Tag Archives: Science

Bill Lockwood: Consensus Science is No Science 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

Climate Change alarmists claim that about 2700 scientists agree with them and that these represent about 97% of all scientists. And so, they claim, it is an indisputable fact. But the fact is, there is no consensus in the scientific community over Climate Change. A U.S. Senate majority report says more than 650 scientists express dissent over man-made global warming claims.

In addition, over 30,000 scientists have signed on to a petition that says there is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gasses causes or will … cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

We have all heard the Barack Obama’s of the world saying, “the debate is over” regarding Climate Change. Climate Change is real, we are told, and man-caused. The plain message is that we must curtail the free market, get rid of private property laws in America in order to save the planet.

Almost all Climate Changers then pontificate that 97% of all scientists agree that man, specifically American people, are the real polluters, and that this is the cause of our Climate Emergency.

What is Science?

Science is physical observation, hypothesis, and experimentation to test the hypothesis. It also includes the ability to reproduce the results. This has nothing to do with how many scientists believe a certain thing. One scientist in a laboratory can overturn an entire “belief system” of a scientific community.

The late Michael Crichton, who had an earned a medical degree from Harvard Medical School in 1969, spoke in 2003 at California Institute of Technology at Pasadena, California. Pointing out that “consensus” has nothing to do with science, but is a only a justification for shutting down opposite ideas not associated with their beliefs.

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in tis tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other; reach for your wallet, for you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus, period.

Dr. James D. Bales, long-time professor of Bible at Harding University in Searcy, Arkansas, made the same point pertaining to the Creation v. Evolution controversy. “If to be accepted by scientists” [or any number or percentage of them] he noted, “is all that is meant to establish something scientifically, then the only scientific method would be to count heads.”

“If more scientists accept a position than reject it, the minority has been outvoted and the scientific truth is whatever the majority says it is.” However, this in turn means that

all the talk about framing a hypothesis, the testing of the hypothesis by the scientific method, the retesting of the hypothesis by another, and the significance of prediction is just so much ritualistic talk and is unrelated to science. If enough scientists can be persuaded, regardless of that means of persuasion, that a certain position is true, the position has been confirmed scientifically.

“Consensus science”, by which is meant, how many scientists believe something, is not science at all. It is in reality, “consensus among scientists,” which establishes nothing scientifically. Scientists believed at one time the earth was flat; they believed that Jews were inferior peoples, some today believe in spontaneous generation—that life comes from non-life; many believe in natural selection and mutation and that species change based upon inherited characteristics. None of these have been established scientifically.

Consensus science is no science at all.

Bill Lockwood: Foundation of True Science 0 (0)

by Bill Lockwood

Christians need to recognize the foundational importance of the Bible’s doctrine of Creation.  It is not a periphery issue, but is in reality the basis of the Bible as well as true science as well.  How is the case that the Bible’s doctrine of creation is the foundation of true science?

First, scientific investigation is based upon the concept of rationality.  Rationality is simply drawing the conclusions as warranted by the evidence.  That is, the law of correct thinking.  But what is “correct thinking” if atheism and its doctrine of spontaneous generation is true?  If reason is just a physical sensation … there is no reason for the atheist or evolutionist to say that he is using his mind and the theist is not.  Matter in motion would have produced in the atheist his atheistic arguments and matter in motion would have produced in the theist his faith in theism.  There is no reason why one should be accepted as the true insight into reality over the other.  Atheism or evolutionism gives us no confidence that it could possibly be the true insight into reality.

Second, scientists admit that the foundations of true science are found in a Christian world-view. Stanley Beck, an evolutionist writing in Bioscience (1982), confessed that the basic premises of science find their foundation or origin in Christian theology.  That is to say, that since the world was created by a divine Creator and man was created in God’s image, therefore nature makes orderly sense, man is able to decipher its operations, and true science becomes possible.  If the world, on the other hand, was a mere product of jumbled masses of atoms and our brains were nothing more than jumbles of matter and electrical impulses, science itself becomes nonsense.

Third, some evolutionists confess that given evolution (as opposed to Creation), man has no free moral choice.  William Provine, who died in 2015, was a professor in the Department of ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the distinguished Cornell University, lectured at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville in 1998. His remarks included the following: “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) No life after death exists; 3) No ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) No ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) Human free will is non-existent.” Provine spent the balance of his time discussing “free will” because he noted “the first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them.”

Provine was exactly right, given his naturalistic premises. There would be no such thing as free will if the general theory of evolution is true. These considerations alone ought cause professors of science today to rethink commitment to the ungodly doctrine of evolution. Creation gives man his only basis for True Science.