Debunking of Modern Evolutionary and Cosmological Theories

[Red Economist]

By "science is right" I mean the idea that Science gives us "perfect" knowledge of the objective world (which it doesn't). Its a misunderstanding that is more true of popular science as Science is something of a best guess approximation of how the world works and our ideas have to constantly be improved upon, so scientific knowledge is not absolute. Sometimes people think that scientific answers are true for all time, but that is relative to our technological capacity to reproduce natural phenomena and thereby demonstrate that our ideas correspond to the world as well as the system of ideas we have at our disposal to describe that world.

Yes, all theories are probably wrong.

I'd go for "incomplete" as otherwise that might give religion another chance.

I don't think I've ever heard anybody say science gives absolute truth. Where have you been finding people like that?

I've heard a lot of theists claim that atheists say it, however.

I think it's more implied than anything. It was something I realized I believed when I was young from noting really having a decent science education and is also true of popular science to some extent. My teachers taught me to repeat "facts" as if they were ready-made and self-evident, rather than really understanding that science is a way about asking questions and finding answers. In reality scientists have been struggling with these questions and re-inventing theories since they're were scientists.

[KevinM1]

I would say your objections stem from an archaic way of teaching/learning science.  A lot of science classes tend to go like this:

1. You're told the concept/theory.
2. You're given the mathematics for solving specific scientific equations/problems.
3. You perform basic and boring experiments where the hypothesis and steps used in the experiment come from a textbook.

In all three, you're essentially a passive witness to science.  Even with 3, you're not actually engaging in the method honestly.  You're just blindly following instructions to a predetermined end, one which is obvious if you pay the slightest bit of attention to what happened earlier in class.

By glossing over the process that is science, you lose the entire point of it.  It might as well be a litany of dates presented in a history class.  That this is just the way it is, with a little going into the 'why' of it, and almost nothing going into how we got to that current understanding.

I hated my middle, high school, and even university intro science classes because of that.  They were beyond boring, and were more focused on regurgitating and memorizing old theories and formulas than the discovery process.

[Alex K]

---

I would say your objections stem from an archaic way of teaching/learning science.  A lot of science classes tend to go like this:

1. You're told the concept/theory.
2. You're given the mathematics for solving specific scientific equations/problems.
3. You perform basic and boring experiments where the hypothesis and steps used in the experiment come from a textbook.

In all three, you're essentially a passive witness to science.  Even with 3, you're not actually engaging in the method honestly.  You're just blindly following instructions to a predetermined end, one which is obvious if you pay the slightest bit of attention to what happened earlier in class.

By glossing over the process that is science, you lose the entire point of it.  It might as wgreell be a litany of dates presented in a history class.  That this is just the way it is, with a little going into the 'why' of it, and almost nothing going into how we got to that current understanding.

I hated my middle, high school, and even university intro science classes because of that.  They were beyond boring, and were more focused on regurgitating and memorizing old theories and formulas than the discovery process.

---

I agree very much. It became clear to me when kids in my family who were in 11th grade or so asked me - isn't physics the same as religion, except that you have to believe in formulas instead of God? From the way it was taught, they couldn't tell the difference!

---

Yes, all theories are probably wrong.

I'd go for "incomplete" as otherwise that might give religion another chance.

I would like to agree, but I think we're an thin ice claiming that.
I can't help it and come at this from a physicist's perspective, but I ask you: In what sense is relativity a completion of classical mechanics, to use the usual examples? Or in what sense is quantum mechanics that. It's not like we kept Newton mechanics and gravity and added some bells and whistles. It was more like, let's reinterpret all kinds of things and describe them in completely novel ways such that as a limiting case, we get the same approximate results as Newtonian physics.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I'd give it an F. Sorry.

[JuliaL]

Granted, if you mean "empirical truth." Is this the only kind of truth? Oddly, science relies a great deal on a non-empirical form of truth called "mathematics."

Mybold.
I am unclear on this.  I've heard much on the transcendental nature of the laws of logic and mathematics, yet if they are not in this material universe, where are they?  I'd appreciate some pointers to argument that such an idealism holds. 

To say that they are non-empirical because they are products of reason assumes that reason is somehow non-empirical itself.  I'd say that is not yet shown and I fail to see how it can be shown.

[Minimalist]

Sort of like -

[Jenny A]

                  The most pressing and controversial topic of all are the questions concerning where we came from and how we got here.  One side insists that we came from a being or deity, while another advocates evolution and the Big Bang theory.  Throughout history we have assigned various deities to our existence; however, it wasn’t until roughly two centuries ago that it was even questioned. Many scientists claim that the belief of a creator can be discarded based on the overwhelming scientific evidence.  Although, there are many problems with the second argument, including: corruption of the publicized scientific community, the inability to explain the fundamental living blocks of life, humans’ tendency to change and/or omit scientific theories, the obvious inconsistent and desperate theories of modern science, and finally, the complexity of biological systems that science is unable to explain.     

Let's begin at the beginning, i.e. the contraversy about where we can from.  This pressing question of yours, did you realize that in the eastern part of the globe the answer was assumed for generations.  That answer was, and for many still is, the universe is eternal.  It's always been here.   So there are really three possibilities:  1) the universe was always here (sort of like the god postulated by some in hypothesis 2); 2) a deity created it (who was eternally existing or came into being in some way; 3) the universe has natural causes.   It is possible to combine the hypothesis and come up with things like a deity created the universe by natural means.  Or that a deity created the universe out of eternally existing materials.  If you read either Genises or the ancient Greeks, you will see that this later possibilty is quite common among deists.

Now your suggestion is that because scientists don't necessarily agree about what natural means caused the universe, that the scientists must be wrong about natural causes.  But you must reach the same conclusion about deities if you look at hypothesis two, because which deity and how has been changing more radically and more frequently than scientists have about hypothesis three.  So what is there really to choose between them?  Well, scientific theories must both comport with the data and explain the data.  That limits the possible scientific theories.  The problem with the deity hypothesis is that it explains nothing:  you know as much about the universe if you say Odin did it, as if you said Yahweh did it, as if you said Zeus did it.  None of these gods will explain, for example, why the universe appears to be expanding.  But the Big Bang does.  If you say Yahweh did it by big bang, you explain the expansion but add no additional data explanation to the Big Bang Theory.

First of all, it must be made clear that the modern scientific community is corrupt.

That is a sweeping accusation that could use a little data.  I don't think scientists are saints.  But I do notice the practical applications of scientific work.  My cell phone works.  So does my GPS.  Not to mention TVs, microwaves, vaccines, computer,  heart surgery, nuclear bombs, nuclear power plants, trips to the moon, and martian probes.   And that is the point.  Scientific theories have practical applications that work.  When they stop working you will notice.  

Donald Scott, who is the author of the Electric Sky: A Challenge to the Myths of Modern Astronomy, explains yet another possibility to the origin of matter.  More importantly, the first half of the book attempts to expose the field of astrophysics, which he believes is riddled with conjectures and “intangible…validity.” 

Well, no.  Every picture of space taken by visual, radiological, or other means is empirical data.   Any scientific theory must explain and comport with that data or fail.  It must also have predictive value.  The Theory of Relativity made certain predictions about things we could not yet observe.  Those predictions were vindicated when observations were made.  That is a test of the theory.   

He points out astrophysics is not “science” because it is unable to collect empirical data:  the conclusions are not validated by a grasp of the physical world, but rather with theories that are reliant on the hypothetical mathematical models fabricated by the scientists in charge.  Since they cannot test their theories empirically, due to observing 14 billion years post-factum, the theories are only standing upon the opinion of other likewise thinking scientists.

Now he is talking nonsense.  The theories rest on empirical data, just not data collected 14 billion years ago.  Actually, it's better than that.  Because the speed of light is limited, if we look far enough into space, we are looking back in time.  We aren't seeing what is there now, but was there millions of years ago.

Their diluted theories are “popularized [in] Scientific American, Discover, and National Geographic”, which allow no refuting speculation to be made known to the people.  This of course sets the standard for other magazines and online articles who endorse it as well.  Therefore, it is naïve to definitively believe in the publicized scientific views because they are untestable and verified solely by scientists in the same field with the same humanistic belief system.

Actually no.  Other ideas are widely available in the net.  And popular scientific magazines like breaking news.  So other views are widely available there.

             One of the leading problems with evolution roots from the very start of the formation of life.  For life to arise, atoms need to gather and arrange in such a way for amino acids form, then arrange into proteins, and finally into peptides.  After this incredibly complex process, which evolution cannot explain (and is a large topic in itself), an inorganic molecule was believed to evolve. To help explain how inorganic molecules could be converted to organic naturally, in 1953, Stanley Miller conducted an experiment that created organic molecules by using chemical processes.  He claimed that he kept the experiment constant at specific variables that were believed to be consistent with early earth’s environment.  The experiment was successful in the creation of 15-20% of organic molecules, but research now suggested that the variables are not consistent with the modern-day model of early earth.  Overwhelming variables such as irrelevant atmosphere (e.g. hydrogen and nitrogen levels), irrelevant conditions (e.g. cooling, energy from the sun, and photosynthesis), low yield of molecules, wrong forms of amino acids, the formation of proteins, and other needed chemicals reveal the experiment is invalid (Peet).  At the time, this was a breakthrough in evolutionary science; however, now it is deemed incredibly flawed.  No such experiment with concrete findings has been successful on the hypothesis to this day.

Whoops, we just went from the origins of the universe to the origins of life.  First of all, evolution is not a theory about how life began.  It presumes there is life on which it operates.  Given that you and I and much of what we see around us is alive, that's not a bad presumption.  

I agree that science doesn't yet know how life began, though there are some ideas that do comport with the facts.  Religion can't agree on which deity.  But religion is no more an explanation than because is an explanation.   Science is stuck with the data.  My bet is on science solving the problem if it is solvable.

            This is just one example of how our knowledge of science has actually hurt preexisting evolutionary theories.  It also indicates that we might be blind to see the flaws in our theories today.  In fact, the Miller-Urey experiment belongs to a large group of discovers that were later disregarded. A few examples of falsified theories include: Earth as a disk, phrenology, Einstein’s static universe theory, Pons’ nuclear fusion, luminiferous aether, phlogiston theory, and Earth being the center of our solar system (Scientist)–the list goes on.  What does this say about present day theories? What will we discover in the future that will abolish existing theories today?  Has the world done our generation of scientists a favor and freed them from this recurring human flaw?  It’s not likely.

There are failed scientific theories.  Their flaws were found out, exposed, and rectified by scientists in light of data.  Gods come and go for no reason whatsoever.  Self correction is a virtue not a flaw.  Random change of deity without supporting data is a flaw.

               With recent headlines in the news reading, “Scientists: Evidence of Big Bang's Beginning” (ScienceDaily) and “Quantum Equations Suggest Big Bang Never Happened” (Lunz), it always keeps us reminded that theories are relative and never provide a resolution.

 
Religion is more than relative, it's merely arbitrary.  To change in light of data is one thing.  To change in light of charismatic prophets is absurd.

Conflicting propositions on the side of the Big Bang, as well as ones against it, leave us wondering if it’s right, wrong, or if it’s neither of these choices!  Obviously the latter option is not reasonable, though it sure seems appetizing given the cluster of conflicting information.  A rising explanation for the existence of the universe is known as the “Multiverse Theory.”  It entails our universe is just one of an infinitely vast selection of universes.  They reason that there are too many fine-tuned variables found on earth (e.g. the Fibonacci Sequence continuously found in nature), and more importantly in the universe, that would occur solely by chance.  They have discovered multiple physical constants that are essential to our function of life–if they were even off by a bit, the universe would not function correctly and life or matter would not exist (Wolchover).  For example, the ratio of electrons to protons (fine tuned by 10^37), ratio of electromagnetic force: gravity (10^40), expansion rate of the universe (10^55), and mass density of the universe (10^59) were unexplainable coincidences (Ross).  In 2012, more wariness emerged when the discovery of the Higgs particle unleashed yet another highly unlikely constant that seemed to fit our universe and ours alone. Out of this, they discovered the “cosmological constant,” which is a number that “has to be enormously fine-tuned [10^120] to prevent the universe from rapidly exploding or collapsing to a point. It has to be fine-tuned in order for life to have a chance (Wolchover).”  This number is so unimaginably precise that it leads cosmological scientists to believe this could not possibly happen by mere chance with a singular Big Bang-so this is old news as well.
      Wolchover, the writer of the Scientific American article, explains their initial reasoning behind the argument by stating:

“Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky? Unnaturalness would give a huge lift to the multiverse hypothesis, which holds that our universe is one bubble in an infinite and inaccessible foam.”

It seems as though this is a desperate attempt to deny their utter uncertainty of how our universe started.  As they discover more and more, they have a harder time conceptualizing their preexisting theories.  To hold such a theory, which is certainly immeasurable (because it is out of this universe), requires an equal amount of faith as theism because there is no way to build up on it, or even prove.  Are we just supposed to blindly believe this?  If they believe this, among all things, how can we trust any alternate theory they propose?  It’s doubtful this will be the final consensus, though it truly unmasks their uncertainty and their capability to pull their evidence from unobservable data.
(Note that this is not a belief held by a small group of scientists; it is accepted by the finest of physicists today.  Professors from University of Columbia, University of California, Tufts University, and the University of Cambridge are just a few among the many who do–even the well known, Stephen Hawking.)

No, we are not supposed to blindly agree.  That is the point.  In the end, the theory that best explains the data will win.  The fact that we have not yet explained something does not mean god did it anymore than it means anything else did it.

