Archive for January, 2008
Is Evolution True? Let’s Vote?
On January 03, 2008 in In the News, Science Related
Sorry, but that’s now how we determine what is and is not true, and certainly what is and is not Science. A recent article from www.livescience.com suggests that 61% of people feel that Evolution is true. Is this how we determine what is true and what is not? I don’t think so, or else truth would be nothing more than a relative term reflecting the mere emotions and opinions of the greater majority. 51% of people disagree with 49% that water-boarding is torture, therefore it’s truth that water-boarding is not torture? I certainly hope we don’t start enforcing this as a device to decide other things.
Unfortunately, like practically every other article on the subject, we’re not given the definition of “Evolution”. 9 out of 10 times we’re talking about a scientific process, but unfortunately, there variants of the term that do not qualify as “scientific”, since they cannot be tested, reproduced, or verified by alternative sources. These are the form of Evolution that are not scientific, regardless what your voters think.
If I tell you that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, how do you know if I’m telling the truth? Well, you could expose a culture of bacteria to some antibiotics and check up on them later. The culture will be smaller, and then begin to repopulate with the new strain that is now resistant. That is Science. Now, if I tell you that some 4 billion years ago lightning struck a mucky soup on the earth and life sprung forth, how would you test that? You can’t. It’s not observable, it’s not repeatable, and it certainly isn’t mathematically plausible, so why do we call it Science? And why do we teach it with Evolution?
Proponents of Evolutionary theory often times release their cry that the Scientific Method is of sacred nature, and should always be used in science. Shoot, even Livescience mentioned this.
“The introduction of ‘non-science,’ such as creationism and intelligent design, into science education will undermine the fundamentals of science education. Some of these fundamentals include using the scientific method, understanding how to reach scientific consensus, and distinguishing between scientific and nonscientific explanations of natural phenomena.”
Survey: 61% Agree with Evolution
http://www.livescience.com/history/080102-evolution-teaching.html
Oddly enough they refuse to use the Scientific Method when it comes to Evolutionary theory. Many bogus claims are made, such as life from non-life, deer-like creatures becoming whales, dinosaurs becoming birds, and fish scales becoming teeth. None of these claims are valid when investigated within the Scientific Method - it cannot even touch them, because they’re not observable!
Wikipedia states that the Scientific Method “consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.”
So how do we observe the metamorphosis of scales becoming teeth? Or deer becoming whales? The whole theoretical tree comes crashing down when the Scientific Method is involved. None of it is observable, it’s all guess-work based upon a tooth here, an ear-bone here, etc. So why do they have this double-standard?
They claim that Intelligent Design and Creation-Science are both bad for business. They feel that it will “undermine the fundamentals of science education.” But is that really true? Or is it the opposite? I cannot speak for Intelligent Design, but I can speak for Creationists (since I am one). When Christians view the world, we view it as a very complex created object. With innumerable lilliputian devices showing the magnificient work of our Creator.
When we view the World, we feel the overwhelming desire to know why our Creator did something a specific way, and how our Creator did it. We want to know when it happened. If we learn more about the creation, we in turn understand more about the Creator. It is the passion for the Creator that drives a Christian to study the creation.
“Speak to the Earth, and It shall teach thee.”
Job 8:12
The Bible encourages Science. This is why when Evolutionists came across the Human Eye they brushed it aside as a blunder of evolution, since the blood vessels are in front, and not behind as they are with an octopus, or some other creature. They stop studying it, they threw it aside because that’s just how Evolution did it. Turns out, they were wrong. Read “Is our ‘inverted’ retina really ‘bad design’?” at AnswersInGenesis.org.
Why is the teaching of Naturalistic Origins so sacred to Evolutionists? How many medical miracles have come by the understanding of Evolution? Zero, nada, zip - that’s even the view of Evolutionist Phillip S. SKell who had the following to say:
“I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”
Philip S. Skell
“Why do we invoke Darwin?“, The Scientist 2005, 19(16):10
This is from an Evolutionist who feels “Darwin’s theory of evolution offers a sweeping explanation of the history of life.”
