Scientism and Blind Acceptance
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
"Science" is treated by many people like a kind of pantheistic force, or even a deity. It is personified, and phrases like, "Someday, science will find a cure/pill/answer". (No, science will do no such thing. Scientists, the people who use the philosophy and methods of science, try to do that.) Likewise, scientists have a position of adoration, especially in Western cultures. This reverence for science and scientists contributes to the fallacious philosophy of Scientism, where all that matters can be reduced to, and explained by, scientific means. Indeed, attitudes of Scientism are going beyond the bounds of science.
There's a joke floating around that goes something like this: "Scientists say that most people will believe something if you begin a statement with, 'Scientists say'". There's often truth in humor, and I think many people see the truth in this one. Sure, scientists do quite a bit of good. But they are not infallible. And some do not get a voice when they disagree with the consensus.
Darwin's Cheerleaders are milking that attitude of worship, and they are playing a devious bait 'n' switch with the word "science". They confuse people between practical (observational) science and historical science, which is the fallacy of equivocation. This is frequently invoked in microbes-to-microbiologist evolution. "Evolution is science", some say. No, evolution (as well as creation science) is a belief system about the past that attempts to use scientific methods to explain what is observed. Evolution is not repeatable, testable, observable or falsifiable, like practical science.
Most atheists and evolutionists are materialists, and bring their presuppositions to the table. It goes something like, "We all know that since we're in an enlightened scientific age that there are no miracles, and belief in God is silly". They have an a priori commitment to naturalism, and have ruled out the Creator (2 Peter 3:3-7, Romans 1.20-22), even though his action is the logical conclusion drawn from the evidence. Ironically, if atheism and evolution were true, science would not even be possible.
Many people do not understand these things. I'm suspicioning that the main problem is that they are not taught to think critically by asking questions and to reason through the evidence. Things that are not conclusive, or are just speculations, are often put forward as great scientific discoveries (as we've seen here many times).
Now, the problem is amplified because sometimes scientists are the victims of their own press. A sensational story sells newspapers and magazines. Some people find it exciting to read about the "missing link" to our so-called evolutionary past. (It's interesting how many fakes, frauds, outdated items and more remain in textbooks for years after they've been disproved or rejected.) Unfortunately, too many announcements are accepted without question. Worse, bad science is spread around by Darwinoids who wish to discredit creationists — who often know more about the science than the evolutionists.
In the image at the top, two items were used in the greatly-misrepresented and badly-conducted Scopes trial: Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man (although, apparently, not as "star witnesses"). First, Nebraska Man. An entire mural was made up of Nebraska "Cornhusker" Man, Mrs. Nebraska Man, critters they lived with, the landscape they lived in, and more. The whole thing was constructed from a single tooth. Were people that gullible, and interested in what "scientists say", that they wouldn't ask for more evidence? (Some scientists did reject it, to their credit.) Later, the tooth turned out to be that of an extinct pig!
The second item in that image was Piltdown Man. This was a fake, plain and simple, that fooled evolutionary scientists for over forty years. (I disremember where, and I can't find something other than hearsay-style remarks, but I read that some scientists never placed their bets on Piltdown Man's authenticity.) In both cases, evolutionists saw what they wanted to see. The press made matters worse by going wild with the stories. People accepted what "scientists say" then, as they do now. A great deal of critical thinking is in order, not only with the fake "missing links" (of which there are many), but thinking should be done on a regular basis.
Biblical creationists have a different starting point than naturalistic evolutionists. There is abundant evidence for our position, but creationist scientists begin with the written Word of God, not the opinions of those who reject God (Prov. 1:8, Psalm 53:1). They have to modify their models just like their secular counterparts because models and evidence can change, but not the ultimate truth (Isaiah 40:8). Nor do creationists need to resort to half-hearted science or fraud to convince people of their viewpoints.
"Science" is treated by many people like a kind of pantheistic force, or even a deity. It is personified, and phrases like, "Someday, science will find a cure/pill/answer". (No, science will do no such thing. Scientists, the people who use the philosophy and methods of science, try to do that.) Likewise, scientists have a position of adoration, especially in Western cultures. This reverence for science and scientists contributes to the fallacious philosophy of Scientism, where all that matters can be reduced to, and explained by, scientific means. Indeed, attitudes of Scientism are going beyond the bounds of science.
There's a joke floating around that goes something like this: "Scientists say that most people will believe something if you begin a statement with, 'Scientists say'". There's often truth in humor, and I think many people see the truth in this one. Sure, scientists do quite a bit of good. But they are not infallible. And some do not get a voice when they disagree with the consensus.
Darwin's Cheerleaders are milking that attitude of worship, and they are playing a devious bait 'n' switch with the word "science". They confuse people between practical (observational) science and historical science, which is the fallacy of equivocation. This is frequently invoked in microbes-to-microbiologist evolution. "Evolution is science", some say. No, evolution (as well as creation science) is a belief system about the past that attempts to use scientific methods to explain what is observed. Evolution is not repeatable, testable, observable or falsifiable, like practical science.
Most atheists and evolutionists are materialists, and bring their presuppositions to the table. It goes something like, "We all know that since we're in an enlightened scientific age that there are no miracles, and belief in God is silly". They have an a priori commitment to naturalism, and have ruled out the Creator (2 Peter 3:3-7, Romans 1.20-22), even though his action is the logical conclusion drawn from the evidence. Ironically, if atheism and evolution were true, science would not even be possible.
Many people do not understand these things. I'm suspicioning that the main problem is that they are not taught to think critically by asking questions and to reason through the evidence. Things that are not conclusive, or are just speculations, are often put forward as great scientific discoveries (as we've seen here many times).
Now, the problem is amplified because sometimes scientists are the victims of their own press. A sensational story sells newspapers and magazines. Some people find it exciting to read about the "missing link" to our so-called evolutionary past. (It's interesting how many fakes, frauds, outdated items and more remain in textbooks for years after they've been disproved or rejected.) Unfortunately, too many announcements are accepted without question. Worse, bad science is spread around by Darwinoids who wish to discredit creationists — who often know more about the science than the evolutionists.
 |
| Gift idea. Click here for ordering information. |
In the image at the top, two items were used in the greatly-misrepresented and badly-conducted Scopes trial: Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man (although, apparently, not as "star witnesses"). First, Nebraska Man. An entire mural was made up of Nebraska "Cornhusker" Man, Mrs. Nebraska Man, critters they lived with, the landscape they lived in, and more. The whole thing was constructed from a single tooth. Were people that gullible, and interested in what "scientists say", that they wouldn't ask for more evidence? (Some scientists did reject it, to their credit.) Later, the tooth turned out to be that of an extinct pig!
The second item in that image was Piltdown Man. This was a fake, plain and simple, that fooled evolutionary scientists for over forty years. (I disremember where, and I can't find something other than hearsay-style remarks, but I read that some scientists never placed their bets on Piltdown Man's authenticity.) In both cases, evolutionists saw what they wanted to see. The press made matters worse by going wild with the stories. People accepted what "scientists say" then, as they do now. A great deal of critical thinking is in order, not only with the fake "missing links" (of which there are many), but thinking should be done on a regular basis.
Biblical creationists have a different starting point than naturalistic evolutionists. There is abundant evidence for our position, but creationist scientists begin with the written Word of God, not the opinions of those who reject God (Prov. 1:8, Psalm 53:1). They have to modify their models just like their secular counterparts because models and evidence can change, but not the ultimate truth (Isaiah 40:8). Nor do creationists need to resort to half-hearted science or fraud to convince people of their viewpoints.