Scientists as Soothsayers
The actual facts and statements are probably not as bizarre as the journalists writing the stories make them out to be, but Richard Leakey has gone from being a scientist to a soothsayer. Leakey, a dogmatic evolutionist predicts that sometime in the next 30 years there will finally be evidence to support his beliefs. And somehow this story about the Theory of Evolution is tied into the other scientific consensus that persists in spite of all lacking or contrary evidence: human induced global warming.
Like many faith based scientists, Leakey seems to think the rejection of speculative theories (like all diversity of life being a product of chance mutations) will somehow be detrimental to real scientific advances based on hypothetical claims being supported or rejected through experimentation and observation. And his basis for claiming that Evolution will be concretely proven in the next 30 years is similar to his reasoning in accepting evolution as fact. That is to say, he simply thinks it will occur.
A better hope would be that science cease its attempts to answer philosophical and religious questions for which it is ill suited and stick to doing what science is intended to do: observe the world with an aim to better understand how it works. Any attempts to describe the way things were in spite of contrary observable evidence, or to predict a future that continually fails to occur should be rejected as wrong, not accepted through blind consensus.
Like many faith based scientists, Leakey seems to think the rejection of speculative theories (like all diversity of life being a product of chance mutations) will somehow be detrimental to real scientific advances based on hypothetical claims being supported or rejected through experimentation and observation. And his basis for claiming that Evolution will be concretely proven in the next 30 years is similar to his reasoning in accepting evolution as fact. That is to say, he simply thinks it will occur.
A better hope would be that science cease its attempts to answer philosophical and religious questions for which it is ill suited and stick to doing what science is intended to do: observe the world with an aim to better understand how it works. Any attempts to describe the way things were in spite of contrary observable evidence, or to predict a future that continually fails to occur should be rejected as wrong, not accepted through blind consensus.
Comments
Post a Comment