become ISO standards and vice versa.
McNamara and the Standardise-Measure-Fund Logic
In 1961, Robert McNamara introduced the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS). Developed at the RAND Corporation, PPBS applied systems analysis to the largest budget on earth. Its five elements were a programme structure, quantitative data on inputs and outputs, a decision-making process, an effectiveness analysis, and an information system.
In 1965, President Johnson mandated PPBS across all federal agencies — an expansion that Kennedy had resisted.
In 1968, McNamara became President of the World Bank15 and brought PPBS with him. The following year he introduced Country Programme Papers16 — a standardised document format describing the entire development trajectory of each borrowing country: objectives, resources, metrics, and evaluation criteria. Each paper followed the same template, was reviewed annually, and determined whether the next tranche of lending would be released. The mechanism was PPBS applied to sovereign nations: a standardised format, a measurement cycle, and funding conditional on the measurement.
By 1979, this had evolved into structural adjustment lending17. Countries seeking World Bank capital were required to implement specific reforms — privatisation, trade liberalisation, deregulation, fiscal restructuring — as conditions of the loan. McNamara described this as ‘an association with a borrower in a programme of structural change over three to five years which will require financial support’18. Compliance was monitored against the conditions, and disbursement was released in tranches, each contingent on verified progress.
The borrowing country was submitting to a standardised reform programme, measured against standardised benchmarks, with funding conditional on the measurement. The same logic that had governed weapons procurement at the Pentagon now governed the economic structure of developing nations.
The principle was identical at every level: STANDARDISE what must be done, MEASURE whether it has been done, and CONDITION funding on the measurement.
At the Pentagon, weapons systems were funded based on standardised performance metrics. At the World Bank, entire nations were funded based on standardised governance metrics19. The same logic now operates through ISO, where organisations are certified — and therefore financed — based on standardised management system metrics. And it will soon operate at the transaction level, where individual payments are cleared based on standardised purpose codes in the ISO 20022 messaging format.
The escalation runs from defence budgets to sovereign lending to organisational certification to individual transactions — the same principle applied at progressively finer resolution.
1968: The Convergence Year
The year 1968 deserves particular attention. In April, the Club of Rome was founded at a meeting facilitated by the OECD20. In June, the US Advanced Research Projects Agency approved the plan for ARPANET21 — the communications network that would become the internet. In the summer, ARPA contracted BBN Technologies to build the first routers22. In September, UNESCO convened the Intergovernmental Conference on the Scientific Basis for Rational Use and Conservation of the Resources of the Biosphere in Paris23.
The Biosphere Conference produced twenty recommendations that read, in retrospect, like the specification document for the entire architecture: an international research programme, ecosystem research, human ecology research, inventory and monitoring of resources, methodology co-ordination, pollution monitoring, genetic resource preservation, and inter-agency co-ordination.
Its central premise was that ‘planning for rational use and conservation of resources at any level of organisation requires precise knowledge of resource quality and availability’ — which is to say, compatible data.
Three parallel tracks were launched that year. The communications infrastructure (ARPANET, later the internet). The modelling infrastructure (Club of Rome, which would commission World3 in 1972; IIASA, established the same year). And the data standardisation infrastructure (the Biosphere Conference’s call for compatible monitoring, which would eventually produce GEOSS, the ISO environmental management standards, and the structured data fields of ISO 20022).
All three were necessary for the architecture to function — models without a network cannot transmit, a network without a data format cannot be parsed, and a data format without models has nothing to evaluate against.
And IUCN — the International Union for Conservation of Nature — committed to participating in the Biosphere Conference two years before it happened, at its 1966 General Assembly, pledging to ‘cooperate fully in the preparation for the Conference and in the implementation of its results’24.
1972: The Operational Year
If 1968 was the year the tracks were laid, 1972 was the year they became operational — and a fourth track was added. In March, the Club of Rome published Limits to Growth25. In October, IIASA was established in Laxenburg, Austria, as an explicitly bilateral US-Soviet venture in systems analysis, providing the institution where scientists from both sides of the Iron Curtain could build compatible models26. In June, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment convened in Stockholm — the first global environmental summit — and by December its institutional outcome, the United Nations Environment Programme, had been established27.
But the event that made the architecture planetary in scope came on May 23, when Nixon signed the US-USSR Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection in the Kremlin28. The agreement committed the United States and the Soviet Union to joint environmental monitoring, pollution prevention research, joint policy development — and compatible data.
