Skeptical of Science?

After reading a blog of an avowed "science skeptic" I have realized that I should make it clear that I am not, by any means, skeptical of science. On the contrary, I believe intensely in empiricism with overtones of forensics, with the caveat that they both be strictly managed and adhered to. There is no doubt in my mind, nor should there be doubt in anyone's mind, that the ability to produce 100 billion bits of reliable memory on the size of a finger nail clipping is due to empiricism and forensics in very large doses. Controlled and accurate doses. Other such achievements could be prattled on about for... well, forever almost.

No. What I am skeptical of are those who claim that science has the ability to resolve all human issues and finally, in the end, produce limitless happiness - if only all humans would reject God and accept the scientist as the being encapsulated with all possible knowledge. This is the mantra of the four intellectual frauds of the "New Atheism". It is Philosophical Materialism, not science.

Philosophical Materialism is not just logically paradoxical, it is a precursor to political disaster. It has produced the bloodshed of an estimated 250,000,000 individuals in the last 90 years alone. Yet even today there are those who not only evangelize for Materialism, they also demonize those who disagree. These people are in no way promoting science, regardless of their pseudoscientific camouflage. Because they are activists for an agenda, and their motives intellectually dishonest, they seem to be able to spout any fallacy and then be rewarded for it with roars of approval from their mass of worshipful followers. (Do any real scientists have masses of worshipful followers? What sort of science would engender such emotional devotion?)

Science, in terms of intellectual honesty, is self-regulating at least in the technology arena where validity counts. However, off in the mud and crud of "pure" science there seems no longer to be any filter to strain off the agendas. In such an atmosphere agendas have taken control, especially in the story-telling "sciences" such as humanities and evolutionary-whatever. It is the story-telling activities that should not even be called science, because there is no hope of gaining either empirical or forensic proof or finality. So the stories are allowed to bloom into phantasmagoria, yet are unquestionable because they are still called science rather than the fantasy extrapolations and speculations that they actually are.

An example occurs to me. Over on an evolution website - the URL escapes me at the moment - there is considerable attention given to the development of the internal ear as seen in a series of fossils. The claim is that the ear came from spare jaw bones. The hearing mechanism migrates from a "spare jaw bone" or maybe two, through a series of transmogrifications, finally developing into an internal ear; the fossils are conveniently lined up to demonstrate this visually.

However, if one thinks about what is present at each fossil stage, the entire hearing mechanism was always present in each of the fossils, starting with the first fossil. All that actually happened was that the size and shape of the mechanism changed with time, becoming more compact. As I recall even the membrane was likely present in the original fossil, only it was configured in a larger fashion. It is obvious that the claim of an internal ear devloping out of an unrelatied jaw bone is incorrect; in fact it is a fraud, in my opinion, driven by the need to produce evidence to fit the evolution demand. It is a blatant exercise in rationalization, which is a rational fallacy.

So this is a corruption of real science. Of this false science and its purveyors I am, indeed, skeptical. I hope to promote a healthy skepticism in any and all who value accuracy and validity. I never, ever accept "scientists say..." at its face value. No one ever should. Some "scientists" do not actually value objective, agenda-free science. They value social engineering which requires the destruction of religion.