By Chris Delamo of Red Pill Philosophy
Over half a million viewers tuned in on Tuesday night to the highly-anticipated debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham.
On one corner, there was the religious nutjob Ken Ham, who made the argument that evolution is a fraud, and that we can’t make scientific conclusions based on “past” evidence.
On the other corner, was the religious nutjob Bill Nye, who in traditional mainstream scientific fashion, sought to make the argument that reality is a purely material world made of matter, and that such a conclusion is NOT contradictory, paradoxical, or illogical.
Now, if you haven’t already recoiled and spewed whatever you’re drinking across your laptop or smartphone screen, then maybe you already know where I’m coming from.
But if you ARE currently wiping the soda off your monitor, then let me explain.
You see, mainstream science today, is a form of religion. Now, in true scientific fashion, I would expect you to hear my argument, and examine the evidence I provide, and use that as the foundation for your conclusion, instead of exxing out the screen and close-mindedly never looking back.
A religion is a belief system that uses, at least to a certain degree, FAITH as a standard for believing in it.
Faith, of course, is the idea that a person should believe in something, even without personal, direct evidence for it.
Although mainstream science touts itself as being the Almighty Bastion of Evidence-Based Conclusions, the fact is that this is not entirely true (and the place where it is NOT true, is the most important one of all).
Now, yes: on an everyday level, science utilizes evidence to make many valid and beneficial conclusions, like using observable physics to launch rockets into outer space, or observing the patterns of molecules to determine the best cure for cancer.
All of these are signs of science’s continued commitment to observable evidence before making conclusions, and I whole-heartedly support it.
But the problem, is that where it matters most, science has DELIBERATLEY CHOSEN to take a massive leap of faith—a leap that, in many ways, INVALIDATES nearly the entire structure of modern scientific understanding.
Science’s leap of faith…takes us ALL the way back, to the beginning of the universe.
Here’s the leap of faith: mainstream science believes that something came from nothing.
You see, it is the general scientific consensus that we live in a purely material world, a world where matter exists INDEPENDENT of us. If all consciousness life forms disappear, the physical world still exists.
Matter is the ruling element, and it is even used as the standard and measure of objective truth. The laws of physics, deemed as infallible and constant, are viewed as the rigid structure of predictability from which science can attain empiricism, truth, and consistent results.
The problem with this belief, is that it includes an inherent contradiction—but don’t worry, if you don’t think about it too much, you’ll never realize the contradiction exists.
And today, that is what mainstream science is depending on: you NOT thinking very much about the belief system they want you to believe in.
You see, top scientists today who determine the culture and consensus, will tell you that we live in a purely materialistic world, where everything is defined and determined by mechanistic, deterministic causes and effects.
If something occurs in our reality, then science says there will be a rational, mechanistic explanation for it.
Drop a ball off the side of a building, that ball will fall because your hand let it go, and then the force of gravity continued to pull it down towards the earth, and when the ball hit the ground, the texture and weight of the ball decided how high it would bounce back up, etc.
EVERYTHYING in the universe can be understood and analyzed in this purely materialistic, mechanistic view of cause and effect –at least, that’s what mainstream science wants us to believe.
To the contrary, anything that occurs WITHOUT a rational, mechanistic explanation, is deemed nothing more than a hoax pending a REAL explanation.
Jesus curing the blind by waving his hand?
Nope, that’s not possible, there had to have been a materialistic, mechanistic explanation for how it worked (if it ever did work). (by the way, I agree that Jesus didn’t cure the blind, highly questionable, like the entire Bible itself.
Moses parting the Red Sea with nothing more than a gesture of his hand?
Nope, that’s not possible.
Science is ALL ABOUT REQUIRING that everything in our universe MUST have a rational, mechanistic, causal explanation for everything that occurs.
Anything WITHOUT a cause and effect explanation is simply not possible.
And yet mainstream science wants you to believe that the entire universe appeared out of nothing.
What could be more AGAINST a mechanistic, materialistic, causal view of the world, than to believe that the entire physical universe appeared from nothing?
Something, from nothing, is INHERENTLY contradictory.
It’s like saying “up is down”, or “white is black”, or “2+2=5”.
Science is 100% opposed to such contradictory paradoxes, yet it’s willing to accept that the very origins of the universe came out of a paradox.
Something cannot come from nothing, according to mainstream science, because that is on par with a miracle or supernaturalism, like Jesus curing the blind or Moses parting the Red Sea.
Things happening without explanation, out of nowhere, are “miracles” and “not possible”, according to science, and thus should be doubted and ignored until legitimate evidence is provided.
And yet the VERY FOUNDATIONS of the entire modern mainstream scientific view is BASED ON a “miracle”—an unsubstantiated leap of faith—a paradoxically contradictory concept known as “the big bang” or “something from nothing.”
It IS a leap of faith to conclude that “something from nothing” is rational and conclusive.
Saying that our universe is purely material, deterministic, mechanistic, and causal (cause and effect), yet saying that it all came out from nothing, is akin to saying 2+2=5.
This is a total cop out by mainstream science—it is an insult to what science SHOULD stand for (open-minded skepticism) and to the critical thinking skills of the masses who simply accept what the high priests of science have told us to believe in.
Saying that the Big Bang is anywhere NEAR a sufficient answer for the origins of the universe is a complete lie and deception.
And because this leap of faith rests at the FOUNDATION of all modern scientific thinking, means that the ENTIRE modern scientific view is poisoned by this belief.
Like a skyscraper with a poorly built foundation, it will be shaky and vulnerable to collapse.
The same is true, with the mainstream scientific view of reality.
And in this way, science IS a religion.
It is a religion that believes we live in a purely physical world of causal mechanisms, yet simultaneously juggles the notion that the universe came from nothing (a NON-causal, non-mechanistic, non-deterministic concept).
So it’s incredibly humorous to me to see Bill Nye the Science Guy, debating Ken Ham the Christian, all while the general public believes this was a debate between a scientist and a religious person—science vs religion.
No, ladies and gentlemen, no: this was not science vs religion, this was religion vs religion.
Again, on an everyday level, science is DEFINITELY behaving like science because it sticks to observable facts to draw its conclusions.
But at the end of the day, the faith placed in our material world as being a consistent, non-contradictory standard for discerning what is, and is not, true, is simply a massive deception that relies on YOUR ignorance and non-thinking to be sustained.
Science is religion.
Liked the Article? Donate to Support More:
1) Pay Pal:
2) Bitcoin: My Address: 1NtSZ7SrVRm9z6KWURNiNPpNbgmoo774sK
CONNECT with Red Pill Philosophy:
- Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/RedPillPhilosophy
- Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/RedPillTweets
- YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/LifeLibertyNow