Sunday, April 20, 2008

Subjective Science

Science is vogue for reality!

Science! What do you think of? Those weird shaped glasses with the different colored liquids. How about a big snake in a container that is fed the next unfortunate mouse!. Do you think of the skeleton hanging on the door? What about Spider man. Yeah, all you comic book geeks know what I am talking about. Better yet, you think of the microscope that can show you the smallest details of any substance you place under the lens. While these images are a good concomitant to the term of science, they do not define it.

Science, from a standard high school biology book, is defined as the investigation and understanding of nature. It is the observation, discovery, and interaction with the world. Please understand, the definition clearly states that science is the investigation and understanding of THIS (physical) world. Why then, do some scientists believe that they have a right, in the name of science, to investigate that which is other than the physical? Why do scientists think they can examine the metaphysical? Actually, it may be fairer to ask; why do some scientists think they can denounce the metaphysical? Have they ever been there? Do they know what it looks like? How about what it smells like. Is it dark, hot, cold? How do we get there? In all actuality, I think some scientists believe they have the right to denounce the metaphysical because they are pre-disposed, even indoctrinated (thank you Darwinian ideology), into thinking that this physical world is all there is.

The Darwinian theory (yes, it is theory and not fact) has been used as an ideological weapon by intellectual assassins and cultural elitist ever since The Origin of Species was published. The idea broke down barriers, permeated university campuses, and even challenged (possibly changed) the idea of objective truth and reality (Check out Nietzsche and the Darwinian undertones that permeate his writing). The point is that science is no longer seen as a route to discovery, investigation, and understanding. Science is vogue for reality.

Nietzsche said, “God is dead”. Man in the sixties said, “I am God”. Scientists today might say, “God? We have moved past that concept. Didn’t you get the memo? We learned how to clone him too!” Thus, the apostle Paul would claim, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man…. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator….” (Rom. 1: 22-23, 25)

Science is vogue for reality? For some people science is vogue for truth. However, for some people science isn’t vogue anymore. For some people, science is god! Science is absolute truth!

1 comment:

Serenity said...

We started getting a magazine ("Creation") last year that you might enjoy. It's put out by Creation Ministries International (Ken Ham is involved with them) and they discuss a some of the topics you've been covering. For example, this past issues had an article on the "new atheists". Their website is creationontheweb.com if you want to check them out.