As mentioned in the part two, we will be looking at the unspoken reality behind the so-called “March for Science” to see what it’s real intent was. What we will find is that it’s real intent was not to promote science but actually the left’s world view of what they think science should be.
Defining science this way supports their world view of collectivism while locking out debate on all others, mainly those involving God or some entity outside of man as being responsible for the creation of our universe.
In the last part we saw how full of unanswered questions their substitute science, evolution and the Big Bang, really is. It doesn’t comport with modern operational, every day science which is basically leaving it back in the age of Darwin when a cell was thought to be nothing more than a blob of protoplasm, not the city of activity and informational expression we know it to be today. (See the book Signature in the Cell for more details)
In an article written at the time of the “March for Science” entitled, ‘March for Science or March for Secularism?‘, the author. John West, writes that “the upcoming march is not defending science. It’s undermining it.”
West notes that:
March organizers say they believe that “science works best when scientists come from diverse perspectives.” They also claim that the “scientific community is best served by including voices and contributions from people of all identities and backgrounds.
But, the March for Science didn’t do that.
When the Discovery Institute (an intelligent design school of evolution dissidents, as Dr. Bergman, march co-chair, put it) asked to become a “partner” for the March, they were turned down flat.
Is it because the institute represents a bunch of crack pots making silly claims with no evidence behind them? Are they lunatics pushing a dangerous world view that could lead to immoral behavior or worse?
No, actually not.
The Discovery Institute is a group of scientists, many very highly credentialed and published, who believe there is evidence of intelligent design in nature.
When the author of the aforementioned article, John West asked the March co-chair, Jonathan Berman, to explain why the Discovery Institute was banned from the event, Berman emailed West that “it is not our policy to advance specific worldviews or ideas outside of current consensuses of scientific fields.”
Meyer’s books and all of the publications of the Discovery Institute are all based on current science as even a brief review of any of them will demonstrate.
Sounds kind of like a totalitarian government rather than a scientific community doesn’t it? They get to define what constitutes a “worldview” and what constitutes “scientific” as well. If you don’t meet their criterion, you are censored.
However, as West notes:
March organizers were happy to accept a number of high-profile groups that use science to debunk God. These include the Secular Student Alliance, the Secular Coalition for America, and even the American Humanist Association.
Kind of hypocritical, isn’t it? The March for Science shut out scientists, who use current scientific evidence such as the information systems found in every living thing as a means of pointing to design in nature, get labeled as having a specific “worldview” which outside of the current “scientific consensus”.
However, if you agreed with the March’s worldview- a different story altogether. They embraced groups which happen to use what they label as science to attack faith based worldviews.
Why This One?
The American Humanist Association (AHS), whose catchphrase is “Good Without God” claims that “unguided evolutionary change” is proof against the supernatural. In short, they believe that their scientific model disproves God. That is not a scientific position it is a philosophical and spiritual one.
Nevertheless, since the March’s leadership obviously accepts the idea that science disproves God, AHS is not a “specific worldview” which they deem goes beyond their “scientific consensus”. Even if, it is actually essentially a world view– rather than actual science.
Berman also mentioned the word consensus as though that were the determinant of authenticity.
The reality is that the history of science shows that consensus science has been dead wrong numerous times in human history.
Louis Pasteur, the father of biological medicine and a Christian believer in the Bible, when first presented the germ theory was considered a crack pot.
Ignaz Semmelweis, who attempted to get surgeons to wash their hands to prevent infection eventually suffered a nervous breakdown as a result of the shunning and abuse he received from his colleagues.
Then, we have the practice of bleeding patients which had the consensus of the medical community at one time. As we now know, this practice considered primitive medicine along with other now discarded myths and misinterpretations.
The point is consensus science can be wrong– sometimes dead wrong. The truth is that the left use consensus science as a way to shut down honest debate and competing points of view to an issue they want everyone to accept.
That is certainly not a strong argument for censorship of a potential new set of ideas about a theory, particularly if you claim to welcome diverse backgrounds and viewpoints.
The article’s author West, also mentions the March’s honorary co-chair Bill Nye, the “Science Guy.”
