The Scientific Method

I am beyond frustration by this argument:

“Understanding that both Intelligent Design and Evolution are both theories, and theories can not be proven, only disproven…”

It is way too overabundant, and has even been used by educators to justify teaching pseudoscience in our schools. I composed a response to the blogger I linked to above, but since the comments are moderated, and I have a dissenting opinion, I have little hope that what I wrote will see the light of day. And since I want to vent to the world, here is the gist of what I wrote, peppered with the passages that inspired my own comments:

In April of 2004, Myers wrote on his blog that a professor promoting Intelligent Design should not get tenure: [the link to the actual blog entry is here]

“I get to vote on tenure decisions at my university, and I can assure you that if someone comes up who claims that [Intelligent Design] ‘theory’ is science, I will vote against them. … If someone thinks fairies live in their garden and pull up the flowers out of the ground every spring, I will vote against them. Tenure decisions are not pro forma games, but a process of evaluation, and I’d rather not have crackpots promoted.”

You have to be amazed by the absolute hypocrisy of the existence of Myers.

Understanding that both Intelligent Design and Evolution are both theories, and theories can not be proven, only disproven, in reading Myers’ posts he constantly treats his theories as absolute proven sciences underscored by his complete intollerance of anyone else’s views other than PZ Myers’.

The poster obviously have little to no grasp on the scientific method. In its simplest form:

1) Observe
2) Hypothesize
3) Test
4) Analyze
5) Duplicate
a) If test results repeatedly support the hypothesis, you’ve essentially got a working Theory.
b) If they don’t, you go back to the drawing board

Evolution has made a great number of predictable claims (a few can be found here), such as what fossils we can expect to find, and where in geologic time to look for them, and every time such a fossil is found, then Evolution has been tested and deemed successful.

Intelligent Design has made no testable claims, thus cannot and should not be taught as science. Science is the scientific method. Without it, you have guesswork and philosophy – which belongs in another department at any university. Myers specifically says that he will vote against anyone who claims these beliefs are ‘science.’ They are not, and should not be taught as such. Far from hypocritical, this is as true to scientific principles as one can get. Myers’ recent controversy has nothing to do with the science he teaches, and has no need to be a part of his classroom at all, unlike a science professor who has declared he intends to teach unscientific claims.

Moving on to the blogger’s next point:

On, a web site where students rate their college professors, Myers over the past few years has received an average score as a college professor. In the 3.5 range out of 5. He’s average, nothing more; nothing less. There are a few students that think he is great, there is an equal amount that don’t. But the last student to rate him on his review, done after this controversy, offers insight to this situation and speaks of his ability to never again be viewed as a legitimate college professor going forward:

“Really disappointed in this guy. He obviously has no respect for his students beliefs that might be different from his own. Read Pharyngula and you’ll see what i mean. Scary”

These are the words from a University of MN Morris student. Not my words. Nor the Catholic League’s.

According to the class schedule posted on the school’s web site, it appears that Professor Myers’ largest available class in the Fall is full (at least, that’s how I interpret the class size in red, and the complete addition of a second section). If I’m interpreting correctly, that would suggest to me that maybe a concern about unfair treatment has been seriously overblown.

And as far as the deal – first, does anyone find it at all striking that this was posted on 7/24/08, well after the controversy started, in the middle of the summer, long after spring classes ended? Going back to the first review for Prof. Myers on his RMP page (2/4/03), there’s not one single complaint about unfair treatment because of a student’s beliefs. Not one student stopped by there to warn other students of this potentially egregious behavior.

All that aside, it’s important to note that there’s no telling whether or not this 7/24/08 review is from a student, since a person doesn’t have to be registered on the site (the review in question was not posted by a registered user), nor provide any proof they’re a student at all in order to post a review. In fact, I just posted one there myself, and I’ve never had any association with the university at all. For all any of us know, this could easily be the original poster’s words, and it doesn’t ‘stretch credulity’ to believe they could be Bill Donohue’s.


7/28/08, ETA: I just had to laugh at this… I announced that I entered a review on Rate My Professor to show it could be done, and someone ran over there to request a review of the entry. Fine by me, because it doesn’t need to be there, anyway. But did they question the other questionable review? Nope. Awfully suspect, no?

Nice, huh?

I’d just like to point out that there was not even a BIO3101 class on the Spring 2008 schedule, nor Fall 2007. The last time it shows up on a published schedule is Spring 2007. So this student waited over a year to post this, just waited for the perfect time? I know there are those of you out there that want to argue a fear of retribution finally being overcome by the need to speak out in the face of controversy. Yeah, okay, except this was posted by an unregistered, completely anonymous user. If this was a student afraid of being recognized, then this problem can’t be too widespread, can it?

Just sayin’…  😛



  1. July 28, 2008 at 5:22 am


    The reason is elementary: the Discovery Institute and other ID proponents leave out the Triune God, Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Hence, Richard Dawkins can make the case for “aliens” seeding the earth.

    The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.

    “I am amazed at the breadth of the investigation – scientific history, biblical studies, geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and so forth – and find the style of writing to be quite lucid and aimed clearly at a general, lay audience.” ― Mark Roberts, former Editor of Biblical Reference Books, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

    The Quest for Right series of books, based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect, has effectively dismantled the quantum additions to the true architecture of the atom. Gone are the nonexistent particles once thought to be complementary to the electron and proton (examples: neutrons, neutrinos, photons, mesons, quarks, Z’s, bosons, etc.) and a host of other pseudo particles.

    To the curious, scientists sought to explain Atomic theory by introducing fantastic particles that supposedly came tumbling out of the impact between two particles, when in fact, the supposed finds were simply particulate debris. There are only two elementary particles which make up the whole of the universe: the proton and electron. All other particles were added via quantum magic and mathematical elucidation in an attempt to explain earthly phenomena without God.

    Introducing the scheme of coincidence, which by definition, “is the systematic ploy of obstructionists who, in lieu of any divine intervention, state that any coincidental grouping or chance union of electrons and protons (and neutrons), regardless of the configuration, always produces a chemical element. This is the mischievous tenet of electron interpretation which states that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. A few of the supporting theories are: degrading stars, neutron stars, black holes, extraterrestrial water, antimatter, the absolute dating systems, and the big bang, the explosion of a singularity infinitely smaller than the dot of an “i” from which space, time, and the massive stellar bodies supposedly sprang into being.

    The Quest for Right is not only better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing. As a consequence, the material in the several volumes will not violate the so-called constitutional separation of church and state. Physical science, the old science of cause and effect, will have a long-term sustainability, replacing irresponsible doctrines based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline.

    The Quest for Right.

  2. Wonko's Apprentice said,

    July 30, 2008 at 11:30 pm

    Wow. I seriously can’t decide whether or not to delete this comment as spam. I guess it’s pertinent (in a roundabout, obtuse sort of way), so I’ll let it stand. I seriously doubt any educators will be shopping for textbooks on my blog, and if they are, I hope they’re here because they appreciate a little bit of reason, and know better to avoid pseudoscientific nonsense like this – where vague claims are made, but not supported (like, “The Quest for Right is not only better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing.” What kind of tests?).

    If anything else, it stays because I won’t be one of those bloggers who blatantly remove any dissenting opinion. I see this a lot on the Christian side (hi, Shawn…), where they claim dissent is the work of Satan. But really, all this does is prevent any open dialogue, and gives closed minds full permission to stay closed.

    Maybe it’s time to write some sort of comment policy…

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: