Scientism is the belief in the infallibility and enlightenment of science. It is not science itself but a human philosophy about the nature of science. Many today seem have accepted this philosophy. It is different from the belief of biblical infallibility because science is constantly changing and therefore scientism offers no consistent absolutes to build a moral framework or system of values to live by, yet billions accept this philosophical “double think.”
From a recent blog:
“But this blog is at least about engaging mainstream science, and a stunning convergence of sciences describes the universe as 13.7 billion years old, and the earth at about 4.5 billion. For example, geologists have found annual layers in glaciers that can be dated at 740,000 years. Using the known rate of change in radioactive elements (referred to as radiometric dating), certain Earth rocks can be shown to be billions of years old, while the oldest solar system rocks are dated at 4.6 billion years. Astronomers use the distance to galaxies and the velocity of light to calculate that the light has been traveling for billions of years. The expansion of the universe gives an age for the universe as a whole 13.7 billion years old.” (source – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-cootsona/creation-of-the-world-6-x_b_11396112.html)
So what is wrong with the above quotation? Fallacies are what is wrong with this quotation! “Mainstream science” as the author puts it, is his way of saying only the scientists that he accepts. This is indicative of Group Think or argumentum ad populem. The interpretation of data from a majority of the most socially popular scientists is not a foundation for a truth claim. Science is not mainsteam. A scientific discovery can be very unpopular and can even be ignored entirely.
Now as to the age of rock because of radiometric dating. Scientists have made key observations that compel us to reject the millions-of-years apparent ages that these techniques yield:
- Rocks of known age always show vastly inflated radioisotope “ages.” Such as volcanic rocks.
- Various radioisotope methods or even various attempts using the same method yield discordant ages more often than concordant ages.
- Many dating methods that don’t involve radioisotopes—such as helium diffusion, erosion, magnetic field decay, and original tissue fossils—conflict with radioisotope ages by showing much younger apparent ages.
These observations determines that radiometric dating is not trustworthy. Research has even identified precisely where radioisotope dating went wrong. But that is real science and not popular opinion.
Lastly the velocity of light. I encourage you to actually research this issue. It is not a constant! Yes I said it! The speed of light has always fluctuated but no one wants you to know that. We do not know how much it has fluctuated especially over the past 6000 years. I may be a little or exponentially.