The left's anti-science: The culture of speculation, Global Warming and Evolution

World Net Daily ^ | April 4, 2014 | Jonathon Moseley

[TexasGator]

‘studied for several years ...”

And you misstate the ‘Scientific Method’.

Obviously your years of study have been wasted.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

We are close to 100% certain that George Washington at some point crossed the Delaware River.

This is considered a historical fact.

Historical facts count as knowledge which can be as dependable, and in some cases more dependable, than facts arrived at through scientific experiments.

That the earth is billions of years old counts as knowledge in my book. If you want to argue about whether it is scientific or not, great.

People who call themselves scientists (but maybe in your book should call themselves historians) have made careful measurements of geological formations along the west coast of Africa and the east coast of South America. They have discovered similarities in the formations such that they can match rocks near the west coast of Africa with rocks near the east coast of South America. The evidence suggests, with a very high degree of probability approaching 100%, that Africa and South America used to part of the same continent.

These same "scientists" have placed instruments on the two coasts and make regular measurements of how far they have moved apart over the past few decades or so. Using that information they have extrapolated back to get an estimate of the time when the two continents were one. Their estimates suggest that millions of years have passed since these continents were one.

Everything we have learned about cosmology comes from data that was generated in the past. We can't conduct many experiments in cosmology, but scientists can make guesses about what they might see in the future based on what they've seen in the past. If those guesses turn out right time and time again, then those guesses mature into hypotheses and then into theories. This is what seems to be happening with regard to more and more careful measurements of the cosmic background radiation. Recent developments suggest that there might now be sufficient evidence to back up the Inflationary Model of the early universe.

This is all good news to my mind. There is some knowledge that is clearly "scientific" in the way you mean it. There is other knowledge which is clearly "historic". There is other knowledge which might be some combination of both. Why would we want to dismiss this knowledge because it isn't 100% scientific? I watched a recent documentary attempting to determine "Patient Zero" for the Spanish Influenza outbreak that killed so many people around the time of WWI. Historic documents and scientific evidence were brought to bear on the question and the conclusions that the "scientists/historians" came to seemed quite convincing. This knowledge might help us more quickly identify the future sources of outbreaks or respond more quickly to prevent them from becoming epidemics. What's wrong with that?

Going back to the theory (or hypothesis?) of Continental Drift, yes it is possible, but highly unlikely, that the two continents separated in a few weeks or months or years, but a vast quantity of carefully collected and analyzed data suggests it took millions of years. Call this knowledge historic or scientific, it still counts as knowledge.

I agree with you that some scientists are full of hubris. There's that egotist Krauss who wrote "A Universe from Nothing" where he purports to have shown exactly that. However, every respectable philosopher that has looked at the book has found it laughingly bad. There are the neuroscientists who are certain that we have no free will and no "self" and that we are just AI machines made from biological material that will someday be replaced by better AI machines made with more durable stuff.

Besides these few showoffs, who seem to love being in front of cameras more than being behind microscopes or telescopes, there are numerous scientists who spend countless mind-numbingly boring and backbreaking hours collecting specimens, categorizing them, analyzing them, and coming up with hypotheses as to why they are one way rather than any other. Some of the knowledge they provide us can be clearly identified as "scientific", some as historic, and some as a combination of both. It is still knowledge and still a reflection of the ultimate source of all knowledge: God.

[Moseley]

Charles Darwin never included origin of life in his work, neither has any scientist who understands the theory of evolution.

So if evolution does not address the beginning of life, how did life begin? If evolution cannot explain where life came from, that would come as a shock to all the teachers and professors teaching it, all their students studying it, the opinion leaders in society, and the general public.

This is part of the problem. In order to defend evolution when questioned in one area, its defenders always have to retreat and say it means something else entirely.

The fluid and inconstant nature of what evolution means should be proof positive that evolution cannot be defended on the basis of facts. Evolution is a belief system, faith, a religious point of view.

[Moseley]

Historical facts count as knowledge which can be as dependable, and in some cases more dependable, than facts arrived at through scientific experiments. That the earth is billions of years old counts as knowledge in my book.

Those are not remotely the same thing. We know that George Washington crossed the Delaware on his way to Trenton because people saw it and reported what they saw.

No one is a witness to the age of the Earth. Therefore, you must draw INFERENCES. Inferences are unreliable without the disciplines imposed by the Scientific Method.

The Earth might be 5 billion years old. Or it might not.

