What is Science: Bringing the Hammer Down on the Christian Science Church

Hello my Dear Readers,

Science is my baby, it is what gets me up in the morning and gets me excited about life. It is what I live for and one of the few things I would die for. The pursuit of knowledge, I view it as the greatest power and intellectual honesty as one of the greatest virtues. There will e a bit of overlap between this entry and the earlier entry on Christian Science. This is a bit of a lengthy one today guys, as it is the impending rant I promised. Remember, it is a rant, not a literary masterpiece. You have been warned.

OUR BACKGROUND:

That week Chad and I teamed up in our blog to look at our visit to the Christian Science Church and provide different perspectives on this church using our own respective disciplines. Chad has been studying religion and international politics academically and as an intensive hobby for over a decade and has himself been immersed in and actively practicing several religions on differing ends of the spectrum. He also studied RCIA (Right of Christian Initiation for Adults), an intensive 9 month course as part of his conversion from the Latter Day Saints (Mormon faith) to Catholicism. Years later he has given up all religions and is now an Atheist.  I always recommend reading his blog, as it is always just a wealth of information about the history and practices of the churches as well as an account of our visits there. For this entry in particular, seeing as it is a multifaceted approach to this week’s review I strongly recommend a visit to his blog at http://52weeks52churches.blogspot.com/!

Here is a little bit about my own background:

I grew up Mormon in Utah, studied in Mormon seminary in high school for two years, infrequently attended a Southern Baptist church with my father for a number of years on alternate weekends as my experience with religion. I had had many doubts and questions for several years before my deconversion but like any good member of the church I had learned to pray my doubts away until they became too obvious and irreconcilable with my own personal beliefs. From there I took a more deist position with respect to the Christian god, it was a short time thereafter that I was finally able to become comfortable with my doubts and recognize myself as an Atheist, this was at the age of 19.

I received a Bachelors of Science in Zoology and Chemistry in 2012 and a Bachelors of Arts in Foreign Language German and Japanese. I studied abroad in both Germany and Japan studying both language and culture, including world religions classes as part of the criteria for the BA.

My studies in the life sciences were largely responsible for me leaving religion, as it was the only means thus far by which I was able to find convincing enough answers to questions I was wrestling with in my life. Seeing some of the so called "great mysteries" of life so easily explained away as early as in my Intro to Biology course in my freshman year of college was a pivotal catalyst in my life. Because of the consistently reliable nature of the scientific method and the plausible explanations to phenomena it offers through rigorous testing, empirical data, and a built-in self-checking mechanism known as "peer review" (but more on that later), I was able to reject appeals to faith and decided that I would no longer have need for it myself. With that, I now adhere to the tentative Atheist position until some irrefutable evidence comes along to convince me otherwise.

Should there come a day where I am presented with new information that checks out and is presented with reliable data and replicable experimentation that yields consistent results to support the existence of any deity, then I would gladly change my views in accordance to the new evidence presented to me. That’s all it would take, one convincing piece of evidence and I would change my stance. However; such a day has not yet come, therefore I remain aligned with the null hypothesis of there not being any extant deity. With that said, and knowing what I come from here is the breakdown of our visit to the Christian Science Church...

LIGHTING THE POWDER KEG:

There was a mix of interactions with the people here. Some quietly (and not so quietly) hostile, and others who were warm and helpful. One member in particular is worth noting, the woman speaker of the sermon. She approached the back pew where we, the newcomers were sitting, Chad, his friend Lisa, and me. She was nice at first and opened up a conversation with pleasantries such as "how did you find the service?", "Is this your first time here?", "Did you have any questions?" This is where she invited the vampires in, so to speak. As a matter of fact I DID happen to scribble down in my notebook some questions that I had wanted to ask her specifically.

I told her about my background in science and that I wanted to ask her about the "textbook" that they were using and if it was similar to contemporary science textbooks that are revised and updated with new findings, data, and consensus in newer editions. She had absolutely NO idea what in the world I was talking about. Her posture and demeanor changed immediately. She responded with a blank look which turned to one of confusion and disbelief once I inquired about the author of the book, turning to the wall behind me to read the name of the founder of the church, as I had forgotten her name. I asked her if it was a textbook like one which outlined and explained naturally occurring phenomena or if it was a biblical annotation explaining how science supports biblical claims to the best of early 19th century understanding. Again, she was a deer in the headlights, she must have been absolutely taken aback that anyone would actually think to question the book and inquire about its esteemed author.

Sincere, in all of my questions, I asked “what exactly is Christian Science? What makes it Science?”

She replied "well, it is a science and there are many things you need to understand before you can grasp it. It's like mathematics or music, you can't just open a book and learn it. You need to understand things like 'infinite' and 'finite'", I found this response very vague and unsatisfying. Had she not just said less than an hour ago that the bible and the textbook by Mary Baker Eddy were the only two preachers they needed? Furthermore, what kind of thing is that to say, that you can't open up a book and learn something on your own?

 From there I asked about the textbook used during the sermon and if that was the same book they used in the 1800's. With her face now red at this point, and obviously frustrated she bluntly snapped, "What are you doing here?". I could tell she was becoming distraught. I found this shocking because I would have thought she would have been used to answering questions about the church and its founder being that it was vastly different than mainstream Christian religions. I assumed of course, that being a lead speaker and representative of her faith, she would often be the one answering questions from outsiders. This, compounded by the fact that not just ten minutes ago, did she tell the small congregation that the church was open and welcome to all, so what does it matter why we chose to visit? We were invited, it even said on the sign outside their building.

“All are welcome right?” I also asked her about the kinds of research that they did, got another blank look, then I asked her again "So what is Christian science?" The exchange went something like this:

Member: "Well, it is a science. Just like music or art. You get out of it what you put in. it can heal the body and spirit." (Yes she had already said this…)
Me: "How? By body, you mean it can heal actual physiological illness and injury?"
Member: "Yes."
Me: "How?"
Member: "Through prayer. It is done consistently and happens all the time"
Me: (to myself "um, no….. it isn't, that is why we have so many hospitals") "Oh that's interesting..." I said awkwardly. She could tell I wasn’t buying it.

She kept repeating the same thing about Music and art, and also said that it is like math or music, that you can't just open up a textbook and understand it. You have to work at it and study it. I had a HUGE problem with this because she was absolutely wrong. You can open up a math book and learn about it, which is why they are there, it helps to have an instructor of course, but there are instructions and examples in the math book, there are instructions, history and theory outlined in the music books. The only thing she got right is that you have to work at it. She was not doing a very good job helping me understand why they call it science. They must have either a VERY loose definition or an entirely different definition than the rest of the mainstream scientific community.

Calling something science does not make it science and she was having a hard time understanding this. I only wish I had recorded the conversation... at this point I was starting to get frustrated so I changed the subject, asking about other publications I had seen on the way in as we walked into the entrance way near their front office and a closet with some of their literature. I told her what we were doing; we were going to different churches every week to learn about different religions and their beliefs. There in the hallway Chad and his friend were having a conversation with another member who had not heard the conversation I was having with the speaker. This woman, tall, older, with red hair sounded very posh when she spoke.

I asked earlier about the textbook and expressed interest in seeing it, they gave me a free copy, Chad and his friend asked for one as well, Lisa got a nice hardcover copy that one member bought for her and Chad and I were presented with free paperback editions. The tall, red-headed lady that Chad and Lisa were speaking to was sorting through the closet, looking for other literature to give us to answer any questions that we might have, I told them that I heard that they had a very prestigious news magazine, upon hearing this the woman handed me a couple of old editions and at that time spotted another publication and showed it to me while saying the name of the article "The Body's not the Boss" the woman with whom I was speaking  earlier chimed in hurriedly "He's not ready for that one..." and took it and tossed it back in the closet. I asked if I could see it, the tall woman handed it to me saying that it was a Christian Science Journal. All the while the other woman pursed her lips and tried to maintain her composure, though she obviously ruffled. I was intrigued, "they had their own scientific journal?" I thought, "This I got to see." Though I felt that it would be very different than what I understood to be a scientific journal, I decided to ask more about it, big mistake!

