Wednesday, 21 June 2017

In the jungle

Just recently Neil deGrasse Tyson visited Australia, more recently so did Jane Goodall. Big science! At some stage they both mentioned something about the untrustworthiness of the internet, that is, the many things that are proclaimed there.

Interestingly enough nothing was brought up about the problems & inconsistencies of evolution/alleged, or the big bang/alleged, or the problems of real scientists who cannot get their work published due to the bias that exists & is present in the science system with its ruling paradigm.

But Neil deGrasse Tyson can tell us that it would be an inexcusably egocentric to think that we are not alone in the universe without a shred of scientific evidence (fourth last paragraph).

The universe makes sense in lots of ways, Degrasse does not & you don’t have to be an expert to spot the swirling scientific spin that morphs into psychology & faith like God morphs into nature in bait & switch fashion. The egocentricity of secular science means God the creator is not allowed in the science room nor the science that contradicts the consensus story & that really is inexcusable as deception springs eternal & takes its captives too.

The religion of scientism

‘It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing).’

·         Shallis, M., In the eye of a storm, New Scientist101(1393):42–43, 19 January 1984.

In the thick & thin of it

No comments:

Post a Comment