|Feature Article - February 2005|
|by Do-While Jones|
Once science was based on empirical facts. Now evolutionists are trying to make science nothing more than philosophy dressed in a white lab coat.
The MSNBC program, “Countdown with Keith Olberman”, presents an interesting mixture of five serious and not-so-serious news stories. He starts with story number five, and counts down to story number one. The opening of his February 9, 2005, broadcast included this tease:
|… And give Scottie a government grant. Scientists seriously investigating the possibility of actually teleporting. Would a person’s weight have anything to do with this? Could I be beamed up?|
It was his number one story that night.
The government is spending unknown quantities of taxpayer dollars at the exact time the Administration wants to kill the Amtrak subsidy. In other words, you won’t be able to go Acheson, Topeka on the Santa Fe, but if your destination is the planet Skyron in the Galaxy Andromeda, you might be in luck.
A theoretical physicist named Dr. Eric Davis of Las Vegas, Nevada, got a $25,000 commission to write an 88-page report postulating that teleportation by machine or even by psychic power is “Quite real and can be controlled.” Dr. Davis says there have been experiments in which billions of atoms have been transported from one place to another.
While Dr. Davis recommends spending $7 million a year in further research, the lab director at the propulsion research lab says, that Dr. Davis’s paper was all the Air Force need to know. Quoting Colonel Mike Heil, “The Air Force has made the decision not to invest in that anymore and not to contract with Dr. Davis in the future, as well.”
Keith then interviewed Nick Redfern, U.S. editor of Phenomena Magazine, about the topic. Redfern said:
|Well, there’s obviously been made a lot of controversy made about this subject, and also a lot of jokes, beam me up Scotty type jokes, as you can probably imagine. I think, you know—although, there’s been a lot of questions asked about whether or not this project should have gone ahead. $25,000 really out of the whole Defense Department budget isn’t a great deal. And I think, even if there’s, you know, even a remote possibility that something like this could actually work, then I think it’s worth, at least, looking at from that perspective.|
This round-about introduction finally brings us to the point we want to make. Although $25,000 is an insignificant fraction of the DoD budget, the news media very correctly exposes and ridicules the waste. Taxpayers don’t want their money wasted on junk science, even if it is only $25K.
But how much taxpayer money is wasted every year trying to figure out what animals evolved from other animals? More than $25K, we bet. But more tragic than the waste of money is the wasted opportunity. Just think of all the good science that could be done by the scientists who are wasting their time on evolution.
The fact that we are even talking about “junk science” and “good science” is evidence of a change in the definition of science. Fifty years ago, “science” meant the discovery of truth using the scientific method. A scientist was one who made an observation, formulated a hypothesis about the observation, proposed a theory that explained the observation, then performed experiments designed to prove or disprove the theory. The wonderful thing about science was that it was free of human bias. It didn’t matter if the scientist was a Republican or Democrat, Christian or atheist, Yankee fan or Red Sox fan, the experiment always gave the same result. Science earned a reputation for credibility because it was based on experimentally verifiable results, not somebody’s opinion.
Today, “science” has been redefined so that inference is given equal credence with experimentation. Now “Science” is whatever a scientist believes. The key word here is “believes.” In modern society the phrase, “Scientists believe …” has more credibility than, “Plumbers believe …” or, “Grocery clerks believe …”. Why should this be the case?
The scientific elite would like you to believe that scientists are smarter than you are. Therefore, you should blindly accept anything they say.
We hope you have noticed that we never use the proof-by-intimidation approach. We don’t expect you to believe anything based on our educational background or professional accomplishments. We present arguments and observations, and expect you to evaluate them for yourself.
We would like you to contrast our approach to what you probably saw on cable TV news programs a few weeks ago, when experts were brought in to discuss the decision to remove the labels (which said that evolution was “just a theory”) from Georgia biology textbooks. The expert evolutionists never even tried to present scientific evidence in support of the evolutionary theory. They just proclaimed that nearly all scientists believe it, and the few who don’t are just religious crackpots. Then they steered the discussion to whether or not religion should be taught in the public schools. Unfortunately, the creationists took the bait, and argued that evolution is just the creation myth of the secular humanist religion, and should not be taught in public schools, either. This diverted the discussion away from the scientific evidence against evolution, and turned it into a philosophical discussion of how much control the government should have over the content of the curriculum.
It is very hard to get evolutionists to talk about science because it gets them into serious trouble. If the scientific evidence in favor of evolution were as strong as they would like you to believe, they would present scientific arguments (just like we do). They don’t do that because science is on our side.
The theory of evolution is getting into deeper and deeper trouble because they are depending upon personal credibility, and their most credible proponents have died. Ernst Mayr, the 100-year-old elder statesman of evolution, died February 3, 2005. He was preceded in death by John Maynard Smith on April 19, 2004. Stephen Jay Gould, and Isaac Asimov departed this world before that. These were men whose ideas we disagreed with, but whose accomplishments were worthy of our respect.
There are just a few living evolutionists who are worthy of respect. Stanley Miller has devoted 50 years to his unsuccessful attempt to discover a natural process that can create life from chemicals. Some people might consider this a failure, but in reality he has successfully shown why life cannot arise naturally. Although we disagree with his belief that life must have originated naturally, we can’t help admiring his stubborn dedication to his quixotic quest. Although we think his research is misguided, we have the greatest respect for his intellect, and have the highest regard for his research skills.
We also respect Ian Tattersall, Niles Eldredge, Donald Johanson, and the Leaky family (some of whom are deceased). They have spent many hours finding and studying fossils. They have certain opinions about what those fossils tell us about past life. Their interpretations often disagree with those of their colleagues because they are, after all, just opinions. Their interpretations are, we believe, biased by their philosophical beliefs; but at least they have made an effort to substantiate their pre-conceived notions through discovery and research. We respect their diligence, even though we disagree with their conclusions.
But these people aren’t leading the charge, the way Asimov, Gould, Smith, and Mayr did. Look at the “big names” in evolution today. One is a political activist who calls herself a scientist, but hasn’t published anything technical that we’ve ever been able to find. The others are magazine writers who haven’t done any real scientific work themselves. They are trying to establish their credibility on the grounds that they are scientists, without having the credentials to back up the claim.
The evolutionists are being out-gunned by men like Dean Kenyon. He co-authored a book called Chemical Predestination, in which he proposed the idea that physical forces make it inevitable that simple chemical compounds will naturally combine to form the building blocks of life. But, when confronted with evidence to the contrary, he studied the matter more diligently, and eventually repudiated his own work and became a creationist.
Evolutionists try to malign creationists like Kenyon, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Michael Denton, and Stephen Meyers, but they fail because these creationists have done more significant scientific work than their evolutionary critics. Despite this, the creationists don’t base their arguments on their personal reputations. They argue from scientific facts because the facts are on their side.
Don’t take our word for it. See for yourself. Be like the two students, Jeff and Kevin, who wrote to us this month.
|Quick links to|
|Science Against Evolution
|Back issues of
of the Month