Sometimes, so called scientists end up turning science on its ear in an attempt to call something science that is not really science. One of the prominent places this is seen in the attempt by evolutionary scientists to prove the Theory of Evolution true. They have never been able to do that and never will, but they will not give up trying. Another place this happens is in the arena of “gender science.”
Examples of Fake Science
Let’s take a look at how people trying to support these two beliefs end up creating fake science.
Evolutionary Science
A study published in 2023, in Science magazine, (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf0512) indicates that kissing was a “well-established practice in Mesopotamia and Egypt as far back as 4,500 years ago. While it may seem that this is simply a natural part of romantic human relationships between men and women, evolutionary scientists view it differently. They tend to think that this practice evolved into the sexual practice that now exists from some prior activities between creatures that had an entirely different purpose.
And what, might you ask, was that prior activity? Evolutionary scientists believe that kissing, as a symbolic expression of love, evolved from grooming behaviors seen in ancestral great apes. In a study published in the journal Evolutionary Anthropology (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/evan.22050), researchers concluded that certain grooming behaviors in the animal world are similar in form and function to human kissing. In particular, grooming in our hairy ape ancestors (and in modern apes, as well) involved protruding lips and slight suction to remove debris or parasites. These researchers concluded that this act has remained as a “vestigial action” into modern day humans in the form of kissing.
Transgender Science
Another recent instance where science is being distorted by so called scientists relates to the transgender controversy. Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy (medical director for the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles) has been conducting research on “transgender health” for nearly a decade using federal funding. She has finally completed her research, but is refusing to release the findings.
Now why would she do that? Included in the very purpose of science is to not only discover information about the workings of the natural universe, but also to share it with other scientists so they can check, confirm, and build on the results. Her excuse for not wanting to share the results is that she is afraid it will be weaponized by people who do not agree with her beliefs about transgender children and youth. In other words, her reasons for not sharing her work are not scientific, but are political and philosophical. She is an ardent advocate for “gender affirming care,” and the results of her research apparently do not support the philosophy she believes in.
What is the Problem?
So what is going on with these various studies? Why do they constitute fake science?
In the example concerning the “evolution of kissing,” the question quickly emerges, “Where is the science?” Rather than begin with any kind of observation or experimentation, the beginning point is naturalistic philosophy. The very basis for even developing their hypothesis has its roots in the Theory of Evolution (TOE). The only problem is, even that theory is based on philosophical assumptions, not on science. There is no science to demonstrate that the TOE is true, or even possible. So these researchers first assume that the theory is true, then begin drawing conclusions on observed behavior based on the theory without ever justifying their reasoning. What they end up with is pure speculation with no objective basis for their conclusions. If the TOE is true, their speculations might be worth pursuing. But until they are able to demonstrate the truth of their beliefs, there is no valid evidence to support their conclusion.
In some ways, the transgender study incident is even more sinister. Dr. Kennedy presents herself as an objective medical researcher, yet when she gets results that contradict her personal biases, she refuses to release her findings. Once again, we have a situation where philosophical preferences trump actual science.
How Does that Happen?
How do people who are trained as scientists, and identify themselves as such, end up practicing their vocation in ways that are unscientific? In a nutshell, they do it because they are working on the basis of religion, not science. So just how does that work?
Virtually all of the scientists who operate in this fashion are adherents of a naturalistic worldview. Naturalism is the belief that the natural universe, operating by natural laws, is all that exists. If this set of worldview beliefs is true, there are two implications that allow them to feel okay about taking that route.
The first implication is that they see no other choice. If, indeed, the natural universe, operating by natural laws, is all that exists, then somehow the natural laws of the universe must account for everything that exists in all of reality. If there is no God to create life, then somehow life had to have emerged and evolved naturally to become what currently exists. There would be no other possibility. Even though scientists have not been able to demonstrate this to be true, if you begin with the assumption that Naturalism is true, then even considering a non-naturalistic scenario is ludicrous. So, based on this belief, a naturalistic explanation is the only possibility – even though there is no rationale for the belief. In other words, they have chosen this approach based on philosophical (religious/faith) assumptions rather than on science.
The second implication is that there can be no such thing as objective morality. Objective moral beliefs require an objective moral law-giver (some transcendent authority/God). So, since Naturalists dismiss out of hand any belief in God, they have no possibility of following any set of objective moral beliefs.
The only choice, then, is for them to make up their own moral beliefs – that is, morality is relative and individuals get to make up their own. For instance, in the case of Dr. Kennedy, even though one of the requirements of legitimate science is that researchers share their work with other scientists, she can feel personally justified that she does not need to do that if she believes she has a “good reason.” And she gets to decide what that good reason is. In her case, she has decided that providing children and youth with “gender affirming care” is good morality, AND that her moral beliefs can legitimately trump scientific protocol if following scientific practices would lead to the immoral result of denying children and youth the kinds of medical procedures she believes morality requires.
What is Reality?
The truth is, objective morality does exist. There is such a thing as a God who has revealed Himself and His ways to mankind. God cannot be proven using naturalistic presuppositions, as atheistic scientists demand, but He can be known by anyone who is willing to open up their life to Him.
Biblical worldview beliefs recognize God as the creator and sustainer of the natural universe. If that is true, then an attempt to come up with a naturalistic explanation of reality is nonsensical. The problems associated with trying to justify the unjustifiable presuppositions of the TOE just disappear.
By the same token, the whole idea of transgenderism also just melts away. Objective scientific inquiry has demonstrated conclusively that there are only two genders, and these correspond to the two biological sexes. The Naturalist’s take on gender is a philosophical construct, not a scientific conclusion. The only way around their dilemma is to dishonestly redefine the words. The reason Dr. Kennedy’s research does not back up her personal desires is that she is making assumptions that are not true. Neither her desired outcomes nor her moral beliefs correspond to reality.
I recognize how difficult it is for people who hold a naturalistic worldview to give it up. A person’s worldview literally orders the way they understand the structure of reality. Giving up their atheistic Naturalism means that their entire worldview underpinning is wrong.
In some ways, it is not unlike when people believed the sun revolved around the earth. They were convinced that to believe otherwise ran contrary to the teachings of the Bible, and they were willing to imprison and even execute people who believed differently. In one way, it did not affect how anyone lived their life day to day, but the adherents of that belief could not bring themselves to give up their earth-centric dogma. This time it is Naturalists who struggle to give up their beliefs, even in the face of science disputing their conclusions.
There exists both a transcendent reality and a natural universe that operates by natural laws. Those who want their lives to correspond to reality must get on board with that. And those who don’t will ultimately receive the “kiss” of spiritual death as they reject God and face eternity separated from Him.
© 2024 Freddy Davis