I now offer video proof that not only is modern science not being honest with all the facts but they are purposely negating or ignoring entire aspects of the human experience to try and keep their flawed worldview intact. They are willfully ignoring things to maintain their myopic, categorized and nicely cloistered reality.
Today's video comes to us from the prestigious Lehigh University. It is an interview with Michael Behe (of Intelligent Design; Darwin's Black Box fame). It is also an interview with University of Maryland's professor Dr. Tamra Mendelson.
(@ 2:44) we hear this statement: "Intelligent Design is unscientific." As if the sole defining aspect of reality and truth is the scientific method. The study of epistemology says otherwise.
The second...and more telling comment starts approximately (@ 5:05): "Science is restricted to the material world...and it has been that way for 900 years...and it works really well that way..."
Dr. Mendelson then goes on to say, "...to propose supernatural explanation just isn't scientific." Here again we see that science is the end all in terms of determining truths. Is it really? How pretentious and intellectually arrogant. As a whole, without a unified human consensus, modern science has made itself the end-all to every discussion when it comes to facts about the world (therefore reality in general).
Is this the same mentality of science that created Social Darwinism, Physiognomy and Phrenology (considered legitimate science 100-150 years ago)? Whether or not scientists today want to admit it, these "sciences" would of course lead to the bastard child of evolutionary theory...eugenics. Phrenology along with atheism would heavily influence a man named Michael Hennessey Higgins who would heavily influence the thinking of his feminist and racist daughter: Margaret Sanger. The same Margaret Sanger who would (pardon the morbid pun) give birth to American death factories named the American Birth Control League which would later be renamed Planned Parenthood. These sciences would also lead to the much more notorious genocides of Nazi Death Camps under the guise of what appeared to be a combination of Phrenology, Physiognomy and Anthropometry (same bad science, slightly different name).
Please consider (below) a page from Samuel Well's book How To Read Character: A New Illustrated Handbook of Phrenology and Physiognomy for Students and Examiners originally penned in 1868 purporting itself to be "science".
We should be appalled by this today and rightly so but this was considered science based in naturalist and evolutionary principles 150 years ago. Not only was it stupid, it was downright evil and, well, unscientific. We would see where this type of mentality led by the time of the Extermination Camps in Nazi Germany.
So this obviously begs the question: What "science" do we hold near and dear to us today that we are willing to stake life or death on because we believe it is true---only to find out in a 100-150 years that it was as bogus as Phrenology was? Evolution perhaps?
Science being a human creation is in-and-of-itself, flawed because its source of data and observation comes from a flawed being---mankind. To preclude the use of non-material and the supernatural, you drastically narrow down what you need to explain. This woman and those like her clearly state their narrowed criteria for what they will consider in their corpus and body of evidences.
She clearly states that science restricts its knowledge. This is not educational nor is it truly scientific in its approach. When I say science I mean true science as it was originally intended before the Enlightenment and the anti-God movement that came from it. The newest definition of science is as follows:
"Science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence."
The question remains: “What evidence?” If it is purely natural evidence then science has restricted themselves to an incomplete body of evidence. This is like trying a case against a murderer of your children without all the evidence and the man eventually walks free. Why would you not use all the evidences? When we as human beings proclaim that only science has the true evidence and we deny Scripture…we might as well have murdered our children anyway. By saying the Bible isn’t valid we damn our children and those in society.
True (honest) philosophy of science seeks to understand the nature and justification of scientific knowledge. Since it is difficult to distinguish science from non-science, there are legitimate arguments about the boundaries between science and non-science. This is known as the problem of demarcation. Where does science really begin? According to this woman, science it is purely based in physical and empirical truths. Conversely, true science (the science I believe in) allows natural AND supernatural origins because the original definition of science from as far back as Aristotle was:
"A body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained."
Classical antiquity science believed knowledge was closely linked to philosophy. In some cases “science" continues to be used in a broad sense denoting reliable knowledge about a topic, in the same way it is still used in modern terms such as library science or political science.
"In modern use, science is often treated as synonymous with ‘natural and physical science’, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use. This narrower sense of "science" developed as a part of science became a distinct enterprise of defining "laws of nature", based on early examples such as Kepler's laws, Galileo's laws, and Newton's laws of motion. In this period it became more common to refer to natural philosophy as "natural science". Over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with the disciplined study of the natural world including physics, chemistry, geology and biology.
The problem with the scientific community, or judicial systems and our educational systems today is that they have now overstepped their bounds and imposed (in faith) a methodology they feel is the right/correct one. A methodology that is godless to its core. They and their mostly godless brethren have made the decision which is the proper one to teach. They do this knowing there are flaws and major irreconcilable gaps in their knowledge. They are now allowing only forms of Methodological Naturalism or science that will not allow for the supernatural or God, into our schools.
The largest bone of contention in this is that, according to the scientific community itself, differences between natural and supernatural explanations should be made according to scientists, and that science should be restricted methodologically to natural explanations by people who deny the supernatural (see David Hume's definitions of miracles).
That means that science should not consider supernatural explanations itself...BUT should not claim them to be wrong either.
Unfortunately scientists, politicians and the teachers of this once great country (and other countries) have done just that. There have been recent court cases that forbid the teaching of Creationism in the classroom including one here in Pennsylvania. If Creationism or some form of it is no threat to their theories and ideas...why is there such hostility towards teaching it? Not only is this seem illegal it is morally reprehensible. Science has claimed for itself the upper hand in this intellectual battle unjustly.
True science by its definition (the old one that was honest in its assessment of all the variables, not the new one that constantly changes definitions and restricts itself) needs to entertain all the possibilities…and modern science is just not doing that. Thereby they have made themselves intellectually arrogant and propped themselves up on pedestals they have no right to occupy.
These people (scientists) are clearly not being honest, not with us...nor themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment