Primary or Secondary?

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

(Isaiah 5:20) NKJV

Hitchens’s razor is based on assuming that secondary sources of evidence, vetted and approved by Peer Review to be compliant with the popular science paradigm (SciPop), are primary sources of evidence.

Using as an example the stratigraphic column, SciPop can claim that biological evolution from common ancestors is a “scientific fact,” and claim that the geological timescale is evidence. The problem is that the geological timescale is a secondary interpretation of the stratigraphic column, a primary source, which is evidence for Noah’s flood.

The fact that the secondary sources are derived from SciPop is why they don’t support a competing paradigm. However, on examination, the primary sources of evidence are found to be compliant with the competing paradigm. Here’s a way to look at it:

  • Hitchens is in a football field playing football with a football.
  • Matty is in a tennis court playing tennis with a tennis ball.
  • Hitchens is mocking Matty because you can’t play tennis with a football.
  • Matty doesn’t care, Matty doesn’t need a football to play tennis.

Hitchens’s Razor – Navigation

1Hitchens’s RazorProverbs 16:18
2Epistemological AbuseEzekiel 45:10
3Primary or Secondary?Isaiah 5:20
4The High Price of Epistemological BuffooneryLuke 16:23
5The Fool has Said in his HeartPsalms 53:1
SalvationRomans 10:9-10
– Navigate your way around Hitchens’s razor.

July 24th – Hitchens’s Razor

Hitchens’s razor is epistemological sleight-of-hand which fails to distinguish justified belief from opinion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: