Nathan CrauseMusings of a Software Developer

I've probably mentioned this many times before, but the issue keeps raising it's ugly head over and over, and frankly it's beginning to annoy me.

The issue at hand is science and scientific conclusions. It seems that scientists have lost their way quite badly. Let me explain: a scientific theory starts out by a scientist observing something. After time investigating the observation in relation to what is known and what is scientific law, and analysing it, the scientists comes to a conclusion.

But what if the original observation was wrong? What if what was known (in relation to the observation) at the time was wrong? What if there were a lot of assumptions made? Surely this means the conclusion can no longer be considered valid?

Well, this is where science is falling flat on it's head.

Case 1: The "Big Bang". As far as I've been able to learn, the theory of the "Big Bang" was suggested by Albert Einstein. This was based on his astronomical observations of the stars and planets moving apart and slowing down, suggesting an "explosion" of some sort caused the initial separation, but as with any such force, the effect is slowing down (with the aid of gravity). But here's the problem - the observation was wrong. The rate of acceleration is increasing. But heaven forbid we bring into question the conclusion, no, instead scientists come up with a completely new form of matter to explain this (dark matter), something which up until that point was never even something floating around in anyone's head. And now suddenly it's considered a fact. Well, why? Where's the proof? The supposed "proof" is based on the notion that the big bang really did occur ... a notion which was drafted based on observations which "dark matter" proves to have been wrong. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Case 2: Darwinism. During Darwin's time, it was believed that the living cell was a very simple little "blob". An "albunous lump of carbon" as one biologist called it at the time (citation needed). So, Darwin's observations, coupled with the "knowledge" that life at it's core was "simple" was completely wrong. The foundation of the observation cannot be considered valid. And yet it's still taught as absolute fact. Even if you don't believe in a deity, you simply cannot come to the conclusion that an observation made under false beliefs can yield the correct answer.

Do yourself a favour - look at the living cell, and explain how this came into being. Proponents of Darwin cannot explain it. Their "proof" of Darwin's evolution is based on the macro, not the micro. I can think of no way that the living cell could have "evolved" from something else - it's simply too complex. And you cannot use the argument that it "had another purpose" - it's a living cell, it's absolutely required beyond a shadow of a doubt for any kind of life to exist.

"It happened on the backs of crystals" ... well ... what happened exactly? A lump of snot sat on a crystal and just suddenly it mutated all these incredibly complex chemical processes? Completely ridiculous.

To me, the job of science is to question everything. If there is one single assumption which cannot be proven, then your conclusions must always be questioned. "Our best guess"? Sure, I can live with that. "This is a fact"? Don't think so.