More about multiverses, aka the Darwinist Concession Speech

Via Really getting into multiverse thinking here, this quote out of Perhaps-It-Used-To-Be-Scientific American:

To me, the key point is that if theories are scientific, then it’s legitimate science to work out and discuss all their consequences even if they involve unobservable entities. For a theory to be falsifiable, we need not be able to observe and test all its predictions, merely at least one of them.

- in “The Case for Parallel Universes: Why the multiverse, crazy as it sounds, is a solid scientific idea” (Scientific American, July 19, 2011)

They call that solid science while claiming that Intelligent Design isn’t science?  Wow.

I realized many years ago that as the Weekend at Bernie’s Darwinian tautology got harder and harder to prop up that its proponents would eventually have to find something new.  They do it regularly on a smaller scale (“junk DNA,” anyone?), but at some point — despite the Darwinian monopoly in education, media and politics — the masses will see through the endless errors.

I just didn’t realize that the new meme would be the multiverse fairy tale.  I thought they would be more clever than that.  It sounds like something people on marijuana would come up with, and has just as much science behind it.

Not-so-vestigial organs and the costs of Darwinian presuppositions

It is such a shame that allegedly pro-science atheists get away with the canard that Christians are anti-science.  See What will be the next time and money-wasting error Darwinism leads scientists into?.  They are the real culprits.

The explicit reason for both the junk DNA error and the vestigial organs errorwas the need to find evidence for Darwinism in the form of stuff in life forms that doesn’t work. Without that need, these errors would not have been made. For many kids, mid-twentieth century, it was an error that resulted in needless, risky surgeries, removing supposedly vestigial tonsils and adenoids.

What will the next error be? Thoughts?

The Darwinist can take comfort that he is paid to stop science, and entitled to persecute those who want a reckoning – though that latter right is becoming more tenuous, as the recent Granville Sewell case and others show.

Addressing the “Christians are anti-science” falsehood

I enjoy reminding pro-legalized abortionists that I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice.  When I mention that I often get comments like this one:

You’re “too pro science to be pro choice.” Well, sure. Science agrees with you on that topic. Funny how science goes out the window on others, though.

But I am consistent with both. I dispute one sub-branch of one of the dozens of branches of science, and I do so because of the lack of evidence in favor of it, the great evidence against it, and the institutionalized bad philosophy and suppression of academic freedom propping up the pathetically bad worldview.

I follow the facts and logic where they lead. And there are many facts besides those “proved” by science.  As useful as science is you can’t prove with science that we should only accept scientific truths (even if you ignore how often those “truths” change and are politically motivated).

And unless you create all your own test equipment from scratch and replicate every single experiment you rely on then you have to use history, trust eyewitness testimony and summaries made by others even when making scientific claims.

Again, there are dozens of branches of science.  I simply disagree with one part of one branch, and they generally concede that they deliberately ignore non-material alternatives.  I’ve come across many quotes like this one from Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

Question-begging “science only” views like that speak volumes.  Also consider those whose philosophy-masquerading-as-science leads them to conclude that something can come from nothing.  And they call that science and have the nerve to attack us for our views?  Pathetic.

They have to make an astounding assumptions on the key question outside their field, which is, “How did the materials get here?”  And even when staying within their field, they can’t answer this important question: “How did life arise from non-life?”  They have struggled mightily to find a way but all they do in both cases is to fall back on is their blind faith, aka the “science of the gaps.”

They act like that Darwinian evolution is foundational to all biology, as if we can’t understand photosynthesis or that life begins at conception without their nothingness-to-molecules-to-life-to-Angelina-Jolie worldview.

Darwinists are also at odds with the branch of geology, and in a much more extensive way than we are with biology, so that more than evens the score right there.

And then there’s the systematic and cowardly Expelled!-type restrictions on academic freedom perpetrated by the alleged pro-science crowd.

They pretend the Bible is a science textbook and then attack that straw man, quibbling about things like references to “sunrise” and “sunset.”  Do they call up the Weather Channel each day to tell them how anti-science they are?

And why don’t they ever seem to bring up the mystery of how the Bible boldly proclaims in the first verse that the universe came into being at a point in time?  Just a lucky coin flip, eh?  Or how Genesis describes how vast the number of stars are, even akin to the number of grains of sand in the sea, at a time where most thought there were only 1,100 stars or so.  Or the uncanny way the author of Job knew about very unique properties of Pleides and Orion?  (See Job 38:31).  More luck, I suppose.

Back to biology, they mainly ignore an irrefutable fact of biology when addressing the most important moral issue of our time: Abortion.  They prattle on about how important science is to improve the human condition (which, if used properly, can do a great deal) but they exhibit a heaping dose of FAIL when applying a most basic, well attested, high degree of consensus scientific fact: A new human being is created at conception.  If they can’t apply that scientific fact to improve the human condition (i.e., don’t crush and dismember innocent human beings), then why blindly trust them to apply whatever they learn to other moral issues?  (I’m ignoring for the moment that their worldview can’t ground universal morality anyway.)

Finally, there is the fraud one would expect in any field that involves money, power, reputations and careers.  As a biblical worldview would predict, people will sometimes do unethical things to hold onto all those things.  You need to have an inherent skepticism when analyzing their truth claims and evidence.

So, once again, I am too pro-science to be pro-choice.  And the naysayers are the ones who are wildly inconsistent with their alleged pro-science position.  They abandon it on the most crucial moral issue of our time.