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 –

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:

  1. Rocks of known age always show vastly inflated radioisotope “ages.” Such as volcanic rocks.
  2. Various radioisotope methods or even various attempts using the same method yield discordant ages more often than concordant ages.
  3. 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.

6 thoughts on “Scientism”

  1. Scientific consensus is NOT ad populem. It’s an appeal to an authority on the subject. You wouldn’t say that you know more than the VAST majority of scientists about how to date the earth. Most reasonable people will agree that scientific facts are never “definite,” but they are something that can be tested and we should choose to accept once they have been tested.

    Most people agree with the theory of gravity, even though the graviton particle has never been discovered, because things move towards the Earth when we drop them. It can be tested. There is evidence. Just as there is for the date of the earth. Also, tons of factors point to the age of the earth besides radiometric dating. Check out cosmic background radiation or arguments from Earth’s polarity shifts. Also, your claims about the ineffectiveness of radiometric dating just aren’t true.

    An argument from ad populem might be “Christianity is the correct religion because so many people follow it.” Appealing to experts, however, isn’t a fallacy; it makes for a strong argument.

      1. This may be the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. If you wanted to know the speed of light, would you just have to measure it yourself? Or could you go ahead and assume that the professionals are right about this one. Because they’ve spent their lives studying it. Because we already know the answer.

        If I told you the speed of light was 5 miles an hour, would I be equally right as the scientific consensus? You can’t trust consensus, right?

        Do you even understand the scientific method? Things are theorized and then tested until they are accepted as truth by most scientists. Have you taken a science class?

        1. What makes you think I would believe you either? Your statement about the speed of light is equally irrelevant. In order for a principle to be true it must be found logically true on it’s own merit according to the evidence. Your refusal to use logic as the only determinant for truth is evidence that are in the cult of scientism. You believe it dogmatically and fallaciously.

          Do some research for yourself on the recorded speed of light and Big G over the last 90 years. See for yourself. “Have you taken a science class?” – This is an ad hominem by the way, a sign that you cannot explain your position logically so you attack the messenger.

          1. I asked if you had taken a science class because I genuinely believe you don’t understand the scientific method. I am an atheist because I rely on logic and evidence. You shouldn’t believe my random guess about the speed of light; you should believe the scientific community at large because they are scientists that have done experiments on the subject. Do you believe in cells? The atom? What lets you decide when scientists are right and when you want to try and poke holes in tested, accurate hypotheses? The answer is your religious agenda. Ad populem comes into account when there is no evidence or tests and something is taken on truth based off bandwagon ALONE.

          2. Travis… Overall, I think you are agreeing with on what an ad populem is. Because you said “Ad populem comes into account when there is no evidence or tests and something is taken on truth based off bandwagon ALONE” and that is what the article was talking about and what you seem to be doing. Hopefully now you see the evidence for the age of the universe as faulty because the speed of Light (SOL) changes by environment. Creationist have said for years that the conclusion of most cosmologists are based on assumptions and not facts. However you seem to think that most scientists have solid evidence for their position.

            You said you are “atheist because I rely on logic and evidence” but you don’t see that the speed of light (SOL) and Big G has changed, can be changed, and IS NOT a constant yet you accept the scientific consensus of it.

            How about some evidence
            1.2013 article:
            Quote from that Article: “A non-constant speed of light could mean that estimates of the size of the universe might be off. (Unfortunately, it won’t necessarily mean we can travel faster than light, because the effects of physics theories such as relativity are a consequence of light’s velocity).” Funny how they conclude that the size of the universe (and therefore the age) is not what we think it is.

            2. 2015 article:
            “The researchers produced pairs of photons and sent them on different paths toward a detector. One photon zipped straight through a fiber. The other photon went through a pair of devices that manipulated the structure of the light and then switched it back. Had structure not mattered, the two photons would have arrived at the same time. But that didn’t happen. Measurements revealed that the structured light consistently arrived several micrometers late per meter of distance traveled”

            I like the way one author wrote this discovery: “Joao Magueijo’s radical ideas intend to turn that Einsteinian dogma on its head. Marueijo is trying to pick apart one of Einstein’s most impenetrable tenets, the constancy of the speed of light. This idea of a constant speed (about 3×106 meters/second) -is known as the universal speed limit. Nothing can, has, or ever will travel faster than light.” Notice he called it “Dogma.” That’s funny!

            Now I can easily ask you have you ever had a philosophy class? SOL and Big G are constantly retested several times a year and have yielded varying results, but you wonder if I understand the scientific method? If SOL and Big G have varying results and are NOT a constant then all those “professionals” you follow are wrong but people are following them dogmatically just as a religion that is based on unjustified beliefs. Which is what scientism is.

            You wrote: “What lets you decide when scientists are right and when you want to try and poke holes in tested, accurate hypotheses?” – I don’t. I allow logical conclusions to do so. So when a repeatable experiment does not yield the same results, I do not call it a constant and I certainly would not use it as a foundation for uniformity of nature.

            Travis…..The six criteria of science are: (1) predictability …(2) observable, (3) Natural (4) testable (5) consistent (6) tentative… The SOL and Big G violates at least 4 scientific principles?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *