Science Will Govern Us

Picture hat tip to Bob S. but not authored by him.  

WAKE UP YOU PROPAGANDIZED PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will publish a series of articles on the 15 Questions, beginning with these articles.   Any leftover questions that do not address the rationalwiki (ironic name) so-called answers will be taken on after this mini-series.   Note that I am staying on project and wondering if Darwinist commenters can do the same?  I know my man Piltdown Superman and Creation.com are working on this project and have inspired me to do the same.  After all, Darwinists really cannot deal with the 15 questions honestly (Please go look and see for yourself)!  So today an article from each source:

Piltdown Superman today!

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2013

Science Will Govern Us

stock.xchng/Viajero1

How would you like to live in a world run by "science"? Never mind that "science" is a philosophical concept and not a living entity. People have elevated scientists (the people who do science stuff) into a class of intellectuals who are unbiased and have the highest morals, so they are best suited to govern us, yes? Of course, those of us who know that the science does not support evolution would be considered "anti-science" (even more than the rants of Darwin's Cheerleaders would have you believe). Are scientists really suited to govern? We may find out, whether we like it or not.

The scientocracy C. S. Lewis feared is seriously being considered by left-leaning, abortion-promoting scientism communities.

“Time for science to seize political power” blazes a headline on New Scientistby Michael Brooks.

In your wildest dreams, could you imagine a government that builds its policies on carefully gathered scientific evidence? One that publishes the rationale behind its decisions, complete with data, analysis and supporting arguments? Well, dream no longer: that’s where the UK is heading.

But why would they need to “seize” political power instead of use the methods of democracy?  Brooks used the either-or and loaded-words tactics of portraying anything but scientocracy as “hunch-based politics,” failing to define evidence in “scientific evidence,” a philosophically vexed notion.  His description of science fits the classic definition of scientism: the belief that the scientific method is the only sure pathway to truth.

Perhaps the food in the UK influences their thinking? Naw, Brits have a stable diet. Anyway, you can read the rest of "Scientocracy Is Coming", here. And then you might like to see this video:

That video is must-see TV!   Informative, humorous and entertaining...

 "POSTING LINKS TO RADAR'S STUFF SO MOAR PEOPLE CAN SEE 'EM!"

Oops!  Not a good crop job on my part...but thanks to Bob S anyway...

Abiogenesis was begun and that in and of itself is unscientific, as Biogenesis was a Law and remained unbroken.  There was no scientific reason to abandon it, only religious ones.

The same is true concerning the origin of the Universe.   Scientists generally believed that God created it OR that it was eternal before the Darwinist propaganda took hold.   Some thought that God had created a Universe that would never end, giving it a beginning but no end.  Now we have evidence that the Universe has an end and had a beginning.  Darwinists like to make the ridiculous claim that God is "magic" but a "singularity with no causation or power that made everything by exploding" is science?   You call that logic?  You might want to check out the equations for the Big Bang that now feature 96% unobserved matter and energy...now that sounds like a fairy tale to me!

Creation by God is logical and best fits the evidence we have available to us.  One of the biggest lies ever told is that evolution is "proven fact" when it is rather an unproven and poorly supported hypothesis.

Responses to our 15 Questions: part 1

General objections and attempted answers to questions 1–3

Published: 7 September 2011(GMT+10)

Since we kicked off our Question Evolution campaign, responses have been pouring in from evolutionists and skeptics attempting to answer our 15 Questions for Evolutionists (by Dr Don Batten). We’ve compiled many of the answers that we’ve received to date (paraphrased to cover as many versions of the objection we’ve received as possible), along with our refutations. Several of CMI’s staff have contributed to this response, including Jonathan Sarfati, Rob Carter, Don Batten and Lita Cosner.

Note: many of the answers published here cover far more ground than the pamphlet could, since it necessarily dealt with the topics in an abbreviated form.

General Objections: These are objections which may deal with the pamphlet in general.

Objection 1: These questions are only unanswerable because our science isn’t advanced enough.

Rebuttal: But if science has not yet advanced, then how could materialistic scientists possibly know what can be answered in the future? 

To read the rest, click here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Darwinists!!! So prone to logical fallacies and yet constantly accusing Creationists of using them? But the evidence will win out!   Would you believe that they are STILL using Dawkin's WEASEL and GA programs and citrase-eating bacteria as evidence for evolution?   Oh, yes they are!   Have I asked you to go to rationalwiki enough times that you will do it?   If you know the subject, it will either make you laugh or sadly shake your head!