A few years ago, Nye was named “Humanist of the Year.” He claims “evolution is not guided by a mind or a plan.” He also invokes science to argue that humans are “insignificant” and “suck.”’
So according to the leaders of the March for Science, if you argue that science provides evidence of purposeful design, you are anti-science. But if you argue science disproves God and shows humans “suck,” that’s fine.”
The March for Science organizers complained about “under-represented” groups in the sciences.
However, the biggest under-represented group among the ruling class of scientific elites by far appears to be those who are theists.
As West points out:
Only 51 percent of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) believe in the existence of God or a higher power. That’s in contrast to 95 percent of the public. That’s an astounding gap of 44 points.
Therein lies the real heart of the matter.
The so-called March for Science had an agenda that was not science based but rather based in philosophy. Unstated, but an agenda nevertheless.
Its unstated agenda is to promote their own world view over any potential others. A world view of evolution which discards the need to acknowledge any authority other than themselves as the masters of science.
A world view which endorses that of a universe which made itself up apparently out of nothing.
The real agenda of the March for Science is to foster a culture where it’s okay to misuse science to bash religion or the claim of a Creator.
Otherwise why did they so readily allow groups who use science to bash God, yet dismiss scientists who embrace modern discoveries which point to Intelligent Design as outsiders.
The true irony here is that it was intelligent design, not secularism, which gave rise to modern science.
Science grew in large part because early scientists believed that nature was the product of a rational agent- God. That is, they believed in a supernatural Creator.
Based on this assumption, the natural world could then be studied as something based on logic and order rather than something that arose from a mindless, chaotic process of un-directed disorder.
Even today, scientists tend to assume that nature is rationally designed, not the product of chaos.
I have a biologist friend at a state university. He likes intelligent design because it tracks with what he does in his lab. When he studies a biochemical system, he starts by treating every part as if it’s needed. He can’t just write off this or that piece as a random accident if he wants to grasp how it works.
In fact, what was once considered to be junk DNA has now been discovered to have very critical functions in the creation of RNA and sub programs which provide us with our human individuality. As Time Magazine noted, junk DNA is no longer junk.
Had scientists not assumed it was there for a reason and not junk, this process of discovery would never have happened which leads me to the next point.
As previously noted, the March for Science has shut out scientists who see design in nature and embraced groups that use science to attack faith.
That is not defending true science. It is undermining it.
For those who value true discovery and real science, that is a way of shutting down exploration and new insight. If we believe that we have all of the answers, why bother to look further?
Junk DNA would have been written off as useless flotsam derived from the random mutation process that supposedly created all of life.
(Note: Mutations do not create information but rather eliminate it. Species differ so markedly from a DNA standpoint that new information is critical. How could random errors generate all the new information needed to create new species? Do typos create new, more complex papers or books?)
Today in our universities and schools, what is called “science” when it comes to origins, is a wasteland of speculative fantasy– defended by assumption not evidence.
The wasteland which is becoming more exposed with each passing month as further research into how DNA expresses itself demonstrates that it is far more organized and complex than anything previously assumed.
So called “junk DNA” is now found to have programming capabilities far beyond previously assumed, supplies each of us with our unique individuality and, in fact, is not “junk” at all.
Real science allows for dissent rather than settle for “consensus”. That is how is has advanced. It allows students and teachers to go to where the evidence points.
If they were honest (and some are becoming such) the complexity of the programmed information systems which are being revealed, as far more complex and intricately orchestrated than ever previously imagined, does not point to dumb matter as a source of origin. Minds produce information systems, not mindless matter. There is no evidence that mindless matter produced anything, just as the materials in a building did not produce the building.
The real key to really understand what events like the March for Science are about is that it was not really about science. It was based upon a world view that eliminates God from the picture- a model of the collectivist left. It was actually a march against God, not for science.
It is part of the left’s battle promoting the world view of atheism vs. God.
It was a march for the replacement of the world view which embraces a Creator with what the leftist academics and non-believers who hold the power in academia embrace. It was a conflict of ideas- not evidence or even logic, for that matter.
In truth, it is a march for Godlessness centering the evolutionist/atheist world view on science, secularism and ultimately collectivism.
