‘The Science Catechism’ (Newswithviews, 2018)

Mad Scientists: When the Scientist Becomes the Subject - Endocrine News

I’m still finding it hard to concentrate long enough to produce anything like a Newswithviews column. Maybe next week, I pray.

Meanwhile, here’s one from 2018 (Good grief! Was that really five years ago? Where does the time go?)

The science catechism

If you’re gonna study computer models instead of reality, and sit like pirates’ parrots on the shoulders of statist politicians, and swoon with admiration whenever you look in the mirror–

Well, you can at least feel like a scientist.

6 comments on “‘The Science Catechism’ (Newswithviews, 2018)

  1. PM of Britain Johnson finally saw the data and has released his captives from having to wear masks because they don’t work. Meanwhile our fraudulent president biden gives a two-hour press conference and the subject of masks is not even brought up.

  2. Science was my least favorite subject in school, but when I see where it has tumbled to, I am still dumfounded.

  3. Science claims to serve truth, and at one time, that was much more true than it is today. The scientific method is to observe, formulate theories, then make predictions based upon those theories, finally allowing the facts to decide one what is actually true. If the predictions made should turn out to be inaccurate, then the theories are in error and the process starts again, with the knowledge gained regarding the failed theories providing guidance regarding that which has proven not to be true.

    The problem is, that people have a tendency to double down when they fail, instead of backing away from their assumptions. Suppose that a religious belief system makes a failed prediction; we’ll use the Millerites of the 19th century as an example. William Miller predicted the return of Christ in 1843-1844. When Christ didn’t return, Miller himself acknowledged his error, but a handful of his followers were so taken with the notion of Christ’s imminent return, that they continued trying to to pinpoint the date of Christ’s return, through a series of complex calculations said to be derived from scripture.

    Every one of these predictions has failed, but some people still want to believe that if they take the square root of Daniel, times the hypotenuse of one of the minor prophets, times the modulus of Isaiah, they will calculate the date of the Messiah’s return. (OK, I indulged a bit of sarcastic humor there, but you get the point.) If we leave it to scripture alone, we can see that this is not going to work. Jesus gave the last word on the subject to his disciples at Acts 1:7, when he told them that such knowledge did not belong to them. Calculate to your heart’s content, and you will never nail down the date of Christ’s return, because that information is the Father’s, and His alone. But ever since William Miller’s day, people have tried to breathe new life into his failed theory, most likely because of the emotional payoff it affords.

    That convoluted example applies to other belief systems, including science. Fossil evidence of transitional species has never arrived as Darwin had hoped, yet scientists still revere Darwin’s theory as if it were handed down from on high. When the mathematical odds of evolution were shown to be impossible in the 14 billion years or so that the claim as the age of the Universe, they came up with the multiverse theory, which gave them infinite rolls of the dice and the fact that we can observe our universe with all of its evidence of design is explained away as our universe being the lucky one out of an infinite number of universes, where all the right accidents happened to give us the appearance of design, which, to their way of thinking, it’s just a very happy accident. Claiming that there are an infinite number of universes, instead of one Universe, allows them infinite opportunities to beat the odds and support a theory for which there is no evidence. It is telling that thousands of scientists have publicly endorsed a letter which denounces the Big Bang theory. Even many atheist scientists are no longer drinking that Kool-Aid.

    But people being what they are, there are still plenty of scientists that will double down on their theories, instead of admitting that they have spent their working lives backing a belief system which has not proven true. The payload of accepting the existence of a Higher Power whom conceived of, and caused our physical realm to come into existence includes the “cost” of acknowledging a moral obligation to a creator. Hedonism is a lot less fun if you believe in accountability to a Maker, and a lot of people are slaves to their flesh. Their is a huge, but temporary, payoff to believing in godless evolution, and such a belief places mankind at the pinnacle of moral authority.

    Our Maker restricted the first couple from partaking from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad. Ultimately, our problems all harken back to the one issue. People claim moral authority over their others and seek to enforce their personal opinions. Others, such as the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, claim to have insight into God’s laws and seek to impose upon others their own strict interpretation, such as how sabbath keeping had become scrutinized to the point of being highly burdensome. The more I learn about the Bible, and the more I learn about life, the more convinced I become that our problems all stem from that one issue, and that science has given itself over to the imposition of human authority, as opposed to the search for truth that it purports to be.

Leave a Reply