This is counterculture from the underground. (lafinjack) wrote in ontd_political,
This is counterculture from the underground.
lafinjack
ontd_political

Creationism and science: wider implications

Evolutionists love to assert that, if creationism gains the ascendancy in education, then science will no longer advance and will even back-slide. To the contrary, creationism, far from being deleterious to science, would be beneficial.

To begin with: to assert, as Marc Adler does, that "the building blocks of biology" (or indeed any other branch of science) "rely on evolution" is simply false. Most of biology is still an operational science, a study of how living things work. That study has never derived any benefit from a consideration of the origin of life. That's fortunate, because no one has yet settled the question of where the first cell arose. The response to repeated challenges with the question, "Where did the first cell come from?", is either:

  • "Wait and see; we'll find out" (when? We've been waiting for a century and a half.) or:

  • "It doesn't matter, for nothing need have had a first cause" (in which case, how can one draw a single tree of life?).


  • Moreover, as this Examiner has previously discussed, many of the supposed insights that modern medicine has derived from evolution have been wrongheaded and even harmful to man, in violation of the First Principle of Medicine: Primum non nocere.

    Translation: First of all, to do no harm.

    With this in mind, herewith an alternative to Adler's fevered apocalyptic vision of what a society would look like if it governed itself according to "conservative" principles in politics, including the role that creationism would play.

    One caveat: with regard to "the compulsory inculcation of creationism in the classroom," a conservative society would not use the government to compel any form of education. Ideally, public schools would not exist, with the result that questions of "establishment of religion" would never arise in that context. Therefore one can safely lay aside the question of "compulsory religious education." (The spectacle of compulsory anti-religious education in schools today is a different debate, for a different Examiner to take up.)

    This hypothetical creation-oriented society would take scientific education, research, and investigation in a new direction. Astronomers would stop looking for "dark matter" and "dark energy," and instead develop a uniform cosmology with insights from the Annals of Creation. It would find this model much simpler than the Big Bang model has now become.

    Geology would return to its pre-Lyell understanding. The result might, perhaps, lead to improved fossil-fuel exploration, and would be more likely to lead to improvements in prospecting for uranium, thorium, and other radioactive minerals. The realization that radioactive elements on earth had their origins in a spate of ultra-high-magnitude earthquakes might lead to an investigation of whether more radioactive materials might suddenly become "discoverable" near the epicenters of any future magnitude-eight or stronger earthquakes. Indeed, the careful study of veins of uranium, thorium, and similar ores, and of the magnetic ores, might lead to better mapping of earthquake zones.

    Medicine would abandon its hubristic seeking after "designer drugs," its careless disregard of the possible functions of various organs (like the vermiform appendix), and its almost willful ignorance of the role of diet in human health (and animal husbandry). Creationism would reinforce the notion that mankind, and for that matter every animal, is specifically designed to use certain foodstuffs that are, in turn, specifically designed to serve as good, healthful food. Such a society would necessarily abandon the modern Western diet and rediscover the health-maintaining practices that the Bible mentions (and that are still current, in only slightly modified form, in the Middle East, and especially in Israel).

    Zoology would become a much more exciting discipline than it is today. Zoologists would look on the woolly mammoth with new understanding. Expeditions to find live dinosaurs would be more than the stuff of science fiction (cf. The Lost World, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) and would receive serious attention and funding. And this Examiner does not doubt that at least some would be successful.

    Linguistics would take up the question of whether Hebrew (or a sort of Old High Hebrew) is the original root language of mankind. History and ethnology would seek to expand upon the Annals of Shem (specifically the Table of Nations) and the histories and chronologies of certain ancient peoples who had contact with the Hebrew people from time to time. And every shipwright in this society would stand in humble awe of the greatest and most important project in the annals of naval architecture. For that matter, serious attempts to reverse-engineer Noah's Ark might lead to rediscoveries of certain lost shipbuilding arts that would make modern ships safer than they are today.

    In short, creationism, far from retarding science, would free it to fulfill its proper role: knowledge and understanding of the true nature of man, and how to live as God intended him to live, rather than a prideful pursuit of "improvements" that turn out to be, quite simply, curses.


    Examiner.com
    Tags: creationism, medicine, not the onion, religion, religious politics, science
    Subscribe

    • Post a new comment

      Error

      Comments allowed for members only

      Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

      default userpic

      Your reply will be screened

      Your IP address will be recorded 

    • 67 comments
    Previous
    ← Ctrl ← Alt
    Next
    Ctrl → Alt →
    Previous
    ← Ctrl ← Alt
    Next
    Ctrl → Alt →