Is New Science Acting Like Old Religion?


Yes. Yes it is. What do I mean by that you ask? Well, let’s think about how Religions of yester-year operated (and certainly some today.)


1) Dogmatic Teachings

2) Make All the Money You Can

3) Rule Politics to Rule through Fear

4) Publically Ridicule Dissenters

5) Excommunicate Heretics


Well, what about the scientific community? Despite what they may sound like, the scientific community doesn’t always use science. I love science. I wish more science was occurring in Universities. Rejecting actual science is like calling Olympic judo fake because John Cena probably doesn’t hit Triple H with a chair as hard as he can in the WWE. Real science uses the scientific method. It’s observable and repeatable. The scientific community on the other hand is a bunch of nameless, faceless entities that get cited when something doesn’t make logical sense. So, when you see the scientific community acting like old religious institutions you should call it out as such.


1) Dogmatic Teachings

Untouchable topics and non-negotiable ideas are cornerstones to religions. Every religion has their tenants that separate them from similar branches. The scientific community has tenants as well – Darwinian evolution and a naturalist view of the universe. Both have serious scientific flaws, but these cannot be debated. In more recent years, man-caused global warming has been added to that list for some reason. There does seem to be an increase in CO2 (mostly from cow farts and not oil consumption, but that’s none of my business), but statements like it’s been the hottest year on record for 12 years in a row is absolutely horrendous science.


2) Make all the Money You Can

Want to find corruption? Follow the money. It’s true for business, politicians, or religion. The Catholic Church in the middle ages actually sold indulgences. Basically they sold their prayer time to the highest bidder. Oh gosh. Want to know how science works today? Follow the money. Stupid science is certainly being funded, but at least stupid science like “do Swedish massages affect procreation in rabbits” (no joke, US taxpayers paid $387,000.00 to help make it happen) is still science. But when you are guaranteed to lose money, prestige, and your career if you venture against the scientific community, it’s easy to see why few do it. It’s suicidal. Its much, much smarter for a scientist to just continue siding with the scientific community. Make alterations to evolution all you want, but if you attack its core, your career is done.


3) Rule Politics to Rule through Fear

Powerful religious leaders seek to influence the governments of which they come in contact with. When the religious leaders want to be like the political leaders, real evils can occur. Intimidation and compliance become a whole lot easier when you have an army at your disposal. The scientific community is doing the same thing. We’ve aborted more children than the casualty total of all U.S. wars combined. All that was built on some faulty science. There are numerous claims that have been proven false in Darwinian evolution and yet these “facts” are still taught in schools because the “science is settled.” Science is never settled. 97% of the scientific community agreeing doesn’t make anything more or less right. Nothing puts this point more on display as to when congressmen begin to cite global warming statistics. Suddenly, all these non-practicing lawyers are stinkin’ meteorologists. Then refer back to rule 2 when you hear them talk carbon taxes. Follow the money.


4) Publically Ridicule Dissenters

There is no more egregious error than to question the “scientific community.” When you critique “settled science.” You get absolutely destroyed by their mouthpiece – the media. There is no faster way to go from genius to moron than to simply question one of these unquestionable truths. The idea that the earth wasn’t the center of the universe caused Galileo to rebuke Copernicus after being threatened by religious institutions. Good thing those guys eventually stuck to the truth. Now-a-days, the backlash feels too great. The Discovery Institute who focuses on research of an Intelligent Designer keeps the identity of hundreds of scientists secret because they know what will happen to their livelihood (it’ll be sleeping with the prehistoric fishes). There are so many scientists who are simply afraid of surfacing because of the ridicule.