So while Evolutionists are busy playing in the dirt trying to find ancient broccoli, Scientists like Raymond Damadian are pioneering scientific advances such as the MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) that will save innumerable lives. Dr. Damadian is also a Creationist - be sure to thank him the next time you need the life-saving services of an MRI.
So what is Evolution good for? It doesn’t help us in any way at all, by the admission of Evolutionists themselves. It doesn’t explain anything with any degree of certainty. As Dr. Skell put it, it’s nothing more than a narrative gloss brought in after the fact.
LiveScience finished their article off with the following:
“The bottom line is that the world is round, humans evolved from an extinct species and Elvis is dead,” Weissmann said. “This survey is a wake-up call for anyone who supports teaching information based on evidence rather than speculation or hope; people want to hear the truth, and they want to hear it from scientists.”
All I can say is this, Screw the Scientists, listen to the Science. The Scientists are going to tell you whatever they need to bring in that check, even if it’s B.S. Meanwhile, Scientists out there like Raymond Damadian are saving lives, advancing our medical understanding, and doing REAL Science - so if you’re going to pick a scientist to listen to, pick one who offers testable science, and not some fairy-tale.
Link Summary
I Live in the Past - So do You!
On January 02, 2008 in Science Related
As I was driving home from New Years break in Florida, I started wondering in my thoughts. That car that just passed me, I didn’t know that it was passing me until after it had already passed me. And I didn’t really know that it was now in front of me until after it was already in front of me. Sound weird? That’s because it likely is, but let me explain.
Light travels at 186,000 miles per second, unlike my ‘96 Chevy Cavalier which travels at about half the speed of smell. The sun is 93,000,000 miles from the earth, meaning it takes the light about 8 minutes to arrive here from there. So when you look up at the Sun, you are actually seeing it as it was 8 minutes ago, not as it currently is. So if the Sun were to theoretically explode, you wouldn’t see the explosion until 8 minutes after the fact.
The Moon is about 250,000 miles from the Earth, much closer than the Sun. The moons light travels 186,000 miles closer to the earth in a second, meaning we see the Moon as it was just over a second ago, but again, not as it presently is.
It’s a little hard to think of, but let’s try to bring it a little closer to home. Ever seen a man on his house down the street hammering a nail into a board? You see him drop the hammer, only to hear the crack of the nail a second later. It’s almost like a bad movie where the audio and video aren’t really sync’d up. The speed of sound is variable, but on a dry day the speed of sound may be recorded at just over 1,000 feet per second. That is much much slower than the speed of light, which is to thank for the image of the man working. So the image of the man working arrives much sooner than the sound of the man working.
Even the sounds we hear are mere recordings of the past. The very near past, but the past none the less. When I was sitting in the car with my wife, I merely heard her words as they were recorded in the compressed and rarefied air between us just moments after the vibrations of her voice shuffled the air molecules towards me. I didn’t actually hear her as she spoke, but merely after the fact, again.
You see, I live in the past. The very near past, but the past none-the-less. I don’t even see the letters on this computer screen as I type them. For they show up after I’ve already typed them. And I’m not authoring this article as each proceeding sentence comes to mind, since I must first think of the words to write, send commands to my fingers to type, which in turn send electrical impulses to the computer to insert a specific character in a certain location, only to change the image on my screen which then needs to reflect it light back to my eyes, which translate the light into an image that my brain can understand.
Everything I enjoy is already gone by the time I enjoy it. Or is it? Is there anything that I enjoy that is in the present, the technical present that I’ve never been able to see, hear, taste or touch? Are my thoughts present? What is the speed of thought? How do we begin to measure such a thing or quantify the rate at which we understand ourselves.
I’m such a geek, I know.
