Wednesday, August 21, 2013

“4-Billion-Year-Old Fossil Proteins Resurrected”?

I grew up during the 1980s. So, naturally I am a fan of the popular music of that era. One of my favorite 1980s songs was released by Thomas Dolby titled, “She Blinded Me with Science.” The song is about a male scientist who is overwhelmed by his beautiful girlfriend. But, he is only able to think in scientific terms. So, he reduces her blinding attraction into pure “science.” However, he was blinded not by “science” in a lab as we know it, but by sexual attraction. He missed the point that it was erotic love that is blinding. And, science should never be blinding. But, unfortunately, today “science” is more blinding than any other force that we know.

For a great example, the title of this post, “4-Billion-Year-Old Fossil Proteins Resurrected,” was the headline of a lead article published in LiveScience on August 9, 2013. It was then re-posted by various national news outlets. Given the source (LiveScience), and based upon the headline, what would you expect to be reading about? Surely such an article would be discussing a ground-breaking fossil find. Surely, they have scientific evidence that this fossil is 4 billion years old. Given the use of the word, “Resurrected,” we might even assume that they found some way to bring this fossil back to life through cloning. Sadly, none of the above are the case.

Instead, the article went on to reveal that no such fossil exists and, therefore, it was also not resurrected either. In fact, there is no fossil involved in any aspect of this article nor in the underlying study. Rather, what they did was assemble a modern-day protein using assumptions about the differences between proteins of each domain of organisms. They took certain differences that we have identified between each of the selected proteins and mapped them backwards to the dates that they are believed to have diverged from each other. From these selective data points and selected assumptions/beliefs about divergence dates, they designed what they believe is the first of proteins which they claim “spawned all other versions.” That leaves us not only disappointed following such a headline, but, it also leaves us with more hilarious questions than affirmative answers.

First of all, why the headline? This is not a fossil and it was not resurrected. It is clear to see the agenda in the headline and in the research methods. But, agenda should stop before hypothesis. Agenda is bias. And, the Scientific Method forbids bias. Agenda should not carry over into the methods of research and ultimate reporting of the results. This is not a display of science. This is fabricated fiction. It does not even rise to the level of opinion. And, to call a non-fossil a fossil is deceptive fiction. To claim it was resurrected when we can’t even prove it existed, is incoherently titled fiction. We don’t even have a single shred of evidence that this protein ever existed. In fact, it is most likely that it never did until they designed it.

Second, reporting that a “fossil” is 4 billion years old implies that they have some evidence from the “fossil remains” or its surroundings to estimate its age. Wrong again. There were practically no dating methods employed in these experiments. Simply, the scientists (and I use that term loosely) in question wanted to claim it existed 4 billion years ago, so they did. Again, that is not science. That is likely more fiction.

Third, divergence (separation of species) over billions of years has not been proven either. Similarities between two proteins does not prove they diverged from a common ancestor. Therefore, assuming unproven divergence does not make for scientific data. In fact, look how many times in the above summary that the words, “assumptions,” “believed,” “certain,” and “selected” are used in various forms. This sounds more like selective reasoning than science, doesn’t it? All these scientists did is design and assemble a protein with predetermined characteristics. That is all they did. So, what did they prove? Absolutely nothing, except that intelligent beings can design and assemble proteins. But, that conclusion would support Intelligent Design Theory, not evolution.

Fourth, to display the lack of scientific discipline of the report, they even went as far as claiming this protein “spawned all other versions.” Proteins don’t spawn. Only living organisms spawn. Proteins are like building blocks of organisms, not organisms themselves.

As an insult to the intelligence of the readers, it is only at the very end of the article where they finally made actual semi-scientific conclusions, as follows:

  •  “There are no traces of these ancient proteins.” That is admission that there are no fossils and no existing traces to even support the conclusions reached. In other words, in light of everything else we know, this is fiction.
  •  “There is no way to make absolutely certain unless we invent some kind of time machine.” Finally, some honesty that exposes as fabricated this study's central claims.

I Corinthians 8:2 says, “If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know.” In other words, actual knowledge of a known reality is required for someone to “know” something. Imagining something that may not be true, is not a basis for knowledge. To claim that imagination is primary proof of knowledge, is the beginning of intellectual blindness.

It is extremely sad how far “science” has drifted away from The Scientific Method towards incoherent philosophy. It is even sadder how science is actively blinding the masses with deceptive fiction. The lack of applied critical thinking displayed in this article is astounding. Even more astounding is the lack of applied critical thinking displayed by the willing masses who digest it. If an advocate for Intelligent Design Theory were to similarly display such amazing hurdles of faith disguised as science, they would be publicly stripped of their dignity in scientific circles. But, as long as you are aligned with the politically correct agenda, you can make any distorted and unsupported claim you desire without challenge. After all, the new agenda it seems is to blind the willing with science.