Piltdown Superman

As people who have studied apologetics or even simply observed the way atheists treat Christians see, atheists have a penchant for playing word games. For example, when something was posted about scientism, a tinhorn lied and said we were against science . Wrong-o! Scientism essentially fits the definitions of a religion, being a way of life and a kind of salvation. People with that worldview act like science is the only way to knowledge. Ironically, it does not make them the intellectually elite — scientism is self-refuting . Oberon, Titania and Puck with Fairies Dancing , William Blake, 1786 (Darwin's watching face added, obviously) As noted several times, the secular science industry supports leftist causes ( here is a recent report ). In return, those politicians give tax money. Secularists have a materialistic belief system that provides a dubious foundation for morality . It is indeed unfortunate that many people have faith in an unrealistic view of what they consider to be

Most scientists live by the philosophy of materialism. That is, the atheistic that matter is all that exists. It is presupposed. Scientism stems from materialism, and it is a belief that everything can be explained by scientific methodologies — including philosophy and morality. Scientism is a de facto  religion . Those practicing Scientism (who may not realize that their belief system has a name) tend to be insufferably smug. They are the self-appointed intellectual elite, and thinking they are better than others because they are materialistic scientists is logically fallacious. This "1889 Guy" was colorized at  Playback.fm , further modified with  FotoSketcher One tinhorn was talking about "scientific truth", and secular elitists are to be the ones who determine truth. He bases his woefully insufficient beliefs on what is "known" through science, but his own reasoning is saturated with difficulties. After all, many scientific "facts" have been

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  There are people who label biblical creationists with the absurd pejorative "science deniers" because we reject atheistic interpretations of historical science regarding fish-to-fool evolution. (Labeling is easier than thinking.) Having faith in operational science is justified to some extent, but some do it religiously. Before we continue, it should be noted again that mockers accuse creationists of creating the distinction between operational and historical science, but that is demonstrably false . The COVID-19 novel Coronavirus has people frightened. This is exacerbated by several factors: leftist politicians using the situation to gain power and instill fear, confusing and unreliable models , fake news sites citing  spurious "studies" , Darwin's disciples falsely claiming that it is evidence of evolution , and so on. In the midst of all this, the public wants scientists to make things better. Unfortunately, God has been evic

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Although science is a tool for interpreting observable evidence, people treat it like an entity, such as in the expression "science says". Scientists say, not science, but we can work with this later. Science is used by fallible humans who have biases and make mistakes, sometimes clinging to bad ideas despite evidence. Made with PhotoFunia For example, the phlogiston theor y of combustion was disproved but it took a while before it was put out to pasture. Ignaz Semmelweis demonstrated that medical people needed to wash their hands before touching patients, but his evidence was rejected for many years . The views of Charles Darwin gained acceptance despite contrary evidence, which includes deep time in geology and also cosmic evolution. Evolution is the girlfriend of ill-repute of Science. They go to parties together, and Science uses Evolution to impress people. However, Evolution is unfaithful and even invites her brother Scientism over for

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Big news from Hong Kong. An announcement made there Monday, November 26, 2018, that He Jiankui used CRISPR gene editing technology to produce the first modified babies. Many scientists are outraged. This kind of "medical research" is, to be blunt, human experimentation. It is also illegal in the United States and other parts of the world. Background image courtesy of Why?Outreach A large part of the concern involves ethics. Some American scientists are upset that we did not do it first because we would have done it right. It sounds like their teeth are on edge from sour grapes at not being the first to succeed. Would they have done the genetic altering more ethically? That'll be the day! These people want laws changed to break "biological shackles" for their experimentation . Bible-believing Christians know that people are created in the image of God. Materialists have a worldview that advocate Scientism and evolution, and they

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen People have had a fear of machines for a long time, especially since the Industrial Revolution. The term Luddite has been applied to people who loathe technology, but the original protesters were okey-dokey with machinery per se, and instead protested unfair labor practices by destroying certain contraptions . In simpler terms, laborers have had a fear of being replaced by machines for many years. Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann  (geralt) Suspicion of machines naturally extended to robots. While science fiction media often portray robots with humanoid appearances (let's face it, many people don't cotton to dealing with a metal "person"), it depends on the application; robots used for police bomb disposal generally do not look all that human. Some robots can be considered mobile computers if they are sophisticated enough. The history of science fiction is replete with tales of computers having artificial intelligence, and even becomin

