Scientists are Biased. Just Not in the Way You Think.
Scientists can be wrong. For years, many have hypothesized that the first animals evolved in the sea. Now, new scientific findings may suggest otherwise.
According to this article:
…researchers studying ancient rock samples in South China have found that the first animal fossils are preserved in ancient lake deposits, not in marine sediments as commonly assumed.
These new findings not only raise questions as to where the earliest animals were living, but what factors drove animals to evolve in the first place…
It is most unexpected that these first fossils do not come from marine sediments,’ said researcher Martin Kennedy, a geologist at the University of California at Riverside.”
In a nutshell, this discovery will force scientists to rethink some of the assumptions they’d made about the earliest stages of evolution. It certainly doesn’t negate the entire theory of evolution, but it should serve as a humble reminder that we always have more to learn.
Don’t be surprised if, somewhere down the road, at least one creationist uses this new finding as an example of how wrong the evolutionary theory is. Like cries of “Piltdown Man was a hoax!” We might expect to see “Scientists wrong about the origins of life!” as a popular blog title on some creationist websites.
Pobody’s Nerfect…in Evolutionary Biology
Of course, while many religions may claim infallibility, it must be noted that no one on the other side of the argument is making any such claim of scientists. Scientists are most certainly NOT infallible; often times, old hypotheses have to be seriously questioned when new information comes to light. If this did not happen, we would never have new scientific discoveries or advancements. I’m sure to some extent, we can all agree on this.
Some creations and ID-proponents have sought to make scientists appear stubborn and completely close-minded to any information that does not fit into their pre-conceived evolutionary notions. This new discovery, however, shows that established evolutionary theory is open to change—when contradictory evidence is found, of course.
Fine, you might say. Scientists can make changes within evolutionary theory. But most scientists are still biased when you bring god or creationism into the equation.
The truth is—and this is so obvious it shouldn’t need clarification—scientists are not biased against creationism. SCIENTISTS ARE BIASED AGAINST CLAIMS MADE WITHOUT SUFFICIENT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. And since science is all about testing and verifying one’s claims, any scientist worth his salt should be wary of hypotheses that can’t survive the scientific method.
In other words, if a respected evolutionary scientist claims, without evidence, that these early animal fossils were taken out of the sea and placed in ancient lake deposits by Satan to confuse us, that scientist will be laughed at.
And he will deserve to be.
You should follow us on twitter.
Science by all means is the study of the opposite or “the reality of it all”, there should be no perfect evidence nor should there be any perfect science. It is but an ever evolving space in the cycle of life’s expectancies. All theories included, nothing is perfect not even Einstein’s theory about exceeding the speed of light. When I was young I was told that all Dinosaurs were Lizards and Cold Blooded…they put that in Books as fact. Shame on them. We are evolving as a species and new things will come to life and if there are scientists out there that will not go away from their own or the best theories then well, it is just not the definition of Science.
The definition of Science is and hey all about being told I am wrong is: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
Definably it is the presumption at that moment in time of a basic hypothesis that may later in time be proven wrong or different.
Are you sure scientists “can be wrong”?
It means that the general expectation is that they are always right. That’s a tough one to swallow.
Would it not be better to ask “when are scientists ever right?” and then we could celebrate when we think they are right.
Failing that, the scientists could tell us when they are right. But that wouldn’t interest us.
I think its a bit much to try to come across like science will just follow the eveidence and go where it leads and therefore thats why it changes all the time. I disagree with this position because the scientists are unwilling to consider the posibility of design and therefore block out an option that must be considered. Is it possible that we have a design and that the world is young like the bible says and that the entire book of genesis is actually an accurate historic account? Every time I look at the physical evidence and the actual observable science it seems to at least support the biblical account. although one might not be able to prove God exists or that the bible is true, it certianly stands up to the evidence obtained thus far… I believe that the reason scientists need to change their theory all the time is because it is flawed and wrong from the start when it starts with the assumption that God had nothing to do with it but at the same time deify dirt and time to the point that it can create all things. Both theories, evolution, and biblical creation are religious. I would challenge someone to give me one example of evidence of evolution, or of the earth being more than 6000 years old, that can cause a bible believer to be compelled to change his or her position for a bad theory. I don’t mean to be rude but if the bible is true it should at least stand up to the evidence. Please give one example of evidence that the genesis account in the bible is not literally true.