They Try Too Hard

I came in contact with a new website the other day and the first article I read is the one that is going to be analyzed below. You can find it at the following link:

For people who claim to be objective, and demand that others be so, are very biased and unobjective when writing or talking about people they disagree with. Their own rules and standards are tossed out when they deal with those who disagree with them.

#1. Science is a systematic method of acquiring information. It depends on the idea that the natural world works according to certain principles, and that we can discover those principles through observation and experimentation. Science isn’t the the only way of knowing about the world, but we give it special respect because it works so well.

This is a very idealistic view of science. It is also a very naive one as it thinks that observation and experimentation on their own can actually determine what the truth is.  It ignores the weaknesses of that field of research as well as omits the bias of the scientists involved. We must add that science doesn’t work that well and is often found to be in error and very far off the mark.

#2. Schools don’t do a very good job teaching students to recognize and understand good scientific research.

What she actually means is ‘schools do not teach students her way or secular science’s way’ so they must not be doing a good job.  It is so sad to see this closed-minded and blind-eye approach to science.  This approach ignores the reality of life and that science is human authored and run. The very reasons that unbelievers use to discard God and the Bible yet they applaud it here and use those reasons for membership in that field of study.

#3. Maybe not, but we should absolutely care when kids catch preventable diseases because their parents bought into the deception that vaccines cause autism.

Appealing to the emotional here which is far from true scientific attitudes. This attitude ignores the idea of immunity and how it is achieved. The scientist thinks that immunity must only come via their way and all other options are wrong. This is a grave error on the part of the scientist as they may be subjecting children to medicines that will and do harm the child; dangers which may not have become evident during their observation and  experimentation process.

The people who avoid vaccines are trying to be careful and want their children immune not used as lab rats.

#4. Non-scientific, non-rational explanations are attractive because they appeal to the romantic, and can be fun to think about. It’s fine to believe what you want, but it’s dishonest and harmful to pretend that arguments are scientific when they’re not

Yet these same non-scientific and non-rational explanations come from mainstream scientists as well as those they label as pseudo-scientists. Mainstream scientists are as dishonest and harmful as those that author whines about, even though they may be ‘scientific’ and ‘rational’ in their presentation.

#5. The very first thing to do is to check the source of a claim. Where was it published? If it’s in a news article, does the article give a citation to a reputable journal? Then it’s probably reasonable to accept it (at least for your purposes…you’ll likely need more than a lay person’s education to distinguish between scientific articles after they’re published. If something is really really important to you, that’s the point at which you ask an expert).

For some reason that author thinks that only scientific journals are reputable and telling the truth.  Some reputable scientific journals do not always jump on board with the author of an article and thus refuse to publish their work.  She also seems to think that ‘experts’ are infallible and do not make mistakes. In most cases the experts are not telling the truth but present their best opinion on a subject and can be way off the mark in their assessment of a situation.

#6. Why a journal? Scientific journals are peer-reviewed, a process based on the simple idea that only experts are qualified to evaluate the work of other experts. Peer review is a pretty high standard, though it can’t always detect deliberate deception.

She also has a very naive and idealistic view of the peer review process. It’s supposedly high standards are not as high as she seems to think. It is also a system that is easy to manipulate or used to censor unpopular thinking. It can and has been used to promote deception and I am not talking about the example that author uses. Many scientific theories were proven to be hoaxes or in error after being published in magazines who used this reputable process.

They were not caught till decades later.

#7. But what about claims published in places other than academic journals? I’ve made a simple figure to illustrate the “hierarchy” of authority, to help you answer the question “Can I trust what this source is saying?”

Her hierarchy simply demonstrates her bias as she thinks that science is the ultimate authority for mankind and in reality it is not even close to that stature.  Science cannot make claims to such authority for it is run by the blind who are deceived, the biased, the corrupt and many other negatives. In fact, many scientists want to have their field removed from being governed by morals, ethics and right and wrong. They want to be free to do as they please and do what they please. An attitude that only brings destruction not real constructive contributions to society in general.

It also declares scientists to being the elite, the only people who can determine anything and that attitude insults just about everyone who exists or has existed in history. Scientists know very little when you really examine their work and there is no way they should be elevated to a position of final authority.

#8. Presents a claim that can’t be falsified.The scientific method does not prove things right, it disproves wrong things. All conclusions are tentative, and subject to immediate revision if evidence is discovered that proves them wrong.

This is appealing to a false, man-made standard. It has no authority to determine what is true or false.  If science can’t prove things right then it cannot prove things that are wrong for that would imply a standard of right and wrong exists and that science cannot determine the what constitutes the ‘right’ side of things. This makes science useless for mankind.

If conclusions are tentative then, again, what good is science? It is providing no one with any answers so its work is meaningless and wastes everybody’s time and money. That revision is not immediate as many error-filled theories and ‘facts’ of science have remained for decades in mainstream scientific thought. Her ideal and naive attitude comes through loud and clear throughout her work.

#9. Isn’t predictive.
A good scientific model, backed by many studies, can produce testable hypotheses. The theory of evolution, for example, makes certain predictions.

Appealing to another false and man-made standard. predictions have nothing to do with what is true or false. Absolutely nothing and mainstream science has taken this standard from pseudo-science, the very issue that author is complaining about. Predictions are used in presenting false scientific ‘facts’ as true  as well.

In fact, there are so many false predictions it is any wonder that science progresses at all. Failed predictions are never talked about by the scientific community so a very distorted picture is presented to the public about this cherished area of scientific life.

#10. Invokes the supernatural.
Science is based on the philosophy that there are natural explanations for natural phenomena.

There may be ‘natural’ explanations for different phenomena but that doesn’t mean that the supernatural was not involved or does not exist. We can invoke the supernatural when the supernatural has intervened in human circumstances. But here we see that author’s religious bias which removes any hope of her being objective and honest. Real science would study all explanations and all data. Removing data and ignoring is not science but personal preference, something the scientist is supposed to leave at the door of the lab.

She is advocating a pre-determined opinion on the part of the scientist and that is another area that secularists criticize believers for holding. If the secular scientist was honest, they would look for the supernatural explanation and involvement but they are not as the saying goes– ‘a scientist will accept any theory as long as it does not contain God.’

#11. Has “proven” conclusions, and ignores or explains away facts that are inconvenient.
If facts contrary to a hypothesis are discovered, the hypothesis must be re-evaluated/rejected.

Again, her naive and ideal attitude of science. What is or isn’t ‘science’ is very subjected and can be changed at the whim of the majority who hold the same beliefs about the field. In other words, if creationists were in the majority then what they determine to be science is now science and on it would go.

#12. Uses anecdotal evidence. However interesting personal experiences might be, they don’t count for the purposes of scientific research.

Again, this is an area that is used by secular scientists all the time. I read it in their books all the time.

#13. Has various justifications for why it hasn’t been validated by the normal process of peer review.

Again, I have to say that this is used by mainstream scientists as well.

#14. Relies on “ancient wisdom”
We are better at science than ancient Egyptians or ancient Babylonians.

This is just pure arrogance and untrue.  Ancient wisdom was considered wisdom because it was wise and they knew how to do science. I think that author has not seen the History channel’s series about Ancient Impossible and the episode on Ancient Einsteins. The ancient world was as, if not more, intelligent than the modern scientist claims they are.

I would go into this more at length but time and space just do not allow me to be redundant on a matter that has been discussed over and over.

#15. Argues from ignorance/personal incredulity
Just because a person doesn’t know how something works (yet) doesn’t mean that it’s unknowable, or necessary to invoke supernatural explanations.

Seems I need to repeat myself. This point is done by mainstream scientists as well. Many mainstream scientists do not know how something works and in fact Bill Bryson details this weakness a lot in his book A Little History About Everything. Modern scientists are stumped all the time. Then we see her religious bias which leads her astray as though scientists may present a natural explanation but they cannot provide the verification that they are correct or even close to being right.

In other words, the natural explanation concocted by scientists may be a close competitor to Aesop’s Fables in both quality and fantasy.

#16. This is obviously not a complete list, but hopefully it’s enough to help you sort through the most egregious examples of pseudoscience.

Of course not. What that article boils down to is ‘if you do not do science my way then you are not doing science.’ It is just pure arrogance on the part of the modern scientist who thinks that they are the only ones who know something yet are usually the last to the answer.

Thing issue for the believer in all of this is that neither God nor Jesus said to use science or any other field of research to get to the truth. They did so because they know that corruption, lies and sin permeate all those fields and their followers would be lead astray by such false teaching. Jesus said to follow the HS to the truth which means that the truth is not restricted to science or its methodologies.

It also tells us that science is NOT the authority on what is true or false. Only God is and the HS leads us to that truth as well.

11 thoughts on “They Try Too Hard

  1. The author you criticize is holds a PhD from Indiana University and was recently given a position as a professor of Evolutionary Biology at the University of Kansas.

    You, however, watch The History Channel.

    I think I’ll stick with her take on science.

    1. Your choice but do not come on here and insult.

      next time your post will be edited if you continue to be contrary to the rules.

      Those credentials do not make her correct and as you can see, her belief in science is very childlike and very misguided.

  2. So, this is what science hate looks like. Science is not belief, but the will to find out. Indeed, “science tests its hypotheses better than any other human endeavor. Scientists do their best to test (even falsify) their own hypotheses before they will accept them. Any belief, religious or other, that denies known scientific fact is seriously in need of reconsideration. Religion and science are not incompatible, but some religious beliefs are at odds with facts and need to be reevaluated.”

  3. You were edited for promoting your own book without permission.

    Your views are in error for science offers nothing to anyone and cannot stop what God has implemented. It is not a supreme being but a false god for people who do not want the truth.

    Science is not omnipresent, omniscient, all-powerful so why do you make it out to be like it was?

    1. It wasn’t a promotion of my book, it was a citation for the peer-reviewed, University Press published, consensus-driven source of the quote. Otherwise, as an opinion, it has no credibility.

      1. for the record, you do not need to do that unless asked to do that by someone questioning your sources.

        peer review is not a recognized standard for this website as it is too easily corrupted

    2. “science offers nothing to anyone and cannot stop what God has implemented.”

      And you think scientists are biased? Is your view not the epitome of hypocrisy? If it is not, please correct me.

  4. How old is the author of this piece? They use zero evidence backing up their assertions. It sounds like they either don’t understand the things they are talking about or are being willfully deceptive. Giving them the benefit of doubt I lean toward the former.

    I’m also surprised by the incredibly short-sighted hostility toward science. Author, how do you reconcile your world-view with living in a culture and even writing your content on technology that would be impossible to develop without the science you seem to disregard?

    1. Do not come onto this site and insult. This is your only warning. Next time you will be edited.

      Your false accusations are without merit as there is no hostility towards science, just the sinful attitudes held by secular scientists.

      God rules science and has provided all people, including scientists with their intelligence, their curiosity and their abilities to explore and invent. he has also provided all the raw materials secular scientists use in their work thus there is no problem with my ‘world view’ and using modern technology.

      There is s difference in using science to tell the truth to the people an dusing science to lie to them like secular scientists do.

Comments are closed.