Postmodernism At Work

The following two statements are parts of comments made on the Free Republic forum in response to Pamela Hewitt's "Problems of Evolution."

"Nothing in Science is ever “proven”, just provisionally accepted pending further data." (—allmendream)

Normally, I would not bother with such mindless statements, but they just happen to perfectly exemplify the post-modernist nonsense that is being taught in today's colleges and universities. It is why we are living in the age of gullibility. Do not suppose this is just ignorance, however. These things are being taught with a purpose. The idea is, if you convince people nothing is ever certain, proved, or absolute, you can then put over just anything and call it science.

I must assume these two have "living wills" specifying that cardioversion or defibrillation is not to be used on them since the principle of using electricity to convert a fibrillaing heart to a sinus rhythm has never been proved.

I am going to feel very sorry for these two if they ever need an operation, since the efficacy of anesthesia (once a great scientific controversy) has never been proved.

And they must really be missing out on all those television programs and phone calls transmitted by satellites launched into orbit around the earth's equator at a distance of about 22,300 miles which maintain a stationary position over the earth, by maintaining an orbital speed of approximately 6000 miles per hour, because, according to them, the physical principles such satellites are based on have never been proved.

They must only use electricity if it does not come from nuclear power plants, since the scientific principles describing a sustained chain nuclear reaction have never been proved. (Maybe they use no electricity at all, since they are sure the theory of combustion and Ohm's law have never been proved either.)

Nor must they use computers, or any other electronic devices that would not and could not work if the theories of electronics and quantum mechanics they are based on were not proved. They must avoid all Sky Scrapers because the laws of physics which are the basis of their engineering from the materials used to the structural design would fail if those physical principles were mere unproven hypotheses which, according to them, they are.

I do not know what planet these two live on, but on this planet the principle of an electric current being generated simply by moving a magnet in a coil of wire discovered by Michael Faraday, who was considered a charlatan by his contemporaries, has been proved. The unbelieved assertions by Nikola Tesla and Guglielmo Marconi that wireless communication is possible, has been proved.

What kind of demented mind can insist that nothing in science has been proved? One that assumes things without evidence, based on nothing more than the fact someone does not accept their particular faith. Here is the evidence (a concept totally foreign to such second-hand minds).

"Being a nurse doesn't QUALIFY one, in and of itself, to make an academic argument on Evolution or Genetics. ... Nothing better than an educated layman."

The fact that the "nurse" happens to be a degreed geneticist who has both worked in the field and lectured in it as well, these dimwits did not bother to discover. Evidence is not something they care about, since their cherished faith is being threatened by objective questions their little minds are incapable of answering.

They are dripping with hubris and patent snobbery, exactly like those "scientists" who were publishing papers proving heavier-than-air human flight was impossible while two laymen, who were obviously not educated well enough to learn what they were doing was "scientifically" impossible, were too busy flying to notice. According to these two jokers, the possibility of heavier-than-air human flight has never been proved. They're still waiting for, "further data."

If you believe nothing in science has been proved, it makes it easy to swallow totally made up stories such as the following:

"Evolutionary Biology has unequivocally established that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor over the last 3.5 billion years;" [From Rutgers University]

What's the difference between "unequivocally established" and "proved?" In normal English, even as spoken by scientists, there is no difference; but these story tellers can always say they never said it was "proved" we all came from a common ancestor. It's meant to deceive and gain unquestioned acceptance.

And it's pure fiction. There is no way such a thing could possibly be established. If evolution could happen once, there is nothing in reason or evidence that even suggests it could not happen more than once or even hundreds or thousands of times; but it's happening more than once would not fit their story, so just ignore that fact and present your story as, "unequivocally established," and all the gullible academics will swallow it whole.

==The current theory is justified based upon empirical observation that neither our planet, our star, or our galaxy have a centralized or special location. It also goes with the ideology that we needn't have a central location, but that is a philosophical consideration not a Scientifically empirical one.

Actually, in each case our planet, our star, and our galaxy occupy a very special location. If you read “Privileged Planet” you will find that our location is “exquisitely fit not only to support life, but also to give us the best view of the universe, as if Earth were designed both for life and for scientific discovery.” Both of these scientific observations square perfectly with the Bible.

