Opus 14, Logical or Scientific, part 2

Is your thinking based on the logic of a pagan or the science of a Christian?  Logic leaves room for superstition and opinion in ways that pure science does not.  Notice I said “pure” science.  Much of what parades as “science” today is just political manipulation to limit your freedom.  One current example is the phoney science of global warming.  Another might be the “research” into whether homosexual are born or made.  Much of the so called research quoted in education is either research that never happened, research designed to give a certain result or sloppy research with no controls and too many variables. 

When the Renaissance began, science was slowed down by their reverence for anything that the Greeks or Romans wrote.  One example is the Greek physician Galen in the days of the Roman Empire.  He taught that the blood circulated through tiny pores in the heart.  Eventually this was proven wrong with experiments by William Harvey, but not until 1628.   Through the middle ages doctors thought that health was the balance of four humors that were in the body.  This was why bleeding was a part of their medicine. 

How about some other examples of logical thinking without experimental proof.

I heard about some fisherman that harvested shell fish from the ocean floor.  I will admit that I heard this in a sermon illustration, but it makes sense in spite of that.  They were having trouble with an infestation of star fish.  Star fish use the suction on their arms to pry open the shell fish.  The fisherman decided that they would kill all the starfish they caught by cutting them up into small pieces and throwing them back into the ocean to feed the other creatures.  You know, recycle, reuse, reduce.  Eventually someone realized that each piece of star fish they threw back grew to be another starfish.  A logical solution led to disaster.

Have you heard the one about the world being overpopulated.  Have you heard about the book, The Population Bomb, that forecast the end of the world as we know it in the 1980's because of lack of resources and lack of food.  Last time I looked we were still here.  If you live in a major metropolitan area and listen to people who make money selling books, then the whole theory sounds good.  I have heard the author has revised his book every few years and it continues to sell.  Who knows?  Maybe someday it will come true.

What is the problem?  Why are we still alive?  A little research would show that population trends are not consistent.  As countries get wealthier they tend to have smaller families.  Currently many of the richer countries have minus population growth.  Then there is the advances in technology.  Medieval China came up with a new rice that produced more food.  The trend has continued down to today.

A little math is in line also.  Several years ago I got a copy of the World Almanac and divided the population of the entire world into the area of Texas.  It turned out that the entire world could live in Texas, in single family homes on 1/6 acre lots if the family size averaged 4.2 people.  If you want parks, malls, streets and such throw in Oklahoma.  The rest of the world would be empty.  That is not my idea of crowding.

Much of the food shortages are political, not lack of resources.  Take the central valley in California.  It used to be one of the biggest food producing areas in the world.  If you drive through it now you will see sagebrush, withering orchards and empty fields.  Why?  Because the environmentalists have cut off the water from the Sacramento River.  Why?  To save a fish in the delta that I am told is not even native to the area.  I could go on.  Maybe I will.  Later.