Monday, November 21, 2011

Ancient Whale Bones Discovered in Desert

Monday after Christ the King Sundya
November 21, 2011

The Lord be with you

The following AP story appeared on the internet today and I thought I’d share it.



Ancient Whale Bones Discovered in Desert




Paleontologists in Chile have made a surprising discovery in the desert. Scientists uncovered what appears to be a massive graveyard of whale bones in Copiapo, more than a half-mile from the ocean. More than 80 whales, including 25 complete skeletons, were found in one of the driest deserts in the world. There is currently a construction project to widen the highway near the Atacama Desert, where the bones were found. Scientists believe the bones could be between 2 million and 7 million years old. So how did the whales make their way from the ocean to the desert and end up so close to one another when they died? Scientists have many theories: Maybe the area was once a lagoon and it dried up, maybe there was a giant wave that flung the whales onto shore, or maybe a giant earthquake sealed them off. Whale bones were not the only find for the paleontologists. A dolphin carcass with walrus-like tusks was also uncovered. Scientists say this discovery gives them a glimpse of ancient sea life. One paleontologist said, "The fossils are exceptionally well preserved and quite complete--a rare combination in paleontology and one that will likely shed light on many facets of the . . . ecology and evolution of these extinct species." People on social media are debating creationism vs. evolution theories. Some people are just waiting for a scientific explanation. Still others are saying they should "accept the biblical account of the flood."

The following link will take you to the story:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/ancient-whale-bones-discovered-desert-parents-outraged-hooters-165721306.html

I’m sure the scientist will come up with some explanation for these bones; they always do. However, will that explanation be credible, or just yet another example of the inability for modern theories to predict but only explain and in an after the fact kind of way. If all these theories about the ancient earth were truly sound, why didn’t they go looking for whale bones in this desert much earlier? Why didn't the paleontologists warn the goverment of Chile that this project would unearth ancient marine fossils? Why did they have to wait for a road to be widened? I know why creationists have to wait – they don’t have the money. But surely these people, who have drawn up all these maps of the globe millions of years ago, should be able to spot likely places to make such finds. Well, it is something to think about.

Blessings in Christ,
Pastor John Rickert

14 comments:

  1. Pastor John Rickert,

    Why didn't paleontologists warn the Chile government? For the same reason that doctors don't announce to every patient that they MAY have cancer. There MAY be fossils under everything.

    Why did this have to wait for the widened road? Because the fossils were NOT under the narrowed road. It's a very simple deduction.

    "These people" did not draw up maps of the globe millions of years ago. Regardless of which millenium maps were made this is an unexpected find so i dont really understand your expectation for "these people" to know where every unexpected fossil is.

    Your comments added to this copied article are full of some of the worst straw-man arguments that i've come across. What you have displayed here is a good cross section of the usual misstruths, missrepresented facts and intellectual dishonesty that we have come to expect from people of your faith. Having addressed some of your questions I expect that your intellectual dishonesty will be limited somewhat and more accurate and enlightening comments will follow.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Lord be with you

    Hello grolschman

    First all I really did is ask questions, I didn’t make any arguments. Therefore the “straw-man” comment seems out of place. Second, the point I was hoping people might understand is that current popular theories about the prehistory of the earth do not provide us with any way to predict things. Your comments underscore that. I really don’t know who the “we” are that you are referring to, nor do I know how you have classified me when you say “people of your faith.” However such sweeping statements often only obfuscate issues instead of bringing light to them. I suggest that you don’t be afraid of questions. They help us to arrive at answers.

    Blessings in Christ,
    Pastor Rickert

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pastor John Rickert,

    What you failed to take into consideration is that your questions (while not asserting a defined argument) are still 'Straw-man' arguments in what facts must me presumed in order to arrive at the question. I refer you to your comments with explanations of presuppositions.

    (1)"If all these theories about the ancient earth were truly sound, why didn’t they go looking for whale bones in this desert much earlier?"

    For this question to ever be posed there must first be the argument (albeit presupposed by you) that the theories are not sound and that knowledge of said theories directly relates to unique and unexpected whale fossil locations.

    (2)"Why didn't the palaeontologists warn the government of Chile that this project would unearth ancient marine fossils?"

    This presupposes the argument that it is the palaeontologists responsibility to know where unique and unexpected fossils are.

    (3)"I know why creationists have to wait – they don’t have the money."

