July 30, 2014

If Psychology Isn’t “Science,” Neither is Darwinian Evolution

pin it button If Psychology Isnt Science, Neither is Darwinian Evolution

evolution news If Psychology Isnt Science, Neither is Darwinian Evolution

So, if “Psychology Isn’t Science”…

by Bruce Chapman
Evolution News and Views

Every so often an article appears taking psychologists to task for claiming the purple mantle of “science.” As Alex B. Berezow explains in the Los Angeles Times, in the latest of such articles, the rules of science are strict.

“Psychology isn’t science,” he contends, “because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.”

Are those, in fact, the agreed requirements of science? Sometimes one sees them applied in similar fashion to intelligent design. But, strangely, they don’t seem to get applied to evolutionary biology, and specifically to neo-Darwinism. In that field, terms’ definitions often change depending on the audience (“evolution” itself being an example). Quantifiability? (How?) Highly controlled experimental conditions? (You’ve got to be kidding.) Reproducibility? (Name one.) And, “finally, predictability and testability.” You can get a lot of hand waving over this topic, but no precision.

It seems that the term “science” itself is not very scientific. Perhaps Alex Berezow needs some new, post-modern, fully reductionist criteria that apply when judging sciences of which he approves, such as Darwinian evolution, and others he uses for those, like psychology, of which he does not approve.

Read the full article and comment here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/so_if_psycholog062181.html

0 commentsback to post

Other articlesgo to homepage

Medicine: Idolatry in the Twenty First Century

Medicine: Idolatry in the Twenty First Century

A honest look at our present day medical system and its relationship to idolatrous religious practices throughout history involving such activities as child sacrifices. Is modern-day medicine the new religion?

Study: Fats More Complex Than Previously Thought – Essential to Good Health

Study: Fats More Complex Than Previously Thought – Essential to Good Health

Throughout most of the history of human nutrition, fats and oils (lipids) have been considered healthy and desirable. In the Bible, the most ancient writings known to man and the world’s best-selling book, oil is always mentioned in a positive light, whether it be aromatic anointing oils or dietary oils:

“He will love you and bless you and multiply you; He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, your grain and your new wine and your oil…” (Deuteronomy 7:13)

“When the Almighty was yet with me, and my children were around me; When my steps were bathed in butter, and the rock poured out for me streams of oil!” (Job 29:5-6)
“There is precious treasure and oil in the dwelling of the wise…” (Proverbs 21:20)

Modern dietary history has been an anomaly in condemning certain dietary fats, especially since the 1970s when official USDA dietary guidelines condemned saturated fats, in spite of their long history of use in human nutrition. Much of modern science is based on Darwinian evolution, however, and faulty premises that often don’t hold up in real science. Much of the “science” regarding dietary fats and oils has today been proven false, and the field of lipids (fatty acids) is bringing to light what the ancients inherently already knew: that fats and oils were key nutritional components essential to good health.

Evolution and News brings a good commentary on the journal Nature’s June cover issue regarding lipids, showing how they are the building blocks of membranes, and pointing to a master designer rather than a result of pure chance via evolution.

The True Source of Energy Healing

The True Source of Energy Healing

If you want to experience healing through “energy medicine,” which would you prefer? A practioner manipulating the created energy patterns, or the one who created it to begin with?

Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

We have a popular article titled, Arguments we think creationists should not use. Indeed, even many misotheistic evolutionists, including Richard Dawkins, have commended the existence of such a page. Well, as the saying goes, ‘What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.’

Here are 21 bad arguments that evolutionists should not use to help further their stance on evolution. Clearly, evolution is about keeping out God, not an open approach to the actual evidence.

The Myth of Science’s Neutrality

The Myth of Science’s Neutrality

There is no pursuit of knowledge that does not seek to affect the world. Science is made by people with interests, intentions and ambitions; and it’s funded by governments and companies with agendas. Scientific development is subject to funding rules, to expectations about outcomes, and to social forces and institutions that shape our research.

read more


Get the news right in your inbox!