Who gets to define bad science?

If you know me, you know I’m religious. A faithful Mormon to be exact. And you know that I’m skeptical.

There is a church in the area I live that has a sign with sayings posted on it.

This week, the quote is “The real opium of the masses is bad science.”

Hmmmm. That could be true. How often do we see science invoked for a new drug, educational method, etc that turns out to have little benefit or be harmful.

But is that the opium of the masses? No. I don’t think so. The masses, I believe, really don’t care about science or about God. They care about cars, movies, gadgets, getting thin, eating good food, hair, facials, TV, etc.

But that is beside the point. I’m worried about what a church who is complaining about bad science thinks that bad science is. Is it  Creationism and flood geology*? I wonder how often that false doctrine has lead to the loss of faith by rationally thinking children who examine the evidence and realize that what their parents and Sunday School teachers taught them is wrong? If that is wrong, doesn’t mean everything else is? That is often the conclusion.

No. And it is a pet peeve of mine that many people hang the truth of Christianity on that. This means they must either hang on to a view of the world that has been proven false or give up their whole belief. Both reactions are the result of poor logic.

But then, maybe that pastor was making that point? That would be awesome.

Bad religion is limiting God to a universe that is small in time and scope, which is what Creationism does.

*A definition is probably necessary for anyone who might not be aware of that discussion, and think that I suddenly don’t believe God created the earth. By Creationism, I mean the idea that the earth was created in 7 days (even 1000 year long ones) and is only 6000 years old, and that the layers that imply a much older earth were laid down by the flood.


2 responses to “Who gets to define bad science?”

Leave a Reply