The spheres are in commotion, the elements in harmony, she blinded me with science.
The "March for Science" was held on April 22, 2017, to coincide with "Earth Day", a long celebrated day of pagan revelry that has been around since hippie murderer-turned-human-butcher, Ira Einhorn and his pals first founded the event in 1970.
As any student of modern science can tell you, science is basically a collection of theories and hypothesis that are little more than "guesses" scientists make, then try to flesh out with experiments to prove the validity of their pre-conceived notions. Sometimes, these theories stay around for a while, some for centuries, but eventually, many well-respected theories are abandoned as we become more "enlightened." There are numerous examples of how science has been wrong, as well as examples of even things that are "right" which sound somewhat dubious.
Some famous examples include the "Phlogiston Theory", First expressed by Johan Joachim Becher in 1667, phlogiston theory is the idea that all combustible objects—that is, anything that can catch fire—contain a special element called phlogiston that is released during burning, and which makes the whole process possible. In its traditional form, phlogiston was said to be without color, taste, or odor, and was only made visible when a flammable object, like a tree or a pile of leaves, caught fire. Once it was burned and all its phlogiston released, the object was said to once again exist in its true form, known as a “calx.” Beyond basic combustion, the theory also sought to explain chemical processes like the rusting of metals, and was even used as a means of understanding breathing, as pure oxygen was described as “dephlogistated air.” Eventually, experimentation proved that theory false.
Another oft-cited boner is the theory of "Luminiferous Aether." The aether, also known as the ether, was a mysterious substance that was long believed to be the means through which light was transmitted through the universe. Philosophers as far back as the Greeks had believed that light required a delivery system, a means through which it became visible, and this idea managed to persist all the way through to the nineteenth century. If correct, the theory would have redefined our entire understanding of physics. Most notably, if the aether were a physical substance that could exist even in a vacuum, then even deep space could be more easily measured and quantified. Experiments often contradicted the theory of the aether, but by the 1700s it had become so widespread that its existence was assumed to be a given. Later, when the idea was abandoned, physicist Albert Michelson referred to luminiferous aether as “one of the grandest generalizations in modern science.”
These are historic examples, but even today, we are learning that much of what we believed scientifically in the 20th century is incorrect.
The point of the March for Science was to draw attention to the superiority of scientific "facts" over religious beliefs. The problem I have with this is that most of the protesters ire is directed at Judeo-Christianity. Science has not proved itself over time to be anything more than a man-generated secular religion. I would say it is a far inferior religion to most others because there are no absolutes. There is no compendium of written truth, such as the Holy Scripture of Christianity, which provides ongoing guidance and help for practitioners throughout history and into the future. There are absolutes.
Scientists will expound fantastical theories about the universe that they can't possibly prove, being that they are earth-bound, standing on a tiny rock, revolving around itself as it revolves around a tiny, insignificant star in a corner of the universe. Even measurements are calculated in "light-years", a ridiculous term meaning the distance a beam of light travels in the time it takes for this little rock to revolve around the sun.
The Bible has answers for our questions. Many times the answer is, humans don't have the capacity to fathom what the entire truth about everything is, in our finite existence, and it is, frankly, a waste of your energy to try. Christ alluded to other groups of beings existing when he said: "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." (John 10:16)
The scripture seems earth centered because the earth is important to God.
The very same people who will march for "Science", will also say, "Mercury is in retrograde, that's why I feel this way," or "Well you know, as an Aries, I am prone to this sort of behavior." The very fact that astrology has any validity at all is evidence that the Bible is a valid account of truth, i.e., the earth is important in the vast scheme of the universe, it is significant that for 24 hours, every soul on earth can observe the same phenomena in the heavens.
Science addresses things which cannot be proven, so governments seeking to control their citizens, may make it illegal to question science.
The Bible addresses things that CAN be proven, things that we can all indisputably acknowledge the existence of, such as anger, hate, greed, avarice, treachery, dishonesty, disloyalty, disobedience, obedience, blessing, salvation and peace. Creation is addressed in a seven-day timetable, but the means for determining a 24-hour time period don't come about until at least day three, so we have no idea how long the 7-day period is, in our finite time measuring system, which is based on the time it takes for the earth to revolve, and to revolve around the sun.
Science is a religion, and the principles of logic and reason cannot be claimed to be exclusive to science. So-called scientists use "scientific" methods to try to disprove scripture, such as claiming Hebrews were never in Egypt because the scripture mentions the city of Ramses, and Ramses came from a later time period than the time period that lines up with the Egypt captivity set out in the scripture. Conveniently, they leave out the fact that the account was written much later, when the city of Ramses was well-known as such, and was so referred to as such by the author. It would be similar to a historian writing about happenings in Manhattan in the 1600s, and describing the area as "New York," which today's readers would identify with, and be able to locate, in their mind's eye, instead of referring to the place as "New Amsterdam," which is what it would have been called at the time.