           

If the image of modern day science based on mathematical models and unseeing observation appears broken to you, there is tangible science out there without the use of imagination.  Charles Darwin is the father of and also the most notable figure in evolutionary science today, known for his book, The Origin of Species.  Michael Behe, a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania and well-known author, challenges Darwin’s writing, which states, “'If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”  Darwin wrote his book in 1859, so he did not know all of these advances in science today (e.g. genes and DNA – fundamental aspects of his theory that would completely change his conclusions).  Behe damages the authenticity of his book because he directly refutes his statement above by the concept of  “Irreducible Complexity.”  He explains that it is when a “single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."  This includes examples such as the bacterial flagellum (a “microscopic motorboat”), the ATP synthase molecule (molecular energy for the cell), and the Cilium (a “molecular vacuum cleaner [in the throat]) (Behe).  The significance of this concept is that evolution can’t explain how these extremely complex tools in biological systems can somehow evolved to function over a course of 14 billion years.  No amount of time is sufficient for these systems to evolve because even if one starts to add on bits and pieces in order to perform a task, there are hundreds of other parts that are essential to keep it alive.  In theory, even if an infinite number of these biological wonders started, they would die because they are always missing one leg on the stool.  As of now, evolutionists cannot explain these phenomena.  In fact, the essential building blocks that make up these complex processes are still an enigma, with the Miller-Urey experiment as just one example.

Sorry, but you really do misunderstand evolutionary theory.  And the fact that life evolves is proven.  How it evolves might possible be open for disagreement, but the fact that it does is not.
         

 It is crucial to realize that we cannot worship both sides: it is either scientific laws behind the existence of our universe (or universes) and life, or a higher power.

Now are just being silly. No one suggests you worship science.  Frankly, I advise against worshiping anything or anyone.  Science is a tool.  It isn't a deity.  And if there is a deity, science could still explain how the deity did it.  That's why there are theist scientists.

 It is our duty and favor to us as individuals to honestly evaluate the authenticity of both.  The scientists behind the theories are constantly seeking answers that we simply cannot understand.  It is a faulty pursuit that insists that we know the answers for everything, or will know in the soon future. 

Yep, we can ask no questions and live naturally, hand to mouth without technology, or we can have science and electricity.  Oh, wait, we seem to have chosen haven't we?

Unless you can genuinely believe that all of the scientific assertions make sense, it can’t be wise to invest your belief in it.  The possibility that a higher power created the universe, which accepts that we do not know all of the answers with our limited intellect, is the more rational alternative.  Given this, the real question should ask where we came from, not how we got here.

Hmm, what if religous assertions make no sense?  Because every god I've ever heard tell of does not?  Not even mostly.  But science produces positive reliable predictions on which I base my current standard of living.  The results are reliable power, medicine, computers, satellites, and the net upon which I confidently type this reply, expecting that if you want to read it, you can.

[Hatshepsut]

Sort of like -

Touché. I'll note an editorial lapse in your quiz: The instructions should begin with "Please bow your head in prayer." 

But on a more serious note, intelligent design and biblical creationism are independent. The former's being plied as a form of stealth creationism in tactics rounded on by the court system, yet anthropological interest: origin myths, conflict in the world of deity, and a few good philosophical Brazil nuts are found in the Design District.

[Mudhammam]

Granted, if you mean "empirical truth." Is this the only kind of truth? Oddly, science relies a great deal on a non-empirical form of truth called "mathematics."

Mybold.
I am unclear on this.  I've heard much on the transcendental nature of the laws of logic and mathematics, yet if they are not in this material universe, where are they?  I'd appreciate some pointers to argument that such an idealism holds. 

To say that they are non-empirical because they are products of reason assumes that reason is somehow non-empirical itself.  I'd say that is not yet shown and I fail to see how it can be shown.

They're non-empirical because, per the standard definition, the "empirical" is "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic." Rationalism relies on the pure abstractions of the intellect to formulate conceptions of truth while strict empiricism looks exclusively to the objects of experience in its determinations. The former begins with the whole and works its way down to the parts; the latter starts with the parts and works towards the whole. Obviously, the two approaches or aspects of reality are relevant to all of our inquiries and neither is fruitful in the extreme if it is to the exclusion of the other. Mathematics is concerned with numbers, which are objects of thought and never verifiable by direct experience, except to the extent which bodily magnitudes are subjected to the rules of addition and division, and the debate as to whether numbers are properties of the objects themselves, an invention of the human mind, or of an abstract (some might say divine, or metaphysical) realm only accessible in thought, rages on since the early days of the Greeks' "golden age," and most notably in the writings of Aristotle and his teacher, Plato.

[robvalue]

My poetic metaphorical attempt to make sense of it:

Mathematics is a bit like a universal language; the language of the universe maybe?

Any abstract concept leaves an "image" in the brain of those who think about it, and the image is empirical. The image is not the actual concept, but it allows us to use that concept.