Whether best-selling books written by top scientists for laymen or prestigious science journals, scientists cannot stop using words like the following:
- “could have”
These are not scientific words. These are guesses. And “believe” is a term of a faith.
Boy, Am I Glad Astronomers Don't Perform Surgery!
Nobody “assumed” the location of my uterus—they knew.
They didn’t “suggest” that sterilizing the instruments would “probably” kill germs and “may” prevent infection, they followed certain procedures because research has PROVEN that these procedures and techniques definitely lower the chance of infection.
Furthermore, no one thought it was “likely” that there was a baby in there as opposed to, say, a pumpkin—they knew.
And that’s science you can pretty much rely on.
Because they’re actually able to PROVE things.
With regard to germs, scientists can see germs through a microscope and see what sterilization procedures reduce germs and which don’t. Doctors have also researched the effects of their procedures, making Cesarean births not only possible, but safer than previous generations could’ve ever imagined.
(Having said all that, there are aspects of medical science subject to baseless theories, personal agendas, ego, and greed—which have harmed or killed people. I just focused on the more proven aspects of medical science.)
The Scientific Ego
The desire for funding, fame, recognition, and ego-defense affect scientists to a large degree. Scientists can also be a surly defensive lot who don’t hesitate to shoot down and humiliate theories (along with the proponents of those theories) that interfere with their above-mentioned desires.
If you’ve ever actually known academics—whether professors, scientists, doctors, or researchers—or listened to people who know them, you’ll know that many (though certainly not all) possess an elitist mindset, which isn’t conducive to objectivity or integrity.
Would you want to attend a medical school in which they discussed their personal beliefs about the human body?
“We believe the kidney is located over here.”
“Computer models indicate that this could be an eyeball.”
“We will teach you to perform Cesarean surgery on a woman who is likely to be pregnant because the suggestion of a baby in there is the more intriguing possibility.”
You can't really learn anything useful from guessing, especially emotionally driven guessing, as shown by phrases like: "more intriguing possibility" -- a phrase that appeared in a prestigious science publication -- or feeling that something is too "remarkable" to be believed, as you'll see below).
Anti-Torah Science Leads to Medical Mistakes
"We don't need these anymore" has been said about tonsils, the appendix, and wisdom teeth.
In my parents' generation, tonsillectomy was a normal part of childhood.
Who needs tonsils? We've evolved beyond that!
Then scientists discovered tonsils play an important part in preventing infection. Yes, some people are indeed better off without their tonsils and need them removed, but it actually harms people to have them removed unnecessarily.
Likewise, the appendix was a big mystery. And I think the only reason why it wasn't removed as regularly as tonsils is because it's much more invasive surgery.
But more recently, scientists began to discover that the appendix also serves a vital function for the immune system. This is accompanied by pompous headlines like: Appendix May Actually Have a Purpose. Nowadays, appendicitis isn't always automatic surgery. If they think it's safe to do so, many doctors try treating it with antibiotics first.
Finally, many pointed to wisdom teeth as evidence of evolution. What do we need those unnecessary and annoying teeth for? They must be primate leftovers!
Then I came across the idea that our diminishing nutrition is causing smaller jaws, which is possibly why crooked teeth are so common today. I don't know if anyone can prove the suggested link between nutrition and jaw-size, but it seems that a smaller jaw might also not have enough room for wisdom teeth--rather than just assuming it's an evolutionary leftover.
But if you're stuck on the evolutionary model, you won't look at the possible causes of the issue. You'll just keep removing teeth.
(And if you're wondering about the difference between me saying "possibly" or "suggested" and scientists saying those words? I'm not using the suggestions in place of proof or twisting your arm to believe that smaller jaws caused by poor nutrition is indeed the only possibility. I didn't entitle the piece: "Case Closed: Wisdom Teeth Removal Caused by Poor Nutrition." And that's the big difference: honesty.)
Heliocentrism! Oh, Wait...
For example, one of the scientific debates you used to hear in the frum community is the objection to the tradition of a geocentric universe in which everything revolves around Earth—an objection purely based on modern scientific theory (AKA "wishful thinking").
Instead, people insist on the heliocentric universe (in which everything revolves around the Sun), as proposed by Galileo centuries ago.
In fact, ever since I can remember, people were taught that we live in a heliocentric universe. And I remember a time in which debates among educated frummies consisted of a struggle to find Torah sources that supported the idea of a heliocentric universe.
