Your Worldview Matters
Your worldview, or set of beliefs and presuppositions, affect how you view and interpret everything. It triggers your decisions and governs your expectations. So, how does one’s worldview, looking at the evidence through the lens of an evolutionists vs a creationist, impact how you approach, interpret, and navigate through the endless quagmire of misinformation, myths and junk science, which dominate the health, fitness, and anti-aging areas? Navigating through these issues through the biblical lens of creation / special design, provides a very clear and objective path one can pursue vs the confusing and misguided approach through an evolutionary lens.
Some basic facts:
Evolution is biologically imposible. It is only through the use of the Illusory Truth Effect, Willful Ignorance, and Leap Frog Science, that it is embraced.
If junkscience were an olympic event, evolutionary ‘science’ would win the gold medal with no close contenders.
Interpreting the evidence from an evolutionary perspective is as usefull as a wet roll of toilet paper.
Peer-reviewed literature is increasingly filled with ‘studies’ which are eventually retracted due to falsified or fabricated research.
In 2023 alone, there have been more than 10,000 retracted research papers, most related to fraud. “Integrity experts say that this is only the tip of the iceberg.” [1]
Science is not as objective and neutral as people think.
Just because someone has a degree does not mean they have knowledge. Attaching a PhD, or any other advanced degree, after stupid does not change the definition of stupid.
Science works by experiments which can be repeated. This is the domain of operational (observational) science, which is a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves. Operational science cures diseases, builds technology, and launches men to the moon. It involves observation, testing, and repeatability in the present, which everyone embraces. It is not open to a narrative based upon an a priori evolutionary paradigm of historical events, which are unobservable, untestable, and non-repeatable. Assumptions are not allowed, just the observed facts.
Historical ‘sciences’ such as evolution, cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, geology, paleontology, forensics, and archaeology, utilize evidence or knowledge present today to explain or interpret past non-observable [my emphasis] events. The past is not directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable; so, interpretations of past events present greater challenges than interpretations involving operational science.
Neither creation nor evolution is directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable. Each is based on certain philosophical assumptions, or bias, about how the earth and life began. Naturalistic evolution assumes that there was no God, and biblical creation assumes that there was a God who created everything in the universe. Starting from two opposite presuppositions and looking at the same evidence, the explanations of the history of the universe, as well as many of the nutrition, aging, and health issues, can be interpreted significantly different. The argument is not over the evidence, the evidence is the same, it is over the way the evidence should be interpreted.
Understanding the differences between operational and historical science will help the reader understand why there is so much contradictory information in the health, nutrition, and aging science fields. Much of what is published in these fields is based upon the presupposition of evolution, a historical philosophy, or a science falsely so called (1 Timothy 6:20-21 KJV), which cannot be verifiable or repeated, being used as a philosophical point of view to interpret operational science issues. This has resulted in many misguided lifestyle recommendations.
Public health institutions are not always guided by science, but politics.
Due to the high fallibility rate of science, it should never be naively used as a hermeneutic tool for scripture, but the infallibility of scripture should be used as a hermeneutic tool for science. It’s essentially God’s wisdom vs man’s infantile understanding of things. Only a fool would embrace the former as absolute.
The meaning of scripture dose not change, whereas science is very provisional, based upon the available evidence at the time, and limited by man’s finite understanding.
When the term science is invoked, think of Halloween. There may be an appearance of science, but It’s not always what it appears to be.
Good scientists do not suppress debate, they insist on it. [2]
Good scientists with opposing views attack one another’s arguments, but not each other. [2]
A good scientist knows that science is not a democracy, that scientific truth is not determined by a show of hands, and that consensus and authority are there to be challenged, not to be accepted without question. [2]
Anyone who is familiar with the defining characteristics of good scientists can always tell whether it is actually raining, or someone is just peeing on your leg. [2]
And, finally, those who persist in behaving like witless sheep will be forever doomed to getting fleeced, on a regular basis, by the politicians, celebrities and others whom they permit to do their thinking for them. [2]
