|email - December 2015|
What does it mean to be “anti-science?”
Had a bit of a look at your site. Looks like it's [sic] purpose is to raise doubts about the theory of evolution. It is good to be skeptical about any discoveries/claims and to seek independent verification of evidence, but I would be willing to bet that you believe that the creation myth is a better explanation on what we observe? In which case I don't think your assesment [sic] of evidence is balanced/objective.
I playfully turned his words back on him to elicit a longer response by replying, “I would be willing to bet that you DO NOT believe that the creation myth is a better explanation on what we observe, in which case I don't think your assessment of evidence is balanced/objective.” It had the desired result. He quickly answered,
You are 100% correct.
I DO NOT believe that the creation myth is a better explanation on what we observe.
I believe that all Gods (and there have been many over the years) are nothing more than human inventions, all of them providing simplistic explanations for the things we observe.
I am astounded that people still believe in such myths, in this day and age, but I respect your right to believe in what ever [sic] you like.
Just be aware that blind faith (a la Religion) can prevent you from considering rational explanations for the world around us.
If you/anyone can come up with a more rational explanation than that offered by evolution, then it will overtake that theory and I would be the first one to follow it.
Like most of the people who have blind faith in evolution, he believes in evolution because he doesn’t believe in religion. It prevents him from being rational. He has no positive reason to believe in evolution. He just believes it by default because he can’t believe in anything supernatural.
Inspired by Donald Trump’s technique of saying something so outrageous that it absolutely demands a reaction and starts a conversation, I wrote, “OK. You reject religion. I can understand that. What I can’t understand is why you reject science. Why do you believe something as unscientific as the theory of evolution? Why does hatred of religion result in hatred of science? That’s what I can’t understand. Please explain that to me.” It had the intended effect. He replied,
Don't know where you got the idea that I hate science as it is completely wrong.
It is the scientific method that backs evolution (as a theory) and it is the sicentific [sic] method that can prove that all known Gods (if they can be precicely [sic] defined) are just myths passed down through generations.
Michael is as wrong as he can be. The scientific method has never been used to prove the theory of evolution. (The scientific method hasn’t been used to disprove the existence of all known gods, either—but that’s beside the point.) The scientific method uses experimentation to prove a theory.
The scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions to determine whether the original conjecture was correct. 1 The theory of evolution has never been experimentally verified. The theory of evolution violates known scientific laws. It’s not science!
Unfortunately, the scientific method has been replaced by consensus. The majority opinion is assumed to be the truth. No experimental verification is necessary. We tried to point that out to Michael, but he didn’t reply.
Evolutionists often claim that people who reject the theory of evolution are “anti-science.” People like Michael have been told that creationists “hate science” because science contradicts their religion—and many people like Michael believe it! Sir Isaac Newton was a creationist—and he certainly did not hate science, and science didn’t conflict with his Christian views.
During the golden age of science, Mr. Wizard 2 taught children how to discover the laws of nature by doing experiments. Now philosophers like Neil deGrasse Tyson 3 fool children into believing unscientific nonsense using impressive computer animation.
Michael said the scientific method backs evolution—but he can’t point to a single laboratory experiment that demonstrates it. He thinks there have been scientific experiments which prove all known gods don’t exist. There are no such experiments. He is a victim of group think. It has been so widely said that the theory of evolution has been proved by science that he actually believes it. Furthermore, if the majority opinion changes, he says he “would be the first one to follow it.”
Michael will believe whatever he is told, without proof. He won’t take his own advice to “be skeptical about any discoveries/claims and to seek independent verification of evidence.” He wants to be a mind-numbed robot, accepting whatever he is told.
If you challenge an evolutionist as to why he believes in evolution, his answer will always boil down to “I don’t believe in God,” or “Scientists say it is true.” You will never get an evolutionist to give you a good scientific reason why he believes in evolution—because the overwhelming scientific evidence is against evolution. An evolutionist will not argue the facts of the case. He will just claim that anyone who doesn’t believe like he does is too biased to see the truth. In actuality, it is the evolutionist who is too biased to see the truth. We know this because we have received emails from people like Michael for the past 20 years, and they are all the same.
The scientific literature we review every month is full of science against evolution. You can believe true science.
|Quick links to|
|Science Against Evolution
|Back issues of
of the Month
2 http://www.mrwizardstudios.com/watchmrwizardtvshow.htm, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Herbert
2 If you think Neil deGrasse Tyson is a scientist, and not a philosopher with religous and political agendas, read http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/n/neil_degrasse_tyson.html