What does march for science mean that “science is a human process”?

 

Citizen Journalist      04/23/2017

 

Stand up and “March for Science” say people don’t know what science is.

March for science or march for money?

 

By march skeptic

 

Will J Grant and Rod Lambert, the march organizers, struggled with the message behind the “March for Science” rally.

We should march, they said a month ago, because “science is a human process”, which will be news to people who thought science was about evidence and reason instead. On Saturday 4/22/17 they will be marching for the kind of science that is  “passion” and “belief”.

Don’t turn up thinking this is about the dispassionate Laws of Physics. You’ll be at the wrong rally.

The organisers want Marchers to feel like they have the high ground, the smarts.

People with a different scientific opinion are obviously dumb, wrong, dangerous or just unpleasant.

Grant and Lamberts, organizers of march,  advice includes telling Marchers “Now is not the time to try to “correct” the misconceptions and “woo” of people who might not be as scientifically informed as you.

He might as well put out a clickbait advertisement for a free booster shot of scientific ego. This march is for the A+  science students who never got A but know they should have. Come march with us, we are all so clevah.

And they’ll need to be clever if they are going to simultaneously follow his advice and “not correct misconceptions” while they also “stick to their guns”.

For skeptical scientists, if we were Marching for Science we wouldn’t have to work out what we were marching for with four weeks to go.

It’s a wonderful feeling to unite with like-minded people, but let’s strive to show we are united for something that non-science people can relate to as well, or we’ll be portrayed as being united against those very same folks.

So even when you are making “different noises” in a march that no one knows what the mission is, it’s good to unite with “like-minds” — people who are just as confused.

As for being afraid of being portrayed as being united against “those very same folks” — the Marchers might stop calling them dumb, wrong, dangerous and unpleasant maybe?

__________________

 

Editor Note     04/23/2017

 

Real science  is not about “passion” and “belief”.

Most people don’t realize is that there are two types of science. They are called operational science and historical science, and they deal with two very different things:

Operational science is the type of science that one might do in a laboratory, about how the world works. It’s all based on what you actually see. You can perform tests and observe what happens. For example, at sea level, water will always boil at the same temperature (100° C or 212° F). In operational science, anyone can repeat an experiment and see if they get the same results. Testable and repeatable science is why we have smartphones, spaceships, and lots of other inventions.

Historical science deals with what happened in the past, but you cannot do experiments on events in the past. An example of this would be paleontology (the study of fossils). Scientists might unearth a dinosaur fossil and then tell a story of how long ago the dinosaur lived and died. But the scientists’ ideas about how old it is cannot be directly tested because it happened in the past without direct witnesses.  Credit Creation.com

 

Actually there are 3 types of science.

The third is made up “science” disguised as real science.

This is the “science” of evolution.

Evolution = Millions Of Years + Your Imagination

or

Global warming/climate change = made up data + your imagination

When  Richard dawkins said: “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”

He admitted that evolution “science” is NOT real science because it has not been observed nor tested.

Is historical science real science? Can creationists use historical science?

Yes; creationists also use it to come up with ideas about what we think happened in the past, just like evolutionists. The difference is that creationists have eye witnesses for the big events of the past, and use historical science to explore the detail.

For instance, creation geologists use what we know from small-scale disasters like the Mt St Helens volcanic eruption (to find out more about this, search for ‘Mt St Helens’ on creation.com) to explain what may have happened during the global Flood in Noah’s day.

The Bible has a better history than evolution. The Bible is the history book of the universe, so it should be our authority when it comes to looking at the past.

Can historical science prove creation or evolution?

No, but it can give people ideas about what possibly happened in the past. Actually, creationists and evolutionists have the same set of facts—the same fossils, rocks, living things, and so on.

Those facts are interpreted by creationists and evolutionists as evidence for one view or the other, but the facts themselves aren’t automatically ‘for’ one side or the other. So basically everyone has the same evidence, just different interpretations.

