The View From 1776
The Prostitution of Science
When you hear the words “scientific authority,” check to be sure your wallet is still there and hold onto it tightly.
- Seductive elements run wide and deep in our universities where many 'scientific educators' live an apriori hedonistic lifestyle of concealed coed flesh & fun.
Such priorities leave little/No room for ethic, moral, and law, to elicit loyalty and faithfulness when such criteria is attributed to a vague history-past and hoped-for 'myth.' Such science partakes of a theocratic scientism that is truly full of holes - from the neck up.
Professor Henry Margenau, Yale University physics, gave us an all-time definitive on science when he wrote, "True science knows no final answers; only on-going questions."
When they claim Final Answers: laugh out loud!Posted by Choicemaker on 12/28 at 09:39 AM
- Considering the amoral and dogmatic environment in which most of these "scientists" receive their training, it is hardly surprising that there would be a shortage of (or a total absence of) integrity in their work. It would be like complaining to unrefrigerated meat and saying, "How dare you rot!". Bad company corrupts good morals (and absolute power corrupts absolutely!)... and the evolutionists (or materialistic naturalists) have hold of the reigns of the scientific community right now
- YES, and if evolutionary theory was true transitional forms would make up over 90% of the fossil record - given their time-lines and the laws of probability.
For the record: None.
Thus, we have a scientism blind-faith.
Next...Posted by Choicemaker on 12/29 at 10:11 AM
- The thing about science is that it has to be reproducible. The motivations of the scientist have no bearing on their results. This is why scientific fraud (which I agree is lamentably widespread) is always found out: the results can't be reproduced. Talk to Pons and Fleischmann if you don't believe that.
The reason why we pursue science is not to assault religion (as some might conclude from reading this blog), but to make our lives better. Valid scientific theories lead to advancements in technology. It becomes hard to argue with the theory (and moot to argue with the motivations) when the results are right in front of you.
Example: quantum physics. Your computer is designed according to the principles of quantum mechanics. (Transistors in modern processors are small enough that quantum properties start to emerge.) It makes no difference whether Einstein et al were in it for the money, the fame, the dogma, or whatever, because your computer actually works. Their results were reproducible, despite their religion, morals, values, "hedonistic lifestyles," politics, etc, etc.
Likewise, modern medicine relies on evolutionary biology. Your flu shot this year may very well have been the product of evolutionary biology. You can argue till you're blue in the face that evolution is immoral and scientists are dogmatic scoundrals, but the truth of the matter is you won't get the flu.
- Some questions for Mita and Choicemaker,
How do recognize a transitional form in the fossil record? Is it one with a half-arm/half-fin? Or one with a 3/4-eye?
Has "true observable science" (to use Mita's term) produced evidence that supports a theory counter to evolution? If so, what is the evidence and what is the theory?
What are the tenets of the dogma that scientists espouse?
- I think if you funnel money to the conservative groups Mita knows they wouldn't spend very much money, So money is not the problem. The conservative groups spoken of here are the ones that believe in ID. ID doesn't require much funding because it doesn't do much research. For them, most of the scientific questions have been answered. And what else has to be answered shouldn't be asked.
- Well, first of all I don't agree with you, David, saying that ID scientists don't do much research. Intelligent Design advocates or researchers do plenty of research (if you do the research about them). Creationists also do plenty of relevant and helpful research. Much of their research is based on true science.
Also, I didn't mean that all monies should be sent to groups that do research in ID. I think that the groups that do ID reseach should be funded, as well as Creationists and other scientific groups that don't engage in an exclusively naturalistic/evolutionary philosophy - at least the ones that don't actively advocate it. I do not think that evolutionists should have the corner on the market... to the exclusion of all other research. Science is supposed to be objective, not subject to the "ruling theory trap" - or in other words, scientists should not conduct their experiments in such a way as to require the results line up at all times with their own worldview or else the results must be rejected... that is a scientist who is not letting objectivity rule, but instead allowing their own subjective views (presuppositional worldview) color their research.
A majority of our nation's college science and philosophy departments are staffed by professors who have espoused a naturalistic worldview, which is a philosphy. Many of these same people are avowed atheists and evolutionists. They get offended when anyone suggests that some other scientific worldview could be studied. They say, "Put philosophy where it belongs, in the philosophy department!", yet their own view of science is openly colored by their philosphy, which is what naturalism and atheism both are.
As we all know, when it comes to faith, it isn't really faith if you have to have proof, now is it? I am not interested in anyone proving or disproving the existence of God, or the lack thereof... faith comes from an inner assurance that what you believe is true. We may find that certain scientific facts back up our faith, and that may raise our confidence level for our faith, but it doesn't prove our faith or disprove it.
