Gab@StFerdinandIII - https://unstabbinated.substack.com/
Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
Scientism is the cult of 'science'. There is no 'science' if you apply a worldview to a scientific process and transform all data, nor matter how offensive to your cult doctrine, to support your theology. German National Socialists [Nazis]; Communists and Atheists have, and do, pervert science in order to sell their cult dogma. Evolutionary cant was used by the Nazis to justify racial Darwinism, paraded as science. Lysenko and other Atheist evolutionists were scientists who proved that 'environmental factors' can be used to form more perfect organisms. These claims were fraudulent.
Here are some cult doctrines in vogue in the modern world, which offend the basic ideas of reason and science:
Cult of Warm
-Co2 a plant food, is now labelled by experts as a toxin. How then would photosynthesis work, if Co2 was a noxious substance ?
-Co2 is a trace chemical, yet we are told by the media and educational elite, that a trace chemical now causes weather. This is impossible since trace chemicals are derivatives of larger processes [Co2 is derived from the hydrological process].
-Climate variables, loops, many-to-many-relationships, and causation factors are not well understood. Ergo there can be no 'settled science'. How can you predict a non-existent positive 'greenhouse effect' from a trace chemical, if the entirety of the process is not understood ?
-Gaia emits 95% of the Co2 trace chemical. Logically if the cult of warm is correct, one would assume that killing part of this natural emission is the most reasonable path to limiting this baleful chemical. How would killing Gaia, save her?
Cult of Atheism
-According to evolution the 10.000 books of software-DNA code that each human contains was coded and organized by chance. Please show how software can create itself ?
-A simple protein has 300 amino acids. Evolution has yet to demonstrate that even 1 single protein can self-create using 20 amino acids in a functional-working sequence.
-The average human has over 2 million proteins coded by 30.000 or so genes. The actual number is unknown – it might be 10 million. If you can't demonstrate how 1 protein sequence is established by 'chance' is it reasonable to suppose that 2 million such patterns were randomly created ?
-The single cell is more complex than an urban centre. The human has 100 trillion of these nano-technological marvels. Evolution has not even come close to proving that a complex single cell could evolve by 'chance' from a 'soupy mixture'. Is it reasonable to believe that 100 Trillion of such complexities arose by random error ?
-In software code mutations are 'bugs' and kill functionality. In an organism mutations kill or degrade cell information. How then would mutations drive pond scum to become a professor of climate theology?
-Stephen Hawking and Atheist cosmologists posit ex nihilo virgin universe births, random explosions leading to structure, and life from dead matter or from no matter at all. These miraculous, supernatural occurrences have not been demonstrated to be even remotely possible. Is the universe's 'virgin birth', or abiogenesis a reasonable or unreasonable conclusion ?
The above are just some objections to scientism. A person looking at the evidence for both climate change and evolutionary propaganda would be right to ask: Is is science ? Or a cult ?