The Ultimate Question in Science
I have a sick sense that YouTube has suddenly - as in since the beginning of the new decade yesterday - gone seriously and fatally over to advertising. I hate advertising. Advertising is society giving capital enterprise the license to lie as far as I am concerned. So I found myself this evening giving in and watching videos that would be destroyed by interruptions for ads. For instance:
Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
At about 39 minutes into this discussion which seems to focus in on the theory of intelligent design not as a theological proposition but as the result of scientific observation, the discussion turns to how a scientist proposing that science rethink an established theory like the Theory of Evolution is treated by academia. The answer is something I have been observing about science for awhile now and writing about here from time to time. Challenging scientific so-called facts (consensus opinions about theories) can be and often is fatal for the careers of those who attempt it. Science crosses the line and becomes religion somehow and yet those who practice science this way can't see the fallacy of what they are doing.
In academia, the Theory of Evolution is meant to convince current and future generations that random chance rather than creation somehow explains how life developed here on earth. Other good examples of science morphing into religion are Global Warming which is underhandedly intended to usher in and fund Socialism and The Big Bang - another Socialist construct - which is meant to convince current and future generations that God isn't required for explaining the origin of the universe.
It's good to see insiders talking about this nasty aspect of modern day "scientific study".
The ultimate question in science is, "Once a theory is accepted by consensus as an absolute truth, how does science react when faced with new and conflicting ideas?"
The answer is, predictably:
Poorly.
Which means that science, just as all religions that came before it, is doomed. Science will not survive academic Socialism.
Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
At about 39 minutes into this discussion which seems to focus in on the theory of intelligent design not as a theological proposition but as the result of scientific observation, the discussion turns to how a scientist proposing that science rethink an established theory like the Theory of Evolution is treated by academia. The answer is something I have been observing about science for awhile now and writing about here from time to time. Challenging scientific so-called facts (consensus opinions about theories) can be and often is fatal for the careers of those who attempt it. Science crosses the line and becomes religion somehow and yet those who practice science this way can't see the fallacy of what they are doing.
In academia, the Theory of Evolution is meant to convince current and future generations that random chance rather than creation somehow explains how life developed here on earth. Other good examples of science morphing into religion are Global Warming which is underhandedly intended to usher in and fund Socialism and The Big Bang - another Socialist construct - which is meant to convince current and future generations that God isn't required for explaining the origin of the universe.
It's good to see insiders talking about this nasty aspect of modern day "scientific study".
The ultimate question in science is, "Once a theory is accepted by consensus as an absolute truth, how does science react when faced with new and conflicting ideas?"
The answer is, predictably:
Poorly.
Which means that science, just as all religions that came before it, is doomed. Science will not survive academic Socialism.
posted by Bill | 9:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home