|Feature Article - December 2011|
|by Do-While Jones|
Real scientific truth increases—it doesn’t change.
In January, 1962, I was an 8th grade science student, building my own oscilloscope from a Heathkit, looking forward to our family summer vacation at the Seattle World’s Fair. The theme of the Fair was “Century 21,” and it was all about how science would make our world better in the 21st century. I couldn’t wait.
In 1962, I knew a lot about physics and the laws of motion (especially their practical applications at the bowling alley, pool table, and ping pong table). I know a lot more about physics now than I did in 8th grade; but everything I knew about physics in 8th grade is still true today.
In 1962, I knew a lot about electricity and magnetism—not as much as I know today, but enough to build a simple electric motor and a crystal radio. Everything I knew about electronics then is still true today.
By 1962, I had done all the experiments I cared to do with the chemistry set I got for Christmas several years earlier. As far as I know, all the chemical reactions that happened in 1962 still happen exactly the same way today.
I know a lot more math today than I did in 1962—calculus, in particular. Calculus depends greatly upon a correct understanding of geometry, which I probably didn’t learn until my 10th grade advanced math class. The sine of 45 degrees is still 0.707, just like it was back then.
I saw my first computer at the 1962 Seattle World’s Fair. Shortly thereafter, I got a Minivac 601 computer which had six relays and could be programmed to play tic-tac-toe. I’ve seen, built, and programmed a lot of computers since then; but I still have that Minivac 601 up in the attic, and it still can be programmed to play tic-tac-toe.
What I loved about science then, and still love about science today, is that it is a way to discover the truth about the world and how it works. Science moves monotonically from ignorance to knowledge.
I never really liked economics, philosophy, or politics because they are subjective, variable opinions. You can argue all day about whether or not a tax cut will increase revenue. Even if you cut taxes, and it does increase revenue, you can’t be sure the increase wasn’t due to some other factor than the tax cut. Whatever the majority opinion is about economics, philosophy, or politics is today, it might not be the same tomorrow.
In 1962, I was taught that dinosaurs were cold-blooded scaly reptiles that went extinct long before man appeared on the Earth. Now, school children are being taught that dinosaurs were actually warm-blooded feathered birds, some of which coexist with man today.
In 1962, I was taught that Neanderthal man evolved into Cro-Magnon man, who evolved into modern man. Neanderthal man went extinct long before modern man evolved. Now, children are told that Neanderthal man not only existed at the same time as modern man, he also had sexual relations (and probably homosexual relations) with modern man.
In the last 15 years, I’ve written more than 650 articles about evolution. I didn’t actually count them by hand—I used a computer program that did. So, I don’t know exactly how many of them deal with opinions evolutionists used to say were true, but now no longer believe. I just know there are a lot of them. Scientific journals are full of articles about fossils that “prove” that something is older, or younger, than previously thought.
The theory of evolution is not scientific. The theory of evolution is speculation about how something that didn’t happen must have happened. That’s why the speculation is always wrong, and always replaced with different speculation. Unlike physics, chemistry, mathematics, and other academic fields that really are scientific, the theory of evolution doesn’t proceed from ignorance to knowledge—it just goes down one blind alley after another, desperately searching for something that doesn’t exist.
The theory of evolution claims the honor and respect rightfully due to science by pretending to be scientific. But the theory of evolution is just an opinion based on inference, not experimental data.
Experiments about the origin of life simply demonstrate why it could not happen by purely natural processes guided by chance. More than that, experiments demonstrate why life cannot originate by purely natural processes guided by chance. Recent experiments involving artificial life (if one can actually call it “life”) simply show how complex even the simplest living thing has to be.
Traditional breeding experiments have long shown that there is a limit to how much variation can be achieved through selective pressure. Modern genetic engineering experiments show how difficult it is to produce novel features in existing creatures using techniques that don’t exist outside the laboratory. Things that can’t be done intentionally in the laboratory (even on a small scale) can’t be assumed to happen accidentally outside the laboratory.
Scientists know more about their fields of study today than they did in 1962. Evolutionists don’t know any more than they did 50 years ago. They just are wrong in different ways today than the ways they were wrong 50 years ago. They expect us to believe they are right today because they claim to be scientists, and hope to misappropriate the respect due to real scientists. Real science is against evolution.
|Quick links to|
|Science Against Evolution
|Back issues of
of the Month