I said to them "Oh that's cool, you publish a scientific journal! Is it peer-reviewed?" What happened next absolutely horrified me! They looked at me and said almost in unison, "Peer-reviewed? What's that?"

I choked back what may have come out as a laugh or a scream, I couldn't tell which because it was drowned in vomit before it could reach my lips, but I did my best to keep my composure. I died a little inside to be honest, I was somewhere between shock, disbelief, and insult. This woman whom I had been speaking to earlier, had the audacity to talk down to me and tell me that "oh you just don't understand the way it works", to condescend me and my friends by saying "there is a lot you need to learn, things like 'finite' and ‘infinite' before...", was now telling me that they, self proclaimed scientists and academics, had no freaking clue what in the world was peer-review?! I should have expected this from someone whose million dollar words were "Infinite" and "finite". I felt insulted that though they call themselves scientists, they had been talking down and condescending us during what should have been a pleasant post-service Q&A and turned it into a debate and borderline interrogation when I was asking simple questions about where their own publications they claimed were scientific.

As taken aback as I was, I carefully and politely explained to them what peer review was. For those who do not claim to be scientists and justifiably do not know what it is, please see my explanation below.

(For those that do, please feel free to read ahead to the “What is a Journal section”)

After that, I elaborated by discussing the role it plays in journals and what those were as well. The whole time they were like does in the headlights and there was no getting through to them. It was frustrating of course but I hope that some of what I have written here might arm some of you for encounters you might have for people like this who devalue and bastardize academia.

WHAT IS PEER REVIEW?:

"Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia, peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. Peer review can be categorized by the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs. For example, medical peer review can refer to clinical peer-review, or the peer evaluation of clinical teaching skills for both physicians and nurses, or scientific peer review of journal articles or to a secondary round of peer review for the clinical value of articles concurrently published in medical Journal." – Wikipedia (yes I know I cited Wikipedia but it is consistent with the other sources)

"evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field." -Webster's Dictionary

WHY IS PEER REVIEW IMPORTANT?

Depending on the field in which you are researching, you would attempt to publish your work in a credible peer-reviewed journal that specializes in your field of research. For example; the article they showed me was on healing illness and injury, therefore you would have expected that it would have been reviewed by medical professionals to verify its credibility and accuracy. If their data and experimentation methods check out, then it could be potentially admitted into a scientific journal.

Peer-review is one of the most important parts of any scientific study; in fact it is what lends credibility to the work. This is because ANYBODY can make a claim or say anything that they want, but without somebody else who has studied that area in depth to fact check, proofread and call bullshit where it is necessary then that claim is just a claim and thus not a credible source of information. If someone came up with a new drug which they claimed to treat a disease, say, cancer; would you take their word for it? Or would you want to see their credentials? What kind of testing has it undergone? What studies have been shown to support this claim that this particular drug cures cancer?

DO I NEED EVIDENCE FOR EVERYTHING?

So do you need peer review for everything? No not really, only where it matters. If I told you that I had the power to levitate and throw spaghetti from my nostrils you would probably want to somehow verify whether that is true or not. A claim like that would require substantial amount of evidence and you would not want to take it seriously unless that is what I provided or I had demonstrated that I could indeed sneeze up a pasta dinner for you right then and there. However if I told you that I had eaten spaghetti for dinner last night, that is something that could be reasonably taken at face value as it is not really a very magnificent nor extraordinary claim. People eat spaghetti all the time and you yourself could get some quite easily if you had the desire; therefore it is alright to assume that it is possible that I had. What I eat in this case has no significant bearing on your life so there is no real need to waste your time or mine by asserting that I show you my grocery store receipt.

That is something to consider, the baggage of a claim, what weight does it carry? What are the consequences of buying into something without first seeing if the claim is credible? While you stand nothing to lose if I am lying to you about what I ate for dinner, it is an entirely different story if you are about to throw down several hundred dollars on a weight loss supplement or some other lotion or potion. With that sort of investment at stake, one would likely want to consider the validity of the claims of the salesperson. What if it was your life on the line, or someone you loved? Someone afflicted with a life threatening condition is relying on your judgment, would you take them to a shaman or a hospital? Which would you choose and why? Justifiably your demands for proof can be based proportionally on the weight of your decision and its consequences.

The article in the Christian Science Sentinel journal however was making an enormous claim that adheres to the teachings of the Christian science Church. The idea that by simply denying or not believing in pain or disease will make them cease to exist. Affliction will dissipate because it is all an illusion. Faith healing has been discredited by almost every single scientific study that is ever been conducted upon it, the New York Times covered an article in 2006 about a rigorous 10 year study done on the effectiveness of prayer for hospitalized patients and the like, the article can be found here. The study found that the effectiveness of prayer was indeed no different than what would have been expected of healing by chance alone. So as to the Church of Christian Scientists, for someone to claim a disease does not exist and that illness and injury and death itself are merely illusions something like that would require extraordinary evidence to back it, it is not only wrong, it is INSANE! True enough the body has natural immunities, but faith alone isn’t going to set a broken bone and prayer won’t kill cancer cells. To heal real world ailments you need to work based on real world laws, it takes real world intervention and real world matter, not ethereal quackery.

WHAT IS A JOURNAL?

Now, it is important to understand just what and how important journals are in science. They are not like personal day books where you write down your thoughts and dreams; In the scientific community, they are something quite different. An academic journal is a collection of the latest work being done by members of the scientific community. Gathering the latest and greatest findings to share with the world, they provide more bricks to build our understanding of the universe. When looking for the most reliable information on a new topic, you really can’t get much better than a good peer reviewed journal. There is, of course a scale in prestige and credibility in these publications.

 Journals such as Science and Nature, for example are among some of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world. It should be every researcher’s dream to have their work published in either one of these. Science journals aren’t the only ones that are out there, there are journals for most areas of study: Medicine, nursing, education, dentistry, biology, zoology, mammalogy, and on and on. If you just want a sneek peek of some of the topics available look HERE if you want a short list of some more journals click HERE. Even in these sub disciplines though, we find that there are varying degrees of quality so it is important to note that, while they can be great sources of information on new discoveries, there are still a few bad apples in every bunch and it is a good idea to double check the credibility of the articles within.

To some, these publications mean so much more than just news. They are the manifestations of dreams; they are compilations of the latest scientific discoveries by some of the most brilliant men and women in the world. They are the words of experts, masters of their fields, the intellectual elite. These are the people who innovate new technologies, discover new medicines, and dispel the old mysteries of the universe in exchange for new ones. They find solutions to real world problems, heal the sick, feed the hungry, build better mouse traps, they are the wide eyed children that refused to grow up, never forsaking their ambition of finding their place among the stars. They are on the front lines for the quest for knowledge, for every question answered, two more replace it, this is their gift to humanity, the sense of wonder and awe somehow lost to time in our journey to adulthood, destined to fade away like tracks in the snow to be filled with the cold burdens and responsibilities falling on us.

Too many people, in their adult life, have left imagination behind, that curiosity which once moved them now fallen to ruin, overgrown with weeds and filled with cobwebs and dust; their minds now but chests of lost wonders with a rusted lock waiting to be reopened. The scientist and the educator seek to smash that chain and set imaginations free to soar among the clouds once more. These men and women see value not so much in finding answers, but rather in the pursuit of them. For them it is about the journey, not the destination. Their passion is for what they don't know, it gives them purpose; it gives their life meaning. This void in their current understanding of their universe is the driving force behind their work. Their gift to humanity is knowledge as well as mystery.

