Today, science is believed to be more advanced, and we’ve replaced these old faulty apriorisms — like the earth is flat or the earth is the center of the universe — with new (hopefully) accurate ones. Or, have we?

Are we certain that our current scientific facts about the creation of the universe are correct? Carl Sagan and his colleagues say the universe positively always was and always will be. In saying so, they appropriated and then distorted the language of the Bible, which greatly preceded them. They go on to state that the universe itself resulted from the explosion of a super-compressed grain of pre-existent energy and that, thereafter, the diverse life found within the earth simply evolved from nothing more than a random mix of base chemical elements. Consequently, there’s no god other than the universe itself, and that’s a god with a very small g. There’s no all-powerful, caring, eternal Creator God with a plan. Sagan and his colleagues have a majority of the population deceived into following along with their apriorisms. Perhaps their beliefs really are as foolish as, and more dangerous than, those fifteenth-century ones about the earth that now cause laughter.

Are we certain that our current scientific facts about the creation of earthly life are correct? The Neo-Darwinian theorists who retain a religious-like faith in macroevolution have found no provable arguments in favor of their wild speculation or any against creation. When they look deep into the human cell structure, the only sustainable solution for irreducible complexity becomes intelligent design. From the outward universe to the inward cell, evolution would be a far greater miracle to have occurred than would have creation. Except for the existing apriorism against it, why not go with creation?

Are we certain that our current scientific facts about worldwide climate change (formerly known as global warming) are correct after already missing multiple forecasted dates as to when human life on our planet would cease to exist? Up to the 1970s, scientists predicted the coming of another ice age. Thousands of contrarian experts have put their careers at risk by registering disagreement with CC and backing it with alternative facts and predictions. With its attendant carbon offset credits on greenhouse gas emission caps, CC is more about political control and financial gain, than about saving the globe. The liberal majority says the discussion is over on climate – just as it supposedly is on evolution.  Their opinions are set in concrete and they will tolerate no more opposing research or dialog.

Are we certain that our current scientific facts about when a baby becomes a person endowed with inalienable rights (as well as a soul and spirit) are correct? More than half of the medical population of our nation does not believe that it occurs anytime between conception and when naturally exiting the womb at the conclusion of approximately nine months.  Perhaps, it is more accurate to pose their response as: Does not want to believe in personhood because a counter belief in a clump of organic cells justifies abortion as personally and politically more convenient. The evidence that a baby possesses the potential for an independent life far earlier than the usual nine-month term is incontrovertible and should be the accurate apriorism.

We may never again confuse a spherical earth with a flat one, but there are still plenty of other faith-like myths we accept as facts.