As for your second claim, that Hawkings et al are empirically justified in creating a Big Bang cosmology that assumes the universe has no edge and no center, I beg to differ. They themselves admit that this principle IS NOT warranted by empirical observation, and is rather inserted into Big Bang cosmology to comport with their “ideology.” Indeed, Hawking and Ellis even admit that the fact that our universe appears isotropic, or spherically symmetric, would ordinarily mean "we are located near a very special point." Which begs the question, what empirical justification do Hawkings et al rely upon to supplant the "ordinary," most straight forward interpretation of the data with an extraordinary, non-straightforward interpretation of the same? The answer is, there is no empirical justification. Hawkings et al admit they fed the (badly misnamed) Copernican principle into their mathematics without any empirical justification whatsoever. Why did they do it? According to them, to make our planet, solar system, and galaxy appear “ordinary” and “less special.”

What do you suppose is motivating such a flagrantly unscientific approach, Allmendream???

So his ideological justification for his interpretation of the data is admittedly Biblical.

So you wish to have me say that Hawkin’s view is necessarily anti-Biblical then, that he is just as “guilty” of interpreting the data through the lens of his ideology?

Sorry I just don't see it. It goes along well with the trend of Scientific data removing humanity from a central location in geography and chronology; but it is not based upon that as an assumption.

Why do you suppose that almost every culture in history has presupposed that mankind was located at the center of the universe and was there at or near the beginning of the universe?

==So his ideological justification for his interpretation of the data is admittedly Biblical.

Yes.

==So you wish to have me say that Hawkin’s view is necessarily anti-Biblical then, that he is just as “guilty” of interpreting the data through the lens of his ideology?

Yes and no. Rather than giving the centrality of their ideology the attention it deserves, Hawkings et al barely mention it at all...and the rest of his Darwinist/materialist/antitheist pals simply sweep it under the rug as though it has no consequence. Hawkings et al base their ideology on nothing other than their desire for it to be true. They don't base it on empirical observation, they don't point it out as a possible shortcoming when their theory fails to predict, they are as closed-mouthed as they can be about it without actually saying nothing at all.

Humphreys, on the other hand, is very up front and open about the fact that his model A) is based on the biblical idea that the universe has a center and an edge B) that the Earth is special C) that the heavens were created for our benefit, and finally that D) that his model squares with empirical observation. As such, his theory will help us to determine if the Bible's cosmological references comport with reality. If they do, then it will strengthen the argument that the Bible's cosmological references are true, should be read as straightforwardly as possible, and, most importantly, has important insights to share with the scientific community.

==Sorry I just don't see it. It goes along well with the trend of Scientific data removing humanity from a central location in geography and chronology; but it is not based upon that as an assumption.

Then what is their “ideological” assumption based on? And why do scientists tolerate it? Does Hawkings et al have a right to pass off their “admixture of ideology” as science? If so, should Creation and ID scientists be allowed to do the same thing? And why should science have only one ideology, anyway? Isn't it better to have competing ideologies employing the scientific method, looking at things differently, and otherwise falsifying or confirming each other's observations/conclusions?

==Why do you suppose that almost every culture in history has presupposed that mankind was located at the center of the universe and was there at or near the beginning of the universe?

That would be an absolutely fascinating study. It could be pure human invention designed to provide comfort or otherwise puff ourselves up. It could be hardwired into our beings like birds returning to their hatching grounds, or salmon swimming back to their spawning grounds, or sea turtles returning to a speck on a map to to lay their eggs. It could be the echo of legends that owe their origins to Noah, and before that, to Adam and Eve. Who knows? But again, this fascinating phenomena should be studied by theologians, historians, and scientists alike IMHO.

==I hardly duck an argument about Science but delve into the data and see what it says.

Again, I ask you...is this one of those times, Allmendream??? If so, is it because I pointed out that you were mistaken about our galaxy containing a quasar? Is it because you have come to the realization that the current consensus on big bang cosmology is based on ideology and not science? Is it because you have come to the realization that an expanding universe with a center of mass would have at one time had a gravitational well sufficient to dilate time such that the physical processes of galaxies near the center could have elapsed for thousands of years while the physical processes of galaxies near the edge could have elapsed at the rate of billions of years, and yet owe their existence to the same creation event? Is it because Humphreys based his cosmology on the Bible's description of a universe with a center and an edge? And what if Humphreys proves to be correct, should Creation Science be given the credit for said predictions? Pray tell...inquiring minds want to know.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.