Science Doesn't Say Anything - Scientists Do

(Townhall.com) by Frank Turek

You can’t put honesty in a test tube. 

“Science” doesn’t say anything—scientists do.

Those are a couple of the illuminating conclusions we can draw from the global warming e-mail scandal.

“You mean science is not objective?”  No, unless the scientists are, and too often they are not.   I don’t want to impugn all scientists, but it is true that some of them are less than honest.  Sometimes they lie to get or keep their jobs.  Sometimes they lie to get grant money.  Sometimes they lie to further their political beliefs.   Sometimes they don’t intentionally lie, but they draw bad scientific conclusions because they only look for what they hope to find.

Misbehavior by scientists is more prevalent than you might think.  A survey conducted by University of Minnesota researchers found that 33% of scientists admitted to engaging in some kind of research misbehavior, including more than 20% of mid-career scientists who admitted to “changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.”  Think of how many more have done this but refuse to admit it!   (The researchers said as much in their findings.)

Outright lies and deception certainly seem to be the case with “Climategate.”  The exposed e-mails reveal cherry picking; manipulating data; working behind the scenes to censor dissenting views; and doubting what the measurements say because they don’t fit their pre-determined conclusion.   Matt Drudge headlined this yesterday as the “Greatest scandal in modern science.”

I actually think there is another great scientific scandal, but its misrepresentations are not quite as obvious.  In this scandal, instead of outright lies, scientific conclusions are smuggled in as philosophical presuppositions.  Such is the case with the controversy over the origin of life and new life forms.  Did natural forces working on non-living chemicals cause life, or is life the result of intelligent activity?   Did new life forms evolve from lower life forms by natural forces or was intelligence needed?

Dr. Stephen Meyer has written a fabulous new best-selling book addressing those questions called Signature in the Cell.   Having earned his Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge in the philosophy of science, Dr. Meyer is at the top of the science food chain.  In our August 8^th radio interview, he told me he’s been working on his 600+ page book—which isn’t short of technical detail—for more than a decade.

What qualifies a man who has a Ph. D. in the “philosophy of science” to write on the origin of life or macroevolution?  Everything.  What some scientists, and many in the general public fail to understand is that science cannot be done without philosophy.  All data must be interpreted.  And much of the debate between Intelligent Design proponents (like Dr. Meyer) and the Darwinists (like Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins) is not a debate over evidence—everyone is looking at the same evidence.  It’s a debate over philosophy.   It’s a debate over what causes will be considered possible before we look at the evidence.

Scientists look for causes, and logically, there are only two possible types of causes—intelligent causes or non-intelligent causes (i.e. natural causes).   A natural cause can explain a geologic wonder like the Grand Canyon, but only an intelligent cause can explain a geologic wonder like the faces of the presidents on Mount Rushmore.  Likewise, natural laws can explain why ink adheres to the paper in Dr. Meyer’s book, but only an intelligent cause can explain the information in that book (i.e. Dr. Meyer!).

How does this apply to the question of the origin of life?  Long after Darwin, we discovered that “simple” single-celled life is comprised of massive volumes of DNA information called specified complexity—in everyday terms, a complicated software program or a really long message.  Richard Dawkins admits that the information content of the “unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoeba” would fill 1,000 volumes of an encyclopedia!

What’s the cause of this?  Here’s where the philosophy comes in.  Dr. Meyer is open to both types of causes.  Richard Dawkins is not.  Dr. Meyer’s book explains why natural forces do not appear to have the capacity to do the job, only intelligence does.  However, Dawkins and his Darwinist cohorts philosophically rule out intelligent causes before they look at the evidence.  So no matter how much the evidence they discover points to intelligence (as a long message surely does), they will always conclude it had to be some kind of natural cause.   In other words, their conclusion is the result of their philosophical presupposition.

While Dawkins has no viable natural explanation for life or the message contained therein, he says he knows it cannot be intelligence.  That philosophical presupposition leads to what appears to be an unbelievable conclusion:  To believe that 1,000 volumes of an encyclopedia resulted from blind natural forces is like believing that the Library of Congress resulted from an explosion in a printing shop.  I don’t have enough faith to believe that.

“This is a ‘God of the gaps’ argument!”  Dawkins might protest.  No it isn’t.  We don’t just lack a natural explanation for “simple” life—1,000 encyclopedias worth of information is positive empirically verifiable evidence for an intelligence cause.  Consider the cause of the book The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, for example.  It’s not merely that we lack a natural explanation for the book (of course we know that the laws of ink and paper couldn’t have written the book).  It’s also the fact that we know that messages only come from minds.   Therefore, we rightly posit an intelligent author, not a blind natural process.

Why is it so hard for Dawkins and other Darwinists to see this?  Maybe they refuse to see it.  Maybe, like global warming “scientists,” they have their own political or moral reasons for denying the obvious.  Or maybe they’ve never realized that you cannot do science without philosophy.  As Einstein said, “The man of science is a poor philosopher.”   And poor philosophers of science may often arrive at false scientific conclusions.  That’s because science doesn’t say anything—scientists do.

Answering a Middle School Student's Questions about Global Warming

(Cornwallalliance.org)

When a middle schooler asks common questions about global warming, what do you say?

by E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D.

National Spokesman, The Cornwall Alliance

Occasionally I receive emails from school children with questions about global warming. A particularly thoughtful one came recently from a student in Georgia, acting apparently on a teacher's assignment. Because the questions are so typical, I thought I'd share them my answers here.

1. Is global warming real and as large of a problem as some web sites tell the people?

This is an example of what logicians call the "fallacy of complex question." A "complex question" comes in the form of one that requires a "Yes" or "No" answer but that actually includes some parts that might be answered "Yes" and others that might be answered "No," or that asks only one thing, but answering either "Yes" or "No" implies something false. An example of the latter sort is the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" If you answer "No," you imply that you're still beating her; if you answer "Yes," you imply that you used to beat her. There is no way to give the grammatically required answer without condemning yourself. Similarly, the question above suggests that you want a "Yes" or "No" answer, but its first part ("Is global warming real" might receive a "Yes" answer without implying a "Yes" to the second part ("and as large of a problem as some web sites tell the people"). Further, the second part of the question almost necessitates a "No" answer, because some web sites make truly outrageous claims--e.g., that greenhouse warming might turn the Earth into a fiery ball. Absolutely no scientist I know of has suggested such a thing, but some laymen have. (Physicist Stephen Hawking came close when he suggested that runaway global warming could make Earth as hot as Venus, but Hawking was speaking off the cuff and hadn't really studied the particular physics of Earth's climate system. Probably it's not fair to take him seriously on the point.) To be sensibly answerable, your question needed to quantify what you meant by "as large of a problem as some web sites tell the people"--i.e., so large as to make life extinct on Earth, so large as to cause 20 degrees Centigrade increase in global average temperature, so large as to melt the Greenland or Antarctic ice cap, so large as to raise sea level by 1 foot, or 2 feet, or 3 feet, or 20 feet, or 60 feet, or so large as to cause massive deaths from heat stroke, etc. (The answer to all of those, by the way, is "No"--except to 1-foot to 2-foot sea level rise, and then the answer is "Maybe we'll see that much SLR (1 foot much more likely than 2), and maybe global warming will contribute partly to that (though it might be mostly just continued response of Earth's ice and oceans to warming that has already occurred).) Now, to the two parts of your question.

First: "Is global warming real?" Earth is always warming or cooling, in several cycles determined by cycles in solar energy and solar magnetic wind output; by cycles in ocean currents (the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), the El Nino/La Nina Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and others); by volcanic activity; by cycles in Earth's orbit and tilt; by cycles in Earth's magnetic field; by cycles in the intensity of cosmic ray influx (which in turn are determined partly by cycles in solar magnetic wind intensity and partly by Earth's position relative to the various arms of the galaxy). The primary driver of changes in Earth's average surface temperature appears to be cloudiness, which in turn is determined mostly by ocean cycles, especially the PDO. From about A.D. 900 to about A.D. 1300 (the Medieval Warm Period), Earth's average temperature appears to have been considerably warmer than it is now. From about 1350 to about 1850 (the Little Ice Age), it was significantly cooler. From about 1850 to now it appears to have warmed by about 1 degree C (1.8 degree F), although there are some very serious problems with the accuracy and comparability of temperature data, and that figure really could range anywhere from 0 to 2 degrees C (0 to 3.6 F). But during that 160-year period, there have been ups and downs. Earth seems to have warmed generally from about 1850 to about 1900 or 1910, cooled from about 1910 to about 1920 or the mid-1920s, warmed from then to about the early 1940s (the 1930s probably being the warmest decade on record for both the Earth and the 48 contiguous United States), cooled somewhat from then to the mid-1970s, warmed from then to 1998 or perhaps 2001 (1998 being the warmest year since 1850 for Earth, but 1936 the warmest for the U.S.), and cooled since then. So: Is global warming real? Yes, of course it is--sometimes. And in between times, global cooling is real. That's no surprise to Earth scientists, or even to historians (who are aware, for instance, that during the Medieval Warm Period the Vikings colonized Greenland and Vinland (now called Newfoundland), naming the first as they did because its coastal regions were green and farmable, and the latter as they did because they found grape vines growing there, but that during the Little Ice Age Greenland's glaciers expanded so much as to destroy the colonies and the Vikings had to withdraw, and Vinland has not continued warm enough for grapes to grow, and that during the Little Ice Age the Thames River in London, which never freezes now, used to freeze over so solidly that Christmas parties were held on the ice, and similarly the Hudson River near what is now New York City).

Just so you can see for yourself how variable Earth's temperature can be even within a time as short as 1979 to the present, here's a graph representing satellite remote temperature sensing data for that period, from www.drroyspencer.com:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Oct_09.jpg