Ah, Evidence of Scientific Objectivity

To tan or not to tan, that now is the question. The report has now emerged: being out in the sun is good for you and will help you avoid cancer. Wow! Just the opposite of what we have all been told. So says a new report advocated by Dr. Edward Giovannucci, a Harvard University professor. Dr. Giovannucci is convinced that the sun is really good for our skin and if we have enough vitamin D, we will not only cut the risk of cancer but protect ourselves from it also. A dermatologist, Dr. Michael Holick slams the conventional thinking that has fueled the sunscreen industry for years saying, "The problem has been that the American Academy of Dermatology has been unchallenged for 20 years," he says. "They have brainwashed the public at every level." Dr. Holick, former chief of endocrinology, was stripped of his professorship when the head of his department noted that he had been paid over $150,000 from the Indoor Tanning Association. Ah, objectivity driving science. I love it. This story ranks up there with the back and forth commendations and condemnations of coffee. I write this with a large cup of Starbucks in front of me. My interest in this story comes from the once again sham of those who claim that science is purely objective and therefore completely authoritative. Does it bother anyone that scientists can't make up their minds? Is anyone intrigued by the fact that many so-called scientific facts are tainted by agendas, grants, academic stardom and public status? Science is not amoral because it is observing a sin-stained world through sin-tainted eyes. So, when evolutionists claim that the earth is dripping with Big-bang evidence, believe them only as far as their secular, anti-God presuppositions will take them. They hamstring their objectivity by their presuppositions. So, until the next objectively produced scientific report, enjoy the sun, take high doses of vitamin D and drink a cup of coffee, just to be safe.