In today’s world everything is controlled by science or so we think. The question is what is real science? If we cannot distinguish what is real science and what is not then, do we know what is real science? Let’s take a look at what is science and what is not science.
Science is defined as the study of Natural Things. Natural things are defined as things that we can observe and touch or feel. So we are told that only these things can be considered studying science. But is that the only definition of science? Can science be more than just the study of what we observe naturally?
Secular humanists tell us that only those things that we can observe with our senses and handle are the only thing that can be considered true science. But more and more we are finding out that science is more than just what we can observe with our senses.
There are many things that we cannot empirically define with our senses but yet they are real. For instance the atom. Of course, we see the results of the atom, but we cannot observe the atom itself. So does that mean that the atom is not a scientific reality? I think that most people who say they are scientists will admit that the atom is real. So it seems that true science is more than just what can be observed with our senses.
The difference between science and religion
We have seen that secularists want to science to be defined as things we can observe empirically. But we are realizing that there are some things we cannot observe that are real science. So does that make some Sciences religion? Not necessarily so. But there are some things about science that are truly religious. Let’s take a look at a few of them.
Secularists like to Define religion as what we believe but do not have facts to back it up. Using their definition of religion let’s take a look at what secular scientists believe. There are many things in science which have no empirical evidence. Let’s take a look at evolution.
Can science be a religion?
Very few scientists will admit that science can be a religion. Take for instance the science of evolution. Scientists who believe in evolution say that they have facts to back it up. But do they have facts? many scientists say that they do have facts to back up evolution. But when you begin to look into those facts you find out that most of them are just beliefs. Their belief in evolution is based on a consensus rather than on empirical evidence. There is a difference between consensus and empirical evidence.
Consensus is based on what a majority of a particular group believed to be true. It is not based on empirical evidence per se. Quite often consensus looks to be true but when it is addressed by empirical evidence it may not be. Consensus is sometimes called mob mentality. If most of the people believe it why should we go against what most people believe? Unfortunately, this is what modern-day science has begun to treat as evidence.
Is evolution a religion or science?
returning to evolution this is what evolution says. Evolution says that life began a billion or so years ago in a small pool of water. It somehow progressed from that first living cell to all the complexity of life that we see around us today. Is there any scientific evidence to back up this claim? Secular scientists say there is plenty of proof to show that evolution is true. But is that the truth?
Evolutionists describe Evolution as change expressed over time. This change is carried on from one generation to the next and then it continues for millions of years until we have man. The evolutionists say that this proves their point of evolution.
It is true that we can see change around us everywhere we look. But is this change what is called evolution? The evolutionists say that it does prove evolution. But does science prove that it is evolution?
From Simplicity to complexity
The evolution that the secular is described is that of a simple beginning cell to the complexity that we see in multicellular organisms. But is that what is observed in real science? Real science because of what we know about DNA says that living things are not evolving.
Because of what we know about DNA and how it works we are finding out that living things are devolving. In other words, they are not growing more complex but less complex. The argument made by the evolutionist is debunked by this DNA evidence.
So if one continues to believe in evolution when the fax say that it is not true then it must be a religion. If religion is based on beliefs, it is not scientific. Evolution therefore is not a science but a religion in the truest sense. They continue to believe it when all the scientific facts say that it cannot be true.
Science as a religion
Since most of evolution is based on beliefs and not scientific facts it must be considered a religion. How long are we going to allow secular humanist to lie to us about the religion of evolution? By framing evolution as a scientific principal, they hope to deflect our attention away from the religious part of evolution.
Secularists have declared that science can only be that which can be observed in the natural. Anything else has to be religion. By their own definition, they are a religion.
Is science logical or illogical?
evolutionists have labeled creationists as religion. Yet creationists are very logical in their presentation of how the creation came into being. Creationists present a scenario in which all the laws of the universe follow. The scenario of the secularists cannot fit into the laws of nature. For that reason, the secularist has to come up with all kinds of fudge factors. Without the fudge factors, their scenario will not work.
If science is logical can Evolution be a science? Logically speaking evolution cannot be a fact if science is logical.
Which science should be taught?
Should we teach our children and illogical scientific evolutionary science? Or should we teach them a logical scientific creationist science? The answer is obvious. If you want to rear a generation of logically thinking people then you must teach creation. There is nothing wrong with letting students know about evolutionary theory. But teach all the factors of it. If it is not logical, say so. But don’t teach it as truth when it is only a belief.
Can scientism be a religion?
In the case of evolutionary science, it is a religion. There are no scientific facts or laws that back up evolution as it is taught. Darwin evolution may have had its way for the past hundred fifty years but it is no longer accepted as truth.
If you want to teach truth and logic then you must abandon enforcing evolutionary consensus. Consensus is not scientific nor is it necessarily truthful.
If we are to teach truth, we must include creation science. The biblical rendition of how the creation came into being fits all scientific laws. There are no necessary epic circles are adjustments needed to make it fit. In creation science all the laws of nature fit. Yes, it allows for a creator. This is exactly what the secularists do not want to allow.
It is not that creation science is not scientific it is that creation science recognizes a creator. When one recognizes a creator that means there is one who is greater than the scientist. If there is a Creator who is greater than we must be subject to him. The secularist does not wish to be subject to anybody. therefore, they do not recognize a creator.
To not allow the teaching of a creation scientific model is to deny the very essence of scientific study. Those who do so should not be considered scientists. A true scientist will look at all possibilities and then through logic and reason determine the best approach or answer. Evolutionists and secularists do not do this. They only allow the secularist view. That is not scientific.
Real science is the search for truth. Truth is truth no matter who the seeker is. If you are not willing to accept the truth, then you are not a true scientist. Truth will be backed up by the facts. Truth will continue no matter what new facts are found. Creation science has always been found to be true. Evolutionary consenses has continually had to change its foundation and its reasoning to be able to fit the facts. It has been falsified time and time again.
Real science stands the test of time. The creation scenario has stood the test of time and it is true.