The agreement’s stated aim was ‘developing the basis for controlling the impact of human activities on nature’. A planetary management system requires planetary participation. The Cold War was the obstacle. The environment was the one domain where both superpowers could agree to cooperate without conceding political ground — the ethic that justified the bilateral infrastructure.
Compatible environmental data, joint monitoring programmes, shared modelling capacity, and joint policy development could cross the Iron Curtain precisely because they were framed as environmental protection rather than governance.
IIASA’s establishment the same year was the institutional outcome. IIASA provided the modelling infrastructure where both sides’ scientists worked together on systems analysis — using compatible data formats, compatible methodologies, and compatible assumptions.
The models had to be interoperable, and the scenarios had to be acceptable to both sides. This bilateral requirement for compatibility is one reason IIASA’s integrated assessment models became the global standard that the NGFS uses today29.
By 1974, UNEP had operationalised the monitoring function through the Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS), which coordinated environmental monitoring activities across the UN system. GEMS’s stated purpose was acquiring ‘the data needed for rational management of the environment’, and its operating principle was that data collected from different parts of the monitoring network had to be ‘both comparable and compatible’. The programme covered climate, soils, biodiversity, even public health, and the environmental impact of human activities — the precursor to GEOSS, which would later provide the raw sensor layer for the entire architecture.
The four tracks seeded in 1968 were therefore operational by the end of 1972: the communications network (ARPANET, operational 1969), the modelling institution (IIASA, October 1972), the political mandate and institutional infrastructure (Stockholm Conference and UNEP, June–December 1972), and the bilateral governance mechanism ensuring both superpowers would participate in compatible environmental monitoring (US-USSR Agreement, May 1972).
The UN Conference-to-TC Pipeline
A consistent pattern connects major UN conferences to ISO technical committee creation. The 1992 Rio Earth Summit30 produced Agenda 2131, the Convention on Biological Diversity32, and the Framework Convention on Climate Change33. TC 20734 (environmental management) was created in 1993. Rio+20 in 201235 produced a document36 with two themes — green economy and institutional framework for sustainable development; TC 32237 (sustainable finance) was established in 2018 and TC 30938 (governance of organisations) in 2016.
The SDGs were adopted in 201539; ISO 5300140 (SDG management systems) enters development in 2023. The Kunming-Montreal biodiversity framework41 was agreed in 2022; TC 33142 (biodiversity) had been established in 2020.
The public narrative treats the conferences as cause and the standards as effect. The documented sequence often runs the other way. ICSU — the International Council for Scientific Unions, now the International Science Council — organised its own conference ASCEND in 199143, before Rio, that ‘contributed to’ Agenda 21.
ICSU’s own strategic plan for 2012-2017 described Rio+20 as ‘a unique opportunity to get broad buy-in and support for the global sustainability research agenda’ — an agenda that ICSU had already defined through its own ‘visioning process’44.
The challenges came first. The conference was the ratification event.
BSI initiated the anti-bribery project committee (PC 278) at the end of 2012 — within months of Rio+2045. The UK Bribery Act had been passed in 2010, providing the domestic legislative trigger46. The conference provided the international mandate. Similarly, the Waddesdon Stranded Assets Forums ran from 2014 to 201847, building the intellectual and institutional infrastructure for sustainable finance. TC 322 was established in 201848 — the year of the final Waddesdon forum.
The conferences are real events, but the specific outputs — the paragraphs, commitments, and mandates — are frequently pre-positioned by organisations that need them to justify the next phase of standardisation. The conference provides the democratic legitimacy, the technical committee provides the implementation, and the people who shaped the conference agenda are often the same people who chair the committee.
The Escalation Ladder
The ISO committee catalogue reveals an escalation not in quantity but in abstraction level.
The early technical committees (1947-1990) standardised physical objects: screws, steel, rubber, pipes.
The middle period (1991-2010) standardised management systems: environment, quality, energy.
The recent period (2011-2015) standardised the management of management: security, innovation, risk, projects.
From 2016 onward, the committees standardise governance itself: why organisations exist, how they must be governed, what counts as sustainable, and how the financial system should allocate capital.
TC 309 standardises governance — and through ISO 3701149, due in 2026, it will extend that governance to organisational purpose itself, defining what an organisation’s reason to exist must be: ‘an optimal strategic contribution to long-term wellbeing for all people and planet’50.
That is an ontological claim about the meaning of economic activity, expressed in the format of a management system standard, auditable by a certification body, and enforceable through capital allocation.
