Science and Pseudoscience ....

Science and Pseudoscience...

I'm here thinking about truth. What is truth? I responded to an email I recently had with two Atheists/Evolutionists. I am thrown at the sheer illogical thought process that they so proudly throw around. They actually do not have a clue about themselves or what they are talking about. I wanted to proceed with my series on Darwinism and Evolution, with "Science and Pseudoscience." Now, I call Evolution a Pseudoscience, why? Because it is a pretender. It is a false science. Pseudo means.."not actually but having the appearance of; pretended; false or spurious; sham." Let's begin.


Science the search for truth.

Science should and always be a search for truth. Science is a way of learning, we learn from what is factual, not what is unprovable. Naturalist/Darwinist LOVE to say that science is always used to test things over and over to learn more about the world.

"Because that is science, it tests things over and over again to learn still more about the world. There's a reason its called science, not Truth-lessons. Science makes minor corrections along the way that's how we learn: From our mistakes." Anglicantian. (That is the screen name of the Darwinist I debated)

Science does test things, but not over and over again as to find the result we want, but to find the facts. Science is questioning a hypothesis or THEORY and if the result does not go along with the theory, the theory it's self is no longer considered. You can not continue to test 2+2 so that you can come up with something other than 4. You accept it because it is a fact. Is there a need to continue to test the math that 2+2 is not 4? No. His statement is that we take a theory and keep testing it till it becomes truth. NO. We take a theory and if the result does not support the theory, we throw out the theory and formulate a new one. We look for other possibilities. Not Evolutionists, they are bent on finding anything but the truth. They are looking for their own version of what is truth. It is a false truth. A pseudo-truth.

Everything in life is scientific. You use science every day of your life. In different forms but it's still science. The scientific method is something that we use as well. Children are tested in problem solving skills. That means they are tested according to the scientific method. The simplest analogy to use and probably the most popular is the example of a light bulb.

When you come home at night and turn on a light switch and suddenly there is no light at all. You have made an observation. No light, switch is on. So, now you form a hypothesis or prediction or a theory. You're first theory would probably be that the light bulb is out. You make another observation, you notice that all the lights in the house are out as well. You form the theory that maybe also the power in your home is out. Or maybe the neighborhood. So, now you have 3 theories.

1. Either the light bulb is out, because you have observed the light is out.
2. All the power in your home is out, because you have observed there is no light in your home.
3. The power is out in the entire neighborhood.

Let's go with the 3rd one. You go to your window and make an observation, that all the power seems to be on at the neighbors house. So you can determine that there is power to your neighborhood in which there should be power to your home. So because of observation the 3rd theory fails to be factual.

Let's go to your second theory. You theorize that the power in your house is out, but you have already observed that the power in your neighbors home is on so the chances of that happening are slim. You then go turn on a light in the other rooms, and bingo. You were correct, the light works. So, that 2nd theory is eliminated.

Now, the only conclusion left is that the light bulb is bad. You take the bulb out of the light and through observation you notice the light bulb is bad. Let's take this a step further, you replace a good light bulb in another light with the one that seems to be bad, and flip the switch and the light doesn't turn on. Therefor your first theory, that the bulb is indeed faulty, and is no longer a theory or a guess, BUT it is a fact.

Notice something? Everything that I mentioned, each process involves one thing, observation. If you can not observe it, what is to be concluded? The theory or guess, or hypothesis is not a valid one. So you then formulate another theory.

That is science, that is what science looks for, truth. Now, I'm not saying we can not question truth. We should always question truth, that way we learn more about the truth. Let's use this analogy and what Dawkins likes to call, the "Blind watchmaker" It's funny to me that Atheists/Evolutionists/Naturalists/Darwinist, seem to scoff at the analogy of finding a watch on a beach and coming to the only conclusion, the watch had to have a designer. Why is that hard to comprehend? Because their intelligence limits them.

Lets go ahead and use this analogy. Take a look at your watch, or your computer or anything around you. Let's say your computer. You know the function of your computer you know what it does. You know that your computer was put together for a specific reason, and that reason is to be a computer and nothing more. The truth is, you have a computer that functions, it is doing what it is designed to do, it may not always work properly, but still. You can not escape the fact that your computer is nothing more than a computer. You know it needs memory and a processor to run, you know that it needs a cd rom and a monitor. But can you still formulate the question as to why it does what it does? There is no doubt that it is a pc, and does what it does, but WHY does it function? That is how you question truth. You will know more about your computer and how and WHY it works when you question it's creator or designer. So yes, truth is questionable.


Science is a search for truth and in finding that truth, we must question that truth. That is how we learn, from truth.


The car and science

One analogy that I like to use is one that I personally feel is a divine personal revelation from our Creator. It's an argument that is in no way flawed, all tho many Darwinist will attempt to find a flaw in it, but so far the only thing they can do is willfully deny it's truth.

