Science
True science and pseudoscience
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Keywords that characterize a scientific theory are observation and experimentation.
Keywords that characterize the scientific method are testability and reproducibility.
If it is not repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation it is not true science.
Microevolution is the observable variety within a species and is therefore scientific.
Macroevolution is the unobservable change from one unique life form into another unique life form
and is therefore not scientific.
Macroevolution is not observable, not testable and not reproducible.
True scientists seek to let reality speak for itself. Reality and
causality show that
specified complexity is only caused by
intelligent agents. Against all
logic the unprovable philosophy
naturalism forces evolutionists to
believe it is caused by mindless
naturalistic processes.

Science is not just the collection of data and facts about nature. Science involves a method of investigation of nature that allows the
discovery of knowledge not previously known. A closed mind has no room for new knowledge.
Open-mindedness is receptiveness to new ideas.
Intelligent design is an idea fanatically opposed by evolutionists simply because it
supports supernaturalism which overpowers naturalism. According to
objectivity in science scientists must aspire to eliminate
personal biases,
a priori commitments, emotional involvement, etc.
According to good science scientists should never narrow their minds to unprovable philosophies like for example
naturalism.
But that's of course exactly what naturalists do and what they impose on the rest of the world via their powerful
mainstream science organizations.

Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
Occam's razor states that among competing hypotheses,
the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
Scientists should not make up far-fetched
theories that unnecessarily go beyond what is observable and true. The blind acceptance of the philosophy
naturalism makes evolutionists go far beyond the
limits of science when trying to explain origins. Examples are the
big bang,
abiogenesis,
macroevolution,
uniformitarianism,
multiverse,
evolutionary psychology, etcetera.
Limits of science




Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected. ... The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth”.
Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore
part of the mystery that we are trying to solve. ...
Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words:
Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.
True scientists know the limits of science.
Water consists of Hydrogen and Oxygen, Hydrogen consists of a proton and an electron, and an electron is an
elementary particle.
Elementary simply means we don't know of what it is made. Etcetera.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
shows that absolute knowledge is an illusion to mankind. Reality is much greater than science.
True scientists honestly admit that science itself is based on
faith because it is based on certain unprovable axioms or assumptions.
Hence the philosophy of science.
Because science is limited people are inevitably forced to resort to philosophy. This shows philosophy's superiority over science.
Science can not even prove itself. Science is a product of the
human mind but it can not explain the human mind itself.
That which is created can never exceed or be equal to its creator.
People can experience love and hate, but love and hate can't be proven by science. Science can somehow imply that the
universe had a beginning but it can't explain what caused the so-called
big bang to happen.
Questions about origins belong to philosophy, not to science.
Every answer in science leads to more questions or unknowns. Science may be a useful tool for explaining natural phenomena to some extent
but the limits of science are real and should be respected. The supernatural can never be disproven by
naturalism.
The supernatural on the other hand can easily explain the natural.
Evolutionary pseudoscience

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

Darwin observed microevolution and presented a theory of unobservable
macroevolution based on speculations.
The reality is that nobody ever witnessed a life form change into another, nor did anybody observe the appearance of
new functional features not already present in the
genetic makeup of an existing life form. This is common knowledge.
Evolutionists go far beyond the limits of science in order to try to find evidence for their
fanatic belief. Testing macroevolution in a laboratory is impossible.
Therefore fanatic evolutionists invented untestable mathematical theories in an attempt to support their belief. See
neo-Darwinism. The foundations of evolution theory are the philosophies
naturalism and
uniformitarianism and they are of course not scientific to begin with.
Here's what a prominent evolutionist from the world of mainstream science says about science...
Science ... is really the best way of knowing that we human beings have come up with... for understanding the natural world.
It has often and confidently been asserted, that man's origin can never be known: but ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge:
it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
Evolutionists tend to scientism.
Scientism is very narrow-minded and bad philosophy to say the least.
Science can not even prove itself. So in order to believe that science will ultimately prove everything one has to be utterly stupid.
Nonetheless today we have reached a point in time where popular mainstream scientists make statements like
"philosophy is dead".
Such scientists perhaps know much about their limited field of science, but they know as good as nothing about the overarching philosophy of science.
The philosophy naturalism narrows the mind and the view of its practitioners to a point
where they will even deny reality and true science in order to maintain their fanatic belief in it.
The world of mainstream science is corrupted with this philosophy since at least
the 19th century with the rise of naturalism and evolution theory.
Peter Medawar - The Limits of Science
John G. West - The Magician's Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society
Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion
Ian Hutchinson - Monopolizing Knowledge
Manuel Alfonseca - The myth of progress in the evolution of Science
Edward Remler - Number and System
Miles Mathis - Celestial Mechanics: Unanswered Questions
Science Against Evolution - Is Evolution Scientific?
Science Against Evolution - What I Knew in '62
John Horgan - Science Will Never Explain Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing
Power to Change - Five Things Science Can't Explain
Liam Scheff - Science Will Save Us
Videos...
Ian Hutchinson - A Refutation of Scientism
John Lennox - Does Science Require Faith?
William Lane Craig - Does science prove everything?
John G. West - The Magician's Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism, and Society
Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion
Ian Hutchinson - Monopolizing Knowledge
Manuel Alfonseca - The myth of progress in the evolution of Science
Edward Remler - Number and System
Miles Mathis - Celestial Mechanics: Unanswered Questions
Science Against Evolution - Is Evolution Scientific?
Science Against Evolution - What I Knew in '62
John Horgan - Science Will Never Explain Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing
Power to Change - Five Things Science Can't Explain
Liam Scheff - Science Will Save Us
Videos...
Ian Hutchinson - A Refutation of Scientism
John Lennox - Does Science Require Faith?
William Lane Craig - Does science prove everything?