|email - January 2017|
Jo leads us into an area we have not sufficiently addressed.
Jo sent us this email regarding the scientific method. Yes, we’ve discussed the scientific method before, 1 2 3 but she comes at the topic from a slightly different angle, which exposes an aspect of the issue that we might not have sufficiently addressed.
It is our policy not to correct errors in emails (unless the email comes from a non-native English speaker) because the errors give some insight into the educational background (or, in this case, dyslexia) of the writer. Here is Jo’s email, exactly as she wrote it:
Dear Sir/ Madam, This is probably going to seem like random questions & probably quite ignorant. The truth is Science is not a subject I could get on with in school & in honesty I hated it.
But i've recently learned some things (via online descussion forums) that I don't fully understand.
Apparently scientists find a hypothesis, they test it and if it passes these tests then the hypothesis becomes a theory. (have I got that right?)
Scientist must then try and disproove the theory and if they cannot the theory becomes stronger. ( is this true?)
My question is... who decided that scientist must try and disprove the theory and why?
I can to some extent see the logic in this but not fully sure.
I am an unofficial dyslexic and it takes me a long time to decipher the contents of written work so I would be very grateful if you could reply in as simple maner as possible, if you are in fact able to reply. ( time permitting etc).
The part of Jo’s question we have never addressed is who invented the scientific method, and who decided it should be used?
Clearly all the famous scientists of the past, Newton, Maxwell, and so on, used the scientific method to make their discoveries; but one could go back even farther to Leonardo da Vinci or Archimedes, and probably even earlier. We aren’t going to get into an argument about who should get credit for being the first one to use the scientific method. We just want to insist that the scientific method is a well-established, reliable way to determine the truth.
Instead, we want to address Jo’s question of who decides what is scientific and what isn’t.
Evolutionists sometimes try to mock creationists by associating them with crazy conspiracy theorists, claiming creationists believe there is some shadowy organization secretly introducing false evolutionary theories into the public schools. Clearly there are some well-known evolutionists, but there isn’t one person behind the movement to get “safe spaces” into universities so that students can be brainwashed without being confused by opposing views.
Schools of fish, and flocks of birds, act as a group. In my former occupation, it was important to understand group behavior because it was relevant to computer simulations of the movement of companies of soldiers, or a fleet of naval vessels, or a squadron of fighter jets engaged in battle. Scientists were interested in the apparently instantaneous many-to-many communication aspects of group behavior because it had obvious military applications.
I no longer have access to the latest classified research on the subject, and I haven’t been motivated to see what there is in the open literature, but I can say this: It has been recognized for a long time that some individuals can function in a cohesive group with a purposeful goal without any apparent leader or obvious means of communication. As much as we would have liked to have found a way to identify the leader of a group and/or disrupt communication to defeat group behavior, we could not do it in the 20th century. As an outsider looking at the War on Terror, it appears we still can’t do it.
Evolutionists are organized like Islamic terrorists. There is no central evolutionist in command upon whom the entire movement rests. Instead, there is a unifying ideology to which they all subscribe. There are evolutionist cells on universities, and school boards, and on TV, and in print journalism, which move in unison without discernable lines of communication to advance that ideology. Evolutionists act like fish. One fish turns, and the whole school turns the same way.
All this is prelude to the answer to Jo’s question, “Who decided that scientists must try and disprove the theory and why?”
The short answer to the first part of her question is, “There is no single individual leader.” It is a group belief by some that the theory of evolution is true. There are prominent individuals in the evolutionary camp, but no official leader. Furthermore, communication exists between individuals in the group, but it is distributed over multiple communication channels (Internet, TV, radio, magazines, etc.) and therefore impossible to disrupt.
The short answer to the second part of her question is, “The meaning of life.” Belief in evolution is fundamental to a person’s attitude toward the meaning of life. Do we exist because we were created on purpose and given a responsibility to live in a certain way? Or are we here by accident and can choose to do whatever we want to do without answering to a higher authority? That’s why they feel compelled to prove their unscientific evolutionary beliefs are correct.
|Quick links to|
|Science Against Evolution
|Back issues of
of the Month
Disclosure, August 2016, “What is Science?”, http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v20i11f.htm
2 Disclosure, December 2015, “Anti-science”, http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v20i3e.htm
3 Disclosure, August 2015, “The War on Science”, http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v19i11f.htm