Calvinistic Cartoons: Scientific Breakthrough

Calvinistic Cartoons: Scientific Breakthrough

Here is another logical implication of experiential knowledge.  Science is always false.  So is "experimental religion."

Thanks to Eddie Eddings and Calvinistic Cartoons for this post.

Theistic Evolution, Common Grace, and Special Revelation

The late Dr. Gordon H. Clark pointed out that science is based on unproven axioms.  Inductive logic can never prove universals.  Someone at the Aquila Report posted this interesting article:

Moving on from what Scripture teaches regarding creation, Pastor Otis briefly discusses the “conflict” between science and faith:

[T]he problem with Christianity and evolution, including theistic evolution, is that we do not have a clash between faith and science but a clash of faith versus faith, that is, we have a clash of worldviews (34). 

From:  Theistic Evolution:  A Sinful Compromise


See also:  Science and Truth, by Dr. Gordon H. Clark

A closer examination of the logic of verification should be made. In the example above, the first veterinarian probably argued: If bacteria cause milk fever, Lugol solution will cure; the disinfectant does cure it; therefore I have verified the hypothesis that bacteria cause milk fever. This argument, as would be explained in a course of deductive logic, is a fallacy. Its invalidity may perhaps be more clearly seen in an artificial example: If a student doggedly works through Plato’s Republic in Greek, he will know the Greek language; this student knows Greek; therefore he has read Plato’s Republic. This is the fallacy of asserting the consequent, and it is invalid whenever used. But it is precisely this fallacy that is used in every case of scientific verification. If the law of gravitation is true, a freely falling body will have a constant acceleration, and the eclipse will begin at 2:58:03p.m.; but freely falling bodies do have a constant acceleration and the eclipse did begin at 2:58:03 p.m.; therefore the law of gravitation is true. Or, if the periodic table of atomic weights is true, a new element of such and such a weight must exist; this new element has now been discovered; therefore the period table is verified. And, if I eat roast turkey and plum pudding, I lose my appetite; I have lost my appetite; therefore, we had roast turkey for dinner. All these arguments are equally invalid. But sometimes there is an adverse reaction if it is claimed that verification never proves the truth of a scientific law. Is it worse to “attack” science, or to “murder” logic?  Gordon H. Clark, Ibid.

Gordon H. Clark and Philosophy of Science | foxinthevineyard

Of course, Clark is by no means the first to realize these problems. Bertrand Russell did:

“All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: ‘If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true.” This argument is of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: “If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing.’ If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.” The Scientific Outlook By Bertrand Russell (Publisher: Routledge; New edition (July 18, 2001)

And Karl Popper in Conjectures and Refutations:

“First, although in science we do our best to find the truth, we are conscious of the fact that we can never be sure whether we have got it…. We know that our scientific theories always remain hypotheses…. In science there is no“knowledge” in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth…. Einstein declared that his theory was false: he said that it would be a better approximation to the truth than Newton’s, but he gave reasons why he would not, even if all predictions came out right, regard it as a true theory…. Our attempts to see and to find the truth are not final, but open to improvement;… our knowledge, our doctrine is conjectural;… it consist of guesses, of hypotheses, rather than of final and certain truths.”

See: Gordon H. Clark and Philosophy of Science | foxinthevineyard

Postmodernism and the Decline of Western Science

With the advent of postmodernism and the departure of the soft sciences from empirical, evidentiary discipline we begin to see the spiraling of science itself into absurdities where reason itself contradicts itself. A good example of this is the transgender movement, homosexuality and gay rights movement, and abortion. It seems obvious that political clout can influence the sciences more than pure science itself.

I guess Thomas Kuhn was right after all. Science is not so much dependent on pure reason and the facts or evidentiary and logical proofs as it is dependent on authoritative sociological factors like peer pressure and dominant paradigms. Seizing the insight of Kuhn, the gay rights and transgender rights movements have actually been able to overturn the dominant paradigm within the scientific community simply by exerting political muscle in the media. Hence, we see homosexuality no longer described as a psychological disorder in the American Psychological Association's catalogue of disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR Fourth Edition.

How long will it be before the transgender lobby also overturns current "science" which describes the transgender condition as a disorder? As it stands now, according to the DSM-IV-TR 4th ed., Gender Identity Disorder is still as disorder contra Barbara Walters and ABC's 20/20:

Gender Identity Disorder is where a persons anatomical sex and their gender identity conflict. This is also called transsexualism. In this disorder, there is a desire to be rid of one's own gender appropriate anatomy and to live as a person of the opposite gender. These people often, but not always, cross-dress to be in line with their gender identity. Increasingly, numbers of those with this disorder are choosing surgical interventions.  (See: Medical Interventions).  (Note:  This is apparently a dead link now.  Sorry about that.)

Notice that the sick patient chooses to mutilate himself or herself with the full approval of the treating psychiatrist/psychologist. Could it be that doctors of psychology and psychiatry are more interested in personal profit than the well being of the patient? Instead of curing the patient of the disorder the doctor helps the patient to mutilate his or her body to conform with the irrational thinking at the root of the disorder.

What other disease is treated by giving the patient the power to treat himself or herself? I suppose we should just dispose of the medical profession altogether and let the patients treat themselves?

If the current trend continues, science itself is headed back toward the dark ages where superstition and magic were dominate over reason. Perhaps we need a healthy dose of Enlightenment/modernist thinking to check this irrational trend toward postmodernist irrationality? Just a thought.

The Transgender Myth

(Note: Click here to read, "I'm a Girl -- Understanding Transgendered Children," on ABC's website).

Last night on ABC's 20/20 Barbara Walters gave the classic propaganda push for the normalization of a condition that is still considered a psychological disorder in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision or DSM-IV-TR. The sad part of this whole debate is that there is practically no scientific proof to support the position taken by Barbara Walters and other popularizers of postmodern mythology, such as homosexuality being a genetic and inborn condition and that the transgender condition is somehow biologically preconditioned by hormonal imbalances.

The real problem is that neither homosexuality nor the transgender condition can be proved from the research available. The best they can do is find some "suggested" links but apparently this research is biased since the assumption is made ahead of time. Amazingly, even the biased science cannot give solid proof for the a priori condition.

This leaves us to assume the obvious. The causes for homosexual and transgender disorders are psychologically induced, which basically goes back to the old nature versus nurture debate. Those of us who have read the material know that most cases of homosexuality and transgender are connected to nurture where a person is converted from heterosexuality to homosexuality or the transgender condition either by self-discovery or by encouragement from a confused and psychologically disordered parent.

Last night's show on 20/20 had at least one clear case where a mother deliberately manipulated harmless childhood role-playing and brainwashed her son into thinking he was a girl trapped in a boy's body. The fact that this goes all the way back to his two to three-year-old childhood and that his mother encouraged and hid the transition from his father for many years shows clearly that the mother deliberately and without shame shaped and molded her son into thinking he was a girl. She even admitted taking him out to buy dresses and otherwise encouraging him to become a girl mentally. There is no way that a child of five or six years of age can understand anything at all about this whole debate about transgender. It is so obvious that the child was influenced by a mother who wanted him to be a girl, rather than a boy who wanted to be a girl. I noted right away that the mother appeared to be of the domineering and overbearing type and that the father himself was "effeminate." Also, telling was the fact that the father's discovery of the manipulations by the mother almost caused them to divorce.

The real irony of this sort of propaganda is that reporters like Barbara Walters will say that religion is wrong because it is not supported by science. Yet when it comes to pushing a political agenda for all sorts of social and psychological aberrations like homosexuality and the transgender condition, true scientific evidence and empirical proofs seem to be completely unnecessary. Science was barely even mentioned in the program except as an aside. Moreover, postmodernism taken to the extreme is an anti-intellectual movement which picks and chooses what science it will accept and what science it will reject.

Even more ironically, the same people pushing the evolutionary theories based on natural selection and random mutations ignore the fact that if homosexuality and transgender is genetically propagated, the burden of proof lies with them to show how this fits with natural selection and evolutionary theory? How does it profit a species to pass on dead-end genes which cannot reproduce because homosexuals don't generally have children? I suppose we could allow for lesbians who get artificially inseminated but that still would not explain the vast majority of cases where homosexuals and transgenders come from otherwise normal bloodlines of heterosexual families.

Basically, a person who becomes a homosexual or a transgendered individual undergoes a psychological conversion process that is essentially in the mind, not something that is genetically or biologically predetermined. On the other hand, to say that a person is biologically predetermined would in fact go against the philosophical principle of free will and would instead support the idea that people are basically slaves to their environment and their natural composition. I suppose in that sense the proponents of homosexuality and transgenderization are in line with evolutionary thinking, which basically says that humans are just another animal that randomly evolved into a more intelligent and intellectually superior species. The assumption is there no God and that we are just a huge cosmic accident or "miracle."

Moreover, this sort of thinking has gone to the absurd level. A transgendered person is the opposite sex trapped in a biological body of sex they were born with. But such a person could have a homosexual orientation, a heterosexual orientation, or a bisexual orientation. Wait a minute, though. Are we referring to the biological sex of the person or the preferred gender of the individual? If we are referring to the biological sex of the person, if they like people of the same biological sex, they are technically "homosexual." But if we buy into the whole transgender myth that they are really the gender they want to be but are trapped in the wrong body, they would then be "heterosexual." This is totally confusing and silly, to be honest. A boy who wants to be a girl would be both a homosexual and a heterosexual, depending on which view you took. Or is he a bisexual or all three at once?

As you can see, modern political correctness has basically become fragmented, anti-intellectual, irrational, and schizophrenic. I could not believe that Barbara Walters could do this program with a straight face. The anti-scientific basis for the whole thing is just astounding to me, especially since they reject conservative Christianity supposedly on the basis of "science." Give me a break!

Christianity is really the basis for solid science and a consistent, coherent, and congruent worldview in the first place. Reason taken out of the context of a Christian worldview leads to all sorts of irrational conclusions including homosexuality and transgenderality. It is time for Christians to step to the plate and do the hard work of intellectual investigation of the issues and to prove the Christian worldview to be the superior and rationally acceptable alternative to the postmodern absurdities we see in the modern media, particularly the deranged and detrimental programming pushed by ABC and Barbara Walters last night.

This shameless piece of propaganda should be rejected for what it essentially is: anti-intellectualism at its worst. It is time for thinking individuals to wake up and stand against this sort of irrational political correctness taken to the extreme. The parents of this little boy should be ashamed of themselves for destroying his life, and ABC and Barbara Walters should be ashamed for promoting the destruction of the future of innocent children who have been brainwashed to promote a political agenda.

May God have mercy!


Charlie

Post script: Isn't it amazing that a two-year-old has the vocabulary of an adult:

When Jazz was two, he asked his mother a question that left her numb and frozen. "[He] said, 'Mommy, when's the good fairy going to come with her magic wand and change, you know, my genitalia?" according to Renee.

This is obviously not a case of "nature" but one of "nurture" where a psychologically disordered mother has chosen to corrupt her son in her desire to have a daughter. The fact that Barbara Walters does not question the mother on this shows her bias and her lack of understanding of the scientific method. Never be afraid to question anything if you are truly a scientist. I question this entire ABC episode and article. It is sheer propaganda, not science. [Post script added 1/25/2009]

Addendum:  Blame Who?