It's a fact? Really?

 

 

 

Bad Science
(by R.P.Edwards)

Science is subjective
By definition…shouldn’t be
But scientists are human
With biases
like you and me

It wasn’t farfetched.  I knew it could be done (people on TV could do it!). So, why could not I, a tot of sub-kindergarten age, jump off the brick wall (a railing of sorts; perhaps two feet tall) dive, do a mid-air flip, and land safely and triumphantly on my feet in the meager pile of leaves I had gathered adjacent my launch-point. And so, with a simple bend at the knees and a vigorous bound, I took off! And, a second later, I landed squarely on my head (the leaves offering little comfort).  Yes, my experimentation ended with this sore-headed performance.  I concluded, therefore, that it was not as easy as, at first, supposed.  And, if I had not had the knowledge that there were actually people who could do this feat; perhaps I would have surmised through my “failed” experiment that it could not be done…at all.
____

You start with a question.  You gather data. You propose a hypothesis, a solution, an answer; and then you test, test, test to see if the hypothesis holds water.  It’s called the scientific method and it is absolutely essential in the hard sciences, such as Physics and Chemistry.  It is not, however, a tool that can be used in the area of history, or origins.  Oh, there are plenty of questions, and educated guesses, but there can never be testing.  And, even though a “majority” may repeat the mantra, and though armies of lock-step lab-coated men and women with impressive titles in front and letters behind their names swear their allegiance to Darwin’s child and shout with full conviction, “Scientific Fact!;” it can never, never be more than an untested theory.  And though they love to malign and belittle those whose faith reaches beyond the natural realm; those who believe that the human spirit is more than the result of the astronomical alignment of blind chance mutations; these men of science remind us all that they are indeed human.  Filled with bias.  Biases that would not be tolerated in the “hard sciences” from which we all have benefited. 

And so they come out.  Those who would label Christians such as Rick Perry as anti-science.  But, as the previous paragraph infers, there is a big difference between the evidence-heavy “hard sciences” and the mushy, malleable “believings” of Darwinists and their ilk who, seeing the left-overs of long ago events, and grasping for even the hint of an evolutionary “change,” (and taking, as a given, no “unnatural” influences) these, with abandon, extrapolate wildly backward and boldly assert, “Evolution is a Fact!” What utter hogwash!

I’ll not go on and on.  But I will name a few of the results of the two experiments we "have" seen in our lifetime (if you have a few years on you, that is).  On the one hand we have seen a great--though imperfect--nation; one where the majority of its people held to the belief in the God mentioned in the Declaration of Independence; this nation was unmatched in strength, moral virtue, wealth and prosperity; and, on the other hand we now see the results as evolutionary thought has taken hold in the Universities, the courts, public schools, the media and government.  Now, this nation that is rejecting our former beholdence to God, it is, and has become anemic (not yet militarily, thankfully), sickly and bankrupt.  We, following the tenets of the proclaimed “scientific fact” murder our children and muddy our institutions.  Yes, even our credit rating is down; but our moral rating is, as a result, far lower.  And, though I doubt any reasonable candidate would seek my advice; if they did, he or she, when challenged, might dare to read the list of the test results.  Then…let the social scientists among us (those who vote), based on the data, decide the better of the two “theories.”

Here’s a site you might find interesting:  Answers in Genesis


****