The Scientific Method

Here's how the scientific method works:

1. Craft a plausible hypothesis for an observed phenomenon.
2. Compile data that addresses that hypothesis.
3. Examine the data. Is it valid? Is it accurate? Were the parameters for gathering it credible & conforming with established scientific methodology?
4. Dismiss any claims of expertise.. those are irrelevant to any scientific inquiry. That is a fallacy, not science.
5. Critically examine the 'science'.. that is, the data, the hypothesis, & the conclusions. Do they line up? Is the conclusion justified by the data? Do the predictions line up with the actual data?
6. Support or discredit the hypothesis, based on the conclusions of the data.
7. Grow in understanding. Add to the human knowledge base with sound reasoning, dispassionate scientific inquiry, & systematic methodology.

THAT is science.. but is that what we see? Not much, anymore. And hardly at all, in public discourse. And, not at all, with the theory of evolution. Instead, here is how it goes:

1. Craft a plausible hypothesis for an observed phenomenon.
2. Provide no data, or ignore data that conflicts with the hypothesis.
3. Assert that the data supports the hypothesis, with no logical or scientific compelling conclusions.
4. Ridicule, blackball, & insult any who question the claims, the data, or the conclusions.
5. Demand that 'experts' be given authority over scientific methodology.
6. Rely on fallacies of science & logic to support the claim.
7. Demand that the hypothesis be believed, and mandate conformity.
8. Set back science for centuries, & return to the dark ages.

Fortunately, this New Science has not taken over all of science.. yet. It is the domain of the politically driven pseudo scientists, however. I have updated the labelling of this trend as 'Fake Science' to be more current with terminology. It is a major setback in the quest for knowledge, & is a return to the dark ages, where truth is mandated, & conformity demanded.

This kind of 'science' is most visible in the 'soft' sciences of climate & biology, where philosophical beliefs flavor the outlook, rather than compelling data. And, it is lawyers, politicians, celebrities, & other NON scientific people who are the most vocal for this kind of 'science'.

The decline of scientific methodology is one of the most tragic trends in our culture.. and demanding that the common man submit to 'experts' is the antithesis of science. 

Critical thought. Skepticism. Asking, 'WHY?' 

THESE are the hallmarks of scientific thinking, not blind submission to mandated belief.

I have used the hard sciences for all of my professional life. I have seen & used proven methods of engineering, formula calculations, geometry, & hard data to arrive at solutions for practical problems in the world. But my arguments are not based on my personal experience, or beliefs, but those of science. So any argument for some alleged 'science!' claim is easy for me to see. Is it based on hard data? Do the facts support the hypothesis? Is the data credible? I have not seen ANY credible data or arguments that support the theory of evolution. It is all contrived, extrapolated, asserted, or based on flawed assumptions. It does not take an Einstein to see this, but it is easier if you have some background in real science, & not just the pseudo science that is pitched these days. 

So how about it? Anyone want to take a shot at presenting some REAL SCIENCE to support the claim of universal common descent? Can you demonstrate, WITH DATA, that this phenomenon is even possible? I am very clear as to the assertions.. & the eye rolling.. & the disdain for any who question the basic tenets of this belief, but i have not seen ANY compelling data to suggest this is even possible. If anything, the exact opposite is observed. Organisms do not increase in complexity, or add chromosome pairs, genes, or traits, but they decrease. How do you combine the speculative claims of this hypothesis with observable reality? They are opposites.. diametrically opposed concepts.

Show me. Provide the mechanism that demonstrates HOW you can go from 23 to 24 (or 22) chromosome pairs, with the necessary genes to explain the major differences between a chimp & human. Show me HOW you can add genes, or modify them in such a way that major changes to the genetic architecture is permanently affected. HOW do you add wings, warm bloodedness, construct an eye, or any of the fantastic events that this god of evolution somehow creates? It is absurd. It is madness. It is UNscientific. It is a religious belief, with no basis in science.