I decided to bring this thread back in view of the recent anti-Scientology developments.
As I said before, the probability of survival of CoS is diminishing with each new generation of Scientology recruits. However, I have not said anything about the rate of Scientology decline -- will it remain constant, or will it increase, or will it decrease as the time goes by?
To answer this question, one must analyze the formula showing how a mutation spreads in a sexually propagating population.
The initial stages of the analysis are presented in the following article:http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e40/40d.htm
My analysis shows that the rate of CoS membership decline increases until it reaches a freefall (90% decline rate).
What we are witnessing now is, probably, the approaching freefall of the official Scientology doctrine (the splinter Scientology groups such as the Indies, Freezone, etc., do not belong to this category).
The math itself cannot be used to predict specific events such as the Debbie Cook letter, TomKat split and other events damaging to the cult. But it can be used to predict that the damage done to Scientology by the events that are unfavorable to it will be becoming more and more severe in a near future.
Let’s take a look at unofficial Scientology represented by the Freezoners, Indies and other splinter groups. What does the future hold for them?
The Fisher theory is not applicable to them because it is based on the concept of a single random mutation. One must use a theory of nonrandom mutations to predict their future. I have developed such theory in order to prove that an overuse of the penicillin and other antibiotics does not cause a spread of mutated bacteria.
My article, Periodicity of Epidemics, was published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. In order to read this journal online you must be its subscriber, which costs money. I cannot post my article in its entirety at this website because the OCMB software does not accept mathematical formulae. I can post the article without the formulae, but this is not a desirable option. But I can email my article to anyone interested in it. Definition.
Nonrandom mutation: A mutation caused by environmental factors such as chemicals and radiation. Nonrandom mutations usually occur in more than one member of species.
I have proved that a nonrandom mutation that occurred in several members of species cannot spread to the entire species population. My theory is a substantial improvement of the Fisher theory because it deals with mutations in several members of species. My proof is based on the probability theory.
Moving on to the Scientology case --in biological terms, the Scientologists who have left CoS but are still practicing their religion are the recipients of “nonrandom mutation“, which is their Scientology indoctrination. Even though some of them are trying to bring fresh blood to their organizations, Scientology as a whole is doomed -- my theory of nonrandom mutations shows that the number of practicing Scientologists is in a steady decline, with the decline rate being constant (Fisher’s theory of random mutations predicts accelerating rate of CoS membership decline).
Scientology is facing imminent death!
This section of the article is intended for the OSA agents who monitor this website -- I want to stick a big fork in their ass!
Hubbard predicted that Scientology will become the dominant religion of the future. His prediction is based on the assumption that EVERYONE who comes in contact with the Tech will become a Scientologist. This assumption shows that the Founder’s mental abilities were child-like.
I have used the probability theory to prove that Scientology is a dying doctrine. This shows that my intellectual capabilities are far superior than the ones of Hubbard. Intellectually-wise, compared to me Hubbard is a piece of shit.
You can try to defend the Founder by finding mistakes in my article, Periodicity of Epidemics. In fact, I welcome any attempt to prove me wrong. But my article is flawless, its initial assumptions and mathematical derivations are 100% correct.