Science has given us many facts we can rest on. Not one of those facts can, with any real degree of certainty, prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of God. The Naturalists contend that their science disproves the existence of God, which is a statement of faith. The ID people believe there is too much complexity for there not to be some unmoved mover... or an intelligent being that is outside time and space as we know it. They do not advocate the existence of a particular God Almighty in the form of the Christian Yaweh or Jewish YWH. Believing in an impersonal, preexistent being with the power to create doesn't mean they believe in a biblical person-God. Some ID'ers are even somewhat agnostic in that they do not think they can ever really know who God is or prove that he really exists. Creationists believe that God Almighty created the universe and that he still involves himself in the affairs of his creation. (Saying that ID is just biblical creationism repackaged is just not so.)
Whether I believe in God or not has no bearing on whether I can practice or be interested in true science... what I believe about the conclusions of my studies or experiments and whether I can apply them to my faith or not, well that's up to me.
When I look at some of the theories out there (especially String Theory) I can find much in them that shows me there is so much more than we can ever discover... for example, string theory has much in it that could support Creationism, ID, or even evolution. Most of the people who are String Theorists are not Christian or IDists at all. Still, I can see the validity in their theory and apply what I know about my faith to some of their discoveries and say to myself, "Self, I can see where what they are saying and what the Bible says here or there seems to agree..." and I am sure if you researched String Theory, you could find something in it that would bolster your own presuppositional worldview.
- Judge, you asked what the tenets of the dogma were that scientists espouse. To which scientists do you refer? I was referring to those who might be influenced by a worldview that encourages unethical behavior as being acceptable.
What I mean by a transitional fossil is one which shows a major organ or essential appendage that is partially formed, which without it, the animal could not survive. A brain, or lungs, or a heart. If DNA from the original didn't require the copy to develop a heart, then where did the heart come from?
Another thing you need to consider is that fossils do not contain DNA. Fossils are stone, not living or unfossilized genetic material. So when the evolutionists say, "The DNA makeup of these fossilized animals..." they are misleading you into thinking they possess the actual DNA of fossils. They do not.
The DNA of an organism reproduces an exact replica of the DNA it already has. Any uncoded deviation from the original code is called a mutation. Much research has shown that nearly all mutations are harmful to an animal, and those that are not harmful usually do not do anything for the animal and disappear in successive generations. However, many animals (humans included) have much variation within their own species - like eye, hair and skin color, height, length, body shape, longevity, and so on (microevolution or variation within a species). But never has anyone found a fossil or a live animal that was in between one genus and another genus (macroevolution or one genus changing into a totally different genus).
What some people call evolution is actually speciation, or a species which can hybridize within its own species set. This is a type of hybridization and can occur both in nature and in the laboratory. Most hybrids are created in the lab or on breeding farms, and most frequently result in animals or plants which are sterile or that require cloning (or grafting) to reproduce its like kind. There are no known instances in the wild of a hybrid animal reproducing true to the hybridized form, if at all. Look up the stats for a liger (hybrid of a tiger and a lion - and a favorite hybrid of Napoleon Dynamite... ), and you'll find that liger experts say they can't reproduce. Why not? Because they have safeguards in their genetic material (DNA) that prevent hybrids of this kind from reproducing.
DNA has the ability to allow variation within a species or genus, which is in the code that is in the gene alleles of the DNA, but it does not have the code to allow one type (genus) of animal to change into or crossbreed with another type (genus) of animal. For instance, the finches that Darwin observed in the Galapagos, while they did have minor variation in the sizes of their beaks from island to island, they were all still finches, and looked very much alike. Most dog species can interbreed (such as wolf and domestic dog), as well as most cat species (such as domestic housecat and a margay), or closely related finch species, etc.
Also, when they say that chimpanzees possess 98% of the same genetic code as humans do, (which when properly calculated really is right at 96%) you must consider that human DNA has 3 billion base pairs of code and 4% of that is 120 million base pairs of code missing from the chimp that we have. That's a whole lot of code missing.
Also, think about this. In order for life to have begun by itself, without on outside "mover", you must believe that all the pertinent chemicals that make up the simplest living cell had to have somehow organized itself and stuck itself into a cell wall. Where did the cell wall come from? Without the cell wall, the chemical bonds would have quickly been diluted by the surrounding water or contaminated by another liquid. And how could compounds mix themselves in just the right order in the chaotic soup of chemicals on the surface of a planet made of rock and water and not an organic cell in sight? Especially when some of the chemicals that exist inside a living cell will destroy each other outside a living cell? Where did lipids come from? (lipids are where cells get the energy they need to live, and cannot be found outside a living cell in nature). One must also hold to the statement of faith that this cell must have become cohesive "somehow" and that all the amino acids in the proteins in those cells just happened to be left-handed. They can't even get proteins to do that in a laboratory under perfect conditions. They always end up being half right-handed and half left-handed. All living things have proteins that are all left-handed.