The word translated "day" in Genesis means "period of time" in the original Hebrew. The 24 hour day could not have existed before the THIRD day because the Earth was not created until the THIRD day. So Genesis cannot be referring to 24 hour days, because 24 hours days did not exist during the first day or the second day.

However, a 5 billion year old Earth is both consistent AND INCONSISTENT with the available data. If the Earth were old, the moon would be covered by several hundred feet of meteoritic dust. The Apollo moon program was actually worried that the LEM and astronauts might sink into accumulated dust on the moon. That is why the legs of the LEM have an upside down mushroom shape at the end of the legs.

Layers similar to what scientists claim as proof of an old Earth were deposited and reproduced in only weeks in the Mt. St. Helens volcanic eruption. What supposedly proves millions of years of geologic activity occurred in only weeks before our very eyes.

So what do we have? We have observed data that MIGHT be consistent with an old Earth... or it MIGHT NOT. All we can do is GUESS.

But guessing is not science.

We may have a great hypothesis, but it remains only a hypothesis. And really unless you can go back in time and watch -- as an eyewitness -- we will never know.

It may bug the heck out of you that we will never know. I want to know and I want to know NOW! But that's the way it is.

[Moseley]

People who call themselves scientists (but maybe in your book should call themselves historians) have made careful measurements of geological formations along the west coast of Africa and the east coast of South America. They have discovered similarities in the formations such that they can match rocks near the west coast of Africa with rocks near the east coast of South America. The evidence suggests, with a very high degree of probability approaching 100%, that Africa and South America used to part of the same continent.

First, "evidence suggests" is the "FORMULATE A HYPOTHESIS" stage of the Scientific Method.

Again, Step #1 is "Observe a Phenomenon." You state an observation from "careful measurements of geologic formations." That's Step #1.

Second, scientists "formulate a hypothesis" -- Step #2 of the Scientific Method: Perhaps the continents were once joined there. That is a hypothesis.

The percentages you cite are meaningless. There is no way to assign such probabilities.

There could be other reasons why the composition is the same. Perhaps the same processes were at work producing similar composition in both places.

However, we CAN do Step #3: Devise an experiment capable of testing the hypothesis and Step #4: Perform the experiment.

Cross-Atlantic cables SNAP in the Atlantic Ocean because the Atlantic Ocean is expanding. We can measure the expansion of the Atlantic Ocean.

We can go down and see the volcanic activity on the floor of the Atlantic Ocean where sea floor is being created before our very eyes. We can watch the floor of the Atlantic Ocean growing as the continents move apart.

We can repeat the experiment. We can set up GPS stations on both sides of the Atlantic and measure the continents slowly moving farther apart.

That is happening right now.

[Democrat_media]

global warming is a hoax democrats created to grow socialism

[Go_Raiders]

If you Google ‘greatest science mysteries’ you will be very hard pressed to find a list that doesn’t include the origin of life.

So apparently the many politicians, professors, teachers and students you surveyed before making your blanket claim are incapable of understanding that there has never been a definitive theory put forth.

Please provide me with the title and author of a textbook that claims that there is a definitive theory on the origin of life.

In my experience, the only people who make claims such as yours try to use it as a strawman in order to claim that the entire theory of evolution must be thrown out.

This wouldn’t make sense even if what you claim is true. The only thing you would be able to dismiss is that evolution explains the origin of life. If you have no evidence to present against natural selection driving differentiation then if you were a logical person you would have narrowed the theory of evolution to what Charles Darwin and any other responsible scientist already understands it to be.

[Moseley]

How about SCIENCE NEWS?

http://www.livescience.com/6737-life.html

I cannot believe you are so sheltered as to be unaware that 99.9% of all people believe and 100% of all teachers and professors teach that the life was created from non-life by the process of evolution.

But this is the problem.

This is proof positive that evolution is NOT true.

Evolution has widely different meanings and definitions to different people.

So how can their be proof of various inconsistent and divergent concepts?

How can there be proof of several mutually exclusive concepts?

If you say that you have proof that evolution is true, but the definition keeps changing, then you cannot possibly have proof that evolution is true.

[Go_Raiders]

1. You provide no link to the surveys supporting your outlandish claim.

2. The article you link was written by David Terrasso who has a degree in, wait for it - JOURNALISM.

3. The article you link has a disclaimer at the end stating that the article is one man’s opinion, and provides links to the greatest mysteries in science, which I have already explained to you includes the unsolved origin of life.

4. You demand validation of your hypothesis by claiming origin of life is included as part of the theory of evolution, using no other evidence than a groundless claim of universal acceptance.