5) Excommunicate Heretics

The ultimate tool of religious institutions is excommunication. The pope has excommunicated whole countries before just to put political pressure on kings to do stuff like send their army into war with the Muslims to free Jerusalem. (Before you think religion is the root of all evil in the world, remember science also brought us Nazi experiments, Abortion, Eugenics, Biological warfare, and Nuclear weapons… depraved humans were the problem in both cases.) Science has its own form of excommunication. Ben Stein put up some serious money to produce Expelled a few years ago chronicling professors who just pointed out some basic truths like how the universe displayed teleological evidence of a fine-tuned “instrument,” that life could never come from non-life, and any time you ask a question about macro-evolution (other than, “Did T-Rex have feathers?”). These profs were blackballed from being published, were denied tenure, and even fired for cause. Scientists constantly make claims like those in Intelligent Design are never published, and they never get their work published in distinguished journals. No duh (do people still say that?) You won’t let them. Former atheist Gunter Bechly is chronicling his experience from being one of the foremost Paleontologists in the world to being a pariah because his scientific research revealed inadequate time for macro-evolution to occur without huge leaps. He was readily published until he started having some doubts. No one can attack his research methodology so they just attack him and refuse to publish his work. So sad that someone so smart suddenly devolved to a moron overnight.


I love science, and I think there is a ton of interesting research even in the area of inter-species evolution (even if I’m personally unconvinced.) What I hate is lies to prop-up ones position (including Creationists that have done so). I hate when oppositions are silenced instead of interacted with. We are all going to be dumber if we forcibly eliminate intellectual counterpoints. My only point in this post was just to reveal how the scientific community is acting like religions, and that consensus has replaced good research. There have been plenty of things that had consensus over the years that turned out to be wrong. Good science won’t ever be wrong. Speculative hypothesis on unobservable events at least can be wrong, even if lots of smart people who get paid lots of money to agree just so happen to agree.


Follow…Share…Comment…Like… New Content Every Sunday Night (Usually).



2 thoughts on “Is New Science Acting Like Old Religion?

  1. Ummm…. OK Joe as likely your only science guy I’ll bite.
    Most scientist I know welcome an open challenge and discussion. There is certainly institutional bias on project funding and focus. However, most of the big questions are big and take decades of research to prove or disprove a given hypothesis. Proof of big question hypothesis always tends to be weak because demo experiments cannot be done.The big question research is too often usurpted by public education text book writers who over state the science being attempted. The true scientific community is the least political community on the planet except perhaps for the few, TV evangelist level PhD types that overstate the facts often.
    That said, all humans are subject to the need to do work where you get paid for it. This is an unfortunate reality but I don’t believe this is a huge driver but maybe the system is biased to some degree. Good scientist enjoy upsetting the status quo, as it is generally the only way to true came in science. Very few pastors will hang around preaching without pay. I know a few, but not many. Scientist work for food too. Even Kepler in the 1500’s worked in off hours developing the concept of elliptical orbital mechanics while funding his livelyhood by reading astrological signs to advise both Catholic and Protestant Kings if they should go to war or not on a certain day. He did this while fully acknowledged it was foolery in his private writings.

    1. I got a couple science guys but you’re one of my favorites ;) Perhaps I need a better word than “scientific community” but it’s all I have. I agree that real scientists are a-political and their stuff more often gets co-opted into being something it wasn’t intended for. I besmirch no one from getting paid and I do think there’s some really cool stuff going on out there but there’s tons of fluff that gets grabbed as a lead-in for Good Morning America ;) my biggest issues is what’s happening with people like Michael Behe, Guillermo Gonzalez, and the like. I would say that it’s the philosophical scientists (not the guys in the lab) that spew the most rhetoric but scientific journals and many scientific symposiums exclude the possibility for “God” even when they use good science to present strong cases for Intelligent Design. I don’t think good scientist should ever exclude the possibility of an outside agent. I think other possibilities should be exhausted and we shouldn’t be quick to put “God in the gaps” but overall it’s extremely dangerous to not allow the possibility for something (no matter how crazy it is ;). (I know you are down with a Designer ;)
      I think you rightly brought up the TV evangelists. Yeah, no real theologians like them. Just like no real scientists like the TV science guys ;) I do think there’s lots of similarities in what the Medieval scientists dealt with in the Catholic Church. To what some modern Christian scientists deal with in some scientific communities. (But doctorates in ministry don’t get invited to the cool doctorate tables :( so I can find out first hand.) Thanks for the thoughts man. Love talking to you. I got a couple questions for you in some genetic and fossil things that hopefully you can just help me with or point me in the right direction. I’ll try to put my thoughts in actual sentence form ;)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s