Old scientists reveal bias as new ones suggest proof of god. Dec 30, 2020 14:42:46 GMT 10
Post by Wayne Smith on Dec 30, 2020 14:42:46 GMT 10
Old-guard scientists reveal their biases as new scientists suggest evidence for God
As usual the Theists are confusing gaps in knowledge with proof of god.
"For many years now, the argument by atheist scientists has seemed reasonable. It goes something like this: we do not claim that there is no God. We simply claim that there is no scientific evidence for Him. If you have such evidence, we will examine it. If the evidence justifies a belief in God, we will accept it. Until then, only the physical can explain the physical. There is no need for God and no room for Him in science. If you say there is a God, then show us the evidence.
That was their argument because, until recent years, there was not, in the strictest sense, the kind of evidence science requires. To be sure, there were claims of such evidence, but however sincere those claims may have been, they were not persuasive enough to convince an honest skeptic. The gold standard of science, stated informally, is that a new paradigm is accepted when the evidence is solid enough to convince an objective, unbiased, and qualified person.
It turns out that scientists are as biased as anyone else. Their biases are being exposed by an increasing number of younger, more open-minded scientists. These newcomers are breaking free of the unscientific philosophy, the doctrine of physicalism, that presently dominates their disciplines. They are willing to challenge the notion that nothing exists except the physical. The old guard is resisting. The entrenched establishment is making ever less credible excuses for holding on to its resolute belief that only the physical exists.
Several books by accredited scientists are methodically breaking through the wall of physicalist ideology, much to the dismay of its loyalists. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer has written a highly acclaimed book titled Darwin's Doubt, which not only focuses on the inadequacy of evolution theory, but has taken a positive track toward explaining speciation. He presents an approach that fits the newest scientific evidence. Before him, biochemist Michael Behe wrote his book, Darwin's Black Box, which shows that certain stages of evolution would be blocked by the principle of irreducible complexity. Nor is the revolution in thinking confined to biologists. The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards cites astrophysics as a challenge to a strictly physicalist dogma.
It is not so much conventional scientists disputing theories such as intelligent design (of the physical world) that is noteworthy. Debate in science is necessary. What is astonishing is the intensity, often bordering on the authoritarian, of the resistance to the recent progress in demonstrating that physicalism cannot explain physics. In academia, even the mere discussion of alternatives to evolution, for example, is strictly forbidden.
The old guard accuses the proponents of Intelligent Design Theory of attempting to smuggle sectarian religion into the schools under the guise of such things as Creation Science. It is far more apparent, however, that what has already been smuggled in is atheism posing as science.
In either case, proper evaluation of a scientific theory has nothing to do with who is suggesting it. It has to do with evidence and reason. And the evidence increasingly favors theories like Intelligent Design.
In the past few years, a number of observers have chronicled the disturbing trend within the science establishment toward bias and even outright corruption. While the left accuses conservatives of politicizing science, it is they who opportunistically exploit climate change and COVID-19 for their personal advantage.
If the physicalist worldview gains final supremacy, if the atheist view prevails, then the door is opened to technological barbarism. If human beings are thought to be without souls, without spirit, then what logic prevents us from being treated as mere assemblages of atoms and nothing more? What materialist basis is there for respecting human rights, especially if those rights come from God?
Fortunately, the evidence for God is accumulating. The deniers are scrambling for cover. Instead of seeking truth, they are hiding from the God they purport not to believe in. The truth, however, has a way of overcoming all falsehood. We are winning."
You'll be winning when you demonstrate god exists. Good luck with that dumbasses.