Monday, May 2, 2011 8:19 AM

Unsettled Science

Monday, May 2, 2011 8:19 AM
Monday, May 2, 2011 8:19 AM

Scientists are secular humanist first and scientist second. Everything is filtered through a Godless lens. It is not that God is not possible, He is just not possible for secular humanist and they regularly commit fraud to maintain the secular model. Many commit this fraud and attest to their honesty; of course it is honesty by their value system. We know that they know the difference, for if they were truly scientist they would publish all possible models.

 Science is not just content. Science is also values. Science with values is not science mixed with religion; it is honest science. Without values, the content is not reliable…science that cannot be relied upon is not science. Content alone is one man’s philosophy. Those that religiously follow one man’s philosophy (Darwin) are making faith statements.

 Read the quotes below and you will see how unsettled, settled science is:

 The Big Bang theorist will tell you that the model has to be that complicated because of Hubble’s observations. If that is what they say, they are incorrect. Much simpler models are possible. Hubble himself suggested that the observations could be interpreted differently.

Such a condition [these red shifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, … but the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs … is intolerable … moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.

Notice the grounds on which Hubble rejects his original suggestion. He cannot accept the idea of the earth being in a favored position, describing such a view as ‘unwelcome’ and ‘intolerable’. Why is such a view intolerable? He rejects the view because it does not coincide with his views of a secular, godless universe.

 George Ellis has co-authored many papers with Stephen Hawking. An interview with Ellis in Scientific American went as follows:

‘People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,’ Ellis argues. ‘For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.’ Ellis has published a paper on this. ‘You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.’

"Truth, Lies, and Science Education, Paul Taylor"

« back