The conscious politicizing of science is one of the disasters of the end of the twentieth and beginning of the twenty-first centuries. The result, of course, is a significant loss in credibility for the entire scientific community; and not just in those areas where the egregious activities are taking place.
The end result may well be significant cuts in scientific funding. It is this fear that forces many scientists, who are also concerned, to continue to support their political institutions; even though they are hesitant to support the work of scientists who have forgotten their commitment to the scientific method.
The two areas where the scientific method has been significantly ignored are: Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and the extrapolation of the Theory of Evolution as the only explanation for the creation of new species.
Honest scientific inquiry has been co-opted by political scientists and replaced with a worship of the “scientific consensus.” This is scientific blasphemy of the highest order and it must be countered if we are to bring credibility back to the scientific community.
In regard to AGW, those scientists, with the support of scientific political institutions, have consciously broken almost every “expectation” of the scientific method.
The extrapolation of the Theory of Evolution as the only explanation of the creation of new species, is a different matter. In this instance there is no conscious attempt to defraud the public, only an over-reaching passion for a remarkable discovery by one of humanities greatest scientists, Charles Darwin.
The Theory of Evolution is a theory that explains one thing very well: the ability of species to adapt in remarkably different ways to changing environments. However, when one tries to extrapolate the theory beyond its ability to explain how species adaptation works, the theory fails to live up to expectations.
If there is a Universal Consciousness (God) that has created the Universe and all its wonders, there is little chance that the Universal Consciousness created new species, willy-nilly. There is most likely a mechanism involved. Discovering the mechanism is the purpose of science. Or, as Einstein put it,
I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.
To assume that the Theory of Evolution is the only mechanism for the creation of new species, belittling any investigation into alternative solutions, is unreasonable. This limitation into what is “acceptable research” is the product of unimaginative minds, incapable of seeing beyond the observable, the measurable.
For example, one of the major questions one must ask is, “How do you get enough of a new species at one time to assure its survival?” The answer to this question is essential because the definition of a species is dependent on its inability to interbreed with similar species. For example, the Beefalo is not technically a new species because it can interbreed with both cattle and bison, while cattle and bison can also interbreed with each other.
There is the concept of microevolution which assumes changes so small that they can’t be observed. But that, over time will result in macroevolution; ultimately, the development of a “new species.” For this to take place, most scientists’ hypothesis that the two populations must be separated for many millennia. Ultimately a new species is created that cannot interbreed with the initial population.
There is observable data that supports this method of speciation. the Ensatina salamander and the Larus gulls are excellent examples of Ring Species where most separated populations can interbreed, but the two end populations cannot interbreed. Many scientists see this as proof of the role microevolution plays in the creation of new species. However, microevolution cannot explain the immense diversity of species that exist on the earth; we are still observing salamanders and gulls.
What other mechanism might be at work? Well, there could be a spontaneous significant mutation, where the new species is created in one step. But there are difficulties in considering this option seriously. For a very good reason: it would be impossible for a spontaneous mutation, as we understand it, to provide the minimum viable population needed for survival.
When you consider the odds of this happening for just one new species, imagine the difficulty of extrapolating this theory to explain the plethora of new species that seem, according to the fossil record, to show up, in a relatively short time, after a major extinction-level event; for example, the Permian–Triassic extinction event. In fact, the fossil record seems to eliminate microevolution as the ultimate mechanism for the creation of new species while suggesting a different mechanism that, just might, involve massive concurrent mutations resulting from some force or influence that is not currently understood.
For many of us, there is no doubt that the universe operates according to certain basic mechanisms; processes. But, to extrapolate our current knowledge into some universal truth is as wrong as insisting that the earth is at the center of the universe, or that the world rests on the back of a giant turtle.
The truth is, we are far from knowing the exact mechanisms that have resulted in the creation of millions of different species, let alone any understanding of the creation of life itself. To suggest that a Universal Consciousness was not involved is no more viable than suggesting that a Universal Consciousness must have been involved. With our present scientific understanding either option is a viable hypothesis. Or, as Einstein said it, “We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us.”
Regarding AGW, the ignorance and/or fraud displayed by many scientists involved in this research is appalling, almost criminal.
Here’s a list of the activities that completely ignored the scientific method.
- Calling AGW a “settled science”
- Ignoring or minimizing wrong predictions.
- Suppressing contradictory data and freezing opposing opinions out of the peer review process.
- Not keeping complete and accurate records.
Let me remind you about how the scientific method is supposed to work.
Nature is observed and a hypothesis is formed that explains why things are the way they are. For example:
- A scientist observes that the earth appears to be warming and wonders why this would be happening. Upon further analysis, the scientist discovers there is a relationship between the warming and the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Further research shows that modern human activity is adding tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. At this point, he creates a hypothesis, such as: the CO2 increase is causing the warming and, further, the CO2 increase is the result of human activity and, therefore, human activity is causing the warming.
While a certain amount of research was needed to develop the hypothesis, the major part of the research is done to test the validity of the hypothesis. This includes:
- Accumulating massive amounts of data, followed by testing to be sure the data supports the hypothesis, and then making predictive statements that will verify the reliability of the hypotheses. In this instance, stating clearly what will be discovered in the environmental records (fossil records, tree-ring data, etc.) to support the hypothesis. And, how we might expect the warming to continue as the amount of humanity caused CO2 in the atmosphere continues to increase.
- Finally, all of this: the data, the predictive analysis, the research results, and the conclusions and recommendations must be made available to the rest of the scientific community so that these results can be verified and replicated.
We should be concerned if scientists attempting to verify and replicate the research discover any of the following issues:
- If the temperature data is challenged based on changes in the local environment where the measurements were taken
- if it is pointed out that the CO2 rise seems to be the result of global warming, not the cause
- if tree-ring data is discovered that supports periods of global warming prior to the industrial age
- if predictions made based on the hypothesis are proven to be flawed
- if it is determined that critical data is missing making it very difficult to verify and replicate the research
- if other scientists present new data, not including in the initial research, that may have a significant impact on the results of on-going research
Under normal circumstances, any of these issues would cause the initial hypothesis to be set aside and the scientists who developed it would be scrambling to come up with answers, or a new hypothesis that explained all of the inconsistencies.
This was apply demonstrated very recently when astronomer Adam Riess’ data showed the universe’s rate of expansion to be speeding up, rather than slowing down. This was obviously a mistake, everyone (read “scientific consensus”) knew the rate of expansion was slowing down. “I spent weeks looking for that mistake and I couldn’t find it,” Riess explained. So … he had to accept that there was a problem with his initial hypothesis.
However, when the Hydra Head of politics gets involved, all bets are off. Political activity of any kind is extremely detrimental to the scientific process. Political agendas are oblivious to the facts and only interested in accomplishing the objectives of the elites who are attempting to control the process, for their own gain and/or the gain of their agendas. This is true whether we are talking about witch doctors, ancient priests, the Roman inquisition, or the political elites of today. In every instance, from their point of view, there are strong reasons for punishing any scientific inquiry that is contradictory to the preferred agenda. This activity is, of course, extremely detrimental to the advancement of science as well as to the credibility of the scientific process.
In many ways, Scientists are the priests of the modern age, especially those scientists that strive diligently to protect the scientific status quo; the scientific consensus. In the modern age where information is so readily available, this activity will ultimately be exposed; it is almost impossible to keep the “public” uninformed.
Science must be released from the shackles of political oppression and allowed to do its work according to the time-tested methods of scientific inquiry.
Brad Fregger is President and CEO of Groundbreaking Press and a lecturer (professor) at Texas State University-San Marcos. He founded three corporate-training departments (Mervyns Department Stores, Atari, and Activision), and was featured in Tom Peters’ book Liberation Management. He is the author of seven books, including: Lucky That Way – Stories of Seizing the Moment While Creating the Games Millions Play, Get Out of The Way! – You’ll Never Manage Your Way to Great Leadership, My Thinking Cap – Solutions for Global Crisis, One Shovel Full – Telling Stories to Change Beliefs, Attitudes, and Perceptions, Why Publish (book publishing) and, his latest, Why Does Anybody Believe in God? – An Essay on Creation. In addition, he has also written and published articles at four influential, conservative websites: The Moral Liberal, Breitbart’s Big Peace, American Thinker, and America’s Right. He is a Contributing Editor for The Moral Liberal.
In addition, Brad has produced more than 50 videos, 60 books, 12 audio books, over 100 consumer and business enterprise software products, including the most successful computer game in the world (Shanghai) and the most played computer game in the world (the first commercial version of computer card solitaire).
Fregger holds a Master’s Degree in Societal Futures from San Jose State University. Read Brad’s full bio here.
Copyright © 2011 Brad Fregger.