Popular Science is Propaganda

Popular science is effectively propaganda, and since people do not recognize it as propaganda but as fact proven and accepted by more educated people it is accepted as a foundation worthy of building entire world-views on. Let me define the difference I mean by popular science and science (without adjective). Science would include all experimental and observational observations of the universe and the rules that govern it. Popular science includes only the findings and theories that trickle down to the public through engines like magazines, word of mouth, unspoken implications of educated people, and the like. And this is a poor, and biased, representation of the true collection of scientific findings and theories.

Poor, because the uneducated member of the mass is in fact uneducated and does not understand the language with which educated people communicate with other educated people in their respective field. Therefore, to be put in a language which the uneducated person can understand it must be translated, and important logical progressions are ‘lost in translation’. For the logical progression from experimental data or observations to theory and ‘fact’ to be communicated in its fullness the language of the educated must be used. Therefore the presentation that is in the language of the ignorant is inherently unwholesome. This puts the uneducated in a limiting position that as long as they remain uneducated their understanding of scientific theory and the method which was applied to reach it is going to be poor. This can only be changing by becoming educated enough to understand the language of the learned.

Another unfortunate consequence of being uneducated, myself certainly being included, is that one is forced to believe on a person’s credential’s their conclusions. For the true validity of the conclusions, unless they were made by such gross logical error that is apparent in even an incomprehensive representation, can only be refuted in the logical progression from data to theory. The logical progression must, as is evident in the word progression used to describe it, consist of an order of steps where to go from one to the next makes sense. An educated person would understand the language that is used to describe the steps taken and therefore test its logic. If an assumption was made and then conclusions made founded on that assumption, it is obvious that the conclusions are only as reliable as the assumption. If the assumption was faulty, then even perfectly logical progression that follows reaches a faulty conclusion. But the uneducated man only sees the ‘dumbed down’ version of this logic, and must assume that it is based on reliable assumptions and logical progression. And this assumption is based on the belief that the author of scientific conclusions ‘knows what he is talking about’, for he surely does not.

This opens the door for propaganda, the engines of which I believe to be foolishness and devilishness. Foolishness comes from the scientist who made an incorrect assumption or an error in logic and presents his faulty conclusions to the public without knowing they are faulty. This man is not to blame, because if we humans were really responsible for our foolishness we would experience a great deal more negative consequences than we do. As it is, we ‘get away with it’ because there are people keeping us in check even when we don’t know it, cleaning up our messes, and bearing our consequences. A shepherd is needed to keep us foolish sheep, and fortunately for us we have One. Very fortunately, indeed. So this foolish scientist is not the blame for the foolishness that he propagates to the public, the fault falls to his community that confirms or approves of his findings and therefore affirming that this man ‘knows what he is talking about’. If the entire scientific community is made up of fools that cannot recognize a faulty assumption or poor logic or would present an untested conclusion to a public that will accept their word on their word then as the uneducated masses we are screwed. And this may be the case, but I am going to hope that there are people investigating the universe who can see clearly and are after the truth.

Unfortunately, there are people who care more about proving what they want to prove over the truth for the sake of the truth. These people take the conclusion that they want to reach and work backwards to fit the data they have in front of them to it. Of course this is what is done when proving or disproving a hypothesis and good science includes this backward working to see if data fits the conclusion. Devilishness is introduced though when the data is altered to fit the hypothesis because it is not acceptable for the hypothesis to be false. I am not making the accusation of straight falsifying of data, but that unacceptable data would be selectively swept under the rug. I am also not assuming that all people who consider themselves Christians are innocent of this crime, for there are a number of fools who chose what to see and what to pretend is not there because they cannot reconcile the whole spectrum of what is seen to what they need to be true. I am still a fool and most likely do not see the whole spectrum, but I do not do it intentionally for I am confident that everything is consistent with the Bible and the true character of God, so that everything may be looked straight in the face and God still be real and the recorded Word of God still perfect.

When this devilishness of setting out to prove a certain hypothesis and doing making whatever unfounded assumptions necessary to reach it is introduced into science, it is a mark of the Enemy who wishes to spread lies and confusion, and when it is trumpeted into the masses to have it accepted on the word of the ones who ‘know what they are talking about’ it is propaganda. And unfortunately, it seems that this Enemy is ruling what is acceptable in the scientific community, anything that is not ‘acceptable’ is censored out of respected scientific journals and the information that trickles down to the public. When this method of selective truth is applied to the furthering of public opinion in regards to politics, we do not hesitate in calling it propaganda. I simply extend this accusation to what has been done to public beliefs about what is scientific “fact”. Personally I cannot wait until the prince of this world is cast down and we live in the principality of the Prince of peace.

If this interests you, check out this website: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
I wrote this rant (that is what this is, isn't it?) after reading it. Stuff like this is not allowed to reach the public's ears from the "credible" sources (aka the media or education, basically). For some to read it on a website like the one linked to, or to have it's information promoted by one like this means nothing. For some this is because these sites are not "credible" sources of information, and for some they have just already decided what to believe and to be told that it might not be true is shrugged aside as foolishness and the ones endorsing it fools. As for me the wisdom of the ones the world hails as wise is usually not trustworthy, for they tend to have their hands in too many pockets. Perhaps it is good to consider the wisdom of fools every now and then.