SOME IDEAS ARE RIDICULOUS, BUT THEY SELL

For a long time, Darwin’s dedicated “bulldog,” Thomas Huxley, promoted the silly idea that Science is “the only method by which truth can be ascertained.” This view became known as “scientism,” and it was widely promoted and accepted even though it is illogical.

How? Even Huxley’s statement cannot be supported by science or any research. Science is unable to demonstrate that it’s the “only method by which truth can be ascertained.” Instead, Huxley’s assertion is an erroneous philosophical statement.

Why erroneous? We know a lot of things with a high degree of certainty, without doing any scientific research. We know that honey tastes sweet and that George Washington was our first president. We also know when it is raining and how to unlock the door to our apartment. We know many other things that science cannot tell us like, what is right and wrong, just and unjust.

Science can even provide evidence for the existence of God. For example, Bruce Malone just published some well-accepted scientific findings about the precise fine-tuning of the universe, which points strongly to the existence of an intelligent Designer:

·       If the sun were closer, we would burn up; if farther away, we would freeze.  If our atmosphere was thinner, the meteors that now harmlessly burn up would constantly bombard us.  If the moon was not precisely its current size and distance, the ocean tides would flood the land twice a day.  If the continental shelf was smaller, the oceans would be deeper near shore.  This would lower the oxygen level in the atmosphere making life much more difficult.

·       A study of the ecological processes in nature (water, oxygen balance, seasons, day/night cycles, etc.) shows that they must be maintained in delicate balance or Earth would just be another lifeless planet.  The forces, speeds, and distances that hold our planets within our solar system, galaxy, and the universe are all in a delicate balance.  The mechanisms that cause our bodies to function and reproduce are all finely tuned.  The very constants that hold atoms together and keep the universe from flying apart or imploding are all in perfect balance. (searchforthetruth.net)

Chance is unable to account for the presence of all of these necessary elements. Some have calculated that there is only one chance in 10 followed by 100 zeros that all of these necessary conditions would be present.

Meanwhile, there is not one single shred of evidence that anything is natural or has occurred naturally. And yet science is now defined as naturalistic. Consequently, only naturalistic answers are acceptable. Why has science committed itself to such unsupportable orthodoxy? Ridiculous?