Scientific Fact or Faith

The danger inherent in intellectualism is the misplaced notion that intellect is gained strictly from the learned studies of the sciences and humanities without any necessity of faith. To justify this inane belief one would need to ignore the gapping holes in scientific research and embrace the unwritten need to deify scientific thought as the end all to any argument.

Scientific research has left the realm of true science and has been catapulted into a religion all its own. Scientists who dare to question the authority of the Holy Script are attacked and vilified as heretics of the faith. And, just as cults loosely based on truth remove or add to the written Word, when actions do not correlate to the Holy Script of Science, scientists see no moral issue with falsifying their findings. Or, to offer the benefit of the doubt toward their noble cause, perhaps I should rephrase that to adjusting the results based on their own preconceived expectations.

Science is supposed to be a study in which one proposes a hypothesis and then sets forth to prove their belief through a series of tests and observations. Once there is sufficient data to support the hypothesis, then a scientist could propose a theory based on one or more hypotheses. This theory will stand until a new hypothesis can disprove or call into question the validity of the theory. A theory that has had no valid hypotheses to disprove it could become law, such as Newton's Law of Gravity. However, laws explain findings, but should not try to describe them.

Taking the hypothesis, theory, and law of scientific research and applying them to some of the most controversial scientific claims, we begin to see that true science has been tossed out like month old milk. I will focus on just three scientific findings as I set forth my hypothesis that modern science is based on faith.

Big Bang Theory

This theory was widely accepted by most scientists until recently. The theory states that everything in the universe started from a very dense ball of matter, about the size of the head of a needle, that exploded sending its matter throughout the universe. This explosion happened in just such a way as to group molecules of matter together in specific regions to form galaxies, and within this galaxies the formation of solar systems and their adjoining stars and planets formed. Since there was no actual witness to the Big Bang, scientists must observe data that allows them to piece together the events after the fact. Some of these observations have been the ever expanding universe and the formation of distant galaxies or stellar material as viewed through large telescopes. However, when confronted with questions about the ability to fit all of the matter in the universe into a single speck as the size suggested by the theory, scientists are stumped. With this unquantifiable explanation in their otherwise preconceived notion and the fact that scientists could never successfully explain where the matter originated that was necessary for the actual event to task place, many scientists have started to move away from their acceptance of the Big Bang Theory and have started to support the hypothesis of Intelligent Design.

Theory of Evolution

Evolution is the belief that, due to the inherent survival instinct found in all species, everything in existence evolved from a lower level species: man would have evolved from the Cro-Magnon man, which evolved from the apes, which evolved from monkeys, which evolved from other lower lifeforms all the way back to primordial sludge. How this ever became a theory is beyond explanation. This is one area of science that has no observational data to support it, yet it continues to be taught as the unabashed truth in our public schools. Scientists have falsely used adaptation of species and mutations as the basis for proof that evolution would happen over the course of thousands, if not millions, of years. The problem is the missing link. They can find nothing to show that there was an evolutionary process for any animal, much less one as complex as humans. Another question that has been left unanswered is why we still have monkeys in existence if humans evolved from monkeys? Why didn't all of the monkeys evolve?

Global Warming Theory

Is the earth hotter today than it was twenty, thirty, or even a hundred years ago, and is this warming of the earth a natural phenomenon or the direct result of manmade components using processed protects derived from fossil fuels? The major problem with their theory is that they have no hypothesis that back up their theory. Perhaps if scientists only focus on a minuscule amount of the data discovered it would be possible to formulate a hypothesis about increased temperatures planet wide. However, this would necessitate ignoring other findings which dispute the global warming findings: studies of the sun that explain how our planet goes through a normal ten year cycle of cooling followed by a ten year cycle of warming and data that shows our planet's average temperatures are lower than they have been for the past two or three decades. Even if science could prove global warming, there is no evidence to support that it is manmade. The same increase and decrease in global temperatures is found on the planet Mars during the same time periods. This points to the cause for global weather patterns having much more to do with the sun than it has to do with SUVs or energy hogging nations.

With these Big Three theories of the science community on the verge of collapse, it would seem logical that scientists would seek alternative causes or solutions rather than continue to hold dogmatically to a belief that unravels in there hands. Yet many in science refuse to listen to the "flat-earthers," as they have likened anyone who attempts to detract from their sacred theories. Rather than approach the questions to these theories scientifically, these "keepers of the flame" resort to intellectual bigotry as they enact credibility attacks against their detractors. These actions are clearly evidence of religious fanaticism, yet they will never admit that they, the fact finders of society, have ignored facts in favor of faith.

Until scientists set aside their political opinions, their political correctness, and their office politics, they will never discover the truth about their blind faith in a godless religion. Only when they observe for themselves that the intellectual elite are really not so bright will they finally see how pride in their own intellectual abilities has led them to the great fall of humanity. Only when science fails them will they discover the Creator behind the creation. Only when they realize that faith in science is in fact a form of religion will they begin to comprehend how they can indeed place their faith in the One behind all of their intellect. Fact and faith are not diametrically opposed to one another. In fact, faith in God is what allows for the discovery of truth.