I also remember reading stuff by educated frummies who expressed serious consternation over the fact that the Lubavitcher Rebbe did not believe in a heliocentric universe and attitudes like: Oh-heavens-to-Betsy-the-Lubavitcher-Rebbe-did-not-believe-that-the-Earth-revolves-around-the-Sun-despite-evidence…
(The above isn't a direct quote, by the way; no one ever said "Heavens to Betsy" as far as I remember. Heh-heh.)
Heliocentric, heliocentric, heliocentric.
Except that no scientist actually believes this.
The Scientific Practice of Inaccurate Terminology
Nothing actually revolves around the Sun.
In fact, no planets revolve around any suns or stars anywhere in the universe.
Yet you will always hear about orbits around the Sun and planets orbiting stars even though scientists don’t actually believe this.
And people continue to blather on about a heliocentric universe.
But even this barycenter is also just a theory.
They don’t KNOW. There’s no PROOF.
Furthermore, anyone who believes in an expanding universe (which is standard science today) does not believe in any "center of the universe" at all. (Please remember this every time you read an article written by these same believers that mentions something discovered in “the center of our galaxy” or whatever.)
Anything! As Long as It's Not God...
“Although the Copernican principle has become a pillar of modern cosmology, finding conclusive evidence that our neighborhood of the universe really isn’t special has proven difficult.”
Yet they continue their mythical quest for such “proof” anyway.
And they state outright that Earth is NOT “center of the universe”—with absolutely no proof.
Why? Because they believe in the Copernican principle, which believes that Earth is not in a central, specially favored position—even though there is NO PROOF of the Copernican principle.
Canadian scientists sound very religious. What a dedicated belief system they have!
If you read the original article, you’ll see that it is filled with phrases like:
- "they proposed"
- "put forth the alternate theory that…"
- “it’s really hard to determine if…”
They also make unproven statements of personal belief like:
- “cosmic microwave background radiation—the afterglow of the Big Bang” (The Big Bang is a theory—a very popular theory, but only a theory nonetheless. Therefore, you also cannot make a factual statement that CMB radiation is the afterglow of it.)
- “solidify the conventional view” (“Solidify” is a new weasel word for me. It doesn’t prove anything but is merely another synonym of “indicate.” Also, “conventional view” simply means that a lot of scientists agree, but demonstrates no proof.)
- “Recent advances in data collection have brought us to the era of precision cosmology” (Says who? Where is there any proof of “precision”? These guys still rely on models and “indications” and “hard to determine if.” In other words? Not precise at all. But I guess they really need that funding...)
Except that there is: Earth.
Furthermore, how do you define the Center of the Universe?
Center of mass? Magnetic pull? Electric attraction? Physical location?
The 2005 Sloan Digital Sky Survey of 400,000 galaxies shows that they were all arrayed in concentric circles around...Earth.
(Even though this jives with my personal belief of a geocentric universe, I still ask: Does it actually show this or does the survey only indicate such an arrangement? Inquiring minds want to know!)
Furthermore, the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation converges on the Earth along its equator and axis.
Likewise, astronomers see red shift (galaxies zooming away from you) wherever they look—which is exactly what you would see in a geocentric universe!
In fact, Stephen Hawking (A Brief History of Time) states that the only reason why scientists picked out an alternative and completely baseless theory (that wherever you stand in the universe, you see redshift):
“...modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe.”
Try not to hold yourself back, Stephen!
Anyway, that’s their whole basis. False modesty. Gosh, how scientific!
In an October 1995 Scientific American article called Thinking Globally, Acting Universally, cosmologist George Ellis states:
“…we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
I’m not sure what the consequences are for anti-Torah wishful thinking on the part of scientists, but as long as they insist in digging in the wrong places and creating unfounded theories (i.e. myths) instead of following the evidence, I don’t see how we can advance (or safely send humans to Mars or predict astronomical events or describe the Universe accurately)—scientifically speaking, of course.
Rav Avigdor Miller: Where is the Center of the Universe?
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
Several quotes and points were taken from the following article:
Current Science Excludes Geocentrism Through Unproven Assumptions
(Note: This particular link is shomer anayim friendly, but the rest of the site isn’t necessarily.)
How would the World be with No Moon?
Yet Another Stunning Scientific Discovery: Heck, We Haven’t Got a Clue!
The Venus Effect: Lots of Fun Insanity