Principles of Geology
This paper is designed to investigate the scientific knowledge to question the existing explanations of science laws. With previously science works, based on human scientific enquiry methods, pseudoscience is here and is being merged to the current science world to criticize these findings and methods used. Pseudoscience does not create laws but attempts to reason from theories and mysteries (Radner, 1982) with the human development, research into the science attempts to explain the human phenomena of presenting data in organized informed methods. According to Goldstein and Goldstein, (1978), science is search of knowledge of understanding by means of general laws or principles, which are experimentally tested. Previously, attention is focused on use of scientific methodologies to collect facts, test and analyze them thereafter communicating the findings, which is used in the science research. All this is done to avoid research stigmatization and being considered pseudoscience. Research is carried out by human beings and the choice of a researcher to utilize the best method to collect and analyze data is based on the human validity of the study. This variation is now being looked deeply into by the current branch of another scientist, the pseudoscientists who are critically arguing on the finding of these researches. This information gathered from pseudoscientific is being regarded as fallacy due to the inability to withstand critical analysis and refutability.
"For a theory to be part of science we must be able to imagine the possibility that some kind of evidence, if it were available, would tend to make us doubt the theory. It has been said that for a theory to be scientific it must be refutable" (Goldstein, 1978). "Pseudoscientists delight they need have no fear of the facts ever proving them wrong" (Radner, 40).
After collecting data scientifically, a difference sets in during data representation and this where the two models of science part ways. Pseudoscience directly presents finding to the public whereas scientists will first have the data presented to peers. The pseudoscientists do not take into consideration findings’ support from experiments or critical analysis rather will base on the plausible explanations to their theory. Goldstein (1978) says that not all scientists though will be driven by pure reason of clarity or truth but some are driven by greed and hunger for fame associated with scientific achievements.
How well are the claims by Dr. Baumgardner presented and what truth or clarity do they hold in the world of science? We are bound to dig deep to attest that “all forms of ancient life found in the fossil record co-existed prior to the global cataclysm”. James Hutton (1726-1797) an uniformitarian quotes “the present is the key to the past” (Peachey, n.d.).Ideally the changes on the earth have been very slow and have happened over millions of years. However, catastrophists are first to raise hand in objection to this, expressing their belief that geological features of earth were formed by series of sudden, violent catastrophes which worked beyond the ordinary nature.
In another claim ‘the fossil-bearing rocks are only several thousands years old’, a general question is posed. How old is the earth, and how can we know that? Generally, the accepted age of the earth is 4.55 billion years and this is evidenced in different lines of evidence. The age is not computed directly from the earth, but basing on the energy accumulation this caused surface to be molten though processes of erosion and crustal recycling have destroyed the earliest surfaces. The recorded oldest rocks date 3.9 million years ago and have been proved by radiometric dating methods. Mostly, there are sedimentary rocks, which incubate fossils. By measuring earths sample and meteorites using Pb/Pb isichron, there is a plot graph, on which evident older ages of fossil in the earth. The series of experiments show change in sample and data separation due to decays. Solar system originated from the common pool of matter. The single line of plot will always occur basing from data point collected on the dating methods.
These assumptions are objected again by young earther and bring in their theories, which though being testable are not in accordance with the science laws. Further idea of superposition and extinction on fossils can be called in. This explains the order of laying rocks from the oldest at the bottom. Again the rock cycle principle has remained to work the same ways as past time where there are minute environmental depositions each year.
Among the dating methods, the creationist use to justify their claims including accumulation of helium in the atmosphere and decay of the earth’s magnetic field. Young- earth argues that helium is constantly being added to the earth and when they date it, it shows accumulation dates that are not more than hundred thousand year attesting to them that earth is not very old. They assume that helium does not escape but a matter of fact is that there are scientific experiments, which have been carried to prove that actually helium escape at the rate it is being added to the atmosphere. Obviously, these are a pretty common set of “dating” tools; they appear regularly in creationist writings from the 1960s through the late 1980s but are all built upon a misrepresentation of the data.
“Pseudoscientists do indeed pick and choose their "facts", but what is at issue is the method used to do the sorting. Science requires that its practitioners be able to reject the poisonous mushrooms as not providing genuine food for science. Pseudoscientists come along and pick the poisonous ones and offer them as food - after all they want us to swallow them. At the same time they reject the mushrooms the scientist have picked. The pseudoscientists are not prepared to say what makes their mushrooms edible and the scientist's inedible” (Radner, 1970). Scientists gather data and formulate hypothesis upon collected data for development of knowledge but pseudoscientists formulate hypothesis to support gathered data. Actually, pseudoscientists would use explanations of hypothesis to support hypotheses and not to validate assumptions.