Select Page

It’s “In Science We Learn”, Not “In Science We Trust.”

It’s “In Science We Learn”, Not “In Science We Trust.”

We have seen a rush from science to replace faith with what they call scientific understanding, to replace dogma with facts, but in their rush to replace G-d and faith, turns out they themselves are turning into what they claim to be trying to replace. If you question you’re attacked, you say you believe other then what they teach, your ostracized and treated like a pariah. 

Turns out if you are a donor to a museum and a political cause, and if you aren’t a liberal that supports global warming, or if you dare to question any part of it, the leftist loons will have no part of it they will march and throw tantrums until they have you gone. And who is joining ranks, well the shining example of good thinking that has done nothing but expresses critical thinking, the Revolting Lesbians These dingbats along 2oo researchers have jointed to gather to try to ban Rebekah Mercer from the Museum board. 

Rebekah Mercer’s first transgression, which is seen as unforgivable by these people is she and her family dared to donate to President Trump’s election fun, the fact that she then questions all of the science of global warming is unacceptable to them. Of course, even the scientist themselves seem to change their forecasts on a monthly base’s, according to them and Al Gore the coasts were supposed to be under the ocean floor, the polar caps were to be gone, and we should be living in the land like Water World right now. Her worst crime, she dared question the dogma of the left.

I always find it interesting that the dogma of global warming is treated as such, and yes, I called it the doctrine, for it is not treated like any other scientific theory, where it is to be questioned and torn apart, debated, have it evolve and change and different people question and put research to equally try to disprove as to provide proof of it. No, you have to accept it, or the inquisitors of science that find it incomprehensible that you dare to question such a thing show up in your life and try to destroy it. The idea of Global Warming has evolved more into a religious dogma than something resembling scientific research, we are told that the majority of scientist believe in it, so how dare you not. 

I always ask this, “If global warming is run by what the majority of scientist think, and if you dare question it you are ostracized and attacked, can you imagine how the world would have been if Galileo had not challenged the almost universal thought that the sun revolved around the world, this at the time was heresy, in fact he was attacked by inquisitors himself for daring to question the belief, which the majority of people believed otherwise. He ended up spending the rest of his life under house arrest for daring to question the prevailing consensus.

Or what about Gregor Mendel, who himself was seen as odd, was attacked when he put out the idea of Genetics? He published what would later be known as  Mendel’s Laws of Inheritance. The scientific reaction to his paper released? Well, not at all, it was accepted and read by no one, no one had a question in something so foolish as questioning what then was commonly thought to have a  fixed essence, any changes that were seen were only superficial, nothing more. For daring to question, he was stuck in an abbey where he was ignored until he died. 

And last there was George Zweig, who brought to us the idea of Quarks and other invisible sub-atomic particles, they were too small to see, each was on the sub-atomic size, so the scientific world scoffed at him. We also have to remember he was only a young graduate student, how dare this young whippersnapper question what was taught, to go against what was the consensus of thought, these were just funny little subatomic particles, no one could question them, and now he dared to say they are what made up matter? How dare he!”

Of course, I usually get one of two reactions when I say this, I either get a blank stare, you know, they look at  you with a questioning look, and you can see them thinking to themselves, “What the hell is he talking about?” Or if you get a scientist or college student who thinks they know everything about anything, they glare and tell you this is not the way of science; no one reacts like this.

So then I throw out the wild card, I tell them, “Well what about evolution, the problem with your dates, if the dates are so accurate how were scientist able to extract living tissue out of them, how can any of the numbers you are projecting hold any truth, tissue can’t survive millions of years without degrading to its parts?”

You first get a blank stare, they can’t fathom that you would dare to question the holy grail of science, then their eyes bulge out, and soon they blurt out in fiery and anger, “ARE YOU TRYING TO FORCE CREATIONISM ON ME?” It does not matter that I said nothing of creationism, in fact, I don’t know what to believe, but what follows is a usual response. “Are you trying to say you believe a divine being came and with some magical thought or word created all?”

Now at this point I usually stop this, for I have no wish to get into this debate, how the content of hydrogen in our atmosphere, which the earth picks up from the sun at a set rate shows the world can’t have been in its current state for billions of years, there must have been some catastrophic event that would have blown out most of the atmosphere for this to be possible, No, instead I usually say that I am not arguing creationism, not sure what I believe, just know that evolution is seriously flawed. 

But sometimes, if I am feeling argumentive, I answer, “So what is more irrational, to believe that one great mighty being, who you may or may not  want to call G-d, with his word caused the world to be created, that means that what we see are basically 6 different acts which can’t be explained byscience, or should I beleve that DNA spontaniously mutating to a viable more advanced DNA, (which by the way has never been done or documented by any scientist), had had a viable being, remember, with any messing of DNA to produce something like this, nature has a way of dealing with them, it makes them sterile, or if offspring come along, which is very rare, they are sick and die rather quickly (look to mules, Ligers, and a host of other such creaturs).

You yell about the irrationality of creationist but you want us all to believe that trillions of acts against nature, this is what upwards migration in the evolutionary time scale is, fish eventually turn into elephants, this is somehow rational? Then to really make scientists head explode, you say, “And you dare to attack them as being illogical.” 

This is the problem today, science in its rush to replace the creator, if you believe in this, which they apparently do, or why would they go to such lengths to disprove it, I sure have not seen the same energy put in to disprove Santa, Science has tried to create a way to replace one dogma with another, sadly in the process have forgotten what makes science – science. 

What is needed is for science to get out of politics, to get out of faith, both are not part of science, and when you mix the two, you quickly forget what science is about. Science is here to teach us origins, the understanding of all as the most base level, but it was never intended to replace faith, nor was it ever meant to be involved in politics, although it sure can advise it. Dogma has no place with science, seems the scientist and the left today have forgotten this. 

When contributors are pushed out of scientific places, which is what a museum is, this does look backward to see how we got to where we are, we have lost the ability to move and question everything. Maybe instead of attacking we could learn to accept that some may see things differently, sadly I don’t see the left every accepting this, while I have no problem with a difference of thought, just last night my wife and I agreed to disagree, seems they are incapable of this. Dogma has no place in science, faith is not a danger to science, it is possible to separate each of them so they aren’t competing against one another, sadly each group has their zealots that will accept nothing less, the conquest of one by another.  

About The Author

Timothy Benton

Student of history, a journalist for the last 2 years. Specialize in Middle East History, more specifically modern history with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Also, a political commentator has been a lifetime fan of politics.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *