The charge of being anti-science is one of several often-used derogatory terms used by evolutionist against creationists. Now you will find some Christians for whom this charge is legitimate, but it is not a label the generally applies to creationists in fact most active creationists love science. The problem that most creationists have is the pushing of what can best be described as atheistic mythology in the guise of science.

The legitimate definition of anti-science is a set of attitudes that involve a rejection of science and the scientific method. Definition commonly used by evolutionist and others is the rejection of mainstream scientific views and methods or their replacement with unproven or deliberately misleading theories. With mainstream science referring to institutionalized science. The differences in these two definitions are considerable. The first definition Is about rejection of the very principles of science in general such as the scientific method. The second focuses on specific theoretical concepts being pushed by institutionalized science. In other words, the first one, which is a legitimate use of the term, is a rejection of science in principle. While the second is used against those who disagree with specific claims made under science. There is a huge difference in the meanings of these definitions. By the way in the second definition, I will give you one guess who gets decide whether or not a theory is unproven or deliberately misleading.

One of the things that is ignored in the usage of such derogatory labels is that a disagreement with and challenging of current widely accepted concepts in science has often been a key to how science progresses. If this attitude had existed in the early 20th century, then Special and General Relativity along with Quantum Mechanics would have been rejected with scientists such as Albert Einstein and Max Plank being dismissed as being anti-science. The use of such derogatory labels for the purpose of protecting certain ideas being promoted as science that are highly questionable but promoted as proven fact. This tendency is often based on philosophical and political grounds. For example, universal common descent evolution and the Big Bang, are philosophically connected to atheism, and man caused climate change is known to have it roots in leftist thinking.

The political nature of the use of such derogatory terms is evident by the fact, that people have opposed mandatory masks, closedowns, and vaccines, because such mandates are an attack on individual liberty are finding this label applied to them whether or not they are questioning the scientific claims involved. Those using these labels are basically saying but you not only have to agree with them in these areas, but you also have to allow them to decree what solutions you must follow.

This tyranny of the experts is exactly what kept the Catholic Church in power for centuries. What caused them to lose that power was when the average man got the Bible in their own language and was able to read it for themselves. What makes this current version of tyranny of the experts even worse, is that you are not considered an expert unless you agree with certain viewpoints.

When I was younger, I struggled with both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, part of the problem was the way the textbooks present them, they came across as mathematical abstractions that needed a more physical explanation. I spent years working on such an explanation and even developed a pretty good model. I was able to do this because I had the freedom to work on the problem. However, that model made a prediction that I was able to test that showed it was wrong. Also, at the same time I discovered a solution to the problems that I had with Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Because of this effort, I not only have a better understanding of both theories, but you will also find me defending them better than those who blindly accepted them. Furthermore, it has led me to discover a way of unifying General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics which I am currently working on. This resulted from the freedom to investigate, something that a tyranny of experts does not allow.

The point is that the use of such derogatory terms as “anti-science” presupposes that the viewpoint of those using the term is the only legitimate one. They insist that anyone who disagrees with that viewpoint is against science itself. Ironically this is in and of itself a real anti-science attitude because it violates the contingent nature of scientific thought.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive