Can we Separate Science from Ideology – Yes

In our modern world, shaped by technology and mass communication, there is one institution that is proudly elevated above all others as the supreme source of information and the saviour of the human race. Science has been heralded as the answer to all things. In most matters of conflict, be it health, faith or political decisions, scientists have the final say. But there is a gap between scientists and science that can never be bridged. There is a world of difference between what scientist believe they know and what they actually do know. This takes the form of ideology, the projection of idea as a fact. Too often scientific theories are presented as fact and this causes much uncertainty and confusion.

It is essential to the integrity of the scientific community that ideology be separated from science. Science has just emerged from several decades of bad press and public scrutiny. Issues such as “global warming” and nuclear technology have left a bitter taste in the mouths of many who feel let down and deceived by those that take the lead in science. A recent disclosure by e-mail by a group of scientists in Britain was seized upon to discredit the whole idea of climate change. But Climate Change is a reality and an injustice perpetrated through human greed and ignorance, and it is officially recognised by the governments of the world through the UN. In that instance many scientists who are in the pockets of large commercial corporations have been challenging the validity of data about global warming. This has caused much confusion and mistrust among the general public. Other Frauds such as “Piltdown man” a fabricated “apeman” and “Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis” a supposed hybrid of bird and dinosaur found in China and published in 1999 in the journal National Geographic, both designed to enforce rigid compliance to the belief in evolution, have done much damage to the trust once enjoyed and deserved by scientists.

Unfortunately, for the average person, who has little or no scientific knowledge, it has always been a case of being spoon-fed what little they do know, by the elite in the world of science. Sadly, those portions of so-called knowledge, that are fed to the fledgling public, are often selected and edited before being dispensed. There will always be bias in science, just as there is in all fields of work and knowledge. The danger is that when both medicine and science are subject to the whims and opinions of a few, or the peer pressures of the many, there is misrepresentation. Sometimes, these misrepresentations can have devastating effects on individuals and even whole generations. It is a sad fact that Charles Darwin’s ideas on “Natural Selection” have been used by unscrupulous individuals to perpetrate and justify genocide, and there are even many alive today who would, given the opportunity, eradicate those members of society that they consider of little use. Darwin himself deeply regretted this. Ironically, whilst ridiculing religious people for believing in something supposedly illogical, scientists use the term “natural selection” freely, even though it is grammatically incorrect and a totally contradictory and illogical term of speech. The word “natural” basically means, by nature, undirected, without artificial agency. “Selection” means choice, decision. The two words cannot be used in union because they are a contradiction of each other.

During the 1980s a public vaccination programme was conducted by the British government. The multiple jab was promoted as “perfectly safe” with minimal side effects, and was approved by the government’s chemists. Parents queued by the million to immunise their children from the heavily publicised, nasty effects of Measles, Mumps and Rubella. Only years later did it emerge, under heavy media pressure, that there were, in fact serious risks to this vaccine and that there were many casualties, more, in fact, than suffered from the diseases themselves. Qualified scientists had made a decision and stated a false fact because political pressure led them to. They considered the risks worth it to save the nation from mass illness and cost. Unfortunately, modern science is rife with such falsehoods parading as facts.

For the record, the word “science” (Latin – “to know”), is defined as “the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms.” So, in laymen’s terms, science is all about facts, provable, testable facts. Although scientific discovery begins with an idea, a theory, that idea does not constitute a fact, any more than a man who dreams of building a computer is automatically an engineer. Mohandas Ghandi once said “In a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.” If all but one scientist accepted or rejected a concept, that would not constitute it either a fact or a falsehood.

That being established, we can now place under the microscope, some commonly held “facts” being propagated by the scientific community.

Dark matter is one of the most recent “facts” presented to the unsuspecting public. This invisible, unquantifiable, un-measurable substance, we are told, constitutes almost 90% of our known universe (incidentally we are now being told that there are probably many universes, even though we are unable to chart or measure the one we know of). How was this discovered? By experimentation? By analysis? no. There have been mathematical formulae presented, actual equations, which “prove” the existence of such phenomenum. Those equations were later proven to be false. Now we must ask ourselves, how is a world of scientific experts taken in by such falsehoods? 2 + 2 = 4, we cannot make it equal anything else, no matter how hard we try. The question we really need to ask is “why” was dark matter “discovered?”

