Now I show a scientific theory taught as science in the mid-19th century (I have a 150-year-old textbook to prove it). A theory that was actually pseudoscience being passed off as true Science due to racist and supremacist interpretation. The infamous pair Phrenology and Physiognomy. In this post I offer further 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 narratives intact. They are willfully ignoring things to maintain their myopic and nicely compartmentalized reality. First I will show a scientist/professor self-limiting.
Please note two
specific quotes in this piece from CNN. At about 2:44 minutes in we hear this
statement: "Intelligent Design is unscientific." As if the sole
defining aspect of reality and truth is the scientific method. The second and
more telling comment starts approximately (@ 5:05): "Science is restricted
to the material world...and it has been for 900 years...and it works really
well that way..." The scientist/professor then goes on to say, "...to
propose supernatural explanation just isn't scientific." Really? Here
again we see that science is the end all in terms of determining truths. Is it
really? How pretentious. How 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. Thereby it has instituted itself as religion. Is this the same modern science that created Social Darwinism and Phrenology (considered legitimate science 100-150 years ago) which led to the genocides of Nazi Death Camps and measuring of Jewish people's heads with calipers?
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 this "science". This publishing is readily available at archive.org at the link I proved below (1).
It compared the
difference between 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant and a
"Negro" showing that the philosopher Kant was more advanced in his
predetermined criterion solely based on the shape of his head. The criterion?
Intellectual Faculties: The Reflective Group. We should be appalled by this
today and rightly so. BUT this was considered legitimate "science"
150 years ago. Not only was it stupid, it was downright evil. So 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
possibly/probably find out in a 100-150 years that it was as bogus as
Phrenology? Evolution perhaps? Bad vaccines?
Science being a human creation is in-and-of-itself, flawed
because its source of data and observation comes from a flawed being---man. 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 criteria for what they will consider in their body of evidences. The
scientist/professor 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, the metaphysical or theories like that
of Aether…we might as well have murdered our children anyway.
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 alone.
The problem with the scientific community, judicial systems and our educational systems today is that they have now overstepped their bounds and imposed 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 modern thinking. So according to the scientific community itself, differences between natural and supernatural explanations should be made, and that science should be restricted to natural explanations. That means that science should not consider supernatural explanations itself...BUT should not claim them to be wrong either.
Unfortunately, scientists, politicians and educators of
this once great country and other countries have done just that. 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 be on. These people
(scientists) are clearly not being honest, not with us...nor themselves.
(1) https://archive.org/details/howtoreadcharact00welliala
No comments:
Post a Comment