Now before I get carried away (if I haven't already), I will acknowledge that nobody is perfect and that scientists are people too that make mistakes and are subject to the same flaws as everybody else. The good, the bad, you name it; but most love what they do and try to meet academic standards of integrity and ethics. Facts are facts, but it is how they are presented and then interpreted that are the cause for controversy. My point is that if you want to submit an article into a journal then these are the guys you want to look it over! Depending on the field in which you are researching, you would attempt to publish your work in a credible peer-reviewed journal that focuses on your field of research. Medical finding should be found in a medical journal, discovery of a new lizard or frog would be sent in to a herpetological journal, etc. A scientist who perhaps studies the osmotic physiology of halophilic organisms in the Great Salt Lake would not submit their research to a journal that focuses on dentistry.

WHERE DID THEY GO WRONG?

The article the Christian Scientists showed me “The Body’s Not the Boss” was on healing illness and injury, therefore you would have expected that it would have been reviewed by medical professionals to verify its credibility and accuracy. If their data and experimentation methods check out then it would be admitted into a scientific journal and could then justifiably be called peer-reviewed. This was not the case, however. There were no sources listed, no materials and methods, no experimental design, no bibliographies, no reviews, nothing!

Now, when I finally got a moment to look this thing over it sickened me. This “journal” of theirs was nothing more than a collection of hearsay testimonies of miraculous healing and sales pitches for other Christian Science Literature! In no way did it even resemble what a real journal is supposed to be. It was a regular cornucopia of crazy I can’t believe people can actually take this mess seriously! Peer-review is one of the most important parts of any scientific study because without somebody to fact check, proofread, and call bullshit where it is found people can get away with anything. We would still be seeing snake oil salesmen with their love potions and cure-alls which is EXACTLY what organizations like the Christian Scientists are doing and it needs to stop. These are NOT the people from whom you want to take any medical advice, I don’t care who you are, this mind set is dangerous and it concerns me.

For more tips on spotting bullshit, please click HERE

WHAT SCIENCE IS:

Science is the process by which people derive conclusions based on empirical studies and data. It begins with an observation, something that is seen by a person more research and then they ask a question. They are curious about what they see and want to know more about what it is, why it does what it does, why it is what it is so on and so forth. When they formulate these questions they will also form a hypothesis, or an educated guess as to the explanation of the observed phenomenon.

The next step is to test the hypothesis by designing an experiment with controls and variables. The control is something that does not change throughout the experiment whereas the variable is what is being changed to see what effect if any there is. The experiment will for example change the variables see how it affects the outcome, the data that is collected will be recorded and later analyzed. There will often be a couple of hypotheses; the hypothesis and the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis usually states that there will be no change or that there is no significant difference between specified populations, any observed difference being due to sampling or experimental error.

The beauty of experimentation is that it should be able to be replicated by others who may wish to conduct the study themselves or for critics to see how you did the procedure and where you might have erred. You can think of it as showing your work in math class so your teacher can see how you got your answers. During the experiment the researcher will document all materials and methods involved in the experiment and put it in what is called the materials and methods section of a paper. It is like a recipe book someone else can pick up later with all the materials needed and how to perform the experiment. If you were following a recipe for a red velvet cake it would be very unlikely that if you followed the instructions you would wind up with a grilled steak dinner, if you do in fact wind up with something different, you can write a review to the paper and point out what the researcher had gotten wrong. On the other hand it is entirely possible that the person repeating the experiment had made a mistake as well, that is why it takes many repetitions with similar end results to consider something viable.

Once you complete the experiment and look at the data you will then return to your hypothesis and see if this data is conducive with any of your hypotheses. Whether it is supportive of your hypothesis or whether it does not support your hypothesis. The beauty of science is that it does not solve anything 100%, it deals only with probabilities it provides evidence in support of or not in support of a given hypothesis. It is the responsibility of the researcher to maintain their integrity and to record the data honestly, without bias. It is intellectual honesty and it gives credibility to the researcher if they analyze the data honestly and accurately.

