I'm afraid it may be too late to save science from Science. But we must try, because real science is so essential to our progress. Just as Joe's Famous Donuts may not be famous at all, but are Famous because they are named Famous, so Science may not be science at all, but is Science only because it is named Science. Real science has been taken over by a counterfeit Science which has assumed its identity, is smothering it like a Kudzu Vine, and is using its remaining credibility to forcibly impose its white supremacist Science religion upon us.
The way the origin of man is presented by Science sounds very scientific and egalitarian. At first glance. But when you actually pay attention and take a closer look, a much different picture emerges. So let's take a look at what must be taught to our children, any deviation from which is harmful to them. In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_Africa_theory we find:
“In paleoanthropology recent African origin of modern humans, frequently dubbed the "Out of Africa" theory, is the most widely accepted model describing the geographic origin and early migration of anatomically modern humans.
That “anatomically modern” is the key. The article goes on to tell us:
The date of the earliest successful "out of Africa" migration (earliest migrants with living descendants) has generally been placed at 60,000 years ago as suggested by genetics, ...
It has been estimated that from a population of 2,000 to 5,000 individuals in Africa,  only a small group, possibly as few as 150 to 1,000 people, crossed the Red Sea. Of all the lineages present in Africa only the female descendants of one lineage, mtDNA haplogroup L3, are found outside Africa. Had there been several migrations one would expect descendants of more than one lineage to be found outside Africa.
Here we see the clear meaning of the Out of Africa Theory, as a very small number of the “anatomically modern humans” who got OUT OF Africa to populate the rest of the world some 60,000 years ago, leaving the other sub-humans behind.The question we aren't supposed to ask is, just what are those that make up "Of all the lineages present in Africa ..." Obviously we can't ask "who," because that would indicate that they are humans, as their ancestors did not get "Out of Africa," and were not subject to the subsequent evolution that occurred thousands of years later in Europe. Now the Scientific story gets very interesting. As one example among many, from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#moderns we find that some 20,000 years after WE left Africa, WE started to take the next evolutionary step from anatomically modern (as distinguished from behaviourily modern), to fully modern, cleaver, real humans. Here we see that a lot of the evolution of man has occurred in Europe 20,000 years after WE parted ways with, and advanced past, those sub-humans we left behind in Africa, those referred to above as "Of all the lineages present in Africa ..."
Following Science's trail of the Origin of Man, we track the evolution through all manner of exciting discoveries, digs and finds across hundreds of thousands of years, getting just a little more, and a little more human, up until a small group got Out of Africa 60,000 years ago. Then the attention shifts suddenly away from Africa to follow the continued Evolution of Man in Europe, and the spread of Man from there around the rest of the world.
So what about the continued evolution of Man in Africa during that time?
And just what does that say about those who are descended from those
who did NOT get Out of Africa ?
And here http://www.amazon.com/Cro-Magnon-Birth-First-Modern-Humans/dp/159691582X is a book titled Cro-Magnon: How the Ice Age Gave Birth to the First Modern Humans, by Brian Fagan, currently for sale on Amazon, and published in 2010. The Description begins:
Cro-Magnons were the first fully modern Europeans?not only the creators of the stunning cave paintings at Lascaux and elsewhere, but the most adaptable and technologically inventive people that had yet lived on earth. (emphasis mine)
Imagine for a moment a black child in a Science class, taking a test, and having to put on paper that the final steps of evolution to Modern Man occurred in Europe 20,000 to 50,000 years after his ancestors were left behind in Africa. Do we really expect him to get excited about science?
Remember all those Discovery Channel programs on The Origin of Man? Remember the images of Modern Man arriving in Europe, with white skin and blond and red hair hanging down their backs, wearing colorful clothing, necklaces and beads? Is that scientific, or even Scientific?
I mean, if they just arrived from Africa, why wouldn't they still have the black skin that protected them so well from the African sun? And why wouldn't they have the curly hair that prevents matting to allow airflow and prevent heatstroke in that climate?
Then they again show us the nearly humans in Africa, and they are dark-skinned with features that look much like modern Africans, wearing skins or nearly nothing. Then they again show us the newly arrived modern humans, having apparently just turned white as they crossed the border. Is that fast evolution, or what?
And remember the Neanderthals they showed us? There they were with very dark skin and coarse black hair, wearing ill-fitting skins and looking generally like dull-witted dirt bags.
Is that Scientific? In a northern latitude where getting adequate sunlight to prevent Vitamin D deficiency is a challenge, why would they be dark skinned? Since Paleontology says they were adapting in the northern climate for four times as long as we have been a species, wouldn't they have had more than enough time to turn white? Do the Scientists actually have hair samples to justify this?
Or could it be that the Scientists who produced the programs wanted to show the inferiority of the Neanderthals compared to the freshly arriving white Modern Man in the most effective way they knew how, by making them look like what “everyone knows” is inferior, black? Is that scientific, or just Scientific?
A few years ago, reacting to suggestions of mixing with Neanderthals, they told us in no uncertain terms that the Neanderthals were a separate species, made clear by genetic analysis which showed that we had no genetic information in common. That was surprising because they had just told us that we were animals because we had 97% of our genetic code in common with Chimpanzees.
And now the story has changed. Now we are told that we and Neanderthals have 4% of our genetic code in common. That is, 4% if we are white, but only 1% if we are black. Never mind the chimps' 97%. But that wasn't said in the same sentence, so they might not have noticed, and we weren't supposed to be paying that much attention anyway.
And of course Anthropology shows that Neanderthals had larger brains than we, and a Google search on “Asperberger's” now shows a growing interest in Autism as being not a disability, but a natural form of higher intelligence, inherited from the Neanderthals. (I know, try telling that to the parents of someone with Autism.) And some are now taking pride in their new-found Neanderthal heritage.
While reading their material I kept coming across defenses against charges of racism, though no one seems to be making any, such as “To Scientists, race has no meaning.” Could that be their conscience peeking through? I do recall something about “The guilty flee when no man pursueth.”
So do we have a picture
yet? Well maybe its time to
pursue this. Do I think they are white supremacists in the
classic sense? Actually, no. To them their superiority is a
self evident axiom, and just naturally works its way into all they
do. It comes out in their obvious anti-Christian bigotry, which
they feel no need to hide, as just an outward symptom of their smugness
that makes their pronouncements "Settled Science." Its kind of
like the scene in Jackie Chan's Around the World in 80 days, when the
top dog announced loudly "We're the Ministry of Science. We don't
have to 'prooove' anything."
Bill Nye the Science Guy says we should not impose the Bible on our children because “we need them to grow up to be Scientists.” Well, do we need black children to grow up to be scientists as well? Can we expect them get excited about science when it tells them that the final evolution to Modern Man did not include them? Yes, we do need our children to grow up to be scientists. And yes, we need black children included. And the best way to achieve that is for Science to catch up to the rest of the country and admit that they are human.
In the mid-nineties I heard of a group called Identity Christians who called those from Africa “Mud People.” I really couldn't believe it until I actually met a couple of them. When challenged, they claimed it was backed up by modern science.
I dismissed it out of hand. I told them I knew science, and that was not science. Also such rubbish runs counter to Christianity, so their being Christian is in name only as well, kind of like Science.
Then I find this in Science.
In years past, a scientific theory was something that had been tested and had passed every test it was subjected to. Newton's Theory of Gravity was not just a suspicion that things fall, it was complete with very detailed formulas that could be used to calculate, very precisely, such things as the rate of acceleration during a fall. Albert Einstein worked for years trying to produce a Unified Field Theory. He never did announce that he had such a theory, because it wasn't complete. Now, every time a Scientists gets an idea he jumps up and claims he has a theory, and gets grants to find the evidence to support it. So now we have Science preaching the existence of such things as curved space and worm holes as if they were more than just beliefs in things not proven, which is, for anyone else, faith.
The most significant gains the Scientists have made has been in abrogating the First Amendment rights of school children. By cloaking their religion as Science they have for decades succeeded in censoring all opposition, obtaining a monopoly in children's classrooms. There they enjoy a captive audience who are permitted to hear only one side, who are limited in what they may say in defense of their own beliefs, whom they can subject to group pressure and ridicule if they don't conform, and who are required to renounce their religious beliefs to get a passing grade. With all they have going for them in the classroom they still don't achieve 100% conversion, and they are frustrated by that.
And attacking competing religions appears to be the main purpose of Science. Not only do they wage a continuous war on competing religions, but a Google search on “purpose of Science” comes back with attacks on religion in the early paragraphs of most sites.
I'm sorry, but as a real scientist I feel the need to say that the purpose of real science has nothing to do with attacking anyone's religion. It doesn't take paragraphs of prose to state the purpose of science. The purpose of science is to employ the scientific method of investigation to investigate, solve problems, and provide explanations of things we observe. Imposing our beliefs on others is beyond the scope of science. But unfortunately it is not beyond the scope of Science.
And it's not just any religion the Scientists have a problem with. They have no beef with most. But they take issue with the book of Genesis, common to Christianity and Judaism. So what is it about the book of Genesis they find so egregious they have to pull out all the stops, abrogate the First Amendment and wage continuous war on those religions?
Let's see. According to Science the universe had always existed. It had no beginning and could have no end. That was because of the universal law of Conservation of Energy which states that neither matter nor energy can be either created or destroyed, just moved around and rearranged. Also here (http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/physicshasitsprinciples.asp) we find: Perhaps most basic of all the principles of physics is the causality principle. In its simplest form, it reads: “Every effect has a cause.” Basically, nothing “just happens.”
And the book of Genesis disagreed with them, saying the universe started as nothing, then was caused to come into existence by God.
Then the Scientists discovered that the universe had not always existed, that it did in fact have a beginning, and was still expanding. And no one even showed any scientific curiosity at how a book written thousands of years before had gotten it right, without benefit of all the modern technology and academic credentials.
Instead, without so much as an “I'm sorry, you were right,” without regard for the obvious violations of their previously important universal laws of Conservation of Energy and Principle of Causality, miracles by definition, they discarded what they called the Steady State Theory and adopted what they now call the Big Bang Theory. Never mind that sound does not travel in the vacuum of space, like light does, that a more accurate name might have been Big Flash, And none wondered how this significantly differed from “Let there be light.”
And the book of Genesis describes the early Earth as formless and covered with water before there was land. And then says He created land. And He created plants, bringing forth seed after their kind, that is, with the seed carrying forward their characteristics . And then He created creatures, first in the seas, then on land, bringing forth abundantly after their kind, again, with the next generation inheriting its characteristics from the previous. And the last life created was Man.
But Science tells us that instead, the early Earth was formless, then oceans appeared, probably from comet bombardment, and covered the whole Earth. Then the continents formed. And life appeared, first in the sea, then later on land, reproducing by DNA. And science tells us that Man is a late arrival, being about the last thing to evolve.
Wow! That's way different, isn't it?
Oh yeah, the book of Genesis describes it as taking place in 6 days, so it's obvious that nothing else it has to say could possibly have any validity, right? I mean, yeah, it was right about the universe having a beginning, and it was right about the Earth starting out void, and the seas first covering the whole Planet, then land appearing, and creatures appearing first in the seas, then on land, passing on their genetic code, and Man being the last species to appear. But it says six days, so it's not only wrong, but believing it is holding us all back, and parents telling their children it happened this way is holding them back and preventing them from becoming Scientists.
Of course other religions have their own versions of creation. A Google search finds a Wikipedia entry that tells us “The Egyptian god Atum was believed to have created the universe by masturbating ...” Obviously that's about as close, right? Science clearly has both of these about evenly trumped, doesn't it?
But aren't scientists supposed to be curious and investigate things? Why was there no scientific curiosity about how a book written thousands of years ago got even any part of it right, let alone so much? When Scientists are investigating other cultures we are told that there is often a useful bit of truth in even the most far-fetched myth.
For anyone claiming to be a scientist there should be a gladness in finding an old writing even 10% correct, and a burning curiosity to find out how that was possible, without getting hung up on a part they think might have missed the mark. But for anyone more concerned with attacking, any part that appears incorrect must be latched onto and taken full advantage of, with disregard for any part that is correct. And unfortunately that is what we see today coming from Science.
The really ironic thing about the Scientists' claims of the importance of teaching Science in school is that they have managed to leave out science. Real science is the use of the scientific method. It is not a list of Scientific Facts or discoveries to say Wow! about. The particular discoveries or Scientific Facts or theories du jour taught this year will be revised or replaced next year, and have little to no value through the student's life.