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen First of all, I'll allow that I'm biased regarding Bill Nye the Scientism Guy (like so), because of his atheistic anti-creation activism, abuse of logic, and militant advocacy for his version of global climate change. Even so, I shall endeavor to be as objective as I can in this article about the unofficial "second debate" between Nye and Ken Ham at the Ark Encounter [ 1 ]. I was annoyed while watching it, and one time, a Nye fallacy actually made me LOL. A bit of background is in order. Bill Nye made vituperous attacks on creationism, and against Answers in Genesis in particular. Two AiG scientists challenged him to a debate [ 2 ], especially Dr. Georgia Purdom. He ignored them. Is it because "the Science Guy" is not an actual scientist? He earned a Bachelor of Science, but went no further in his formal education. [ 3 ] Eventually, the formal Ham-Nye debate was established [ 4 ]. I wrote an article about it, which included several

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen What kind of ethics can we expect in science from people who have an evolutionary worldview, where we are not made in God's image because they believe there is no Creator God in the first place? Scientists discuss ethical boundaries, but it's difficult to want to accept those from people who do not have an absolute moral foundation and believe that we are just another animal. Chimaera image credit: Wikimedia Commons / ArthurWeasley In mythology, a Chimera (or Chimaera) was a vicious critter made of parts of several other critters. Depending on the myth, some were fire-breathing dragons of sorts. Nowadays, you can hear the word in serious scientific material. This is due to CRISPR genome editing . It's one thing to be tampering with making hybrid animals, but scientists are also adding human embryos to the mix . Since they have subjective morality, they are asking for changes in legal limits so they can experiment a bit longer on creatures t

The popular conception of scientists is that they are driven by facts and reason, and have everyone's best interests at heart. Also, scientists are above regular people, uncorrupted by greed and avarice, so they're morally above us as well. If you study on it, you'll see that this Scientism view makes them non-human. But they're not automatons. It occurs to me that one reason people may be looking up to scientists is something lef t behind f rom the days of class distinctions. Ed jamakation was not freely available to all, only the elite few. (If someone was wealthy, they were somehow "better" than the poor, who were also created in God's image.) So, a scientist was a bette r , elite person who had money for education, so you have jolly well listen. These days, degrees are much more freely available, and the criteria for granting them are much lower. Everyone has a worldview, even though most don't sit down and cognate on it, "Here's my

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen In a previous article, I discussed how people idolize scientists and the religion of Scientism is gaining popularity. Many people will blindly accept what "scientists say" because of their unfounded high view of science and scientists ( that article is here ). Regular readers may recall that my father was a pastor in a liberal church. I asked him why we did so many ritual things (which I disliked), and he said that people need a "religious experience". Although I still reject that for a church setting, I see truth in that in other areas. Scientism, atheism, and other worldviews tend to be sterile and clinical; even atheists are garnering a religious experience with their own churches. Although many Darwinists and atheists hate this fact, evolution is a religion. It started way back yonder, long before Darwin plagiarized Erasmus Darwin and others, back to the Epicureans , and possibly older views. Charles Darwin didn't come up wit

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. Scien tists , 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 t

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen If you study on it, you'll see that people who are called "intellectuals" or the "intelligent s ia" have often been in a class by themselves. It's usually been more of an informal social class than anything else, and not really involved with economics (such as "upper middle class"). It seems to be a symbiotic relationship. Generally speaking, many people who are considered intellectuals are aloof and look down on common folk. Yet, commoners tend to look up to the intellectuals. Then the contradiction sets in, with us regular folk viewing the intellectual elite (and those who consider themselves so, without good reason) with distaste. (People are not anti-intellectual, but as for me, I'm anti-arrogance .) So people seem to have a love-hate view of intelligent s ia. Somehow, having a degree is supposed to mean that someone is a genius and able to perform well. But it gets ridiculous: A woman working in the human

Secularists have been stealing the scientific method. Although it had several contributors, it had its best development under the hands of Christians. Naturalistic interpretations of science became popular, and Christians stood by and let them redefine science in naturalistic terms. Now people have the impression that when a scientist makes an utterance, it is a scientific fact. The word "theory" is grossly misused, and speculations are being pawned off as facts, especially in reference to molecules-to-man evolution. Worse, atheistic scientism is being used as the means to interpret scientific evidence. This is ridiculous, as a naturalistic time-chance-mutations universe would make doing science impossible! Some biblical Christians are making efforts to show the extreme limitations of naturalistic science interpretations. We want the scientific method back so we can save it from further abuse and use it properly again. Are modern schools teaching the scientific method