A march to reject God and place man or an amorphous, impersonal “nature” at the center of the universe.
In truth, it really has little to do with everyday operational science which leads us along the path to many new technological discoveries.
The evolutionist model is the promotion of a world view which rejects God. It attempts to replace God with man or an impersonal “nature” which acts with no regard for human beings as having a place of dominion on the planet.
In the left’s view supported by the theory of evolution:
This view leads to, in the words of Bill Nye, an opinion of purposelessness leading to Bill Nye’s public expression of “I suck“.
Not a very elevating image to embrace.
Who does one turn to? A fellow meat puppet perhaps? The State with its collectivist model of parent perchance?
Is there any surprise that young people are turning to suicide these days? There shouldn’t be when these messages are being fed to them as reality.
Now, this world view is developing into a cult of death. Abortion is justified as based on science. Laws are being passed to make abortion so liberal that the greater good can be served by eliminating useless eaters before they even get started.
So, the politically correct view of science we are all just “meat puppets” who arrived here by accident, along with everything else on the planet.
In the view of the politically correct collectivist, there are too many people on this planet already. What is a few billion or so less eliminated to promote the greater good?
Let’s call it for what it is. This emphasis is representative of the Communist ideology of Marxism. This is why they love evolution and hate any reference to God in science.
Evolution and collectivism go hand in glove which is why Marx applauded Charles Darwin’s work.
First of all, it allows them to discard all authority drawn from God, particularly biblically based morality. In other words, morality is no longer absolute and based on authority.
Rather morality is a choice and based on what works best collectively and individually. No need to follow God’s laws or Christian based morality if we were all evolved by accident right?
Moral relativists say: “Who are you to tell me what I ought to prefer?” and “It’s my body. My choice.” There are no absolutes, only group consensus as to what is right and wrong.
By that view, Hitler was right and the people killed in the camps wrong. After all, Hitler was only reinforcing the consensus prejudice right?
For a good book on this topic which shows how absurd this relativistic position really is read, “Relativism- Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air“.
Social chaos eventually leading to the need for a strong central government to restore order. As people grow into the cult of moral relativism, morals decline. After all, you can do anything as long as it feels good and works for you- especially if there is agreement in numbers.
The problem is that some people take this to extremes because as the prophet Jeremiah said:
The heart [of human beings] is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? – Jeremiah 17:9
Unbridled by social morals based on God and the threat of justice even after death, people get carried away and decide to dispense their own judgment to help people “evolve”.
A few examples:
One can find many more. What is clear however is that shootings and suicides have grown in recent decades as we have discarded traditional values based on absolute morals to the realm of evolution based moral relativism.
First of all, think it through. Do your own research with an open mind. It may be outside of the accepted consensus but it is not outside of logical conclusion.
If you really want to rebel, question authority which was once a buzz word of the 60’s. Like the Nike ads say, just do it- conduct your own research outside the accepted box.
Then, make your own mind up based on both sides of the issue. As we see the influence of the left grow, we also see a decline in morality, more violence, less concern for human beings and less social order.
If you trace the path of the left in history, beginning with the time of the Illuminati to Karl Marx to Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung you will see a path of millions of dead human beings left in its wake as it carves a path through humanity to establish its idyllic world view.
Installing evolution as “real science” is one such tool that most take for granted without examination. Time to examine this more carefully. If you do, you may be pleasantly surprised and end more hopeful than you ever thought possible.
UN's Inventory and Control Plan for the New World Order- Agenda 2030 Exposed
The “Squad” Nothing More Than Scripted Justice Democrat Puppets
How the Left Has Redefined Science to Make It “Politically Correct” – Part Two
A Real-Life Comparison of Two Woman’s 2019 Marches- Pro-Life Versus Woman’s March
Starbucks Needle Policy- Do Paying Customer’s Even Matter to Them Any More?
The Truth About the Democratic Party They Don’t Want You to Know About
Voter Fraud – California DMV Admits 100’s of Illegals to Voter Rolls – Tip of the Iceberg
Undercover Video By Project Veritas Reveals Deep State Communists Working in Federal Government
Please log in again. The login page will open in a new tab. After logging in you can close it and return to this page.