The General Problem
There are many specific examples of False Science, but at the bottom line, most of them have some abuse of evidence.
Science is not the only method for the examination of evidence; and there are kinds of evidence for which science is inapplicable: principally, art, history, and literature, especially poetic literature.
Science is also inappropriate for the formation of ethical and moral, philosophical and theological conclusions.
The Scientific Method
General steps in the scientific method include:
· The first step is Observation. The scientist or other person gains experience in any subject area by making observations. If another person observed, the scientist interviews the experienced observer to gather his or her wisdom. This observed wisdom of the subject matter becomes the logical starting place.
· The second step is Hypothesis Formulation. Hypotheses are best written in the Null-Hypothesis form. Such Null-Hypotheses are not easy to induce and are frequently left to statistics experts for appropriate wording. We are not seeking to prove our hypothesis; this would require our ubiquity, which is impossible. We wish to disprove or rather cast probable doubt on the Null-Hypothesis. This is to say that under the given set of circumstances, we have a good idea about what happened. But we don’t pretend to know all the circumstances. This idea is commonly stated in the Uncertainty Principle of Science: the one thing about which we may be certain is that we will always have scientific uncertainties. The reasons for this are very complicated.
· The third step is Experiment Design. The Experiment’s Design determines and plans what variables will be studied to fit the Null-Hypothesis, how they will be measured, what statistical plan will be used, what controls will be applied, how many repetitions and replications will be required, what locations will be employed, and what blind or double-blind safeguards are employed.
· The fourth step is Apparatus Construction. At least one apparatus or mechanism must be built or otherwise acquired that complies with the Experiment’s Design.
· The fifth step is Experiment Conduction. The experiments are conducted on the apparatus in accordance with the Design. If only one apparatus is available, it may be disassembled, moved to another location, reassembled, and the whole repetition-set is replicated at one or more new locations, at differing altitudes and environmental conditions, preferably by different scientists. With each repetition and replication, all the measurements are taken and carefully recorded.
· The sixth step is Measurement Evaluation. Measurements are usually evaluated by applying powerful statistical methods to sort out the influence of each variable: including possibly, human error, humidity, instrument error, location, pressure, temperature, time, and the interactions between all of these. In this list of only seven variables, there would be 120 interactions, or a total of 127 things to evaluate. The scientist is looking for things that have a high probability of being causes, usually 10:1 odds (significance) or better. If one or more significant things are found, the Null-Hypothesis is disproved, and a new discovery may be under way. Verification experiments may also be performed.
· The seventh step is Logical Explanation. The scientist attempts to induce a logical explanation for all the significant events. Statistical correlation, in and of itself, does not establish a scientific discovery. For example, something unknown may be confounding the data, creating a false analysis, a false positive. The scientist then writes everything into a complete report, which is subjected to peer-review by others who are expert in the same field of science. If the report passes peer review it may be selected for publication in a scientific journal.
Even with all of these careful steps, errors are still made. The usual outcome at this point is not the unveiling of a new scientific discovery; but new observations, a sharpened hypothesis, improved designs of experiment, construction of a more reliable apparatus, better experiments, reevaluation, and fresh explanation. Thus, the cycle is repeated, ever sharpening the understanding and focus of the subject matter until a rare breakthrough discovery is finally made.
When observations are made that might ultimately lead to something. Then a hypothesis is constructed, based on these observations, but nothing else follows. Nevertheless, if the hypothesis is published as fact, the outcome is not science; it is speculation.
Moreover, if the original observations themselves cannot even be substantiated, the outcome is dishonest. Fraud was committed in the name of science.
Neither the original observer, the writer of the original hypothesis or the failure of anyone to follow on with the rest of the scientific method steps are to be blamed. It may have been impossible even to design an experiment.
But those who published and continue to publish the unsubstantiated hypothesis as fact are culpable of a major crime, have put society to considerable expense, and have done great damage to science itself by undermining the confidence of the populace in a valuable tool.
In each and every case of claimed fact, we must ask the following questions:
· Can the original observations be substantiated?
· Is the hypothesis properly formed?
· Have experiments been correctly designed?
· Were adequate and appropriate apparatus acquired?
· Were experiments thoroughly conducted?
· How were the measurements evaluated?
· What logical explanations were proposed and approved?
Extrapolation is the mathematical technique of predicting an outcome outside of the data set. Interpolation is the mathematical technique of predicting an outcome inside of the data set.
If we wish to cut a board on a 5° angle and we know for a fact that every 12 inches we need to offset the cut by 1.046 inches more from straight we will have a 5° angle cut (for example 1.046, 2.092, 3.138, 4.184, etc...). But suppose we want to know what the offset for 3, 6, and 9 inches might be. Or suppose our board is only 6 inches long. We could calculate the differences: 1.046 – 0 and 12 – 0 and distribute the ratio evenly getting .261, .523, and .784 with a very small rounding error. But if we were cutting a curve from the same data, we would have a much larger error of interpolation because we would be evaluating a curve with a straight line. Although we could find ways to fix that. So much for interpolation.
Extrapolation is a different matter. Let’s use an automatic pitching machine to pitch balls to a batter. We look at the tip of the rear sight and the tip of the front sight and line them up so they are exactly on the aiming point we have picked at the plate. Our extrapolation says that the ball will go there exactly. Will the ball hit that point every time? No. In fact, it may never hit that point. Gravity will make the ball drop, and wind will make it move laterally, left or right. It would be a strange accident if the ball actually hit the aiming point.