Each rung of the ladder was only possible because the one below it had been accepted as self-evidently good. Compatible screws established ISO as legitimate. Safe food established it as moral. Quality management established it as governing how organisations operate. Environmental management established it as governing what organisations must consider. Sustainable finance established it as governing what gets funded. And governance of purpose establishes it as governing why organisations even exist — the flip side of a Social License to Operate51.
Each rung reframes objection as moral failure.
At the bottom, objecting to compatible screws makes you impractical and perhaps slightly loopy. At the top, objecting to ‘wellbeing for all people and planet’ makes you sound as though you oppose life itself. The institutional trust accumulated over seventy-nine years of useful technical standardisation is the capital that funds the governance layer.
The Three-Word Architecture
Every control system in the architecture follows the same structure: standardise, measure, correct. It appears in different terminology at every level — Plan-Do-Check-Act in Annex SL, Planning-Programming-Budgeting in PPBS, ethics-clearing-settlement in the clearinghouse model, sense-compare-actuate in cybernetics — but the triad is always the same.
ISO provides the standard.
The OECD, GEOSS, IIASA, and the certification chain provide the measurement.
The BIS, Basel Committee, and FATF provide the correction through capital requirements, financial conditionality, and jurisdictional exclusion.
Each function is performed by a different institution, and each can truthfully say it is only doing one thing — writing guidance, reporting data, or managing risk. Nobody owns the complete cycle, yet the cycle runs.
The Sustainable Development Goals illustrate the pattern.
SDGs 1 through 15 are fifteen unchallengeable ethical demands — no poverty, zero hunger, good health, clean water, climate action, and so forth. Each one generates its own standardise-measure-correct loop: standardised metrics52, measurement infrastructure, and financial conditionality attached to performance.
SDG 16 (peace, justice, strong institutions) is the governance layer — TC 30953, which wraps around all fifteen loops.
SDG 17 (partnerships for the goals) is the structural and financial layer — the trisectoral model of public-private-civil society collaboration and the financing mechanisms that fund it, including blended finance, impact investing, and conditional development lending, now being codified in ISO 5300154 and operationalised through TC 32255.
The ethic always comes first, because the infrastructure is unjustifiable without it.
‘Protect the biosphere’ generates demand for monitoring infrastructure.
‘Prevent fraud’ generates demand for transaction surveillance.
‘Ensure good governance’ generates demand for governance standards.
Each ethic is real — corruption is harmful, perhaps climate change is a legitimate risk. But the ethics are selected from the full range of human concerns for a specific property: they justify the specific infrastructure the system needs next. Nobody selects ‘preserve individual autonomy’ or ‘limit institutional power’ as the driving ethic, because those do not generate infrastructure — they dismantle it.
The historian Margaret Manale has argued that the problem runs deeper than selection56. In a functionalist civilisation — one that defines things by what they do in a system rather than by what they are — the system does not merely adopt ethics that happen to be useful. It generates them.
Compartmentalisation and Assembly
This raises an obvious question: how could an architecture of this scope be built without anyone noticing? The answer lies in the relationship between general systems theory and ISO’s standards format.
As the Maxwell essay documented, the intellectual disciplines that underpin the architecture — general systems theory, cybernetics, input-output analysis, operations research — were developed and distributed as separate academic fields. Each addressed a different aspect of the same problem: how to describe, monitor, and steer complex systems. But they were published in different journals, taught in different departments, and applied in different industries.
Each discipline produced a component, and the components were compatible because they shared an underlying logic — systems, feedback, and control — but the people building them worked in professional silos.
ISO’s standards architecture reproduces this compartmentalisation at the institutional level. Each technical committee works on its own domain. TC 207 writes environmental standards, TC 68 on financial messaging, TC 309 on governance, TC 322 on sustainable finance, TC 331 on biodiversity. Each is staffed by domain specialists focused on their deliverables.
The environmental scientist on TC 207 does not study the payment messaging formats of TC 68, and the financial services professional on TC 68 does not read the governance principles of TC 309. Each committee produces its component, and the components are compatible because they share the same structural template, but the people building them work within their namespace.
The result is that the complete architecture can be assembled from components that were each developed independently, by professionals who understood only their own part. The financial messaging standard by payment engineers solving interoperability problems, the governance standard by governance professionals addressing accountability gaps, and the sustainable finance framework by finance professionals pricing externalities. Each is a valid response to a problem within a specific domain, and each professional involved can truthfully say they perform useful work within their area of expertise.
But the components are compatible. They share the same template, reference each other through formal liaison relationships, and feed into the same financial system. When assembled — when environmental monitoring data flows into integrated assessment models, which generate scenarios, which set capital requirements, which are formatted as ISO standards, which are evaluated by AI, which determines whether an ISO 20022 transaction clears — the result is a closed-loop system that none of the individual contributors designed and few, if any, can see in its entirety.
A system built from compatible components does not require its builders to understand the completed assembly. But it is important to distinguish this from ordinary emergent complexity, where independently developed parts happen to produce unintended interactions. In the ISO architecture, the compatibility is enforced by design through a shared structural template. Annex SL mandates that every management system standard follows the same clause structure57, uses the same terminology, and implements the same Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle58. The components snap together because the template required them to, and the people building the components did not need to intend the assembly, because the template ensured it.
The completed assembly is a system in which an ETHIC that no electorate chose is translated into a STANDARD that no parliament wrote, MEASURED by instruments that no citizen can inspect, EVALUATED by AI that no voter governs, and ENFORCED through money that will not move unless the evaluation passes.
Each individual stage of this process is mundane, technical, and — when considered in isolation — unobjectionable. The system they compose is not.
The Closed Loop
A cybernetic control system requires that all inputs fall within the system’s ability to read, evaluate, and act upon them. Any input the system cannot process is a disturbance it cannot correct for, and the architecture is therefore moving toward closure — the elimination of all uncontrolled inputs.
It does so through input constraint59:
ISO 20022 constrains financial input: only structured, purpose-coded transactions enter the system.
Digital identity (TC 307) constrains identity input: only authenticated actors participate.
TC 309 constrains organisational input: only governed organisations are certifiable.
TC 322 constrains capital input: only compliant activities are fundable.
FATF constrains jurisdictional input: only compliant nations access the system.
ISO 42001 constrains evaluative input: only governed AI performs the clearing function.
NGFS scenarios constrain temporal input: only modelled futures are plannable, fundable, and therefore reachable.
The output of the system feeds back as input. GEOSS observes the earth, IIASA processes the observation into models, the NGFS generates scenarios, ISO formats the standards, AI evaluates compliance, programmable money enforces the evaluation, and the outcome changes the earth — which GEOSS then observes again, closing the loop.
Cash — which carries no purpose code, no party identifier, no structured data — is the principal remaining uncontrolled input. Its elimination is a structural requirement of the architecture, not merely a policy preference.
The AI Layer
ISO 4200160 standardises the governance of AI — specifically, the AI that will govern everything else. The AI evaluates transactions against ISO standards, using ISO 20022 structured data, and outputs a determination — clear, freeze, or flag — that programmable money executes automatically.
The AI serves as the clearing function: the evaluative layer between the standard and the settlement. It reads the purpose code and compares it against TC 322’s sustainable finance criteria, TC 309’s governance requirements, TC 207’s environmental thresholds, Basel’s capital rules, and FATF’s compliance conditions. The evaluation runs in milliseconds, the settlement is automatic, and no human is in the loop.
This is already beyond the prototype stage.
The BIS Innovation Hub has built working demonstrations of each component. Project Keystone61 converts ISO 20022 purpose codes into economic surveillance dashboards. Project Aurora62 trains machine learning models on payment data for fraud detection. Project Mandala63 automates compliance checks within the payment flow. And Project Rosalind64 demonstrates conditional settlement through a three-party lock — the sender, the receiver, and the API layer that evaluates the transaction before releasing the funds.
The API layer reads every structured field in the ISO 20022 message and decides whether the transaction is allowed to go ahead.
Trump’s Genesis Mission65, announced in November 2025, directs the Department of Energy to create what the executive order calls a ‘closed-loop AI experimentation platform’66 — the cybernetic term used without disguise.
The platform integrates national laboratories, supercomputers, and federal data repositories with private sector AI companies including Microsoft, OpenAI, Google, and Nvidia. It is framed as this generation’s Manhattan Project.
The standard tells the AI what to evaluate. The AI evaluates. The money acts on the evaluation. Standardise, measure, correct — running at computational speed, at transaction level, across the entire financial system.
The Democratic Question
ISO 53001, arriving in 2026, will standardise the management of Sustainable Development Goals implementation. It is being co-developed by ISO and the United Nations Development Programme, and it requires multi-stakeholder partnership — the trisectoral model of public, private, and civil society collaboration — as the methodology for achieving the goals.
In this model, the elected government is one partner among three. The NGO — unelected, self-appointed, answerable to its members rather than to citizens — carries the ethic and represents ‘the common good’. The corporation provides capital and implementation. The standard defines the methodology, the certification body audits compliance, and finance is conditional on certification.
The citizen’s democratic input is diluted at every stage. The goals were set by the United Nations, not by national parliaments. The standards are written by technical committees, not by elected representatives. The implementation methodology requires partnership with actors who hold no democratic mandate. The certification is performed by private companies, and the financial conditionality is set by Basel and the NGFS, both hosted at the Bank for International Settlements.
The election still happens, the parliament still sits, and the government still supposedly governs. But the decisions that determine what counts as sustainable, what counts as ‘good governance’, what gets funded and what gets stranded, what your money can buy and under what conditions — these are made in ISO committee rooms, not in legislative chambers. And the ISO committee rooms are listed on a website that nobody visits, producing documents that nobody reads, following a process that nobody monitors.
The entire planetary governance architecture is published, public, and freely accessible. The committee memberships are listed, the liaison organisations are named, the standards are described, and the work programmes are documented. Nothing is classified, encrypted, or removed from the public library.
But it is hidden — behind compartmentalised complexity and pure tedium.
The destination is a near-fully automated planetary management system — what Buckminster Fuller called Spaceship Earth67 — in which the ethic sets the target, the standard encodes it, the sensors measure deviation, and programmable money corrects it, with no human decision required at any stage. The ISO committee catalogue is its operating manual.
If this system genuinely serves the common good, there is no reason for it to be hidden. A governance architecture that benefits those it governs should welcome their scrutiny. The fact that the architecture depends on not being understood as a complete system — that its survival requires compartmentalisation and tedium rather than transparency and consent — is itself the strongest evidence that it doesn’t serve public interest.
The ethic is set upstream by organisations no electorate chose. The standard is written in committee rooms no citizen monitors. The measurement is performed by sensors and auditors no parliament appointed. And the correction is applied through capital that will not flow unless every condition is met.
Standardise, measure, correct — from compatible screws through European integration to conditional money, in seventy-nine years of unobjectionable steps, all claimed to serve a ‘common good’ no-one was ever informed would eventually be used to adaptively anticipate and control society without your democratic input.
T/y Oubicampi for Manale doc.
When I trapped myself in Washington, DC from 1987 - 1994, I had a client who was an ISO participant for recycling labelling. Prepping him for a conference in Australia was torturous. The documentation he had to navigate... OMG.
This article is like a nostalgia tour for me. For the pre-Internet periods, I read bits and pieces of all of it without any understanding that it was a coordinated program. IUCN was filed in my head as a dumping ground for CIA operatives who needed to learn to operate overseas (like the washed up drunks from the CIA that USAID absorbs and sends to lesser being 3rd world countries).
ISO and UN FAO Codex Alimentaria were my two exposures to global standardization. Folks were fighting Codex Alimentaria back then (Ex. Dr. Rima Laibow). ISO was perceived as a workplace safety deal like the US Occupational Safety & Health Agency (OSHA) organization. Nothing special and the cause of deadly levels of boredom.
And with all of this noble global, multidirectional, comprehensive organizational programming - not one of these organizations, programs, etc., bothered to stop The Great Poisoning, the catastrophic pollution and mining destruction of the Earth, the Arms Trade and violent conflicts,, and ultimately the democidal Global Financial Elite (300 - 500 uber wealthy satanic families and the Central Banksters who serve them) who are responsible for today's planetary nightmare.
FUCK THEM ALL.
Esc, what you here illustrate has had an even wider effect; it stopped new thinking in science, particularly physics and cosmology. Today universities teach by rote; particularly students to NEVER argue against what they are taught. Here in the UK this has had a dramatic effect; for example; the Royal Society in London, supposedly the premier scientific institution, has, for many decades . . . deliberately binned, (yes, destroyed), EVERYTHING it received that was not created by a Fellow of the RS. That their librarian proudly announced that their library only contains books written by their Fellows. Apparently, the librarian will shout out, as he did to me; "I AM NOT A SCIENTIST", and that, "they received thousands of pages every year".
Rigid minds enjoy a fixed diet of information that has been laid down as perfect knowledge; never to be argued against. Oh! And Big bang is a classic religion. Madness!!