Piltdown Superman

People are enamored with science. It is understandable, because scientists have given us fascinating glimpses deep into the universe, improved lifespans, advanced our technology and much more. Unfortunately, it goes beyond appreciation for the achievements of scientists. There seems to be a cult-like following of scientists. Source: U.S. Navy They are put on a pedestal and made into an all-knowing elite group. (Some people recognize this and joke, " Scientists have discovered  that people will believe anything when you say 'scientists have discovered that. . . '") This has been happening for a long time. In fact, "science" is spoken of as if it was a living being; watch for the reification when people say, "Science says". It is "scientism", where people are practically worshiping science and scientists. Sorry, but scientists are people and science is not an entity. Scientists speak of historical science (using what exists in th

Time and again, we run into acolytes of Scientism as the way to know truth and morality. Atheists will tell Christians, "We will replace you, and your kind will be gone in a hundred years", forgetting that this foolishness has been stated for a very long time. I remember seeing a news clip where someone was expressing her faith in science, "Scientists will come up with a pill or something". Science has severe limitations, and scientists acknowledge this fact. Some people view mathematics as the ultimate, purest form of science, but there are uncertainties there. (Ironically, many insist on materialistic presuppositions, but math is transcendent of matter .) Medical science has had many advances, but some things are remain incurable. Technology has given us many things to improve our lives, and also to destroy them. Why have faith in "science"? Perhaps it is to replace the God who is there and will hold us accountable. [Link removed, I learned tha

stock.xchng/ninci  It has been stated here several times before, but must be repeated: Scientists are not the impartial, objective bringers of knowledge that many people think. In reality, they are human.  As such, they are subject to the same ambitions, lusts, greed, dishonesty and other vices that the rest of us face. And the competition to produce something is fierce. "Why are you defaming scientists, Cowboy Bob?" No, dispelling false images is not defamatory. In fact, it's a public service. People do not need to be accepting something as truth just because a scientist  says so. We still have to use our minds. They might appreciate the chance to get off the pedestals, as they are not objects of worship — I doubt that many choose to be, either. The peer review process is biased, discriminatory and unreliable. Papers are being recalled for serious errors, and some are outright plagiarized. Academic fraud does exist, I hate to tell you. Being a scientist is a n

One of the great deceptions that evolutionists have used is that they are the victims, with "religion" and "science deniers" as their persecutors. This is not the case. Not only has evolutionary philosophy contributed nothing to scientific advances, but they  are the ones doing the persecuting. They demonize those of us who know that the evidence points away  from evolution and toward  the Creator, refusing to understand the creationist point of view (how attacking a straw man or railing about a person's character flaws qualifies as "discussing science" escapes me). This is a deception that they have used for decades. And yet, Darwin's Stormtroopers go on the march, attacking people who dare to think for themselves. Julian Savulescu’s  recent comments suggesting that parents have a “moral obligation to select ethically better children” were more than just another move in the on-going eugenics revival. The Oxford professor’s misrepresentation o

stock.xchng/Viajero1 How would you like to live in a world run by "science"? Never mind that "science" is a philosophical concept and not a living entity. People have elevated scientists (the people who do science stuff) into a class of intellectuals who are unbiased and have the highest morals, so they are best suited to govern us, yes? Of course, those of us who know that the science does not support evolution would be considered "anti-science" (even more than the rants of Darwin's Cheerleaders would have you believe). Are scientists really suited to govern? We may find out, whether we like it or not. The scientocracy C. S. Lewis feared is seriously being considered by left-leaning, abortion-promoting scientism communities. “ Time for science to seize political power ” blazes a headline on New Scientistby Michael Brooks. In your wildest dreams, could you imagine  a government that builds its policies on carefully gathered scientific evid

Do you believe in science, or scientism? One is the confidence in the beliefs of science and technology in the here and now. The other is faith in their abilities to predict the future, solve problems in the present and to fully explain the past. Scientism is unjustified. Evolution is a series of conjectures, theory upon theory upon theory, ignoring contrary evidence. If evolution is such a true thing, then why do scientists need to fake it with the peppered moths, Piltdown Man and other crapola? ( See this page for an overview of evolutionary fakes .) True believer, you've been had.