Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:(Isaiah 28:9-10) KJV
Someone made the charge that we’re denying science. It looked like the knee-jerk reaction of someone with a progressive agenda, a scientifically illiterate science worshiper (SISW). We attempted to explain two things:
- We haven’t denied any physical laws, evidence or empirical observations,
- We’ve denied a pseudoscientific narrative of godless existence.
This was the subsequent exchange:
- Twitter Atheist: “I prefer to deal with facts.”
- Matty: “You don’t have any facts, you have strategic data points in a false narrative.”
How can we make the claim that popular science (SciPop) doesn’t have any facts? Let’s consider: what is a fact?
A fact is a : something that has actual existence, b : an actual occurrence.– Fact, definition (Merriam-Webster)
Our mission is to identify the logical flaws in the SciPop paradigm and propose an alternative. As such, SciPop and Matty’s are competing paradigms. If a fact is something that has actual existence then it has to be the same regardless of what paradigm we believe. The most useful example is the stratigraphic column: the worldwide distribution of sedimentary rock. It’s something that has actual existence: it’s a fact. What we decide that this fact means depends on which paradigm we believe.
Fact: the stratigraphic column has worldwide distribution
- In popular science (SciPop) it’s evidence for the geological timescale,
- In Matty’s Paradigm it’s evidence for Noah’s flood.
This is how we can say that the SciPop paradigm has no facts. Anything that’s a fact will be the same regardless of paradigm. This means that the phrase “scientific fact” is the distilled essence essence of circular reasoning. If the claim is made that the geological timescale is a “scientific fact” then the peer review propaganda machine is deliberately manipulating public opinion.
A scientific fact is : anything that peer review wants you to believe, even though it may be pure speculation; a strategic data point in the mainstream science narrative of godless existence (SciPop); a minor deity in the atheist pantheon; the subject of a lot of special pleading.– Scientific Fact, definition
Anything referred to as a “scientific fact” but which was designed expressly to support the narrative of one specific paradigm is paradigm-dependent and therefore doesn’t fit the definition of “fact.” Likewise, when we see statements like “there’s no evidence of Noah’s flood” it’s either a deliberate deception or the person making the claim is genuinely clueless. ALL of the facts (the stratigraphic column) can be accounted for by Noah’s flood.