Science is defined as ‘knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.’ In truth, science creates as many questions as it answers; a lot of wrong answers before a correct one is found. This is as it should be. That is why we use the word ‘theory’ to label something we don’t know to be correct or incorrect because we lack data, the discovery of which will move it from theory to fact; or from theory to the trashcan.
I find modern science silly. Tragically silly, yet silly nonetheless. I believe practicing scientists to be open-minded, yet the public defenders of science are not. Worse, they are disingenuous. Of course, I am addressing the issue of science versus religion. People like Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins – the trained ‘attack gerbils’ of so-called modern atheism – display an intolerance of religion every bit as preemptive and narrow-minded as the 17th century church’s intolerance of science when they put Galileo under house arrest for speculating that the earth was not the center of the universe. Make no mistake, to these jokers, science is their religion.
My name is Dennis D. Garvin, B.A., M.D., FACS, DABU. Those letters are an ‘alphabet tail’ that shows how many scalps I have on my academic belt. Such a tail, on a university campus, is the academic equivalent of a woman showing cleavage or a guy rolling up his sleeves to show his biceps. It is a way of saying ‘Hey, Yo! Look at me; I have really got it goin’ on!’
A long tail with the right letters provides protection from criticism, in the science world. I display my tail here so readers won’t assume I have no credentials. Quite the contrary. Actually, I was previously a militant scientific atheist. When I woke up, it was the true application of modern science that persuaded me about God.
My complaints against these folks are:
1. They don’t tell you when they leave fact and enter into speculation.
2. They treat, as fact, at least one theory (evolution), the entirety of which cannot possibly be true. It has required ‘amending’ multiple times (neo-Darwinism, macro-evolution; micro-evolution) while the Bible, Koran, and Torah have suffered no such emendation. They neglect to point out that Darwin was a racist who thought the Negro race less evolved (therefore more primitive) than the Caucasian race. Trial lawyers will tell you that proving a flaw in a witness’ testimony impeaches the integrity of all he has said. Racism impeaches Darwin and, by extension, evolution. Truth be known, Darwin had reservations about his theory in reference to the increase in organ complexity. I submit that, were he alive today, Darwin would not believe in his own theory.
3. They consider science that looks backward (anthropology, paleontology, evolution) to be as trustworthy as current ongoing research. Laughably absurd. Talk to a medical doctor about a study regarding medication and the first thing he will ask is whether the study was retrospective or prospective. I will accept retrospective studies, meta-analyses, etc., but with a large grain of skepticism. Why? There is a huge risk of bias-interpreting something the way you fervently wish it to be. The atheistic scientist apologist will never tell you their theories of the universe might be biased; incomplete, yes, but never biased.
Let me give you an example of retrospective study: ‘I have concluded that panty hose cause cancer. My data? Breast cancer is on the increase since the invention of panty hose.’ This is silly, of course. Everyone knows breast cancer is caused by Rock music…
Even prospective studies have issues with interpretation. I once heard a story about a researcher who taught fleas to jump when he rang a bell. He had one flea that jumped 6 feet when the bell rang. The scientist removed one leg from the flea and rang the bell. The flea jumped only 5 feet. He went on, removing legs and ringing the bell, the result being a decrease in distance jumped each time a leg was removed. Finally, the flea had no legs. The bell rang and the flea did not jump. The scientist concluded that fleas without legs cannot hear.
Modern atheists take themselves far too seriously, an indictment they commonly aim at spiritual folk. One of these atheists labeled spiritual people as ‘faith-heads.’ Perhaps we should return the favor and call them ‘ath-holes.’ Truly, it takes more faith to believe in atheism than in a divine creator. A Christian/Jew/Muslim need only believe in an eternal creator. An atheist must believe that the material of the universe either existed forever or created itself; and assembled itself (without an intelligent designer) into its current embodiment, along with all life forms.
Despite the bleating of intellectual atheists, I am a Christian because I lack the unreasoning faith to be an atheist.
(Stay Tuned for “Silly Science Part II”)
– Dennis Garvin
