From my post on Gonzalez’s work I got to thinking about some of the other faux sciences that materialists in academia have glommed onto. But first, some history. Having spoken about Newton before, I thought I’d start there. Newton was a very spiritual person, and all of his findings he felt glorified God (the Christian God of course, as that was his religion.)
Let’s fast forward to the current climate. The materialists that have seized the reins of academia have crucified Gonzalez for stating things that are not under dispute and providing good science that they see as a threat to their worldview. To counter the views of Gonzalez and the well-accepted fine tuning the materialists bring us multi-universe theories. Gonzalez’s ideas are testable (he even lays out how to test and falsify them.) How will we ever falsify an alternate universe or test for it?
The materialists bring us abiogenesis. There is no evidence for abiogenesis and no way to test for it as of now, yet it is still considered science. The closest that we have come are the old experiments by Stanley Miller, which admittedly showed what he set out to show, but did not demonstrate abiogenesis.
The materialists also bring us evolution. We are told that evolution is tested daily, that evolutionists are publishing and expanding their work on a daily basis. But, is this true? Is evolution really testable? Not really, it’s an assumption that is used widely and regularly changed to fit the facts after the facts are discovered. Evolution does not make testable predictions and there are certainly many problems with it that are glossed over by the current group that rule academia.
So, let’s go back to Newton. What would the current group of materialist academics say about his theories had they lived back then? I strongly suspect that gravity would have been labeled as unscientific and Newton vilified. And yet, they claim that ID science is a show-stopper? This is down-right absurd.