5. You have used this straw man to claim the entire theory must be thrown out.

Using your own logic David Terrasso could be said to have proved that the mystery of the origin of life has been solved and should be added to the theory of evolution. He’s just as wrong as you are, but HE HAS MORE EVIDENCE THAN YOU DO.

What’s next? Do we throw out Newton’s Law because it can’t explain motion of elementary particles? Do we throw out the Bible because there was no day and night until the fourth day of Creation when the Sun finally came along so days one through three are invalidated?

Also you may want to check your statistics. You now claim that 99.9 % of ALL people believe life was created from non-life by the process of evolution, which leaves no room for Christians, Muslims, Buddhists or any other believers in Divine, spiritual or undetermined origin of life.

[Moseley]

We could cite a hundred thousand sources showing that evolution means life springing from non-life.

What’s next? Do we throw out Newton’s Law because it can’t explain motion of elementary particles?

That is precisely the point. We must know the LIMITS over which Newton's Law is applicable. You must know your tools. You must know when a given tool works and when it does not work.

Newton's Law(s) is / are extremely useful -- within a certain range of validity. We can observe in real time, repeatedly, with repeated experiments, that objects behave exactly as Newton's formulae dictate.

But we then see that OUTSIDE of the range of valid application, there are categories where Newton's Law breaks down.

One is no more qualified to use a scientific law or theory without also understanding its limitations than one can get behind the wheel of an automobile who has never learned to drive a car.

Science does not work for understanding something that has ONLY happened in the past, and is not currently available to be researched in the present, particularly something that happened ONLY ONCE. That is outside the scope of valid science.

Do we throw out the Bible because there was no day and night until the fourth day of Creation when the Sun finally came along so days one through three are invalidated?

Well I think it was the third day, BUT WE ABSOLUTELY DO HAVE TO QUESTION whether "day" means a 24 hour day in the account in Genesis of creation.

Since there could not have been a 24 hour day until the sun and the Earth were created, it is clear that "day" in the Genesis account of creation is NOT the same concept as a 24 hour day.

Indeed, the word is not properly translated as "day" (24 hour day) but is properly translated as "period of time."

Furthermore, the Bible tells us that with God a 1000 years is a like a day and a day is like a 1000 years.

So do we have to doubt that "day" means a 24 hour period? Yes, I think we must.

Now, this is a big fight because those who believe the Bible want to assert the power of God. God could have created the entire universe in 7 seconds, much less 7 days.

Those who reject a 7 day creation are largely motivated by their DISBELIEF that God could have created everything in 7 days, which really translates into their disbelief that God could have created anything even in 7 trillion years.

God didn't need 7 days. God could have done it in 7 seconds, even 7 nanoseconds.

But that's not the point. That's a distraction.

The bottom line is that the Genesis account of creation clearly DOES NOT say that it took 7 24 hour days.

The Genesis account is consistent with God taking 15 billion years. Even more so because God is outside of time and time is meaningless to God. For God, 15 billion years can go by in the blink of God's eye, and God does not experience or live through those 15 billion years. God is above and outside of time. Time is God's play thing. So what to God is almost instantaneous could have "taken" 15 billion years in terms of how it looks INSDE the created universe.

[Moseley]

A great creationist I heard speak explained that God trying to explain creation to us (the Genesis account) is like gold fish in a bowl sitting on the counter in a kitchen feeling the water vibrate and someone trying to explain that there is a truck driving past on the road outside the house, when the goldfish don’t know anything that exists outside of their goldfish bowl.

So whatever God says to us to explain creation cannot possibly explain to us the full understanding of creation, because we are inside the created universe, but creation took place OUTSIDE the universe that God was creating.

So for God to describe the time periods of creation is to explain something we cannot really understand.

[Go_Raiders]

Do you see how inconsistent you are?

You just agreed that Newton’s Law is valid for anything above the nano scale, but you can’t fathom that the theory of evolution is valid if you don’t try to apply it to first life.

[Moseley]

You just agreed that Newton’s Law is valid for anything above the nano scale, but you can’t fathom that the theory of evolution is valid if you don’t try to apply it to first life.

The problem with the hypothesis of evolution is that it is untested and unproven, and is not scientifically valid over ANY range. It is the complete lack of any reliable evidence for the hypothesis of evolution that is the issue.

The Scientific Method is only valid across a particular range of inquiries. Science does not apply unless a hypothesis is tested by repeatable and repeated experiments which clearly prove the hypothesis to be true.

