Science Vs. Not Science

So I was on my way to read some intelligent discourse when the unexpected happened:

I stepped in a big ole steaming pile of bad science.

I'm not going to tell you who wrote it, on account of the fact that I don't want to give out any free publicity.

I will give a point by point response though.

Point 1: "Today there are two main theories about the creation of the earth: Evolution (Big Bang) and Intelligent Design (Creation)."

Wow, there is so much wrong with this statement, I'm having trouble deciding where to begin.

First of all, Evolution and the Big Bang theory are not the same thing. Anyone with an 8^th grade level of scientific knowledge should know this. As a matter of fact, Evolution and the Big Bang aren't even in the same scientific fields of study.

Second, neither Evolution nor the Big Bang theory has anything to do with the "creation" of the Earth.

Evolution is a biological theory which explains the origin of life's diversity. Quite well, I might add, and with a lot of evidentiary support to back it up. I'll get to that later.

The "Big Bang" Theory is a cosmological theory about the origin of the universe, NOT the origin of the Earth.

Point 2: Isaac Newton was one of the first to admit the possibility of intelligence behind the existence of the universe.

Actually, people postulated the idea of an "intelligence" behind the existence of the universe for a long time. Every one of the world's major religions started long before Newton was just a glint in his daddy's eye and every one of them posits that an "intelligence" made life, the universe and everything.

Besides, what Newton believed is irrelevant as this is a classic argument from authority. Newton isn't automatically right about something because he's Isaac Newton. Newton believed a lot of things that have proven false: alchemy for example. What Newton believed is not the issue: what the evidence says, is.

Point 3: Scientifically speaking, both evolution and intelligent design are theories,

Wrong again. Evolution is a scientific theory. Meaning that it is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning that serves as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. Scientific theories are always subject to change in light of new information. This is why we still refer to the "theory of gravity" and "germ theory" and "atomic theory." Just like these theories, evolution is supported by a mountain of evidence, a sample of which can be found here:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/lines_01

Here:

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

Here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/index.html

Here:

http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/

And Here:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

You might also check out some videos from ThunderFoot, Potholer54 and AronRa on Youtube.

"Intelligent Design" theory has never been observed, tested, confirmed nor can it be used to predict future phenomena. An intelligent designer would have to be observed in action to conclude that he/she/it exists. As I've said in articles before, if I claim that magical pink ponies built the pyramids, then I need to show you magical pink ponies who can build pyramids and compelling evidence that they built the pyramids in question. I can't simply repeat that "the pyramids couldn't have been built by people, they're too complex," and expect that to suffice as evidence. Even if your intelligent designer is real, he/she/it doesn't appear to be and apparently doesn't want to. In this light, Intelligent design theory is more like a philosophy: which can basically be a contemplation or speculation.....someone's opinion. This is NOT the same as a scientific theory, which is what evolution is. The Court in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial said it best:

"We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."

The National Academy of Science puts it this way:

"Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge."

Point 4: evolutionists refuse to even consider the evidence.

Okay, what exactly is an "evolutionist"? One who accepts that the theory of evolution is true? Does that mean that if I accept the theory of gravity I am a "gravitationalist"? Don't go washing your hands or people will think you're a "germist." But in all seriousness, "evolutionists" don't consider the evidence for intelligent design because there isn't any. Every so-called "unexplainable" bit of evidence that intelligent design advocates and other creation "scientists" have presented has been refuted by actual scientists. Lack of support is not Intelligent Design's problem, lack of evidence is.

Point 5: "Evolutionists are so terrified of the possibility of the existence of God that they would go so far as to stifle the truth."
Whether or not God or gods exist has nothing to do with science as the existence of god or gods is an untestable hypothesis. Supernatural entities using supernatural means are outside the realm of what science studies. Science studies the natural, discernible universe. A "god" by definition is a supernatural entity.

And in actuality, it's creationist/intelligent designists who seem to fear "the truth.". Michael Behe, creationist author of "Darwin's Black Box" reaffirmed in the Kitzmiller trial his 1996 statement that evolution could not explain the development of the immune system. He was then presented with 58 peer-reviewed articles, nine books and several textbook chapters which did just that. Behe testified under oath that he had not only not read them he didn't need to because he already knew what they said.. When presented with actual evidence, the apparently clairvoyant Behe basically plugged his ears and said "La-la-la-la, I can't hear you!!!" Of course, such behavior is about par for the course when dealing with creationists. Which brings me to my next point:

Point 6:" the evidence for intelligent design far outweighs the evidence for evolution"

Dr. Josef Goebbels, film connoisseur and Nazi Minister of Propaganda once said: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Nowhere is this phenomenon more apparent than in this particular (and oft-repeated) creationist declaration. Here are the facts:

-Based on the evidence we have accumulated over the past 150 years, scientists are more certain about the validity of evolution than they are about the validity of gravity.

-There are more historians who question whether or not the Holocaust happened than there are scientists who question the validity of evolution.

-Evolution has been verified by the fossil record, by DNA decoding and through observation and testing. You can ignore this evidence if you like, you can repeat over and over again that "the evidence isn't there," you can plug up your ears and say "la-la-la-la-la-la, can't hear you!!!" But in the words of Abraham Lincoln: "If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does it have? Four: calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."

Point 7: "Try suggesting to any scientific academy that they should include intelligent design as a possible option and see what happens. Don't be surprised if you are quickly escorted out the door and told not to come back."

You say that like it's a bad thing. Personally, I'm glad that people who propose that untestable hypotheses and supernatural explanations for natural phenomena should be on a level of equality with "actual science" are escorted out of science academies. If such was allowed then the distinction between actual science and pseudo-science would become blurred. Biology, chemistry and astronomy would be taught alongside (and given equal weight to) divining, conjuring and faith-healing. Instead of prescribing an antibiotic to treat your sinus infection, a doctor might prescribe that a hole be bored in your head to let the evil spirit escape. Instead of giving flu shots every year, drug stores could sell enchanted charms and incantations to ward off the flu virus. Bottom line: a person can believe about God, gods or "Intelligent Designers" whatever they choose to. But when they start trying to shoe-horn those unscientific philosophies into the science curriculum, that's when it becomes a problem....for everyone.