Science is Dead

Many people don’t even know what science is. Last month, an Internet troll attacked one of our readers on Facebook by saying,

It isn’t surprising she said this because this is what children are being taught in school. “Science has never been based on fact” is as wrong as can be. Science has always been based on fact. From the mass of a carbon atom to the boiling point of water, every aspect of science has been proved through experiment after experiment.

When we sent men to the Moon, we weren’t guessing how much thrust would be produced by a 3-second rocket burn, or exactly where the Moon would be by the time we got there. We knew how much fuel and oxygen we would need. We knew how long it would take radio signals to get from Earth to the spacecraft. We knew exactly what had to be done to get there safely because countless experiments had been done to simulate what would happen.

The wonderful thing about science is that everything science says is true. You can trust science because everything has been impartially verified through experimentation. At least, that’s how it used to be.

But now science is dead, and has been replaced by philosophy masquerading as science. The word “consensus” is a tell-tale sign. There is no consensus (no majority opinion) in science. If consensus is involved, it means that the truth has not been determined experimentally. Politicians routinely claim that their beliefs are “scientific” in an attempt to make them unquestionable. It’s just a cheap trick.

It’s Darwin’s Fault

What killed science? We put much of the blame on Darwin. Experimental verification had to be removed from the definition of science to make the theory of evolution “scientific.”

Darwin suggested that life began in a warm pond, and animals could produce offspring with novel innovations, despite overwhelming experimental evidence to the contrary. Louis Pasteur proved that life cannot originate from non-life. That’s real science. But the theory of evolution depends upon dead chemicals organizing themselves into a living cell, which evolved into multicellular organisms capable of unlimited variation. The theory of evolution depends upon the accidental evolution of blood, and a heart to pump it through lungs to the rest of the body. The theory of evolution is as unscientific as it can be.

The theory of evolution is nothing more than wishful thinking by a consensus of scientists. Once that door was opened, anything believed by people with doctoral degrees became “the truth.” People have been brainwashed by teachers with a political agenda who told them, “Science is progressive. The truth changes as we learn more.” This led to all sorts of nonscientific nonsense being accepted as science. (For example, non-binary sex, the “existential threat” of climate change, and Critical Race Theory.)

Thoughtlessness

People have become so intimidated by experts that they don’t think for themselves. They will believe anything they have been told by an authority.

Consider this exchange on our Facebook page in which Charles and Hunter claimed we are spreading lies; but when pressed could not come up with a single example.

We sometimes get email asking for advice on what to say to evolutionists. It doesn’t matter what you say if they won’t listen. Charles and Hunter have not read anything we have written—but they are sure we are lying because experts have told them the theory of evolution is true.

Source Material

On the other hand, last year I spent $268.99 on subscriptions to professional science journals (Nature, Science) and $302.95 on subscriptions to science tabloids (National Geographic, Scientific American, Discover, New Scientist, and Science News) and more on books. Over the past 25 years, I’ve spent about $14,000 to learn the latest thinking about the theory of evolution because I want to know what evolutionists think. Our critics can’t be bothered to read a single issue of our newsletter for free.

Internet trolls have criticized me for “carefully” picking which articles to discuss. Should I pick the articles carelessly instead? Last week’s issue (4 November 2021) of Nature contained an article titled, “Signatures of bosonic Landau levels in a finite-momentum superconductor.” I admit that I didn’t read that article because I assumed it didn’t have anything to do with evolution. I may have missed some articles about evolution because I misjudged the article by its title; but I read every article that seemed to be relevant to the theory of evolution. If I missed one, I’m sorry.

In the early years, I tore all the evolution articles out of those magazines each month, and had a hard time choosing which ones to discuss in our newsletter because there were too many to address them all. These days, it is much harder to find articles about evolution to review. That’s partly because magazines are so full of COVID articles there aren’t many pages left for other articles. But even before COVID, there were fewer evolution articles in the literature.

Research isn’t as pure and noble as academics would like you to believe. Research follows the money. There is more money in research grants for COVID, climate change, gender studies, and other things politicians would rather fund in order to advance their agenda than there is money for the theory of evolution.

The evolution money is drying up, so there aren’t as many evolution articles in the literature. There are probably two reasons for that. First, evolutionists have drilled too many dry holes. The more they study evolution, the more evidence against the theory they find because real science is against evolution.

The second reason is that the theory of evolution has always been about religion, not science. The theory of evolution is the atheists’ best weapon against Christianity. Since Christianity has become increasingly irrelevant in recent years, it isn’t the threat to atheism it once was. (But, as is clearly seen from the vitriolic attacks by Internet trolls, there are still a few atheists who are terribly frightened by the possibility of a god.)

Lies

We are not affected in the slightest by accusations that what we write is “all lies” because we know everything we write is true, and has not been twisted or distorted in any way to reach a false conclusion. If we lied, we would feel guilty about it, regardless of whether or not anyone called us liars. Furthermore, none of the people who have called us “liars” have given a specific example of anything we have written that isn’t true.

It is easy to prove when a politician lies—just play the video tape of him telling the lie. If we had ever lied, it would be easy to prove it by noting, “On page X of Volume Y, Issue Z, of Disclosure it says [something untrue].” Nobody has done that because there aren’t any lies in a single one of the more than 820 articles we have published over the past 25 years.

On the other hand, the statement, “All I had to do was barely skim it to see at least 3 claims made with absolutely zero evidence to support what they claim,” seems to be untrue because the person making the statement was unable to answer the question, “What were those 3 claims?” The inability to give specific examples is evidence that the accusation is false.

Mistakes

On rare occasions, we have made mistakes which we corrected as soon as they were detected. In one instance, the data in an article in Science was mislabeled. When an alert reader questioned the numbers, we found the error (in the Science article) and published a correction. ¹

Ambiguity

Groucho Marx famously said, “Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. (Why it was wearing my pajamas, I’ll never know.)” If we said that, a critic might say that even a baby elephant could not possibly fit in my pajamas to discredit us. They try to misinterpret us on purpose. So, we try to be as unambiguous as possible. If there are cases where we have failed to explain our position clearly, we welcome questions which alert us to the fact that our position might be misinterpreted, and we will correct the misunderstanding immediately. I, not the elephant, was wearing my pajamas when the shooting occurred.

Assumptions

Creationists’ sites have their standard talking points, and evolutionists’ sites have their standard responses. It appears that our critics assume that we make the same points as the creationists do, and simply parrot the evolutionary responses without even bothering to read our articles. Their rebuttals are irrelevant because they try to refute arguments we didn’t make.

This suggests two things to us. First, our critics think they know what we are going to say without reading it. They are ignorant of our position, and intentionally choose to remain ignorant by refusing to read what we have written.

Second, it is also possible that they are incapable of independent thought. They have been told the proper evolutionary statements and simply repeat them whether they understand them or not.

For example, evolutionists have posted these statements on our Facebook page.

Real science is based on experimental verification, not “some form of physics that may not even exist any longer.” Children mindlessly repeat things like these which they have been taught not to question in school.

Science, as it was in the late 20^th Century, is dead. It was replaced by statements posing as scientific truth because the theory of evolution isn’t scientific.

Quick links to
Science Against Evolution Home Page	Back issues of Disclosure (our newsletter)
Web Site of the Month	Topical Index

Footnotes:

¹ Disclosure, August 2012, “U-Series Correction”