In this analogy I will explain scientific process, logic and reason. Another thing that I will touch on here is being open-minded. Now, when I say to be open-minded, I'm saying that within the scientific community one must be open-minded, because that's the very nature of science, to consider other alternatives. Regarding our faith in Christ, we are not open-minded to other religions but we are tolerant of people. If we were open minded to other religions, then we would leave ourselves open to Satan who is the author of man made religions in order to deceive. So, we are closed for a reason, so were not manipulated by Satan. I will touch more on this subject on open-mindedness in a later post called "Free will". Let's begin with the car analogy.


Naturalist/Darwinist are like husbands who try to change the battery in a car thinking that the reason the car wont start is because of the battery and only because of the battery. Not even considering the alternator. After all, the battery is not very hard to change and requires no owners manual to read and not as difficult as the alternator to change. So, Darwinist keep trying to change the battery (Darwinian Evolution) on the car (Creation) expecting the car to start. They believe they have the right idea, because without the battery (Darwinian Evolution) the car (Creation) wont start. We as creationist believe in the alternative which is the alternator (Creation Science) It is another alternative that MUST be considered. While the Darwinist/Naturalist seeks to waste money (Time and knowledge) on purchasing battery after battery (Darwinian Evolution) they get no where, and when asked.."Why doesn't it work?" They respond with.."We don't know." If they would stop and realize the alternative, and grab the owners manual (The Bible) and read it, they will understand how the alternator (Creation Science) works, and not only will they understand that, they will understand it's designer (God) the one who created the science of the car (Creation). When you understand that, it will open your eyes to why and how the car(Creation) works. And in changing the alternator(Creation Science) they will realize that this science will take them places they have never been or seen.


That is how science works, how it should work.


Darwinism above Science.


Now, I always tell Naturalist that God is scientific, He thinks scientifically. But, He also thinks outside the box of what we believe to be natural. Darwinist seem to think that the only answer is a naturalistic one. That is not the case. There have been many studies conducted my many scientists and experts within the fields of the paranormal. When attempting to discredit the claims Atheist or Darwinist simply look at the easiest claims to refute, or simply ignore the claims. There is also evidence to suggest that there is something beyond our reach, and understanding. But in studying and researching, we come to understand a little more each day. Micheal Shermer and renowned Atheist, and publisher of "Skeptic" magazine, has repeatedly denied any sort of evidence suggesting towards anything supernatural. A recent discovery was made of something called the "Iraq Battery" this "battery" is believed to be older than Christ, it is nothing but a clay pot, and and a copper plate, in the center a piece of iron, when this pot with it's contents are filled with "Orange juice" in which they did have, they had fruit or wine, in which they had, ore vinegar, the device exhibited electrical current. This experiment was done, and the out come was that there was indeed electricity used. Carvings within an ancient pyramid shows a sort of light bulb. The only people allowed in these pyramids were the priests, now note that hallways had no signs of any sort of fire or torches being lit, there was no residue on the walls or ceilings. In fact, the tombs are so deep, that there is not enough air for fire to burn, so fire could not have been used. There are also claims that they used a sort of mirror effect with gold or copper shields, when these shields were placed, they traced in the light of the sun through reflection, yet, when this theory was replicated the light died out before it reached the deepest parts of the halls and rooms of the pyramids where these priests would be. Now, as I spoke of Micheal Shermer, his response to this was..."So what." So what? Through science we have developed a provable and observable technique that they may have used to light the insides of the pyramids and Shermer says "So what."??

Here is the problem that I believe I have found. Mr. Shermer has willfully ignored the evidence that supports a learned intelligence, because from our understanding the light bulb INCLUDING electricity would not be discovered for thousands of years. These people got their knowledge from someone, who? Shermer denies these, not because they are not possible or science has refuted them, on the contrary, it is through science that we have discovered these things. He has denied it for the fact that he is an Atheist, and the evidence suggests a "higher knowledge" was at work here, and he denies it, because he must, out of his personal ideology.


Mr. Shermer and Dawkins, and Hitchens and other Naturalist Philosophers and Scientists call themselves skeptics, well...the word skeptic actually is rooted in meaning "To view from afar." They are skeptic of the existence of God, and the supernatural, they believe that science only has natural explanations and have basically brainwashed an entire generation of young people to this thinking. Well, my question is this...If skeptic means to "view from afar" then how is it that you get to know something or someone? Naturally, one must approach a person to get to know them, to investigate, to come to understand them a little better. If you're a skeptic, maybe it's because you have willfully refused to understand what you say or refuse to accept. They call this science, I call it Pseudoscience.


Thanks for stopping by and reading. My next posting will be on the outrageous claims that Darwinist make.