I have been amazed by what is called science today. We have been enjoying a new service our cable provider has added. It is called Curiosity. One of my favorite sections is that of science. But, as I have watched many of the episodes, one question keeps arising. Is science fiction or fact?
The definition of science
When I was in school we were taught the definition of science. That definition said, “Science is based on empirical evidence that can be repeated and yields the same results consistently.” That means that each time you do an experiment you will get the same results. Not only will you get the same results, but you can observe the results.
It was a hundred or so years ago that this definition began to morph. By morph, I mean, that some “scientists” began to blur the definition of what true science was.
The evolution of science
You might think that this topic is worded in reverse. Some may think it should be “The Science of Evolution”. Yes, there is a division of science called that. But, I meant just what I said. “Science evolved.”
Now, I am using the word the way that most of us take for its meaning. I mean that “Science changed(evolved).” That is exactly what evolutionists define as “biological evolution”. By using this definition they began to move science from a fact base endeavor to a fiction based philosophy. So, in a sense, science did evolve. It changed from a fact-based encyclopedia of thought to a philosophy of unprovable fairy tales.
Is science always right?
One might think that science is always right. However, one might be wrong. There have been times that not all the facts regarding scientific studies were available. Given the facts available certain conclusions were reached. They seemed to be right. But as more facts were fed into the experiment, the truth began to emerge.
It used to be thought that the Earth was the center of the Solar System. With the instruments available and the observations made, this seemed true. But, as instruments improved and observations were more precise, the facts were discovered. The sun was the center of the Solar System and the Earth orbited the sun.
Does that mean that the previous observers were not scientists? No. It does not. But it does mean that they were wrong and what they taught was not fact or truth. It does mean that they were not right.
To our question, Is science fiction or fact?
In the situation cited above, the original science was fiction. When all the facts were presented it was found that the latter agreed with the facts. There is an application which true scientists all agree with. It is called “Ockham’s Razor”. It simply states that “Given two explanations for a problem, the simplest should be considered the best.”
In the aforementioned situation, the geocentric model was the favored before the heliocentric model. When Copernicus presented his heliocentric model it simplified the orbits of the planets and the location of the sun. And, sure enough, the facts bore it out. The simplest was the correct one.
Though the heliocentric model was considered science, it was not a fact. Because scientists say something is so, does not mean it is a fact or true.
Why would science lie?
That is a very good question. But, the real question is not, “Why would science lie?”, but rather, “Why would scientists lie?”
Science does not lie. Scientists lie. Facts are facts. How scientists address the facts is what determines their “truth”.
Let’s look at a few of the “truths” that scientists claim, yet have not one fact to back them.
Just the other day I watched a documentary that explained how the first stars formed after the “Big Bang”.
It began by assuming The Big Bang. No scientific proof whatsoever was offered. I was supposed to take their word for it. There is no scientific proof of The Big Bang. The Big Bang is not scientific. It is a philosophy.
Moving right along, they assumed the formation of hydrogen atoms. How protons and electrons formed from a big bang that came from nothing, nobody knows. Just how negative and positive particles did not magnetically attract and collide is not explained. Somehow, “b-gillions” of positive and negative particles happen to relate so as to form hydrogen atoms. Well, they formed, and so the “fairytale” continues.
Somehow, these hydrogen atom gas clouds began to attract each other gravitationally. This is totally contrary to the laws of gas in a vacuum. The gas will always expand, not clump together.
So, they have broken one scientific law.
Assume they clumped together because of gravity. Then over millions of years, gravity attracts more and more atoms of hydrogen until the object is massive. Because it is so massive gravity causes it to grow more and denser. The gravity is so great that it causes the hydrogen atoms to fuse. This fusion ignites a star. (Fusion of hydrogen atoms releases great amounts of energy, i.e. e=mc2.)
So, now we have a star. Seemingly the balance of gravity and fusion are perfectly balanced so the star does not blow apart. It just sits there radiating energy for nobody knows what.
After billions of years, much of the hydrogen has been used up creating energy and helium. One might think that the mass having been reduced would allow the gases to escape into the vacuum of space. But, it does not. Rather, it just continues to create energy, but less of it.
Then there are some that just explode. How is it that the same situation produces two different outcomes? Is that scientifically a fact?
To be truthful, it is not factual science. This is a scenario concocted by imaginative minds to support a materialistic approach to science.
The decrease in mass should lessen the grasp of gravity. Then the energy release would blow the helium and hydrogen apart defusing the star. The gases would then just float into the vacuum of space. But that would threaten the “science” of star formation. So, that is not mentioned.