Until recent years, scientists thought that they had fathomed the workings of the universe. The big bang theory, (still a controversial idea to many), was generally accepted as the way that the physical universe came into existence, even though no-one could explain what preceded it. The problem was that, upon observation, the material universe was not behaving according to known laws (I say “known” but, in reality, nothing can be known with absolute certainty), in the manner that it should if it had come about as a result of this “big bang”. Galaxy clusters moving in a spiral motion were found to be moving at the wrong speed! This contradicted the law of gravitational effects on mass. This was a mystery, an absurdity to those who had made certain presumptions about the origins of the universe. What was their reaction? Did they go back to the drawing board, did they, like a child with shaped bricks, try another, different shaped brick in the round hole? No, they invented an idea, a new substance called “dark matter”. This must be the explanation for the anomaly in the universe, they just haven’t found it yet. All known quantities must now be evaluated against this virtual building block. If they do not complement it and fit into it’s arrangement, they must be wrong and must therefore be rejected.

There is a tendency (with too many modern scientists, it is sad to say), to be dogmatic, heavy handed and stubborn, even in the face of reason. There are those intellectuals who, when challenged over their ideas become abusive and ridicule the critic, particularly when the critic is not a peer involved in that particular science. There is a great irony here that many scientists explain (dismiss), religion by informing us that, primitive man once observed events in nature that inspired, puzzled and frightened them. To explain and control these things, they invented God and gods. Surely though, that is exactly what is being done in our day when it comes to understanding our universe, we just call it by another name and assume it exists.

In any other field of investigation or development, a “theory” is exactly what the word means, a theory. Yet when it comes to theoretical physics, the word takes on a new meaning. It suddenly becomes the truth, a fact, or at least the next best thing. In the absence of concrete scientific facts, is placed the best guess and, it is treated with reverence. In fact, those who dream up such grandiose theories are honoured and worshipped and rewarded richly for their efforts. What facts have been established by the likes of Stephen Hawkins and Charles Darwin? For more information about the ideology of Darwinism please see article “Science, God and The Bible.”

The Hadron Collider is an example of this indulgence. Because scientists cannot fully explain the existence of the universe and the interaction of the various physical forces, they have invented a new idea, the “Higgs Bosun particle.” To reveal it’s existence, a machine has been built deep underground which aims to detect and measure this theoretical particle. Is this really necessary, based on the whim of a few, and little or no evidence? What benefit to mankind can such a discovery bring? And while millions have been spent on this project, millions of human beings perish through starvation and disease. It is a disgrace that, while the world stumbles through the worst financial crisis in history and millions are unemployed or living in poverty, millions of dollars are paid to “theoretical physicists” to sit and ponder the universe’s workings. It seems that such ambitious projects are undertaken to feed the egos and reputations of the theorists who dream them up. At least medical research has a positive benefit for mankind (usually!).

An idea is not science. One of the most famous ideas in scientific history was the “Schrödinger’s cat” scenario where it was proposed that if a cat were placed in a box, and a lethal agent were introduced to the box, an observer would not know if the cat was alive or dead. The conclusion was that, for a period of time, the cat existed and did not exist, simultaneously. This was considered a breakthrough in scientific thinking and was the catalyst for many modern theories. In fact, what “Schrödinger’s cat” did for science was a disservice because it basically threw the rule book (the established laws of physics), out of the window and allowed any conjecture or proposal to be considered. With respect to those that are awed by such ideas, it would be very simple to establish if the cat were alive or not by it’s intake of food, the lack of oxygen in the box or the simple scratching and meowing sound from within, in other words by empirical evidence. The notion of Schrödinger’s cat was nothing more than Buddhist philosophical babble, and scientists have deviated from the path of genuine research and discovery since then.

As a result of that blinding revelation, today, the world of science is riddled with ideas posing as scientific facts. “String theory,” “spontaneous biological evolution” (Abiogenesis), and “black holes” are among the mythologies of unproven, unprovable ideas that are widely accepted by many modern scientists (I say “many” because there are a growing number of educated people who reject these ideas rigorously). Someone once stated “we must not bend facts to fit theories but, instead, must bend theories to fit facts.” There is a lot of bending going on in the scientific world today. Like the ignorant, bad-tempered child, they are bashing square bricks into round holes. Yet, afterwards, when the answers still elude them, they learn nothing and continue on in their obstinate quests. Such people do injustice to real science. Real science is about observing and discovering truths about our wonderful universe. It should be used for the betterment of mankind, to solve the problems and improve lives, not as a platform for selfish indulgence and wasteful notions.

Isaac Newton once wrote “I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”

We are all “children of the universe”, as the late John Denver sang. As children we should recognise our limitations and our own weaknesses, including a tendency to call ideas “facts.” Like children, when faced with a mystery, we should have the humility to confess “I don’t know.”