We are throwing a distance of 60 feet 6 inches with a drop in elevation of 10 inches. Today the wind is steady with absolutely no gusts, so we pitch a few balls and measure the distance from where balls actually cross our aiming plane. Then we move the aiming point by that same amount in the opposite direction and pitch a few more balls to verify that we adjusted correctly. We have an extremely accurate pitching machine, and one-hundred balls in a row are all within 1/8 inch of the exact target point.
To be sure that we are completely accurate we used laser interferometry to make all measurements. At 60 feet 6 inches, our laser interferometer is accurate to one millionth of an inch, if there are no ground vibrations. To insure that there are no ground vibrations, the interferometer is mounted on a viscously damped, 5-ton bed and monitored with a digital recording seismometer. The error of measurement is less that 0.1%.
We have already extrapolated on the order of 5:1 because the sights on our pitching machine are 12.1 inches apart. But we controlled this extrapolation by using the laser interferometer.
Now let’s move the pitching machine to 121 feet behind second base. Does anybody believe that we can now maintain our target for one-hundred pitches within 1/4 inch of the target point, or even within a 1/2-inch circle anywhere at that range? How about at 242 feet? Can we maintain a 1-inch circle at 242 feet? Can we maintain a 2-inch circle at 484 feet? Our extrapolation is now 40:1 and we would be lucky to maintain a 24-inch circle at 484 feet.
No credible scientist is willing to work with extrapolated data of these magnitudes. Instead, he figures out new methods of measurement and control because extrapolations of this kind are notoriously unreliable. We add to our list of test questions:
· Were all measurements correctly taken?
· Was excessive extrapolation used to estimate outcomes?
Special Evolution is that observation and hypothesis in biology that species vary randomly within themselves, but not outside of themselves. A species is defined as individuals within a group that are theoretically capable of (not necessarily actually participant in) sexual reproduction.
For Darwin this was a serious theological question. Naturalists of his day were concerned about the Biblical difference between the Miracles and Providences of God. Nowadays, many folks pay little or no attention to the difference between Miracle and Providence, even though both are clearly stated in the Bible.
· God created the universe by the breath of His mouth.
· Moses crossed the Red Sea on dry land.
· Joshua crossed the Jordan River on dry land.
· Jonah lived three days and nights in the belly of an indescribable sea monster.
· Daniel’s three friends endured Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace of blazing conflagration un-singed and smoke-odor free.
· Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary.
· Jesus Christ raised from the dead after three days.
· The sun shines and the rain falls on the just and the unjust.
· We have food and raiment, houses and businesses, spouses and children.
· We are free to attend or not attend church on Sunday.
· We receive relaxation and rest, medical treatment and medication, entertainment and sport, luxuries we do not deserve.
· We have jobs and income, police and fire departments, governments and military.
· We have sewer, water, and light.
We cannot fault Darwin for being concerned about a serious Biblical, theological, and scientific question.
There is ample evidence for Special Evolution. This theory is thoroughly substantiated by vast mountains of evidence. It passes all nine of our test questions. From the Null-Hypothesis, there can be very little doubt species vary randomly within themselves, but not outside of themselves. Or we might even say that there is no serious doubt that species vary randomly within themselves. Every person that deals with living things of any kind has at-hand evidence that this is true.
Note: we did not prove that Special Evolution is true. We demonstrated that there isn’t any good statistical reason to doubt it.
General Evolution is that observation and hypothesis in biology that species vary outside of themselves in accordance with a random rule of “survival of the fittest.” A species is defined as individuals within a group that are theoretically capable of (not necessarily actually participant in) sexual reproduction.
There is no evidence for General Evolution. Even the original observations have never been substantiated. It fails the following four test questions. From the Null-Hypothesis, there is no reason to believe that species vary outside of and across species boundaries.
The perpetuation of the theory of General Evolution is Unfounded Speculation, a fraud, and a hoax. It has cost untold fortunes to society and wasted the valuable time of scientists. It has discredited genuine science in the eyes of the populace, and taught children that science is about speculation.
In the form of further philosophical speculation, it has become the breeding ground for Social Darwinism (which should rather be called Social Evolutionism), Communism, and Nazism.
General Evolution is a blight on our society and a deplorable curse on humanity. There is nothing good about it at all.
When biology in general and General Evolution in particular is used to propose theories of origins over eons based on carbon or other dating methods, both biology and General Evolution commit the further errors associated with Infinite Extrapolation, except that they extrapolate without evidence. All the evidence is drawn from outside of the hypothesis of General Evolution.
Other False Theories Employing Infinite Extrapolation
· Geological Theories of Origins of the Universe
· The Big Bang
· Theories of Origins of the Universe from Physics
My dear brothers and sisters, let us cease speculation about what we cannot and do not know. If we must know, let us consult with Someone Who is an Eyewitness of creation. Are you such a person? No, of course not. Then, be silent. Do you personally know such a Person? Yes, but the world will not believe you, you cannot prove it to them because they are blinded by unbelief. So pray that they might believe, and be silent.
“A fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”
Let us comfort our hearts with our prayers and if time permits, we will talk of the proofs among ourselves. God bless you.
Yours in Christ