Season 3 Podcast 245 “What is Real, Pt 13, Implications of the Assumptions of Science” 4
Season 3 Podcast 245 “What is Real, Pt 13, Implications of the Assumptions of Science” 4
In yesterday’s podcast we examined the two primary false analogies of science: (1) man is a machine and (2) man is an animal. For that reason, science claims, man has no freewill.
In this podcast we shall expand the discussion to include the entire concept of determinism. We shall address the following fallacy:
Assumption Six: Man is ruled by determinism and thus has no freewill.
We tend to think of science as infallible. Many with vested interest play on the gullibility of people by using the opinions of scientific theorists as fact. Atheists, for example, will quote scientists who are also atheists to prove there is no God. It is beyond the power of the scientific method to prove or disprove the existence of God. Any claim by science that God does not exist is meaningless.
We sometimes overlook the fact that scientists are not robots. They have feelings, biases, prejudices, and pre-conceived notions like the rest of us.
Politicians use the same false arguments to advance their agenda. They find scientists who agree with their agenda and quote them as authority, ignoring all the falsifying evidence. It is a game they play to acquire more power. Truth is the first casualty in any high stakes bid for power and control. Just examine the state of our nation today. Truth is a mouse among lions. Fundamentally, when we give opinions, they are based on a personal world view. The same is true with scientists. We need to understand what that world view is. Let me remind you that theoretical scientists base their opinions on the following assumptions:
· There is no God.
· There is no intelligent design.
· There is no freewill.
· Accident and evolution are the answers to the mysteries of life and creation.
· Human life is merely a stepping stone in the vast economy of evolution.
· Man is merely an accident.
We could list more but those six are sufficient. We assume that because science uses the scientific method everything scientists say are held strictly to the scientific method. That is a false assumption. Human nature is a powerful force. In practical science, scientists have no choice but to follow the scientific method. If you want a jet to get off the ground, you must follow the strict laws of aerodynamics. Without strict laws, everything would come to a standstill.
Theorists are free from such restrictions. Not all scientific opinions are held accountable to the scientific method. Some theorists are in the business of protecting their paradigm. They do not look for falsifying evidence. They select only the evidence, no matter how tenuous, that supports their opinions. An atheist will seek to prove the tenants of atheism. Some present the theories of science as if they were facts. In other words, in trying to prove there is no God, they assume the truth of any evidence that may persuade you to believe there is no God.
Any belief in God must be faith based, and any disbelief in God must be faith based. It is beyond the reaches of science. The biggest hindrance to theoretical science today is their fight against God. Like Don Quixote, they are fighting windmills. Rather than denying intelligent design and freewill, science should ask why is there such strong evidence for intelligent design and freewill.
The scientific method has proven to be the most powerful tool man has in breaking the code of scientific inquiry. It has built in safety nets: prediction and validation, for example. However, it is too easy to confuse the strict rules of practical science with the often-freewheeling opinions of theoretical science.
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free