- If I took language and used all the same letters but just put it all out of order, like this: "Thne ti wuoldt'n kame yna senes. Ouy ouldwn't eb labe ot derustnadn em ta lla". There wouldn't be any real words, thus no real language. The same goes with amino acid links in a protein. If any of the amino acids are out of order, the protein will not work at all. If all the proteins don't work, there is no working cell. Even the smallest living cells have about 400 amino acid chains in them... Each protein has between 100 and 50,000 amino acid chains... and so forth and so on.
If the proteins happened by chance, shouldn't the amino acids in the proteins of living things be half left-handed and half right handed? What do you think the mathematical odds are of even the smallest protein based life form having only left-handed proteins?
You see where I am going...
Evolutionists must believe that life came from nothing, which is currently called abiogenesis - or life created from nothing. This is a theory that dated back to the middle ages and persisted until Louis Pasteure disproved it (spontaneous generation) OR they believe in the panspermia model, or that life came from somewhere else in the universe... but if it came from somewhere else, the same question remains, "how did it form even there?" In the evolutionary model, organized life had to have come from disorganized non-life (or non-organic matter) without the benefit of having an original DNA code or an outside influence. Or from some other planet. (This is what Crick believed.)
Hope you all have a fun and Happy New Year celebration!
I didn't say all scientific question have been answered. I said that for ID believers all the scientific questions have been answered because they thing one Creator created it all. For them, what the Creator created doesn't need to be questioned. Like William Jennings Bryan, he didn't question the metaphysical world. He just accepted things as gospel.
- Yes, David, I think that's what it may be... some who hold my views may have a tendency to be more of a provoking element than they should... and I apologize if you have been put off by anyone who has been unkind to you because of your differing views. I think that Jesus would have behaved differently and as a Christian, and I also apologize if I have personally said anything that may have come across as mean. But you need to understand that ID/Creationist people aren't inherently ignorant, and they also have many compelling scientific questions. Some who are in support of them are perhaps just a little too... passionate? Is that a good word? And, we have had our share of evolutionists saying offensive and stupid things to us... so I suppose we have something in common there. It drives me nuts too! But, The Bible does say "Come let us reason together..." and I take that very seriously. We just have to be careful not to cross the fine line between reason and passion and become an offense to one another. I don't want a millstone around my neck for causing anyone to stumble in their search for truth.
I think it may help you understand their position (IDers) and the kind of research they do engage in if you went to one of their websites and checked it out and really read some of the articles. Try these links:
I don't personally have all the same views they do, as I am a believer in biblical Creationism. But scientifically they do have a lot going for them with the valuable research they do and questions they pose, and I always try and keep up with what everyone is doing so that I am not ignorant of other people's beliefs and worldviews. I suppose it is my way of keeping the peace, if you know what I mean. I think ID'ers do have many points of view that may overlap my own, however, they go off in so many spiritual directions so that they can't really be called biblical creationists.
- Hey there Ryan,
You mentioned quantum physics in your post above... you may be interested in string theory. Have you heard of it? It is supposed to be the unifying theory for both quantum physics and the theory of relativity... There's a great Nova program called "Elegant Universe" that boils it down beautifully for the layman. I recommend it to everyone, even though I think most of the theoretical scientists who are involved in the research are basically evolutionists.
As I watched it last time it was on, the narrator spoke of some of the theoretical possibilities for other dimensions of the universe that we can't physically see or be aware of in the natural. While he was speaking, some of what he said made me immediately think of several specific verses out of the Bible that would be real-world illustrations that would effectively back the theory up biblically. I nearly fainted! (Choicemaker, you'll recognize them right away. It'll blow your mind!) The Bible and modern theoretical science agreeing? Go figure. Anyway, it's really worth watching. You can buy it from your local PBS station, or probably off of Amazon.com.
- Isaac Newton's GOD "of Infinity" makes possible a multi-dimensionality that says, "With GOD, all thngs are possible."
Scientific speculation is desireable in our materialistic 4-dimensional area - since faith in 'a good unknown' is not anti-GOD but anti-ignorance. As long as human knowledge is incomplete, faith is needful and necessary for valid future progression.
Sir Isaac held that science verifies Biblical Scripture. String Theory opens new doors of evidence for so-called miracles of the past and magnifies a marvelous future.
Keep the faith.
a follower of The Lion of Judah
vincit veritasPosted by Jim Baxter on 06/07 at 09:31 AM