The "Aura" of Science

In the recent "Skeptical Enquirer," Bill Nye recounted his version of his debate with Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis at the Creation Museum in Kentucky.  As could be expected, he crowed over the victory in the arena of his opponent.  He recalled the array of scientific evidences that concluded that the earth could not possibly be 6000 years.  He relished the thought that the statified limestone formation on which the museum was constructed was definitive proof.  He also claimed that the scope of the debate on which both parties agreed made creationism, not evolution, the concept under consideration.  While granting that the debate was not scored, most observers gave Nye the victory.

I have watched a fair portion of the debate.  While Nye offered ample evidences, Ham returned with the idea that most evidences would preclude an old earth as well.  Nye could respect Ham for his defense of Biblical creationism, but conclude science would trump Bible.

On this premise alone, Nye would have not fared well.  His claims of victory would be awkward.  To discount one form of evidence would question his own evidence, derived from natural sources without annotation, other than annotations that would be assumed or contrived.  If Nye's evidences could be interpreted to support young earth creationism (which Ham aseerted and proved), then science if guilty of refusal to examine such interpretations, opting for their own versions unquestioningly.

This is the fatal flaw of science.  It is the basis of credibilty of science that it bears a degree of falsifiability.  It relishes skepticism, but if focused on falsifiability of some concepts andnot others, a disingenuous science develops.  This is displayed in the area of climatology, where those who question the tenets of global warming or climate change would be called "deniers," not "skeptics."  Data can be submitted that shows the tenuous support of evidence for the theory.  But "extreme weather" (aka storms) have been manifested throughout history.  The tragic weather events of the year have been repeated through the decades, matching the vicious 1880's and 1930's.  Those climatologists who bewailed the coming cataclysm in the 1980's (2004) have reacted similarly today, positioning 2047 as the new maelstrom.

The results are  predictable.  Only 34% really believe in the alarmist notions of environmental disaster.  This is down from 36%.  Trust in big science, which draws from grants from government agencies, is starting to waver.  This in a time when the media would trumpet the area of the sciences, promoting careers in some branch of human inquiry.  Perhaps such efforts is now seen as "protesting too much."

But the bloom is off the rose.  If we perceive science as the pursuit of knowledge through discovery, we can preserve a noble endeavor.  If science becomes the search of what we desire to find, then we can soon experience the source of fraud and deception.