Since no experiment has ever been performed to prove ANY version of evolution, and no experiment has ever been repeated by independent teams under varying conditions in different locations, evolution remains only a hypothesis -- a proposed possibility.

No matter how you define evolution, it has never been tested by any experiment under the disciplines of the Scientific Method.

Really, evolution is no more than superstition, like the idea that dirty rags spontaneously turn into rats. That was the superstition before the development of the Scientific Method.

But it gets worse. The Scientific Method requires the formulation of an experiment that is CAPABLE of testing the hypothesis as true or false.

How can you test the hypothesis of evolution?

Remember: Even if we observed one species transforming into another species, that still would not tell us that that is what happened in the past.

So, let's say we want to know if a Pharoah 5,000 years ago had eggs for breakfast on the third Tuesday (our terminology today) of the fourth month of the year.

How would you design an experiment to test whether the Pharoah had eggs for breakfast 5,000 years ago?

Clearly you cannot. There is no experiment that can be designed or performed to tell us what the Pharoah had for breakfast 5,000 years ago.

But that is what the origin of life is like. In fact, that is what the origin of human beings is like also. At some point in time there was the first human being. That happened ONLY ONCE.

Even if we could transform a monkey into a human being, that would not tell us that this what happened the first time.

So, how would you design an experiment capable of testing evolution true or false?

What would that experiment look like?

Remember: It has to be repeated by other independent teams in different places under varying conditions. So what experiment could prove evolution -- ANY version of evolution -- true or false?

[Go_Raiders]

You are showing a complete ignorance of how science works. Theories can very seldom be proven to an absolute certainty. Theories that are considered proven absolutely are called Laws. Theories are tested by collecting evidence using one or more of the following means - observation, measurement and experimentation. Most often, predictions are made based on theories, and evidence is sought to determine the accuracy of the prediction.

Theories can easily be proven false when evidence is found which contradicts the theory. The IPCC sponsored climate change theory has been proven false, as predictions made based on that theory have not achieved anything resembling accuracy over the past 20 years.

Use of radioisotopes to date ancient rocks and fossils is an example. Rate of decay for any given isotope are assumed to be constant, because they have never been observed to fluctuate or change. You would have to find observations millions of years in the past to know absolutely that decay rates never change. However, measurements have been made for a sufficient length of time that scientists almost universally agree that they will remain constant. The key point is NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND TO CONTRADICT THIS THEORY.

Similarly for testing evolution, you would not be able to directly test the theory unless you spent millions of years making observations. Experiments on processes that take millions of years can only be examined experimentally over timespans of years or decades.

Evolution involves three facts widely considered proven.

1. Genetic mutations occur naturally in all organisms which sometimes result in offspring with characteristics not inherited from their predecessors. These genetic mutations can often be passed on to succeeding generations. My Father’s sister died from complications of a genetic mutation in her mitochondria in parts of her body. The distribution of the mutated mitochondria indicate that it happened while she was an embryo. Thankfully her children did not inherit this mutation as it did not occur in a cell that developed into her ova. Genetic mutations will either increase, decrease or not effect the chances of survival. Even very dull witted people generally agree with that last part. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND WHICH CONTRADICTS THIS.

2. Over time, organisms inheriting beneficial characteristics tend to displace the members of that species which lack this characteristic. This is generally referred to as survival of the fittest, but many times it becomes survival of the prettiest due to sexual preferences. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND WHICH CONTRADICTS THIS.

3. The environment of the Earth consists of thousands of distinct habitats, which are constantly subject to either gradual or sudden change. The changed habitats will favor either the mutated characteristic or the non-mutated, or will be neutrally adaptable. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND THAT CONTRADICTS THIS.

The theory predicts that over billions of years, trillions of genetic mutations will accumulate throughout all segments of living organisms on Earth, and that the changes in habitats which favor one characteristic over another will result in organisms that range from single cells to Blue Whales.

There have been many observations made which confirm to most scientists satisfaction that billions of years ago the were only single celled organisms, and that more complex life forms appear millions of years later. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND THAT CONTRADICTS THIS

There have been several experiments performed to test whether selection drives genetic changes in organisms.

The longest duration experiment began before recorded history, when Gray Wolves were domesticated and through selection over 300 genetically distinct breeds have been produced.

Shorter term experiments have demonstrated that mutations in micro organisms subjected to selective pressure using antibiotics can result in immunity to the antibiotics.

If I had time I could give more evidence to support the prediction, but the most important fact is that NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND WHICH CONTRADICTS THE PREDICTION.

Every time you respond you provide ZERO FACTS to support your opinion. Your pharaoh fable does not have any applicability to this issue. If there is evidence available and you or anybody else would like to form a hypothesis, that’s fine, but it is only applicable to itself, not to any other theory or law.

Theories present the most likely explanation for a given condition or phenomenon given ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. They are generally relied upon until someone comes up with a theory which better fits all available evidence.

If you have actual evidence you are welcome to provide it. Or you can just keep spouting opinion, your choice.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Well said. One quibble: I’m not sure it’s accurate to say that “theories that are considered proven absolutely are called Laws.” Laws express observations, like the Law of Gravity that two things attract in proportion to their mass and in inverse proportion to the square of their distance. Various Theories of Gravity attempt to explain why that should be so, but even without any of them being proven, the Law of Gravity stands.

In your examples, I’d say #1 is close to a law. It’s up to some theory of genetics to explain why the mutations occur.

Another law-like observation might be that organisms can be categorized into hierarchical groups based on morphological similarities et al. The Theory of Evolution explains why that should be so.

Finally, in addition to your list of non-contradicting observations, I’d add the confirmatory ones. For example, with some exceptions, the hierarchical categories have tended to be confirmed by later observations of a sort that didn’t exist when the categories were first created, e.g. genome sequencing confirming the closeness of our relationship to the other apes.

[Balding_Eagle]

I can prove that God exists. I can talk to Him.

Yes you can talk to him, and you can prove that you have done so through the use of a simple tape recorder.

Can you prove that he talks to you?

[ifinnegan]

“There have been several experiments performed to test whether selection drives genetic changes in organisms.

The longest duration experiment began before recorded history, when Gray Wolves were domesticated and through selection over 300 genetically distinct breeds have been produced.”

Breeds, yes.

Earlier you thought this was speciation. You are learning.

Your enthusiasm is clear, but understanding-wise I don’t think you’re in any position to be giving lectures.

---

eg, is hard to know what you mean by this:

“The theory predicts that over billions of years, trillions of genetic mutations will accumulate throughout all segments of living organisms on Earth...”

To the extent that it can be interpreted as accurate, it’s rather empty hyperbole.

[Moseley]

Theories can very seldom be proven to an absolute certainty.

That is true, but we are addressing hypotheses for which there is ZERO proof. Suspicion, perhaps, but not proof.

First, what you are saying means that true scientists remain open to the possibility that even a theory considered proven is open to reconsideration if new evidence emerges.

A true scientist would never dream of uttering such nonsense as "the debate is settled." When scientists actually believed in science, anyone saying that would be shamed out of the profession.

Second, however, the idea that a scientific theory will always remain less than 100% certain does not mean you can pawn off a complete lack of proof as science.

[Moseley]

Theories are tested by collecting evidence using one or more of the following means - observation, measurement and experimentation.

Oh, dear God no! Science requires ALL OF THOSE, not "one or more."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Most often, predictions are made based on theories, and evidence is sought to determine the accuracy of the prediction.

The prediction you have in mind here is called an EXPERIMENT.

First you formulate a hypothesis.

All of modern "science" is stuck at the "formulate a hypothesis" stage. Frustrated novelists, science fiction writers, imagineers, and creative types want to fantasize about what MIGHT be true.

So, if the hypothesis were true, what would we predict to happen?

This becomes an experiment.

If the prediction comes true, it may confirm the hypothesis. If it does not come true, it may reject the hypothesis.

Of course, this assumes that the hypothesis is well-stated and clear and capable of being tested, and that the prediction is also well-designed and focused, so that the prediction actually tells us if we the hypothesis is true or false.

It is possible to have predictions which DO NOT really tell us if the hypothesis is true or false.

[Moseley]

Another law-like observation might be that organisms can be categorized into hierarchical groups based on morphological similarities et al. The Theory of Evolution explains why that should be so.

There is no such thing in science as a "law like observation." There are only observations.

That is Step #1 of the Scientific Method: Observe a phenomenon.

So you observe what impresses you as a certain kind of order. So you have completed Step #1 -- You observe a phenomenon.

You then imagine a plausible explanation.

But that is not science. The mere possibility that something could be true is no more science than alchemy or voodoo.

Your frustrated science fiction writer's heart gets all excited by imagining what COULD be true.

This is Step #2 -- Formulate a hypothesis.... at least assuming that it is well-designed, coherent hypothesis.

But the fact that X is explained by Y, is a mere hypothesis -- the very definition of a hypothesis -- not proof of anything.