There are several fundamental characteristics that identify a field of study as being “scientific“.
- Genuine science is objective and invites scrutiny and investigation. It does not ridicule the critics of its conclusions, but instead silences their criticisms by setting forth the evidence from which those conclusions are drawn.
- Genuine science seeks the truth that explains the observed evidence. It does not prejudice the investigation by ruling out, from the start, hypotheses that may very well provide the best explanation for the observed evidence.
- Genuine science rejects any hypothesis that consistently fails to fit observed scientific evidence. It does not persistently assume that the fault lies in the evidence rather than in the hypothesis itself. On all three counts, the commonly-accepted “Theory of Evolution” fails the test of being scientific.With the passing years, proponents of this failed theory are behaving more and more like religious dogmatists in their unwillingness to submit the foundations of their theory to open inquiry and discussion.Instead, they heap scorn and ridicule on their critics, insisting that anyone who has the audacity to question the truth of their sacred theory must be either stupid, insane or evil. This is the tactic, for example, of Richard Dawkins, who was reported by the New York Times as saying: … It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that). … At the heart of the problem is the fact that Evolution, disguised as a viable scientific theory, is actually a tool of religious propaganda and cultural domination, used by those who hold to the religion of Naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that all things, including the origin of life, can be explained purely in terms of natural phenomena, without the intervention of a supernatural being or deity.Ironically, many of the dogmatic proponents of Evolution may not even be aware that this is the religion they hold. Most seem unable to distinguish their religion from their “science”, and thus pursue their opposition to a Creator on what they suppose are purely “scientific” grounds.However, their “science” rules out the possibility of an intelligent Creator from the very outset. This consideration is not demanded by scientific evidence, but by prevailing philosophical ideas about what science ought to be. The problem with this position is that, if God really did create the universe, scientists are forbidden to acknowledge the evidence of it, and must substitute a false, naturalistic explanation in its place.This philosophical bias is neither objective nor scientific, but amounts to religious prejudice. We should never forget that any statement about God is inherently religious, whether it be the theist’s affirmation or the atheist’s denial….
- Continue Reading on members.toast.net Share42 Tweet3 21 Share0 Share89 Print Friendly and PDF This entry was posted in Apologetics, Christian Values, Creation Worldviews, Editorial, Ethics, Evolution, Origins, Philosophy, Science, Worldviews and tagged articles, bias, characteristics, creation, Creator, criticism, cultural, deity, dogmatists, evidence, evolution, field, hypothesis, investigation, Mitch Cervinka, objective, philosophical, prejudice, religion, religious, revolution, Richard Dawkins, ridicule, Science, study, theory, Truth, universe. Bookmark the permalink.