Posted by: Rob Lester | March 19, 2012

Proving something without proof ≠ science

Please notice that all unscientific and unclear language in the following article excerpt has been capitalized (e.g. probably, suggests, possibly).

Headline: Life Began On Earth Three Billion Years Ago.

Subtitle: A mathematical MODEL dates back the evolution of genes critical to life to three billion years ago. (Sun Dec 19, 2010 09:37 PM ET  Discovery News).

Article: “Life on Earth dramatically surged around three billion years ago, POSSIBLY when primitive forms developed more efficient ways to harness energy from sunlight, according to a study published on Sunday in Nature magazine. The conclusion is made by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who built a “genomic fossil,” IN ESSENCE a mathematical MODEL that took 1,000 key genes that exist today and calculated how they evolved from the very distant past. The collective genome of all life expanded massively between 3.3 and 2.8 billion years ago, and during this time 27 percent of all presently existing gene families came into being, the study SUGGESTS. Investigators Eric Alm and Lawrence David said the great surge PROBABLY came through the advent of a biochemical process called modern electron transport.Our results can’t say if the development of electron transport directly caused the Archean Expansion,’ David admitted. ‘Nonetheless, we can SPECULATE  that having access to a much larger energy budget enabled the biosphere to host larger and more complex microbial ecosystems.” Eric Alm observed, “What is really remarkable about these findings is that they prove that the histories of very ancient events are recorded in the shared DNA of living organisms.” Prove???? This proves nothing! The headline boldly proclaims as fact that evolutionists have clicked the stopwatch and found exactly when life began. But before you even get into the article, the subheading reveals the lie. “A mathematical model….” Aha. So, a guess, then, not objective evidence or scientific proof. A model is only as good as the presuppositions which set its parameters. Notice also the arrogant assertion which follows the revealing confession by Mr. David. “Our results don’t say…nonetheless we can speculate….” And that is what we’ve come to expect. Guesses and speculation announced with overstated certainty. That is not science. Rather, it is a dogmatic, blind faith in “billions of years.” They are proselytizing.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: