by Amitakh Stanford
4 September 2010
Science has been elevated as the sole authority to explain the workings of
the world and to decide what should and should not be taken seriously.
Science determines what should be believed, what is superstitious, and what
is nonsense. In a sense, science has become the self-proclaimed judge of
From this vaunted position, science has imposed its will on
everything, and spread its tentacles into,
...and practically every other field.
Under the “rule of science”, anything that is supernatural or metaphysical
is often scoffed at or outright scorned. The scientific rulers have
encouraged skeptics to belittle various phenomena, such as:
...and anything else that
does not fit neatly into scientific dogma.
The elevation of science has been so effective that people are very fearful
of its ridicule, scorn and rejection. Skeptics are confidently bolstered;
they are proud that they alone can judge what is ridiculous and nonsense and
what is true and acceptable. Skeptics are so self-assured in their positions
as the judges of everything that they outwardly display an air of arrogance
Almost everything has to be subjected to the Scientific
Inquisition, which is not so unlike the Spanish Inquisitions - knowledge and
wisdom are their victims, too often suppressed and censored by the ignorant
and the arrogant. In extreme cases, the skeptics proclaim that “science is
Those who study science have not always been referred to as “scientists”.
Until the 1830s, the discipline was known as natural philosophy, and
individuals who studied it called themselves “natural philosophers”. The
change in nomenclature allowed “scientists” to disassociate themselves from
Science presents its cases as if they were all based upon hard, empirical
This is misleading. If every scientific theory were called a
philosophical concept, everyone would be on guard as to its reliability and
accuracy. Whilst scientists have gathered genuine data on some subjects, and
conducted experiments to determine properties and “laws” of physics and
other disciplines, they have also extrapolated, surmised, opined, and
outright guessed in many other instances to develop various “scientific”
theories about the composition of the universe and where humans stand in
relation to everything in it.
The theories are presented repeatedly, and with such ardent fervor, that
everyone forgets they have little or no empirical basis. Even the
inconsistent theories are presented as facts. For instance, modern
cosmology, which began in the 1920s, postulates the theory that the universe
is expanding. From this hypothesis, cosmologists have theorized that the
universe began with a big bang, a convulsive explosion.
An alternative view
is the steady-state theory, which asserts that the universe has no origin,
but is expanding based on the continual formation of new matter. The
theories are contradictory. One takes the position of convulsive evolution,
while the other emphasizes gradual growth and development.
Scientists of today will use the premises of these contradictory theories to
mix and match their particular guesses at how the universe operates. For
example, Darwinian evolutionary theory requires vast time-lines to be
feasible. Therefore, the Darwinian view requires that the Earth be very old
and to have gradually developed. On the other hand, another scientific
theory about the extinction of the dinosaurs is that a catastrophic event
wiped them out.
This goes to show that the accepted scientific theories are
not always based on consistent premises. It is often the case in science
that the convenient theory becomes the accepted theory.
History has shown how many huge mistakes natural philosophers have made.
flat-Earth theory was believed for millennia, as was the theory that the
Earth was the centre of the universe and everything revolved around it.
Copernicus disproved the likelihood that the Earth was the centre of the
universe, instead offering the alternative view that it is a subservient
satellite of the sun in our solar system. Even today, most people are
unaware that what Copernicus presented is a theory. As more and more
evidence emerges, it becomes more and more likely that Copernicus was
With regard to the two main theories of the origin of the universe,
they are rudimentary hypotheses that should not even be elevated to the
level of theories.
Yet, the big bang is
presented as though it is an 'absolute fact'
Darwin's theory of evolution
is dealt with in the same manner
Many people want to accept the scientific
explanation of the universe
because they disbelieve the religious philosophy and dogma regarding
A typical religious creation account is found in the Torah, which
is part of the Old Testament of the
Christian Bible. That account of
creation was subjected to tremendous rigor by religious scholars and
natural philosophers. It was accepted by many who went through this rigorous
study that the Earth was approximately 6,000 years old.
The rigor employed
was referred to by many as one of the most rigorous endeavors of the
pre-Renaissance era. Proponents of the 6,000 year-old Earth included Elijah,
Augustine of Hippo, Bede, Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther, among others.
Even the esteemed natural philosopher, Isaac Newton, concluded that the
religious scholars were essentially correct; the Earth is about 6,000 years
Much of the 6,000 year-old Earth belief can be blamed on the King James
Version of the Bible, which included annotations in the margins to put all
the dates together for people to apply rigor in testing biblical dates for
creation. Some extreme religious philosophers, who echoed the marginal
annotations in the King James Version of the Bible, claimed that Creation
occurred on 'Sunday at noon, on the 23rd of October, 4004 B.C.'
Science prides itself on employing rigor, which means that science has
tested many of its theories over and over. The problem is that the rigor
can be based on flawed premises, be flawed methodologically, or both.
was immense rigor applied to the geocentric model of the Earth, and it was
fully accepted by religious and natural philosophers until Copernicus
refuted it. Now, the same type of rigor is applied to the theory that the
sun is the centre of the solar system. If, in the future, someone were to
unequivocally refute the Copernican theory, all of the rigor in proving it
would have to be abandoned.
Such is the state of 'scientific discoveries' that
people would accept the new theory and laugh at the old.
Science has presented us with the theory that carbon emissions are
significant contributors to 'global warming.' It has presented us with many
scientific evaluations of the data to prove this position, and the
scientific consensus is that carbon emissions must be reduced to check
global warming. The raw data on which scientists have based this conclusion
is not readily available; it is secreted in the United Kingdom.
scientists have been proven to have
intentionally corrupted the data base,
and others have been shown to have intentionally manipulated the data to
support the carbon emissions theory. Instead of scientists being aghast at
the fraud, many have rallied around the theory, and asserted that the
science behind the theory is good and credible because such immense rigor
has been applied to the theory that it must be correct.
argue, there is scientific proof that carbon emissions are significantly
responsible for global warming and that it is critical to put a price on
carbon and to pass an
The geocentric model and the Creation account had
equal rigor applied to them. For now, both theories are hopelessly wrong.
A Scot named James Hutton devised a theory that everything on Earth is very
old, and that the planet has been gradually shaped by erosion and
occasionally rearranged by convulsive events. His analysis has provided the
basis for dating everything on the Earth, including the planet itself.
People now confidently parrot that the Earth is four billion years old, that
certain dinosaurs walked the planet so many million years ago, and humans
evolved into homo-sapiens so many tens of thousands of years ago, and so on.
The believers claim that these dates are based upon scientific postulates,
and that the results have been subjected to rigor, therefore they are
The hypothesis of plate tectonics describing the formation of continents has
been subjected to such scientific rigor that the theory of continental
drift is readily accepted and parroted by many. The hypothesis of a
molten-core Earth is equally accepted, whilst the skeptical “judges” have
scoffed at the
theory of the hollow Earth.
psychiatrists who believe in metaphysical concepts and
experiences should not be threatened by their respective licensing boards.
Neither should lawyers or politicians be disadvantaged by acknowledging
Psychics and those sensitive to metaphysical things should
not be deemed mentally disturbed just because they can sense or “see” things
that others do not.
Although science has improved many aspects of living by providing technology
in many fields, its unsubstantiated theories should be treated much like
religious beliefs. There is no absolute proof or disproof of them, or they
would be facts, not theories.
People should not be subjected to ridicule for
their beliefs just because their beliefs do not fit scientifically