    This presupposes that (a) creationists do not have enough money archaeological digs and (b) if the fiscal situation of creationists allowed for archaeological digs that they would be carried out.

    I hope that this covers the usage and definition of the logical fallacy called the 'straw man' and I now refer you to your more recent message to me. I would urge you to define the term "popular theories". It is unclear whether you are using the scientific word for an accepted and proven fact (Theory) or the more common and non-scientific idea or postulation (theory). They are clearly very different in definition and referring to the science-heavy palaeontology leads me to believe that you have used this term incorrectly.

    The 'we' that I referred to is anyone who attempts to fix the logical fallacies and misinformation that is so very prevalent in the world today. The "people of your faith" was based on the title you hold as Pastor leading me to believe that you propagate the word of the bible over fact.

    I refer you to one last logical fallacy that you have presented me, which is:

    "I suggest that you don’t be afraid of questions."

    I sincerely hope that you didn't pay for this information as I fear you would have been ripped off. I am totally unaware of any source of information that would lead you to think that I am afraid of questions by offering you answers.

    I thank you for the sentiment "The Lord be with you". My best efforts to reciprocate this would be to offer the companionship of one of my own sources of inspiration and knowledge:

    May Sir David Attenborough be with you John.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Lord be with you

    Hello grolschman

    Thank you for your response. I think I will respond to your comments in reverse.

    You say, “The ‘people of your faith’ was based on the title you hold as Pastor leading me to believe that you propagate the word of the bible over fact.” As the Bible asserts there was a Roman Empire, do you think there was not? As the Bible asserts that one of the leaders of that Empire was Caesar Augustus, to you believe that is a fiction? As the Bible asserts there were once a great Assyrian Empire, Babylonian Empire, and Egyptian Empire, do you think they didn’t exist? Do you believe Herod the Great, King David, Pharaoh Neco, Nebuchadnezzar, and so many others referred to in the Bible are fictional simply because they are in the Bible? I suspect you do not, but you statement is rather sweeping. While the Bible does contain a wide range of writing styles, like poetry, parables, and so on, it certainly isn’t devoid of “facts.”

    You also say, “The 'we' that I referred to is anyone who attempts to fix the logical fallacies and misinformation that is so very prevalent in the world today.” By that definition, I am part of “we.” Yet “we” don’t seem to see eye to eye on all things. Perhaps you can provide a better definition.

    In reference to paying for information about you, I didn’t know any was for sale. Rest assured, I have not hired someone to follow you and serendipitously send me reports on you.

    Now in reference to your assumptions about my questions, you are partially correct. My questions do have some assumptions. However your assumptions about my assumptions are not accurate. My assumption is that a useful scientific theory provides us with the ability to predict. In physics, for example, a theory may be tested by posing a question where, if the answer you expect based on the theory doesn’t happen, then you know that the theory either needs to be modified or scrapped. You make the prediction before the experiment.

    In a less precise discipline, like archeology, one still uses this approach. A person researches ancient records, surveys the land, and predicts that this or that site is the location of this or that ancient site. If the dig reveals no artifacts, the theory either needs to be modified or scrapped.

    As far as I know, prehistory is the only discipline that does not follow this practice. All scientific theories in the hard sciences follow this principle. Most of the soft sciences try. The problem with the current state of affairs in prehistoric research is that no one even tries (at least not that I know of).

    It really seems to me that you have no expectations of holding theorists about prehistory to the same standards of other sciences. If that works for you, fine. Don’t expect it to catch on with the physicists.

    (Oh, by the way, a “theory” is not a fact. It is an interpretation of reality that is supported by experimental research. The more research support the theory has, the stronger the theory is. However all scientific theories are subject to modification, and even abandonment, if new and conflicting information comes to light through research. To call a theory a “fact” is really imprecise.)

    Blessings in Christ,
    Pastor John Rickert

    ReplyDelete
  5. John,

    While following your abysmally flawed logic patterns it is very easy to see why you would continue to make straw-man arguments as to what I believe (albeit by presuppositions and loaded questions... again).

    Your comment that this book is not devoid of fact has no relevance because neither of us has asserted/denied that to be the case. No where have I alleged that the entire content of the bible is "devoid of facts".

    Claiming that you attempt to fix the logical fallacies and misinformation is laughable considering the replies I am seeing from you, and you can refer to them in detail in my messages above.

    Perhaps you missed my joke about paying for information. I merely meant to point out that you are lying to yourself about what I believe in regards to questions, based on your flat-out and bold-faced lie saying that I am afraid of questions. It is a very childish manoeuvre and expectable from someone propagating as much misinformation as yourself.

    Your next two paragraphs (assumptions of assumptions) failed to address what I pointed out to you and instead you decided to twist it into a passage about the legitimacy of postulations preceding practice. My assertions are spot-on accurate that your comments contain the logical fallacy called "the straw-man" and thank you very much for admitting this in your most recent message to me but I don't see the correlation between you propagating misinformation and the applications of the scientific method to form postulations. If you are still trying to apply this to UNEXPECTED FOSSIL FINDS then you have clearly missed the points that I made repeatedly throughout my messages regarding the locations of fossils. This is the greatest abuse of information that I know of, where someone blindly continues to uphold a failed idea when it has already been pointed out where and how it is wrong (repeatedly).

    More and more logical fallacies from you. You have no interest in fixing them. I have offered you answers and pointed out where your logic faults occur but still you present me with the same. I sincerely hope that you fix your logic faults and come to more rational and reasoned outcomes than what you have demonstrated here.

    I can no longer wish you the best John, as it is clear to me what type of person you are. I merely hope that you reap what you sow.

    Goodbye
    ~G

    ReplyDelete
  6. Commemoration of Ambrose of Milan, Pastor and Hymnwriter
    December 7, 2011

    The Lord be with you

    Hello again grotschman,

    I am sorry to read that you do not intend to keep this conversation going, but I am not surprised. A review of your comments seems to indicate that you believe insulting people is the equivalent of a strong argument. You also continue to argue about things that I never said. I will seek to once again make clear the question at issue by asking it in a different way.

    Can you think of any possible fossil find that would call into question your current understanding of prehistory? For example, if a Mastodon’s bones were found at the bottom of the Pacific, would you be forced to reconsider your position? If a whale’s bones were found in the Himalayas, would you be forced to reconsider your position? If the bones of a winged horse were found, would you be forced to reconsider your views? I doubt that anything, found anywhere, would cause you to reconsider.

    For me, if the mortal remains of Jesus were found, I would be forced to seriously reconsider my views. Whatever new view I came to, it would be remarkably different from what I now believe.

    Though I never made any of the assertions you seem to like to tilt at, I will quickly respond in an effort to show that the only assumption I have made is that scientific theories should be falsifiable.

    (1)"If all these theories about the ancient earth were truly sound, why didn’t they go looking for whale bones in this desert much earlier?"

    For this question to ever be posed there must first be the argument (albeit presupposed by you) that the theories are not sound and that knowledge of said theories directly relates to unique and unexpected whale fossil locations.

    Not true. The assumption is that a sound theory should have a predictive element by which the theory can be checked. This is a standard scientific principle. The theory should be falsifiable.

    (2)"Why didn't the palaeontologists warn the government of Chile that this project would unearth ancient marine fossils?"

    This presupposes the argument that it is the palaeontologists responsibility to know where unique and unexpected fossils are.

    Not true. The assumption is that a sound theory should have a predictive element by which the theory can be checked. This is a standard scientific principle. The theory should be falsifiable.

    (3)"I know why creationists have to wait – they don’t have the money."

    This presupposes that (a) creationists do not have enough money archaeological digs and (b) if the fiscal situation of creationists allowed for archaeological digs that they would be carried out.

    In fact I know of no “creationists” groups that do have such funding. Do you? I at least hope that if they had the money they would test their ideas with predictions based on their ideas, and seek to follow through with digs. After all, this is a standard scientific principle. The theory should be falsifiable.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Do you see what my assumption really is? Do you finally understand what I am asking?

    I honestly thought that when I told you what my assumption was I would not need to use the space to repeat it with each of your comments. I guess I was wrong in thinking you could extrapolate to each of your assertions.

    To be frank, you do seem to be afraid of questions, at least the one I’ve been asking since the first post. Why do so many palaeontologists’ ideas about prehistory lack a predictive element by which the theory can be checked? This is a standard scientific principle. The theory should be falsifiable.

    You have not even tried to address this issue. In stead you have rambled on about other things. Posturing and name calling is not a solid argument.

    (By the way, I have never said that there can be no unexpected finds, that is another assumption you have made. This is just an example of posturing on your part.)

    I see that you still fail to provide me with a real statement about what version of prehistory you subscribe to. If you really want to “fix the logical fallacies and misinformation” of others, you should also be able to state what you do believe.

    I am happy that you believe there are facts in the Bible. Your comment “you propagate the word of the bible over fact” certainly seems to contrast facts and what is recorded in the Bible. I suggest you don’t let your emotions run away with you so that such false assertions can be avoided. .

    Well, that is all I have time for. If you do not respond, I’ll probably leave it to the readers to find the rest of your logical flaws for themselves.

    Blessings in Christ,
    Pastor John Rickert

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thursday in the week of Advent 2

    The Lord be with you

    It does indeed seem like grotschman has decided to not continue our conversation. I realized that anyone reading this may wonder what a “straw-man argument” is, as grotschman was so confused about it. (One gets the feeling that he just learned the word and doesn’t really yet understand the concept.) In a straws-man argument you

    1. Either present a watered-down version of an argument or you fabricate a position which is easily defeated.

    2. You then seek to defeat the poorly argued or fabricated position.

    3. You then claim victory without ever really dealing with the real arguments.

    Grotschman does this repeatedly. For example he

    1. He claimed that my question “If all these theories about the ancient earth were truly sound, why didn’t they go looking for whale bones in this desert much earlier?” could only be asked if one disbelieves the idea (which he then assumed I do). He also claimed that my question meant that I believe there could never be “unique and unexpected” fossils found.

    2. He then seems to feel that these assumed views of mine are fallacious on the surface and need not be defeated.

    3. He claimed victory.

    Though I repeatedly told him that these were not my assumptions, and even told him that my criteria was that a theory should be falsifiable, he never addressed the point.

    All of his arguments fall into this line of “reasoning.”

    He actually handled his “straw-man” arguments poorly. For example, countless experiments are run where the scientist actually believes in the theory he is testing. Nonetheless the question is phrased in such a way that, if the expected results do not occur, then the theory is weakened.

    A second overall weakness in his comments is his consistent inflammatory remarks. This reflects an immature personality, interested mainly in amusing himself by insulting others. Serious arguments do not have to rely on such phraseology. When you see such language, you can be 90% sure that it is hiding a weak case.

    Well, that about wraps this up (unless grotschman writes again, which I doubt.)

    Blessings in Christ,
    Pastor John Rickert

    ReplyDelete
  9. John,

    I see you have aimed your lies at the readers now instead of me. Clearly you have no comprehension of what you are saying as you have demonstrated repeatedly that YOU are using straw-man arguments and have admitted to doing so in earlier messages, but first a look at your more recent set of lies.

    "He also claimed that my question meant that I believe there could never be 'unique and unexpected' fossils found."
    -- This is a lie. Show me what text you are referring to and I will show you it's correct meaning.

    "He then seems to feel that these assumed views of mine are fallacious on the surface and need not be defeated."
    -- This is another lie. Not addressing every fallacy you have is not a dismissal and I'm very surprised that you don't know that.

    "He claimed victory."
    -- This is yet another lie. Show me where I claimed this. I know you wont be able to.

    Now that I have accounted for your failed example, I present to you the same, based on the exact same straw-man argument that you already admitted to using;

    1. "If all these theories about the ancient earth were truly sound..."
    --By using the word 'if' you are assuming that it is not sound but contemplating a scenario where it is. That is your straw-man.

    2. "...why didn’t they go looking for whale bones in this desert much earlier?"
    --This is you seeking to defeat the poorly argued or fabricated position of point 1. This you may not know you are doing and I suspect to be the culprit of why you are having trouble understanding me. It would be a lot easier if you could supply us all with what theory(s) you think are not sound that way I can cross them off as having nothing to do with predicting unexpected fossil finds. It would also help if you imagine a scenario where they DID postulate that fossils might be in that area but did not have the resources or manpower to set up in the desert.

    3. "well that about wraps this one up" You claim your false victory.

    I stand by my accusation that you are being childish by lying to me and your readers. I stand by my comment that you are insulting the use of information by use of logical fallacies. I have demonstrated where and you have admitted to it.

    "You lose. Good day Sir" ~Willy Wonka

    ReplyDelete
  10. John,

    I do not take offence to you not being able to get my name right repeatedly. Instead I refer to it here merely to point out more gaps in the list of common courtesies you display to your readers.

    ~G

    ReplyDelete
  11. Monday after Advent 3

    Hello “G”

    I apologize for misspelling you name in my last post. I am glad you did not take offense, for that was certainly not my intention. As you signed your last post “G,” I am assuming that is not offensive to you. If it is, let me know and I will return to grolschman.

    I did address my final post to a more general audience. I took your phrase “I can no longer wish you the best John, as it is clear to me what type of person you are. I merely hope that you reap what you sow,” to mean you would not post again. I simply wanted to wrap things up for anyone who had waded through your comments, like clearing up what is a “straw-man” argument. (Something you still struggle with.)

    You continue to misrepresent what I have written (the first step in a straw-man argument, I might add). One of many examples is when you write “YOU are using straw-man arguments and have admitted to doing so in earlier messages”. A review of my posts will find no such comment from me. I expect you are thinking of what you wrote: “My assertions are spot-on accurate that your comments contain the logical fallacy called "the straw-man" and thank you very much for admitting this in your most recent message to me”. This was your misunderstanding/twisting, I believe, of my comment: “My questions do have some assumptions. However your assumptions about my assumptions are not accurate. My assumption is that a useful scientific theory provides us with the ability to predict.” As nothing I have said comes remotely close to what you claim I said, I have to guess as to what you are referring. This comment from me seems the best candidate. However, as you tend to make things up and attribute them to me with no support from my words, you might have fabricated this fiction from some other comment.

    I am happy that you write about the “legitimacy of postulations preceding practice.” That you recognize this means you are getting closer. Your problem seems to be with my use of the word “if” in my original post. “By using the word 'if' you are assuming that it is not sound but contemplating a scenario where it is.” “If” is a standard word to use in asking a question, just like “how,” “where,” “when,” and so on. Because you seem to be basing all your misunderstandings on this little word, I will rephrase my position as a statement. “Sound scientific theories are falsifiable.”

    (I do not reject the use of the word “if” in phrasing a test question for a theory, I am rephrasing for your benefit only. A legitimate test question for the “theory” that light travels faster than sound could be, “If I can see the fireworks explode before I hear them explode, then the light traveled faster than the sound. And please, don’t twist/misrepresent my words and start saying that I think sound travels faster than light.)

    You object to my comment, “He also claimed that my question meant that I believe there could never be 'unique and unexpected' fossils found.” You wrote, “This is a lie. Show me what text you are referring to and I will show you it’s correct meaning.” You wrote, “i dont really understand your expectation for "these people" to know where every unexpected fossil is.” You also wrote, “If you are still trying to apply this to UNEXPECTED FOSSIL FINDS then you have clearly missed the points that I made repeatedly throughout my messages regarding the locations of fossils.” These are your words, not mine. Please tell me what you meant if not, “He … claimed … I believe there could never be 'unique and unexpected' fossils found”. I might also ask, why do you keep bringing this distortion up seeing as you don’t believe I hold this position?

    ReplyDelete
  12. You write that the meaning of my phrase, “well that about wraps this one up” is a claim of victory. (You wrote, “You claim your false victory.”). Go back to the context and you will see that what I obviously meant was that I expected the exchange was ending. Once again you misrepresent/twist what I say, the first step in a straw-man argument.

    You quoted the question in my original post, “...why didn’t they go looking for whale bones in this desert much earlier?” and then claimed that the question is an argument (“This is you seeking to defeat the poorly argued or fabricated position of point 1.”) You have done this in spite of my repeatedly saying that “The assumption is that a sound theory should have a predictive element by which the theory can be checked. This is a standard scientific principle. The theory should be falsifiable.” Once again you misrepresent/twist what I have said, the first step in a straw-man argument.

    You write, “It would be a lot easier if you could supply us all with what theory(s) you think are not sound that way I can cross them off as having nothing to do with predicting unexpected fossil finds (there is that “unexpected fossil fines” misrepresentation again).” My point is now, and consistently has been, not an argument for or against any specific theory but that “a useful scientific theory provides us with the ability to predict.” I have also expressed it by saying “that a sound theory should have a predictive element by which the theory can be checked. This is a standard scientific principle. The theory should be falsifiable.”

    You write, “It would also help if you imagine a scenario where they DID postulate that fossils might be in that area but did not have the resources or manpower to set up in the desert.” We are having enough trouble with coming to grips with the requirements for a sound scientific theory without me speculating about one. Besides, you seem to obliquely be contending for some current view of prehistory. Perhaps this is your real issue. Perhaps whatever prehistory theory you subscribe to lacks the ability to be falsified. That would explain your very strong objection to this principle.

    Finally (and I was truly surprised by this), you object to my comment that you “claimed victory.” You wrote, “This is yet another lie. Show me where I claimed this. I know you wont be able to.” What do the following quotes mean if you are not claiming victory? “What you have displayed here is a good cross section of the usual misstruths, missrepresented facts and intellectual dishonesty that we have come to expect from people of your faith.” “What you failed to take into consideration is that your questions (while not asserting a defined argument) are still 'Straw-man' arguments in what facts must me presumed in order to arrive at the question.” “While following your abysmally flawed logic patterns it is very easy to see why you would continue to make straw-man arguments”. “More and more logical fallacies from you. You have no interest in fixing them. I have offered you answers and pointed out where your logic faults occur but still you present me with the same. I sincerely hope that you fix your logic faults and come to more rational and reasoned outcomes than what you have demonstrated here.”

    Blessings in Christ,
    Pastor John Rickert

    ReplyDelete
  13. John.

    Please keep these messages up, as is, unedited. It shows, to your readers, very clearly your deliberately deceitful demeanour as well as very fundamental flaws in the perception of information. There is very little reason to have any further discourse with someone operating with such profound and obvious lies and or misinformation.
    ~G

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Lord be with you,

    Well it would seem that “G:” is once again bowing out of the discussion (but who knows with him). It is no surprise that his final comments include his trademark insults. My comments on December 7 remain a good wrap-up and I refer the reader to them.

    I would like to take the time to address anyone who might read these posts and is considering science as a vocation. If the Lord has blessed you with the necessary mental skills and you have such a personal inclination to enter this field, please do not let G’s loose associations, unsubstantiated assertions, and immature name-calling, dissuade you from pursuing the vocation. I have known many scientists, both Christian and non-Christian, and I can assure you that G does not represent any of them.

    The pursuit of scientific inquire has produced many blessings over the years, often exactly because of principles that G rejects. For example, in his second post, G wrote, “For this question to ever be posed there must first be the argument (albeit presupposed by you) that the theories are not sound and that knowledge of said theories directly relates to unique and unexpected whale fossil locations.” He was referring to my question: “If all these theories about the ancient earth were truly sound, why didn’t they go looking for whale bones in this desert much earlier?”

    My question was based on the principle of skepticism which asks of all scientific theories that they be falsifiable, which G rejects in his comment. Such an approach has produced many advances in science. I will site just two examples.

    Gregor Johann Mendel (1822-1884), an Augustinian Friar and amateur scientist, was skeptical of the prevailing scientific theory that acquired traits of parent organisms would be passed on to descendant organisms. (So if mom and dad got a good education before junior was conceived, junior would be born smarter.) This theory was employed by Darwin to explain the mechanism of evolution. Though Mendel’s work was largely ignored during his lifetime, it finally came into its own at the turn of the 20th century. His seminal work is now recognized as the foundation of the modern science of genetics.

    Louis Pasteur (1822-1895), a French chemist and microbiologist, was skeptical of the prevailing scientific theory called spontaneous generation. This is the idea that life was/is spontaneously generated from non-living matter. This theory was used by Darwin to explain the origin of life. Pasteur’s seminal work disproved the theory (though some still cling to the idea that, while this doesn’t happen now, at some time in the past it did).

    Both of these men, and countless others, demonstrate the value of skepticism and asking falsifiable questions. Science would stagnate if these principles were abandoned. If scientists were only allowed to ask questions based on a desire to prove current theories, Mendel and Pasteur would never have asked their questions or conducted their experiments. The many advances in the field of science would grind to a halt.

    These principles allow science to be, to a degree, self-correcting. Sure, it takes time. Scientists are human, after all, and will cling to pet theories that have defined their careers in spite of verifiable evidence to the contrary (hence it took a generation before Mendel’s work was recognized). However, if the principles of skepticism and asking falsifiable questions are maintained, good science finally relines to adapt to the new evidence.

    Good scientists abide by these principles. I believe there is still room for good scientists. G does not represent these dedicated men and women. If you desire to become a scientist, I believe there is room for you to operate with integrity. Only God knows what discoveries you might make.

    Blessings in Christ,
    Pastor John Rickert

    ReplyDelete