What science is NOT - Its Limitations - Part II

This is a key blog.  Anyone has the right to his/her own opinion, and whether I agree with it or not, I respect their right.  However, when they masquerade their opinion maliciously as fact with the decided intention of misleading others to their way of belief, they lower themselves to deserving utter disrespect.

I refer here specifically to humanistic evolutionary scientists who adamantly purport to have the truth when they are doing nothing more than gushing out their prejudiced opinions.  Why are they doing that?  Actually the truth is simple.  In his excellent book The Challenge Of The Fossil Record, Dr Duane Gish puts it very succinctly: 

The reason most scientists accept evolution has nothing to do, primarily, with the evidence.  The reason that most scientists accept the theory of evolution is that most scientists are unbelievers, and unbelieving, materialistic men are forced to accept a materialistic, naturalistic explanation for the origin of all living things.  Watson, for example, has referred to the theory of evolution as “a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.

Very simply, they are humanists that don’t believe in God and don’t want you to either.  Please read my January blogs:  Humanism, What Is It? and Humanism Is All Around You for a complete expose on humanism.  

One of the tenants of Science, as noted in Part I of this blog, states that science is the study of the extant (currently or actually existing) material world around us.  Science is thus limited to the study of what presently exists and what is measurable and repeatable.  That principle alone eliminates any scientific validity to evolutionists’ idea of The Big Bang, the first living cell being created out of inert material, or evolution by Special Selection .  Those are simply postulates or axioms – no better than simple guesses - certainly not science.  Why?  Because they deal with the ancient past, completely outside of the possibility of scientific study. The problem multiplies upon itself when unbelieving journalists, reporters and book publishers, who have no expertise whatsoever in science, jump on any idea that even hints of God not existing.  They publish their mis-information and disseminate it over an innocent public who are all too ready to soak it up as truth. 

Another tenant of Science states that its research involves observation and experimentation of empirical data that is capable (available in front of you) of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.  As before, anything that involves processes that took place in the ancient past is totally incapable of being observed or experimented upon and therefore outside of scientific study.  Call it opinion if you want, but nothing more.

Another tenant of Science requires that assertions about anything theorized must be stated in a way that permits them to be tested for truth or falsehood (falsifiability).  Without pressing the point further it is obvious that guesses about the ancient past cannot be tested for truth or falsehood, and therefore cannot be considered scientific studies.

My next blog, Part III, will continue with our discussion on the limitations of science.  Are you gaining any insights into what true science is and what it is not?  Send me your comments.