The stars that explode are called supernovae. These are the things that cause the ingredients that cause life, or so they say.
Is there any factual truth that supports these stories? No, there is not. It is all made up. But, if they use Ockham’s Razor and accept the alternative, they would be out of a storytelling job.
Would science lie about the beginning of life?
There is a scientific law that states that life comes only from life. This is a law, not a theory or a “hope so”. But what do evolutionists say about life and its beginning?
First of all, they will try to avoid the question of the beginning of the first life form. But if pressed, they will break down and give an answer. It will go something like this.
All the ingredients necessary to bring about life just happen to be in the same place at the same time. They are not sure if it was in a pool or pond, or a clay brick. Maybe it was a deep-sea thermal jet. But they all came together at just the right time and “Voila! Life.”
Ask them how that worked and they will have no idea, but it did. After all, we are here, aren’t we?”
I shall put a link HERE for you to read. It is one of my blogs on the probability of the beginning of life from nonlife. The simplest living entity contains over 400 proteins. The odds of getting one protein necessary for life is one in 10>108. That number is 10 followed by 108 zeros. That is only one protein. To get the other 400 or so raises that number to one in 10>4000.
In essence, it is impossible.
If the process could run a billion trials a second, it still could not get it done. It would take 20 times the supposed age of the universe to get just the first protein.
Is science fiction or fact?
Much of science is fact or is based on good facts. But as you can see, there are some areas that are greatly lacking in fact.
The areas that rely on fiction are those which desire to contradict the findings found in the Bible. They pontificate that the Biblical rendition is religion. But as you understand evolution better you begin to realize that it is based more on philosophy than in fact.
One more science fiction
When DNA was discovered it was supposed to put the final nail in the coffin of creationism. DNA mutations became the by-word of evolution. Through mutations in the DNA one generation could pass new traits to the next, or so it was assumed.
As it turns out, mutations did pass on traits, but not improved traits.
The amazing quality of DNA was that it was a complex information storing system. Evolution was supposed to increase the information through mutations. Much to the evolutionists’ surprise, the exact opposite occurs. Have you heard any evolutionists writing papers on that subject?
Instead of growing more complex in succeeding generations, the next generation is less complex. We are seeing the exact opposite of Darwinian evolution.
That should settle the fact that evolution is not scientific. But the lie continues. Because of this, science has lost its lofty status. For science to regain its lofty status it must address the question, “Is science fiction or facts?” As long as “scientists” keep pushing ideas which do not line up with logic they will continue to lose reputation.
If science refuses to be logical then it is of no value in the real world. Scientists will live in their own little world of “make-believe” theories and stories of how things come to be.
Is science truth?
More and more we are discovering that what we were told was true is not true. Most of this was done by scientists. The rest was told to us by politicians. So, it is time for people who are truly learned to stand up and speak the truth.
If a scientist does not speak the truth, it matters not how many degrees he or she has. Not telling the truth makes them a liar. Because we have been led by liars, we are experiencing bondage. The Bible says that when you know the truth, you can be free. If we are basing our society on lies, then we are truly in bondage. Not only are we in bondage, but we are allowing the blind to be our leaders.
We who know the truth must speak up. Yes, you will suffer for speaking truth to liars. But He Who was called the Truth was crucified for speaking the truth.
It is time for us to speak truth to science. If science refuses truth, then it is no longer science. It has become a philosophy. Philosophy will reject everything that it disagrees with. More and more we are seeing science not as a truth seeker but as an agenda driver.
Conclusion to Is science fiction or fact
It is time to rescue science from the propaganda forum and return it to the truth-seeking forum. If you read of science that has a lot of “could have”, “probably”, “perhaps”, or “maybe”, reject it. True science should state unequivocally, not make gestures.
Science that deals with the origins of life and universe have very few facts if any. Many of what are called facts are assumptions. They are assumed to be true with no proof presented. These types are not scientists, they are storytellers.
It is important that you study science with a critical mind. That simply means that you apply logic to whatever is being presented. Don’t believe something just because a scientist said it. Look at things from different angles. Find out if another scientist says something different.
To conclude let us understand that a lot of what is called science today is fiction. It is not based in fact or truth. The driving force is the worldview held by the scientist. The worldview held by the scientist will color the interpretations of the findings. That is where you must apply logic. The interpretation that is most logical is probably the one that is true.
Is science fiction or fact?
Use your God-given brain and mind to weigh the facts and then make the right decision.