It is counterproductive to only consider only the data that supports the hypothesis, because this does not lead to any real answers the experiment is tainted at this point. This is called a confirmation bias and this is what is commonly observed with creation scientists. It is an easy trap for the researcher to fall into, but it damages their credibility if they are caught. The goal in research is not so much to be correct about something but rather to somehow contribute in any small way to the growing body of scientific knowledge. Most studies that are done support the null hypothesis, meaning that scientists are wrong more often than not. A researcher can say “Well as it turns out X has no effect on Y. Oh well, back to the drawing board.” Being wrong can be a good thing because you now know what something is not. When you learn that a given hypothesis is incorrect, you would then have to reformulate a new hypothesis to explain the observed phenomenon, continually innovating until you find something that works. The majority of hypotheses out there are wrong at first, but negatives are still progress because you gain direction and learn from these mistakes. This keeps the researcher moving forward, it is not a failure, quite the contrary; it is a stepping stone to stand on the next time a test is going to be carried out. The researcher will no longer have to waste time with X, maybe instead try Z.

Science is a Descriptive process, not a proscriptive tool. It is there to explain what we see and to build a model based around that which is used to give predictability. A strong model is one that was built on observations, tested again and again over time and can be applied consistently to predict or explain a phenomenon. A good example of this would be weather forecasts or being able to predict phases of the moon and eclipses. Knowing how gravity and orbits work, scientists were able to calculate when and where the recent April 2014 red moon eclipse could be seen.

Science is only excepting things that are based on credible evidence, models that are conducive with our observations of reality. You don't have to believe in gravity to know that it is a real phenomenon, you don't have to know what it is called to observe it; it just is. Gravity can be measured, observed, quantified empirically. Mathematical formulas can be used to accurately predict the force of gravity in a variety of different environments, such as the moon or other planets based on consistent physical and mathematical laws. These are, again, those observations mentioned earlier. We see that happening and they are merely described by scientific method. Science does not create natural laws, they existed before they were discovered, all science does is describe what is already there and proposes mechanisms to explain what we see. Models are formed to give predictability. The same goes for evolution it was not something invented by scientists. Change in species over time was well known for a long time; Charles Darwin merely proposed a mechanism that describes the phenomenon of species changing. He was not the only one to consider it and if he never came about, then someone else would have discovered it in his place, like leaving a big rock in a busy city square, many people won’t even notice but someone is bound to trip on it eventually.

WHAT SCIENCE IS NOT:

What is not science? Basically everything these people said it was. Some of the things that this woman mentioned were: Testimony, faith, beginning with a perfect standard. These are all vehemently not science!

Let me break it down starting with testimony. Testimony is a claim that can be made by anyone. No evidence nor testing is needed for testimony, at least in their definition. It could be anything from allegories to anecdotal stories, basically it is hearsay. If there had been a brutal murder and you find yourself on a jury in court, the convicted man or woman's life hangs in the balance, your verdict is all that stands between them and the electric chair. You are presented with two pieces of evidence; the testimony of a surprise witness who can't be placed at the murder scene says that they were there and the person standing trail is the killer. The second piece of evidence is a different person's fingerprints and DNA on the murder weapon. Now ask yourself this, which of these is more compelling? Which of these would you bet a life on? 

(There is a lot of overlap here between evidence and peer review isn’t there?)

Same scenario, different person on trial, you. You stand convicted of murder. Which would you bet your life on?  Testimony though can come in a spectrum; however, I am not saying that all are unreliable but if you consider the severity or magnitude of a situation, is it good enough? If someone says earwax can cure polio, yet there is no evidence to support this claim, then why should you believe them? Moreover why should you pay them a rediculous price for what they are selling? Same with prayer, no study EVER done supports the claim that prayer or faith can cure a terminal illness or regroup the limb of an amputee. However studies have shown that organs and even ears can be grown in a laboratory through stem cell research. What are you going to bet your life on? 

Next is faith. Faith as it relates to this situation in its definition is not science. Faith that your finger is going to grow back, that a paraplegic will walk again, or that your cancer will go away without medical treatment is not science. Faith healing has been debunked and shown not to work over and over again. Faith is believing something in spite of or without evidence or good reason to believe it in the first place. Faith is the every antithesis if science. A scientific mind does not take an extraordinary claim at face value. It implements a healthy dose of skepticism.

Ok, now perfect standards to live by. This is the one that sets me off “starting with a perfect standard.” What the lady was implying was that she already had all the answers. Moreover that they were all in this book written by a woman in the mid nineteenth century! I am grateful that mainstream science doesn't appeal only to information from the 1800's. I am especially happy that medical progress hasn't been arrested to standards from over 250 years ago!! Can you imagine life without modern anesthesia, antibiotics, insulin, and the list goes on. To say that answers to any medical and scientific question can be found in any one book regardless of when it was written is not only asinine, it's insane!! That is EXACTLY What the Christian Scientists are claiming!

Their logic is that all matter, all sickness, all pain and injury; all that is perceived by the senses is an illusion. Even death, they claim is an illusion! The spirit, the metaphysical, only god is real. So there is their conclusion, all other data and evidence is warped and twisted to fit that mold. That is how these people operate. They begin with the conclusion and work their way around that. It is like shooting the side of a barn with bow and drawing the bull's eye around the arrow. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE!! This is a pretentious cop out, an arrogant, willfully ignorant denial of critical thought. They stand at the pulpit reciting outdated material that was false to begin with and not even accepted in its own time. They are preaching these fallacies as fact and using big words and actual scientific terminology to try and make it sound legitimate.

Let me just say, I acknowledge people's rights to their beliefs, and I respect those RIGHTS, but the beliefs themselves.... For this belief I have absolutely NO respect.

The biggest thing which science is not... Perfect. Science is not perfect! But that is why it works! Almost nothing in science is absolute. It is fallible, there are margins of error, there are variables, there are biases on the parts of the researcher as they themselves are not perfect either; that is why there is peer review, the built in self-correcting mechanism. All work is meticulously ran through the gauntlet of the scrutiny in the eye of the scientific community. They are looking for flaws in your research, scientists become famous by correcting the mistakes of other scientists. It is how they mark their place in history, this is why the theory of evolution is so strong, this is why germ and cell theory are so strong, this is why the theory that the earth is round and revolves around the sun is so strong, even gravity is a theory. They are strong because they have withheld the test of time in the face of scrutiny. Each if these has been tested and analyzed and still hold fast because no piece of evidence has ever been found to discredit or falsify any of them. Those few bits that tried to slither through were savagely cut done by the honed edge of peer review.

SCIENCE ISN’T PERFECT:

One of the beauties of science lies and it's imperfection. Because it is imperfect it gives room to improve, to innovate; to build on, and to modify old ideas into newer more reliable ones. Because it is open ended, it allows us to progress and move forward, so long as there are people who are willing to take up the mantle and go forth to discover new mysteries. To reiterate, science deals with probabilities, not absolutes. Probabilities allow us to guide our decisions towards a higher likelihood of success. It is almost teleological, moving ever onward to new horizons to uncovering better cures, more efficient technologies, more innovative products, giving way to a healthier and more enlightened Mankind. Is science perfect? No, but it is very damned best have.

MESSAGE OF CHRISTIAN SCIENCE:

The only reality is god. Life, death, all human sensory, master are all an illusion. The only thing that exists is god.

IN CONCLUSION:

I find Christian Science to be intellectually reprehensible. If it is illegal to impersonate a police officer, a doctor, or any other profession, then how should this be any different allowed? What these people are doing is living in a fantasy world playing make-believe. They're pretending to be scientists and slapping the entire community across the face and pissing on the work done by the actual men and women that are out there solving problems, healing the sick and making a better world for all of us. This idiocy makes me sick and it's not something they can rid of me through prayer. They are selling bad medical advice.

Having spent most of my life interested in biology, astronomy (the actual study of stars and space, not the horoscope and zodiac stuff), geology, paleontology, and a host of other disciplines as well as attaining a 4 year degree in a science related field, I think that somewhere during the last 17-18 years of my life, I should have learned what exactly science IS! Christian Science is NOT that!