Primary or Secondary?

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

(Isaiah 5:20) NKJV

Hitchens’s razor works by assuming that secondary sources of evidence, vetted and approved by peer review to be compliant with the popular science narrative (SciPop), are primary sources of evidence.

Using as an example the stratigraphic column (primary), SciPop can claim that biological evolution from common ancestors is a “scientific fact,” because the geological timescale is (secondary) evidence. The problem is that the geological timescale is a secondary interpretation of the stratigraphic column, a primary source, which just happens to be the evidence of Noah’s flood.

Secondary sources derived from SciPop may appear to contradict the Biblical account, but that was their purpose. This is why they don’t support a competing paradigm. However, on examination, the primary sources of evidence are found to be compliant with the competing paradigm. Here’s a way to think about it:

  • Hitchens is in a football field playing football with a football.
  • Matty is in a tennis court playing tennis with a tennis ball.
  • Hitchens is mocking Matty because you can’t play tennis with a football.
  • Matty doesn’t care, Matty doesn’t need a football to play tennis.

One Reply to “Primary or Secondary?”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.