A good example is what we think happened to the dinosaurs. An evolutionist might say it was an impact from an asteroid. And a creationist might say they became extinct due to changes in the weather after the Flood, or even possibly as a result of humans hunting them.  (Credit Creation.com)

So why do people only hear the evolutionary view?

For many reasons, evolution has long been the popular view of most scientists, but it wasn’t always that way. Almost all fields of science were started by Bible-believing thinkers. But, since creation is linked with Christianity and not natural processes, people argue that teaching creation in schools and public museums is teaching ‘religion’, not science.

What they don’t realize is that evolution is also linked with a religion—atheism, that denies God as the Creator.

How do I know when historical science is right or wrong?

We can’t know for sure what happened in the past unless there is an eyewitness—and the Bible has a trustworthy eyewitness—God Himself! So when historical science disagrees with the Bible, it is wrong.

Creationists try to develop scientific ideas based upon the Bible’s history in areas such as astronomy (the study of stars), geology (the study of rocks and landforms), paleontology (fossils) and archaeology (ancient human artifacts). But even these ideas can change when we make some new discovery. (Credit Creation.com)

Creation magazine archive (Creation.com)

Feature Archive of Creation Ministries International

 

Darwinian evolution—is pure fiction. Prof. Richard Dawkins once famously said:

“Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”14

It has never been observed but that is what science requires—observation of evidence. What Dawkins is really referring to is historical science, not operational science. The latter can be observed while it is happening.15 The former cannot. As the famous evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr admitted,

“For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”16

 

The religion of death.

Evolutionists construct a historical narrative such as a GooToYou reason for your existence.

A man made reason for your existence and how you and everything was created.

This is a man made religion of death.

Atheists and those who trust in evolution as their creator believe there is no God nor life after death.

They are trusting that death is the end of everything for them.

Atheists and evolutionists will not tell you they have a religion of death and are trusting in death to end it all but that is what they are doing.

 

In contrast is the religion of life.

This belief in Jesus as saviour and eternal life after death.

This is the “everlasting gospel”.

The “gospel” consists not only of the redemptive work of Christ, but His entire person and work as well.

The message of the “everlasting gospel” is to “worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters”

The word gospel means good news.

From creation to redemption to ultimate restoration, all is “good news,” all the work and person of Christ.

The good news gospel of creation is all around you every day declaring:

Psalm 19:1-3 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. 19:2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. 19:3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

We all see the evidence of God’s creation. How we interpret what we see helps us make sense of this present world. The Bible, the “history book of the universe”, provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things.

When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account. The universe is “fined tuned” for life, ie designed by a designer, creator, The Lord GOD Almighty.

GoodNewspost.com (KJV Bible)

FineTunedUniverse.com

(Gen1.org) Fine Tuned Universe CREATED BY GOD BY Design. The Heavens Declare The Glory Of GOD.   (Gen1.org) FINE TUNED UNIVERSE On Your ROKU Player.

EVOLUTION 101 (25 FREE LESSONS FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS).

TAKE THE EVOLUTION TEST (EVOLUTION FLUNKED THE SCIENCE TEST! (PDF FILE))

SIX 24 HOUR DAYS OF CREATION

EVOLUTION’S MILLIONS OF YEARS OF CREATION DISPROVED/REFUTED!

BIBLICAL EVIDENCE THAT THE FLOOD WAS A YEAR-LONG, GLOBAL CATASTROPHE

READ THE ONLINE BOOK  (EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION)

WWW.GEN1.ORG

REFUTING EVOLUTION (BOOK)

Jesus asked his disciples in Matthew 16:15, “But who do you say that I am?”
Peter answered Jesus question, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (16:16)
Even if we did not have a shred of scientific evidence, the testimony of scripture, affirmed by Jesus, our Creator, would be sufficient for us to reject evolution and their billions of years explanation of creation.