Let’s Apply Two Theories to the Scientific Method

The massive volumes of information and research is a most wonderful distraction from the primary wrong assumptions of Darwinian evolution. It is similar to a murder trial with 20 witnesses including 2 policeman and a video tape all agreeing to the murder but the trial taking a left turn to discuss whether the gun used was purchased or stolen and if so where. It is not important in light of the evidence or the main verdict being sought.

No, I am not just going to spout off a statement to rally agreement. We see this so often in the news and letters to editors. Instead, I will show you what I mean so you can agree with EVIDENCE rather than agree with an ARGUMENT.

This will not get deep or scientific because there is no need to do this. I mean it. It is abundantly common sense unless plain honesty is an issue.

OK, let’s look at 9 simple major pillars we have all heard about Darwinian evolution.

1.      A Big Bang may have created the universe. We CANNOT recreate this in an experiment.

2.      Non-living chemicals and/or matter invented the first life forms accidentally. We CANNOT recreate this in an experiment.

3.      Early simple life forms evolved into more complex life forms. We CANNOT recreate this in an experiment.

4.      The first complex life forms were sea creatures. We CANNOT recreate this in an experiment.

5.      Sea creatures eventually gave birth to a new thriving species of amphibious creatures growing legs and lungs. We CANNOT recreate this in an experiment.

6.      Amphibious creatures gave birth to a new thriving species of full time reptiles not amphibious. We CANNOT recreate this in an experiment.

7.      Reptiles became the ancestors of more reptiles, mammals and birds and insects while fish evolved into more complex type fish and mammals [dolphins and whales] through DNA radical changes that were ingenious improvements. We CANNOT recreate this in an experiment.

8.      Simultaneously another leg of evolution became plant life from germs, viruses, single-celled life forms, fungus, mold and then more complex plant life and fungus and also ascending from underwater to land plants and trees. We CANNOT recreate this in an experiment.

9.      Apes and chimpanzees are the parents of the early prehistoric ancestors of man – a higher intelligence monkey or ape that continued to change in physical appearance and intelligent capacity until eventually over millions or billions of years, becoming modern man. We CANNOT recreate this in an experiment.

Wow, not much scientific method there. Now, let’s look at some major pillars of the Intelligent Design theory:

1. If technology exists so does design. We can recreate this in an experiment.
2. Explosions create havoc not order. We can recreate this in an experiment.
3. If a roomful of scientists with a significant amount of grant money figure out how to do something it proves that it takes intelligence, not zero intelligence. We can recreate this in an experiment.
4. A squirrel has baby squirrels. A chimpanzee has baby chimpanzees. A whale has baby whales. A human has a baby human. All this is due to the information dictated by DNA. We can recreate this in an experiment.
5. We can recreate the extinction of a species not evolving.
6. We can recreate in an experiment and observable events the idea that the smarter the engineering is, the more intelligence is required.
7. We can recreate in an experiment and observable events the idea that when designing technology, intent is required.
8. We can recreate in an experiment and observable events the idea that accidents are more destructive than constructive.
9. We can recreate in an experiment and observable events the idea that a lot more gets done with intelligence, intent and work than waiting for something to just happen all by itself.

There is a big difference between evidence and argument. With the scientific method, we can recreate evidence in an experiment. Everything else is conjecture. Do I need to go on? Doesn’t this say it all?

Why does anyone say “Darwinian evolution is science” or “intelligent design is absolutely a non-scientific idea”? Both are naïve statements. A ton of scientific research does not make something scientific, anymore than no research on a fact makes something unscientific. Good science-true science makes its boast in discovering truth, not inventing it.

Good science is simply the scientific method.

“See how this works in the experiment? If you don’t believe me, try it yourself?”

Bad science says,

“We can’t do this in an experiment. If you don’t believe me you are wrong and certainly not qualified to challenge me.”

Big difference, huh?

Share this quick memo on wisdom with as many people as possible. The public is being bombarded with anti-Intelligent Design rhetoric that makes little sense but making folks feel unfriendly toward Intelligent Design anyway. While you’re sharing this, do me a favor and share my website too.

Thanks.

Samuel J Alibrando 

Author-"Nature Never Stops Talking-The Wonderful Ingenuity of Nature"

www.NatureNeverStopsTalking.com