First Person Life

2006-04-12

But isn't science unbiased?

More evidence that the scientific establishment doesn't like criticism of it's pet theories and ideas can be found in this recent op-ed piece from the Wall Street Journal regarding Global Warming... It appears that the libel and slander in calling Intelligent Design a "non-science" extends to anyone not towing the party line within the ranks of the accepted scientific community. I suppose if the National Academy of Science thought that the earth was flat and Galileo showed up to prove them wrong, they'd have him declared a heretic...

What does this mean? (a good Lutheran question) - basically - for all it's pretense to the contrary, the institutions of science do have an agenda and they will actively work to quash anything that doesn't fit in with that agenda. This makes them more religious cultists than objective scientists... but that doesn't seem to bother them. As long as they don't invoke "God" in their analysis, they are non-religious (in their minds). To some extent, I agree, but ultimately I'd have to say that it simply makes them irreligious-zealots.

So fallen human nature proves itself stupid again -- unable to question it's own assumptions. It's sad really, because science has historically been such a benefit to humanity --- then again, most of that progress came when (in general) scientists recognized that there was order in the universe and attributed it to the One who spoke the universe into existence. Now science is less interested in truth (cxref: Pilate - "What is truth?") and more interested in lining their own pockets and pushing their own agendas -- which oddly enough, for some includes the extermination of up to 90% of the worlds population.

It makes me wonder who else would be interested in the extermination of 90% of the population of the planet... hmm... Could it be...... [wait for it] .......
....
...
....
...
....
...
Satan?!

The scientific cult is an extension of a fallen human ego -- a plaything for Satan to manipulate and use to oppose God. Since they replace the One True God with human reason and worship themselves, they can be nothing else. This doesn't mean that all scientists are evil or that good doesn't come out of science. It does mean that we must be careful when we listen to "scientific facts" that are contrary to what the Scriptures teach about the Universe and the One who created it -- especially when they posit things like ice-flows for the savior of that Universe to walk on, or dig up 1700 year old gnostic writings and attempt to place them on par with Holy Writ.

I could go on... but I've already given them too many pixels... suffice it to say, be careful when reading "science."

6 Comments:

  • Science is an entirely different process for religion.

    You basically have two ways to approach the universe - you can accept on absolute faith that a book that someone has been handing down for a few thousand years at the most is the "word of God" and say that's good enough for you, or you can actually start taking a look at the things around you.

    Yes, you may find yourself seeing what appears for all the world to be "intelligence" in what you see, but why, for heaven's sake, if there is a God, would he have told the Western world that the Earth is only a few thousand years old whereas he apparently told the South Asian world that the Earth is BILLIONS of years old, if not older?

    By Blogger Axinar, at 4/12/2006 11:48 PM  

  • The "Science vs. Faith" argument I have dealt with elsewhere (and here [note especially the update of 12/21/2005] and here.)

    In-so-far as a scientific proposition conforms to the National Academy of Sciences definition of "science" that was used in the Kitzmiller case, I have no problem with looking at the world around me in an attempt to understand it.

    The problem is when you go beyond first tier inference (i.e. inference based upon direct observation) to second tier inference and beyond (i.e. inference based on inference based on inference based on inference based on inference based on observation). This is the case with most current "science" that is being passed off as "fact" today. The problem is that you must have FAITH that all of the underlying inferences are correct. Personally, I'll take my chances on the revealed Word of God over some self-absorbed scientist looking out for his own grant money any day (can you say stem-cell research falsification?).

    As a description of how the world currently works, science is a wonderful and important tool. When it exceeds its role and attempts to posit as fact something that has not been observed, that is when it becomes a faith of its own. And that's when it becomes dangerous.

    By Blogger dm42, at 4/13/2006 12:38 AM  

  • Yes ... these are some valid points.

    For instance, when Venus was first observed with a telescope, it was a perfectly featureless disk. People thought, "Oh, it must be covered with clouds. If it's covered with clouds it must be wet and if it's wet, it's probably a swamp, and if it's a swamp there must be life and maybe even dinosaurs."

    Observation: I can't see a thing.

    Conclusion: Dinosaurs.

    One of the good things about science is that you CAN challenge ideas. You can debunk cold fusion, stem cell research, perpetual motion machines, etc, etc.

    However, pretty much by definition, no matter how hard you try, you simply cannot debunk someone who is hooked on religion.

    It's like okay, I'm back in the late 1800's and I'm in Montana and I just dug up the skeleton of something that is clearly, as they first described it, "a lizard as big as a house".

    I'm like, "Hmmm ... must be something they forgot to mention in Genesis."

    Of course then I'm digging around and I find out the Chinese have "dragon" legends, so I'm like, "Ahah! The Chinese knew about dinosaurs so they're belief system must be closer to true than the Hebrew system."

    No, of course not - there are thousands and thousands of religions all incredibly different from one another, but, you know what, there are bones of "lizards as big as a house" all over this planet. Yes, there are things that are hard to infer about them, but, they were here, they laid eggs, they're not here any more, and the ancient Hebrews knew nothing about them ...

    By Blogger Axinar, at 4/13/2006 12:56 AM  

  • The chinese aren't the only ones who have legends about dinosaurs. Ever heard of St. George?
    The chinese have invented a fake god who is completely seperate from the one true God.
    Yes, it is impossible to debunk someone who is "hooked on religion" He has salvation, and he's not going to let it go.
    Here's a completely worthless point, but on the flip side; it is equally impossible to debunk someone who is a hard core humanist or atheist.

    By Blogger Althusius, at 4/13/2006 10:12 PM  

  • NOTE: additional comments can be found in the post Faith in Science.

    Althusius - that's because humanism and atheism are based themselves on "faith" and are "religions" in their own right.

    I just find it interesting that the National Academy of Sciences defines science to exclude those things which aren't based on observable data, then they go ahead and base a bunch of their evolution tripe on unobservable assumptions. (see the comments to "Faith in Science" for details).

    I still think we'd be better off if science poured all the millions of dollars and thousands of hours of classroom time they spend chasing unscientific pipe-dreams into doing real science. I bet we could cure Aids, Bird Flu and Cancer in 5 years... and our graduates would actually be able to do something useful.

    It'd be interesting to find out how much time Asian students spend learning about evolution in science classes.

    By Blogger dm42, at 4/13/2006 11:29 PM  

  • That's a good idea, dm42

    By Blogger Althusius, at 4/15/2006 9:21 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home