Okay, so you hate cigarettes. You want them banned everywhere, including on the street and in the wide open country. You applaud employers who fire employees caught smoking in their own homes. After all, "science" has assured you that even a whiff of second-hand smoke will kill you!
Not so fast. Two decades ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) released the largest long-term second-hand-smoke study ever done. The upshot? Second-hand smoke not only does NOT seem to cause anyone any harm; it actually seems to reduce the chances of getting lung cancer for some of its "victims," like the wives of smokers.
That study received almost no coverage in the U.S., and the politically correct, pure-of-lung powers-that-be quickly forced WHO to bury it. Ditto for a number of smaller studies that have been conducted since then.
But now there's a new study admitting there's no connection between second-hand smoke and lung cancer, this one reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute . No connection. And it's actually getting some attention in U.S. media such as Forbes. One epidemiologist asks if it isn't time for an honest conversation about the evidence; according to columnist Jacob Sullum, he is "frustrated by the willingness of so many anti-tobacco activists and public health officials to overlook or minimize the weakness of the scientific case that secondhand smoke causes fatal illnesses such as lung cancer and heart disease."
So here's my question for you: Does the fact that "science" has fibbed about this issue (for at least two decades) disturb you at all? Does it make you doubt its assertions in other areas -- say, just for instance, that evolution is "fact," as nasty little atheist scientist Richard Dawkins insists?
There are interesting parallels here, strange as it may seem -- because the evidence against evolution, and in favor of biblical creation, is truly overwhelming. And yet we are told that the majority of scientists, and an intellectually superior minority of laymen, are convinced that evolution is fact and the Bible is nothing more than myth.
In both cases, there seems to be an appalling lack of interest in the truth.
Does it matter? Aren't cigarettes bad? Isn't the Bible for fools?
I don't know about cigarettes. I gave them up almost 12 years ago, and have packed on enough weight since then to ensure an early death for myself (or so say the "scientists" -- those who join that great physician Michelle Obama in claiming that obesity is deadly, and who would undoubtedly insist that King David didn't know what he was talking about when he wrote, in Psalm 139, "In Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them.")
But I do know about the Bible. Its exhaustively demonstrated and documented scientific truth is 100% accurate, even though it contradicts evolution theory from start to finish. Yet its writers could not have known any of these things apart from divine inspiration.
That means that we can also trust what the Bible's writers tell us about eternal life, and how to find it. We can logically heed their warnings against believing "science so-called," including the apostle Paul's admonition in 1 Timothy 6: "Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge." And we can safely ignore the "No God! No heaven!" rantings of scientists like Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens (who now, I might add, knows how wrong he was).
The truth is, scientists are as deception-prone as the rest of us. They are just as suspectible to the herd mentality as any other human beings. And they are just as likely to be outright liars when it suits their purposes. This second-hand smoke study is just the latest demonstration of all three assertions. I hope it makes at least a few skeptics take another, very serious look at what the Bible has to say about absolutely everything.
Not so fast. Two decades ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) released the largest long-term second-hand-smoke study ever done. The upshot? Second-hand smoke not only does NOT seem to cause anyone any harm; it actually seems to reduce the chances of getting lung cancer for some of its "victims," like the wives of smokers.
That study received almost no coverage in the U.S., and the politically correct, pure-of-lung powers-that-be quickly forced WHO to bury it. Ditto for a number of smaller studies that have been conducted since then.
But now there's a new study admitting there's no connection between second-hand smoke and lung cancer, this one reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute . No connection. And it's actually getting some attention in U.S. media such as Forbes. One epidemiologist asks if it isn't time for an honest conversation about the evidence; according to columnist Jacob Sullum, he is "frustrated by the willingness of so many anti-tobacco activists and public health officials to overlook or minimize the weakness of the scientific case that secondhand smoke causes fatal illnesses such as lung cancer and heart disease."
So here's my question for you: Does the fact that "science" has fibbed about this issue (for at least two decades) disturb you at all? Does it make you doubt its assertions in other areas -- say, just for instance, that evolution is "fact," as nasty little atheist scientist Richard Dawkins insists?
There are interesting parallels here, strange as it may seem -- because the evidence against evolution, and in favor of biblical creation, is truly overwhelming. And yet we are told that the majority of scientists, and an intellectually superior minority of laymen, are convinced that evolution is fact and the Bible is nothing more than myth.
In both cases, there seems to be an appalling lack of interest in the truth.
Does it matter? Aren't cigarettes bad? Isn't the Bible for fools?
I don't know about cigarettes. I gave them up almost 12 years ago, and have packed on enough weight since then to ensure an early death for myself (or so say the "scientists" -- those who join that great physician Michelle Obama in claiming that obesity is deadly, and who would undoubtedly insist that King David didn't know what he was talking about when he wrote, in Psalm 139, "In Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them.")
But I do know about the Bible. Its exhaustively demonstrated and documented scientific truth is 100% accurate, even though it contradicts evolution theory from start to finish. Yet its writers could not have known any of these things apart from divine inspiration.
That means that we can also trust what the Bible's writers tell us about eternal life, and how to find it. We can logically heed their warnings against believing "science so-called," including the apostle Paul's admonition in 1 Timothy 6: "Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge." And we can safely ignore the "No God! No heaven!" rantings of scientists like Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens (who now, I might add, knows how wrong he was).
The truth is, scientists are as deception-prone as the rest of us. They are just as suspectible to the herd mentality as any other human beings. And they are just as likely to be outright liars when it suits their purposes. This second-hand smoke study is just the latest demonstration of all three assertions. I hope it makes at least a few skeptics take another, very serious look at what the Bible has to say about absolutely everything.
RSS Feed