June 14, 2010

A Faulty Scientific Theory

"True science follows the evidence wherever it leads"
— Adage


Buona sera, wherever you are. Uncle Bob is really burned up about something.

No, that's wrong.
I want to say that today's topic is about bad science. First, I'm going to talk about what makes things burn. Naturally, you're going to say oxygen, or combustion process, or maybe an independent fuel source. Well, we do know about what makes things burn today.

Way back when, it was a different story. It was a mystery. Johann J. Becher put out (ha!) his theory of phlogiston in 1667. (People badmouth Wikipedia, but they have a
very good article on the subject.) Basically, stuff burned because it contained this ingredient. No phlogiston, no burning. You may be tempted to laugh at it today because science has left the theory behind over a hundred years ago, but it was an attempt to work through and explain the observed phenomenon of burning.

It was also used to explain rusting, but there is no need to make this discussion more complicated. Besides, the fire stuff is more fun.


Phlogiston had no weight, smell, taste and so on, but it was required to make things go up in flames. The theory became refined and popularized, and lasted about two hundred years. Eventually, scientists became skeptical because their experiments gave results that did not fit the theory. What happened?

Further explanations and refinements that read more like excuses than anything else ("negative weight", "lighter than air" and so on). It took Lavoisier's experiments to show that
oxygen was what was making things happen, and that started to bring the phlogiston house down. Not right away, however. Eventually, scientists started saying that it was a principle rather than an actual substance.

This is where I step in and say that they were getting desperate. They had their pet theory, and just hated to part with it despite the evidence.


"I think I know where this is going, Cowboy Bob."

Yup. Some of you can guess where I'm going with this, and I'm not going to keep you in suspense any longer:
Just like the so-called theory of evolution. That's right, I said it! (By the way, did you notice that Papa Darwin conveniently skipped the "hypothesis" step of scientific analysis and went straight on to propose his "theory"?)

There are many peo
ple who are not rejecting evolution because of their religious viewpoint. Like me, they reject it because of its lack of scientific merits. That is, it has so many holes that you can drive a fleet of trucks through it. What do modern lovers of this "theory" that has the scientific merits of phlogiston proceed to do? Make excuses, dodge the truth, reject contrary evidence and so on. Simply put, they are believing because they want to, not because of ironclad evidence. Many of them are disciples of Richard "Daffy" Dawkins. Evolution is a faith system.

What chance do we have? We are bombarded with evolution as "true science" (and yet, school textbooks contain concepts that were rejected by the evolutionists, sometimes decades previously). It's everywhere. Television, movies, music, cartoons for the kids, alleged science publications, conversation between friends — all presenting evolution as unquestioned "fact", even though the evolutionists themselves are at odds with "how it happened".

Let's be blunt. To present only one side of the issue is not only propaganda, it's brainwashing.

Since evolutionism has taken on a religious life of its own (in addition to being foundational for atheism, Nazism, Communi
sm, eugenics and other evils of society), its adherents deal harshly with dissenters. When scientists reject evolutionary "theory" and see that the evidence actually leads to Intelligent Design, they have to either clam up or get ostracized by the orthodox evolutionist community. They are written off as religious kooks, but the truth is that they followed where the science led them.

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion— a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint... the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion." - Michael Ruse

Evolution is today's phlogiston. Scientists are locked into their beliefs even worse than the phlogiston proponents seemed to be, however. Perhaps someday, they will follow where the science leads. In the mean time, we have to deal with religious evolutionist propaganda, excuses, modifications, theory upon theory upon theory and doing anything else to avoid where the evidence really leads.

Doesn't that just burn you up?

Subscribe in a reader