Science is guided by the scientific method…It isn’t at all emotional. It’s objective…Science doesn’t work that way. Believe what you like, science isn’t about belief, it’s about evidence.
If that were true—if science was really “unemotional and objective”, then you wouldn’t have had Ales Hrdlicka of the Smithsonian Institution barging into Louis Leakey’s office and accusing Leakey of “teaching heresy” after Leakey had examined the eoliths from the Calico site in California and pronounced that man had been in the New World for at least 15,000 years, nor would you have had one of Leakey’s biographers stating that “for many colleagues who felt admiration [for Leakey], the Calico years were an embarassment and a sadness”.
If science was really “all about evidence”, you wouldn’t have had scientists working so hard to cover up evidence produced from the Sheguiandah site in Canada, and doing their best to discredit Thomas Lee, the anthropoligist who excavated the site. Lee dated the tools he found at about 30,000 years old; the geologists working with him dated them at about 150,000 years old. For his discovery, Lee was hounded from his Civil Service position, he was unable to publish or to find employment; Dr. Jacques Rosseau—the Director of National Museum of Canada—who defended Lee, was also fired and driven into exile; Lee’s artifacts were seized and packed into crates in the National Museum, never to be seen again; and his notes and submitted papers mysteriously were “misfiled and lost”.
All of this for uncovering evidence that suggested that man was in North America prior to the “accepted” date of 12,000 years ago. As Lee observed, “Sheguiandah would have forced embarassing admissions that the Brahmins didn’t know everything. It would have forced the re-writing of almost every book in the business. It had to be killed. It was killed.”
If science was really “all about evidence”, you wouldn’t have precisely the same thing happening at the Hueyatlaco site in Mexico, where artifacts were dated at 250,000 years ago. The “unemotional and objective” scientists refused to publish the date, even after numerous tests had been made. Virginia Steen-McIntyre, the USGS geologist on the site, met the same fate as Thomas Lee: she was hounded from her position, lost her job, was publicly labelled by the “unemotional and objective” scientists as “incompetent”, “a news monger”, “an opportunist”, “dishonest”, and “a fool”. She has not worked professionally in her field since, again finding it impossible to get any of her papers published.
As she stated concerning the matter, “The archaeologist in charge of the Hueyatlaco dig (where they had found well made stone tools) rejected our geologic dates of a quarter-million years because, according to her belief, modern man, the maker of those tools, had not yet evolved 250,000 years ago. He evolved only 100,000 years ago and that was in the Old World, not the New. A classic case of arguing from theory to data, then tossing out the data that don’t fit. The problem as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco. It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought through the suppression of `Enigmatic Data’, data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking…not being an anthropologist, I didn’t realise the full significance of our dates back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human evolution had become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory, period.”
If science were “all about evidence, not belief”, then you wouldn’t have ancient human skeletal remains found in New Jersey, Illinois, California, Missouri, Britain, France, Brazil, Italy, and Argentina rejected because they “didn’t fit” with the accepted theory of evolution, while finds such as Java Man and “Lucy” are accepted wholesale, even when they don’t offer as much paleontological evidence as the rejected finds.
Science is “all about the scientific method”? “Isn’t at all emotional”? “Is objective?” Science “isn’t about belief, it’s about evidence”?
Absolute balderdash.
And might I remind you that the Catholic Church has warned against science in the past and they were proven to be in error and essentially forced to change dogma.
You’re using the wrong term, Namesake. Dogma is a defined teaching, promulgated by either an ecumenical council or a reigning Pontiff; but in either case, the teaching is both infallible and binding upon all Catholics.
Doctrine can change.
Discipline can change.
Devotion can change.
Dogma cannot. So whatever it was that the Church may have had to revise views on, dogma was not one of them.
Just thought I’d point that out before you make the same error twice.
amount of time for it to happen without the direct intervention of the hand of God. And 4.5 billion (or 13 billion) years is way short of infinite. So I leave the door open at this point to any theory in which God plays a part. The reason I’m adding this BTW is that a particular someone tends to respond to my posts as though I’m endorsing YEC, which I’m not.