Press "Enter" to skip to content

Science Doesn’t Seem to Make Sense Any More

When modern scientists say that the atom can be divided into smaller participles, they contradict the definition of an “atom”, which is an indivisible part. The Greek word ἄτομος means, literally, not ἄ- divisible τομος.1

In fact, such a statement, if true, would prove atomic theory false since it is based on the supposed characteristics of those atoms. If air, for example, is composed of oxygen and nitrogen atoms, but those atoms are actually composed of smaller bodies, then it is just as well to say “air” as “oxygen” because neither of them identify the elementary substance.

If this division of “atoms” goes on infinitely, which scientists have no means of proving false, then, again, atomic theory would be false. It would be comparable to arguing that there are many universes, when the word “universe” means “everything”.

Scientists today will attempt to redefine atom, as we see here:

“The atom is considered the basic building block of matter. Anything that has a mass—in other words, anything that occupies space—is composed of atoms. While its name originally referred to a particle that couldn’t be divided any more—the smallest thing possible—we now know that each atom is generally made up of smaller particles.”2

This sounds clever, but becomes a circular argument, assuming, first, that the “atom” as formerly defined is, in fact, an elementary substance, which we no longer know to be true if there are “subatomic” particles. Who is to say that the “elements” identified in modern Chemistry are any more “real” than the original four elements identified by the ancient natural philosophers? Arguing that it is improper to call air “Air” because it is actually composed of Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc., assumes that the oxygen and nitrogen atoms are the actual elementary substances, but if there remain unknown particles beyond the “atom”, we cannot actually demonstrate this to be true. If asked, “Why would not the particles “proton”, “electron” and “neutron” be identified as the three principal material causes of all that exists, the answer would be that these do no posses the qualities of Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc..

How many people, talking about “science”, even know what “science” teaches today?

Well, that’s obvious–but they wouldn’t need to, any more than Oxygen or Nitrogen would need to posses the quality of “Air”. Why are those constituent parts called “elements”, but not the subatomic particles? The chemical elements do not contain all of the qualities of the bodies they are said to be the elements of. Aristotle could call them “parts” in the same way that modern scientists are calling subatomic particles “parts” of chemical atoms. It appears, then, that we are allowing modern natural scientists to reject Aristotelean natural philosophy arbitrarily, while pretending that the new explanation is “real”, when it is not.

Or, looking at the supposed structure of an atom, how does it differ from a “solar system”? How do we know that the nucleus is not, in fact, another universe of particles?

What we are finding in science is not what many modern Christians like to celebrate as “the glory of God”. What we find is, actually, the demonstration of the folly of the scientific method. What we find is the confirmation of the wisdom of the ancient philosophers who said, 2,400 years ago, that this is exactly what would be found if men undertook the work of “studying individuals” rather than “stopping at species”. They explained the same with respect to the investigation of the heavens, which Pliny (1st century AD) warned of:

It is madness to harass the mind, as some have done, with attempts to measure the world, and to publish these attempts; or, like others, to argue from what they have made out, that there are innumerable other worlds, and that we must believe there to be so many other natures, or that, if only one nature produced the whole, there will be so many suns and so many moons, and that each of them will have immense trains of other heavenly bodies. As if the same question would not recur at every step of our inquiry, anxious as we must be to arrive at some termination; or, as if this infinity, which we ascribe to nature,
the former of all things, cannot be more easily comprehended by one single formation, especially when that is so extensive. It is madness, perfect madness, to go out of this world and to search for what is
beyond it, as if one who is ignorant of his own dimensions could ascertain the measure of any thing else, or as if the human mind could see what the world itself cannot contain.3

Only modern science would ever be allowed to get away with this complete nonsense–pretending to always be right while saying things that no longer even make sense. In the end, we’re going to find that Aristotle’s natural philosophy was the best–but no modern scientist will ever admit this.

Notes

  1. A Lexicon, Abridged from Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 113.
  2. “What is an Atom?” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, accessed November 2, 2023, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/science-101/what-is-an-atom.html.
  3. Pliny the Elder, The Natural History of Pliny, trans. Bostock, J. and Riley, T. (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1855), 15.

Be First to Comment

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *