Non-Observational Science

If you can’t observe it, does it exist?

The secular cosmology community will not acknowledge the Creator despite being dragged kicking and screaming to the anthropic principle (08/11/2006, 05/11/2006). They are determined to work out solutions to the universe by themselves, without recourse to the key to the problem. They have made this choice a priori, before even looking through a telescope or at the output of a particle accelerator. Materialism is so engrained, it has become an addiction. The pain of withdrawal now is unthinkable. A thousand years of being deeply wrong is preferable to kicking the habit. Your tax dollars at work: keeping an elite community hooked on a fruitless addiction.

You can almost hear the irate comeback: “Well, what would you do? Dismantle all this equipment and just say God did it?” Of course not. First of all, though, can we agree that open-ended searches for ghosts is not good science? that spending a thousand years being deeply wrong is foolhardy? Can we also agree that the public cannot be expected to pay for any and all quixotic pursuits scientists dream up?

The LHC and other megascience projects employ many thousands of people, and require many bright, highly-trained PhDs to design and operate. This alone, however, is not a justification. One could just as well imagine building parallel-universe detectors – or fairy detectors. Would job security for thousands justify such expenditures? How about a megaproject to dig a big hole, then fill it in again? We must think rightly about the uses of technology and the expected payback to the people who pay for it. There has to be some relationship between the investment and the expectation of success.

There is value in pure research. A Murphyism states, “When you are investigating the unknown, you do not know what you will find.” Perhaps some useful fact will come out of dark-matter detectors that will improve our lives. If the goal is only to keep scientists busy, though, or to rationalize a materialistic philosophy, then the proponents should engage their hobbies on their own time and dime.

So what do we do with the LHC and the dark-matter detectors, the WMAPs and other such projects? We change the presuppositions. We start with the presupposition that there is a Creator who has revealed Himself in His creation. This is the presupposition that motivated the great founders of science. Our efforts, then, are directed once again at “thinking God’s thoughts after Him” to understand how He ordered the world and the universe and life. And, as Francis Bacon admonished, we gear our efforts for the betterment of mankind. These two goals can justify large expenditures on elaborate projects. This is a far cry from today’s elitist mindset that misuses science to eliminate all thoughts of God and thinks the public should give scientists anything they want just because they are curious about the latest unverifiable, materialist fad.

How ironic that the secularists should end up in quixotic pursuits after imaginary entities. Their refusal to admit in their thinking a Holy Ghost who hovered over the surface of the waters at Creation did not free them from the need for ghosts. They had to invent their own so that they could search endlessly for them. What else can a soul do to alleviate the pain of denying its own existence?


Instigate some pointless rambling

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s