December 13, 2023 | David F. Coppedge

Rampant Speculation Rules Science Media

Science reporters routinely speculate
about things they can’t possibly know


There used to be a term called “epistemic modesty” that described how scientists valued restricting themselves to evidence. No longer. The Big Science Blob has swallowed everything in its path, including philosophy, theology, ethics, origins, and eschatology. Watch the speculators engage in reckless gambling with unobservable possibilities out of their own imaginations.

NASA: Some Icy Exoplanets May Have Habitable Oceans and Geysers (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 13 Dec 2023). Scientists do not have evidence for one planet or moon in our own solar system that has any kind of life – let alone one light-years away. So William Steigerwald, be a good researcher. Go out there and find out. Ask NASA to buy you a ticket. They’re true believers, aren’t they? “The research was funded by NASA’s Habitable Worlds Program, the University of Washington’s Astrobiology Program, and the Virtual Planetary Laboratory, a member of the NASA Nexus for Exoplanet System Science coordination group.” They should be able to build you a spaceship and launch it. What happens after it clears Earth’s biosphere will be your science project.

Did you hear? Binghamton student’s research shows benefits of workplace gossip (Binghamton University, 13 December 2023). Gossip used to be a sin, to be dealt with from the pulpit. So why did science news amalgamators post this piece of impossible-to-prove speculation as “research”? You can tell it’s not empirical from the use of hedging words, as in: “Binghamton University School of Management doctoral student’s research explores how workplace gossip can help employees, improve an organization’s effectiveness.”

Again, “how some workplace gossip could reduce the likelihood of employee turnover and, as a result, potentially boost an organization’s effectiveness.” They only surveyed workers in one industry (health care) in one country (South Korea), and then extrapolated their speculations to the entire planet. That is a very poor sample, and terrible research practice. Anything “could” happen. A cow “could” jump over the moon, and a dish “could” run away with the spoon – if not on earth, maybe on some exoplanet where life ‘could have evolved.’

The 1st life in the universe could have formed seconds after the Big Bang (Live Science, 13 Dec 2023). Because Paul Sutter is an evolutionary astrophysicist, he has license to speculate freely with no accountability. He needs a non-evolutionary astrophysicist, or a chemist like James Tour, to straighten him out. Watch Sutter’s imagination run wild, with no way to prove or observe any of his evidence-free claims:

Some physicists have hypothesized that in the earliest moments of the Big Bang, the forces of nature were so extreme and so exotic that they could have supported the growth of complex structures. For example, these structures could have been cosmic strings, which are folds in space-time, anchored by magnetic monopoles. With sufficient complexity, these structures could have stored information. There would have been plenty of energy to go around, and those structures could have self-replicated, enabling Darwinian evolution.

Any creatures existing in those conditions would have lived and died in the blink of an eye, their entire history lasting less than a second — but to them, it would have been a lifetime.

But perhaps one of his speculations has a kernel of truth to it: “perhaps it’s possible to have life without chemistry.” Ever think about God? Sutter has, according to Romans 1:18-22. Everyone hears His voice (Psalm 19:1).

Fermentation may have driven human brain evolution (Harvard University via Medical Xpress, 11 Dec 2023). This gem of Darwine-drunk speculation comes from Harvard, which lost all credibility this week when its plagiarizing president was unanimously retained by its Board after she quibbled on the question of whether chants of genocide constitute hate speech that bullies Jews. How on earth could any evolutionist know that alcohol use by unobserved human ancestors grew their brains? Does that happen now? Ask the alcoholics on the street. Good grief.

The large, capable human brain is a marvel of evolution, but how it evolved from a smaller primate brain into the creative, complex organ of today is a mystery. Scientists can pinpoint ‘when’ our evolutionary ancestors evolved larger brains, which roughly tripled in size as human ancestors evolved from the bipedal primates known as Australopithecines. But ‘why’ it happened when it did—what spurred that change—has remained elusive….

“Some other dietary change must have been releasing metabolic constraints on brain size, and fermentation seems like it could fit the bill.

Scientists find that senescence can accelerate evolution (, 11 Dec 2023). No, “scientists” did not “find” this. They sat on their sofas and speculated while under the influence of Darwine. And like the subject of their dreams, they will grow old without ever being able to prove their speculations, which are epistemically extravagant. In the article there is this embarrassing admission by prominent evolutionist Eörs Szathmáry:

It has become accepted in the evolutionary biology community that the classical non-adaptive theories of aging cannot explain all the aging patterns of nature, which means the explanation of aging has become an open question once again,” says Szathmáry.

Why the long face? Experts provide a new theory for why larger mammals tend to have longer faces (The Conversation, 11 Dec 2023). Three “experts” from 2 Aussie universities had a flash of insight one day. They looked at a horse and asked, “Why the long face?” The beautifully designed animal just stared back at them. They responded, “We know! It must have evolved!”

While it might seem an unlikely topic, “why the long face?” is an important question in studies of mammal evolution. That’s because long-faced mammals don’t occur at random. Rather, a longer face often coincides with a larger body size within individual animal groups.

It coincides, that is, except when it doesn’t. They give their speculation a Jargonwocky name “craniofacial evolutionary allometry” or CREA (evolutionists just love acronyms; they have such snow-job potential). “The snag with this explanation is the many cases where the CREA pattern doesn’t exist, or is reversed.” Don’t mourn for their falsified speculation. It fits perfectly with the Stuff Happens Law, so they’ll keep it.

Science communicators need to stop telling everybody the universe is a meaningless void  (The Conversation, 28 Nov 2023). Chris Ellis at the University of Sydney, like a consistent evolutionist, believes the universe is a meaningless void. Why? Because it evolved from particles in motion, with no purpose or plan, and will die with no one caring. But—he says—saying so is bad press. Don’t tell the public. It “may bring them into conflict with many things humanity values – or has evolved to value – such as meaning, purpose and free will.” Imagine the consequences if evolutionary scientists told the public what they really believe! Would they keep funding evolutionary projects with their tax money?

What’s worse, signing up to “science” may also mean accepting your religion is false, your spirituality is an illusion and your relationship with your dog is based on an evolutionary lie.

A perfect term for Darwinian speculation run amok: “evolutionary lie.” If evolutionists really believed that reality is an evolutionary lie, then it makes them liars to teach that. Logical, says Mr. Spock.

What’s the point of giving gifts? An anthropologist explains this ancient part of being human (The Conversation, 12 Dec 2023). An evolutionary anthropologist (trigger warning: speculation ahead) gets coal in his stocking for this deconstruction of charity. You don’t give out of love, respect, or charity, says Chip Colwell at UC Denver. Evolution has taught you that you give because you are selfish: you expect something in return. ‘You’ don’t even enter the equation. Your selfish genes are manipulating you. It seems counterintuitive to explain gift-giving by evolution, but his “ancient habit” only makes “evolutionary sense” when you put on Darwin glasses and see all human behavior as the result of genetic influences in the unobservable past that were selected somehow without witnesses. But did Colwell ever consider that “evolutionary sense” is a sophoxymoronic phrase?

Jesus taught, “Love your enemies and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil people” (Luke 6:35). That is so opposite the evolutionary mindset! Evolutionists, please read the teachings of Jesus this Christmas. He said, don’t be like your ancestors, whose every intent of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually (Genesis 6:5). Instead, be like your Maker, who exercised sacrificial love to rebellious creatures by coming to earth to rescue us from our sin (Romans 5:6-11).


(Visited 304 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply