1: A tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test it’s logical and empirical consequences.

I have never really understood the need of a hypothesis in the scientific method. I understand it’s purpose. It gives reason and a goal to study and experimentation, but a purpose is not a need. And I don’t see a place for assumption in science. The same with consensus. Consensus is not science. Science is [supposed to be] truth. Not just what is currently popular. Science should begin with observable evidence, not assumption.  Hypothesis injects bias into the heart of science. It gives the experimenter “something to prove”. This can lead to selective reasoning, ignoring or even suppressing relevant facts. Or Political Correctness for the sake of getting funding. Too many times I have read of scientists who have fudged the facts to get continued funding for a project.

Now let me say that I am not someone who believes that scientists are high priests or Oracles of Knowledge. They are people just like the rest of us. They have biases. they make mistakes. And while most of them are decent honest people that are content to carry out their work in labs around the world, many will do and say whatever is necessary to get what they want, be it funding, fortune or fame. Unfortunately these are the ones we most often hear about.

I recently watched a program on PBS called “Judgment Day“. A program about the Evolution/Intelligent Design Trial in Dover Kansas a few years ago. One line from the court room re-enactment really stood out for me.  The actor portraying Dr. Ken Miller said “It could be true, but it certainly wouldn’t be science.”  It could be true, but it certainly wouldn’t be science?? Forgive my ignorance but I thought that science was all about finding the truth. Even determining the truth.

Evolutionists rarely debate Intelligent Design(ID) on the basis of truth. They always try to focus on the fact that it doesn’t fit their definition of science. But this definition begins with a huge assumption. That everything can be proved naturally. I’d like to see the evidence for that. You cannot empirically say that there is no GOD. Or that there is nothing outside of the natural world that can affect ours. If you start with that assumption then you will look at evidence with a bias. You may throw out evidence that doesn’t fit your paradigm and even confuse Cause with Effect.

The church is guilty of the same thing. Many people wonder how there can be so many denominations that all read the same book. It’s not because of what they believe. Most Denominations have a lot in common. It’s what they choose to ignore that separates them.  In order to remain a good Catholic you pretty much have to ignore the third chapter of the Book of John. All religions have these quirks. All people have Bias. Be they religious or scientific.

Also posted here