Skip to main content
  1. Life
  2. Religion & Spirituality
  3. Western Religions

A skewed definition of 'science'


The Los Angeles Times ran an article Dec. 29 regarding L.A.'s California Science Center and the center's decision to not run a film on intelligent design. L.A. Creationism Examiner will be tracking this story as it develops, but for now LACE wants to examine a letter to the editor the article inspired.


Justin Braun of Santa Cruz wrote, in part: "The creationist movement is by no means a benign one, and it needs to be constantly tracked and reported on accurately so that the people who make up the real scientific community can defend the mass of evidence that supports Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection. Please continue to be diligent as you follow this story, and please continue noting that the American Freedom Alliance and the creationism that it promotes has a history of trying to debunk hard, real science and continues to do so through its network of religiously affiliated funding sources."


LACE has yet to examine the American Freedom Alliance, but one thing can be addressed now: the issue of "hard, real science" and "the real scientific community." LACE wonders: Is Mr. Braun referring to the same "real scientific community" that produced the erroneous, amateurish climate-change report from the IPCC? And by "hard, real science," does Mr. Braun mean the lining up of various skulls and other bones next to each other and then simply presuming that the differences between them are the result of one species morphing into another?


LACE isn't calling evolution a fraud, though it's had its fair share of scams (Piltdown man, the peppered moth "experiment"). Evolution is a valid idea, but "observe and presume" fails to constitute a testable, repeatable hypothesis. Fossils, of course, comprise only one facet of evolutionists' argument, but it's one way in which evolutionists sully the notion of hard, real science.

Comments

  • Nick 4 years ago

    >>"Is Mr. Braun referring to the same "real scientific community" that produced the erroneous, amateurish climate-change report from the IPCC?"

    Straw-man. No he wasn't. Anthropogenic climate change has little to do with biology.

    >>"And by "hard, real science," does Mr. Braun mean the lining up of various skulls and other bones next to each other and then simply presuming that the differences between them are the result of one species morphing into another?"

    No, he's referring to comparative anatomy, DNA studies, the calculation of mutation rates, observation of nested hierarchies, orthologous ERV placements and valid testable successful predictions made by the fossil record. Please do try and learn the subject before subjecting it to a critique.

    >>"Evolution is a valid idea, but "observe and presume" fails to constitute a testable, repeatable hypothesis."

    Evolution is testable & repeatable. You simply find it theologically inconvenient so you resort to attacking straw-m

  • Nick 4 years ago

    >>"LACE isn't calling evolution a fraud, though it's had its fair share of scams (Piltdown man, the peppered moth "experiment")."

    It's rather curious you referring to Piltdown as fake, even though it was found to be fake by those evil "evolutionists" using science you reject. It is true you reject an evolutionary view of the fossil record, yes? Many Creationists also reject carbon and radiometric dating. Would you be one of those too?

    I'm sorry, I just can't understand why you would presume to think Piltdown is fake in the first place (unless it was a poor attempt to discredit evolution by bringing it up as if it was relevant). But then, you don't even "observe" - but you do like to "presume".

    Given your writings on this matter, it would be safe to say that you don't actually reject evolution on scientific grounds but object to it because of your theological convictions, true?

Advertisement