Science Can’t Be Wrong, But Scientists Can
The word “science” comes from a Latin word which means “to know.” True science is always a wonderful thing and has done much good for humanity, all through history. True science also never contradicts true history, or nature, or true psychiatry or any other “truth.” One of the major points about “truth” is that it never contradicts itself. Truth is absolute, eternal, non-changing. If our “truth” has changed, it is because we were wrong, not truth.
Scientific American is one of the leading “scientific” journals in the world. When it publishes true science, it benefits everyone. The problem is, the articles are written, and the journal is published, by fallible humans. And they often say things very unscientific. In fact, downright dumb.
An article in the journal was released this week. A Breitbart headline: “Scientific American publishes ‘embarrassing’ essay claiming ‘human sex is not binary’. The article rightly was deemed “embarrassing” and “pseudo-scientific” and received some significant backlash. It isn’t science. It tells us nothing about science, but it does tell us something about scientists, i.e., that they can be, and frequently are, in error. That is an historical fact, and it happens today as it did in previous centuries.
Scientists, being human, need to earn a salary, eat, pay bills, etc. Being human, they like notoriety. Many of them want to be famous, well-known, well-liked, published in the best journals, get the best academic jobs, become a mighty influence on society. None of those things are necessarily improper motives for life, but they can, and do, influence a scientist’s views, like they might anyone else. Put bluntly, if a scientist wants the things above, he almost always has to toe the left-wing, politically correct line in matters of debate and controversy. And the left-wing line is almost invariably wrong.
The Scientific American article above isn’t science, it is left-wing politics masquerading as “science.” Like the Covid-19 lies. Man-made climate change. And the biggest of all, Darwinism.
Indeed, Darwinism is the source of all the others. Darwin’s theory, in its logical conclusion, denies there is a God. Everything can be explained by “natural processes.” If everything can thusly be explained, then obviously no God is necessary. As one Darwinist put it, “God is unnecessary.” Darwin showed us how everything got here without Him. This is the crux and core of modern Marxist Leftism—there are no absolutes, there is no ultimate “right or wrong,” there really is no such thing as “truth”, humanity is the measure of all things and, by extension, the elite and powerful intelligentsia will decide what is best for the rest of us, and what we should believe, say, and do. No God to direct us. No Jesus to save us. No heaven to be gained, no hell to be avoided. Darwin got rid of all that.
If you want to know the philosophical underpinnings of the Right vs. Left debate, here it is—God vs. atheism, God vs. Darwin. There is the foundation of the whole battle we face.
It is not my purpose, in this article, to debate Darwinism or prove how and why it is in error. Things certainly “evolve,” but that is not Darwinism. Fish do not become amphibians, amphibians do not become reptiles, reptiles do not become birds and mammals, regardless of how much “time” passes. Such is simply scientifically impossible. There is absolutely no scientific experiment or evidence that proves molecules-to-man evolution (transmutations across phylogenetic boundaries). The whole notion, frankly, is foolishness, and is nothing more than an attempt to rid the world of God. Most people believe it because they have been told most people believe it, and many scientists accept it for the same reason—and for the reasons mentioned in an above paragraph: scientists are human, too, with human motivations.
I will, in the course of time, Lord willing, discuss more about this. Charles Darwin must be understood in his historical context (like everybody does) and his day and age influenced his erroneous thinking. As I close this article, let me refer interested readers to three books which will help you understand the errors of Darwinian theories:
Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism, Jonathan Wells (a simpler expose’)
Darwin’s House of Cards, Tom Bethel
There are others equally good; these are not difficult for a layman to understand.
Wells and Bethel are not Biblical “creationists”. That is not what you get here. Just true science.
Which, incidentally, never contradicts the truth of the Bible. It shouldn’t. God is the author of both.