It is often repeated that you can give a man a fish and feed him for a day, or you can teach him to fish and feed him for a lifetime. And so it is that you can show students Scientific Facts and entertain them for a day, or you can teach them the scientific method and empower them to make their own discoveries for a lifetime.
Real science is all about the scientific method. The scientific method should not get second billing in a science class. A real science class is ABOUT the scientific method, with scientific facts and discoveries employed only as props to provide examples. The quality of science classes varies widely, with some of them doing a pretty good job. But most of them are disappointing shams, because they take their lead from the Scientific Community, which doesn't appear to have much use for the scientific method.
The scientific method is applicable to just about any problem needing a solution in our daily lives, not just the subjects commonly called Science, and an early grounding in it would be extremely beneficial throughout the lives of the students. But instead they are short-changed with a string of Scientific Facts, Discoveries, and the fad theory of the day, that are useful up to the test, and little beyond that.
If you don't believe it, call your children over and ask them to tell you about Science. Then ask the to tell you about the scientific method. Then give them a problem to solve that isn't obvious but can be figured out, and see what happens. If they have been taught the scientific method, they will probably crack it pretty quickly. But don't do this with a Chinese immigrant that was not subjected to our deliberate dumbing-down, lest you get depressed.
But the Scientists are not about to start teaching the scientific method, even if they knew how, because their most cherished religious myths would quickly be dis-proven by school children, such as Curved Space, Worm Holes, and the Solar System forming by the slow accretion of ancient gas and dust clouds that had just been hanging around waiting for a reason to come together.
Given the tools to do their own investigation, these students might discover that the rigid faith the Scientists have in things that are unproven, have little, no, or falsified evidence to support them, are false, and their religious faith has no legitimate basis. They might choose to follow it, but perhaps they wouldn't feel the need to force it upon others..
Theocracies have a long history of abuse. A lot of the migration to this continent was in pursuit of religious freedom. Galileo escaped murder at the hands of a theocracy only by renouncing his beliefs. And today, a religion masquerading as Science is forcing school children to renounce their beliefs and convert to get a passing grade.
And now a few words to damp the Scientific basis for the new-found Cro-Magnon or Neanderthal pride. If John has a wart on his left elbow, and his brother Fred does not, then John simply has an unfortunate blemish. But if his brother Fred also has a wart on his left elbow, and all their other brothers and sister do too, then it is clear their their parents brought forth abundantly after their own kind. Likewise if Homo-Sapiens have big brains, and Neanderthals did too, then the rules of science, and also the rules of Evolution, indicate that their common parents also had big brains, and brought forth abundantly after their own kind.
Further, a major axiom of Evolution is that useless features go away, and used features are maintained. But according to Science, the Neanderthals had brains bigger than ours, and didn't find a use for them in 800,000 years. And Homo-Sapiens had big brains since becoming a species at least 100,000 years before any of them left Africa, but didn't start using them until about 40,000 years ago in Europe.
According to the laws of science and of Evolution, this should be recognized as rubbish on its face, without need for further discussion.
The significance of this
that even the rules of Evolution tell us that intelligence
had to have existed throughout the whole history of our species, proven by
maintenance of the big brain, and cannot possibly be something
hung around unused until 20,000 years after WE crossed the border
It's about time we said enough is enough, and began taking science back. There are a couple of things in the Bible that might prove useful here, such as “By their fruits you shall know them,” and the scene where Jesus fashioned a makeshift whip and went into the Temple and drove out the money changers.
We have heard from Bill Nye the Science Guy. Well I am Oral Deckard the science guy (small “s” to retain the meaning), and I am hereby calling upon all real scientists to stand up, speak up, and do their part in defrocking the charlatans among us before our once great country becomes a third-rate has-been, and get science back to doing real science while there is still time.
The malpractice of Science has been on-going for so long that it is considered normal. Many otherwise honest scientists have been caught up in it because that's how it was, long before they arrived. If you have been caught up in this, but don't wish to remain so, and would like to help rescue science, please don't imagine my intent is to identify and convict for past involvement. All I want is what you too should want. The defrocking is for those who persist in this malpractice, and try to keep it going. I'm not even particularly concerned with Bill Nye the Science Guy. He is just a public face on a much bigger problem, and may well reconsider once he actually thinks about it. So please step up, speak up, and let's get science restored to its honored position in society.
Oral Deckard the science guy