Science blog entry 6-19-2011
Who anointed the International Astronomical Union to make such a silly decision? Our solar system has 10 planets, not 8. Pluto has been considered a planet since it’s discovery in 1930, it has a small atmosphere and a moon, Eris is larger than Pluto and may also have a moon, by contrast Mercury is not much larger than Pluto and has no moon, why is it still considered a planet and not Pluto or Eris? Plus Mercury is no larger than Jupiter’s largest moon Ganymede.
Science is defined by exploration, observation, experimentation, predictability and repeatability. Religion is defined by faith and dogma. Philosophy is defined by the meaning and purpose of phenomenon. As such microevolution (horizontal variation and adaptation) is subject to the aforementioned scientific method, as is natural selection, thus, they are science. Such variations are observable and have been seen in both the field and the laboratory. By contrast macroevolution (vertical progression from one distinct kind to another, whether Darwin’s concept or Goldschmidt’s concept) are not subject to the scientific method, Darwin’s concept takes too long to observe and is therefore not within the range of human observability, and Goldschmidt’s concept has never been observed, there have been no viable “Hopeful Monsters” who have survived and procreated. Thus macroevolution is not science, adherents to this concept accept it by faith and often as dogma and as such the concept becomes religion.
Abiogenesis has also not been observed successfully, Dr. Stanley Miller’s experiment did not produce life, it produced amino acids, which are the building blocks of life, but in the real observable world building blocks do not become a “building” until acted upon by intelligent design and deliberate action. Also the amino acids in his experiment were formed in a toxic sludge of tar and carboxylic acid, which is the antithesis of the nurturing “primordial soup” that evolutionists believe existed in the world three billion years ago. Thus, abiogenesis is also accepted by faith and as dogma and is therefore religion, not science.
Creationism is also on the same level: God creating the universe in six days is not observable via the scientific method, it is accepted by faith. However it is not a blind faith, the concept of intelligent design is an observable phenomenon: Architects design buildings and construction workers assemble them via intelligent design and deliberate action, engineers design machines and factory workers assemble them by the same method. Thus creation is a logical possibility. Biocarbon life is significantly more functionally complex than any manmade structure or mechanism, thus it is logical to assume that it also has an intelligent origin.
Operational science is responsible for technology and practical benefits to our lives; origins science is more religion and philosophy than science. I embrace the religion/philosophy of creationism because it makes more sense to me than evolutionism.