Tabloid Science Tarnishes Science’s Reputation

Unlike historic scientists who
stressed observation, many today
give place to wild speculation

 

Whaddya Know, Scientist?

The strength of science is supposed to be knowledge. “Knowledge is power” said Sir Francis Bacon as he advocated for experimental science. With knowledge based on experimentation and mathematics, within a tolerable level of error, scientists can predict the path of a cannonball, the color change of a chemical mix, or the arrival time of a bird at its nesting site. Who cares about someone’s speculation about what “might” or “could” happen if there is no factual basis to support it?

There is always uncertainty in scientific prediction. Some error in measurement is inescapable. When stochastic processes are involved, as in weather prediction or the path of hurricanes, society gives some leeway to experts when predictions don’t pan out. But scientists are expected to be accountable. Too many failed predictions should have consequences for a scientist’s career. And then what about speculations about matters that are completely beyond observation or accountability? What then? Would you trust an expert who tells you that if you invest in his company, your great-great-great-great-great grandchildren will have a million dollars? You’ll all be dead before there is any way to know. What if he tells you your great-great-great-great-great-….-great grandparents were worms?

Here are some wild speculations from our news desk. Notice the hedging words that turn up the perhapsimaybecouldness index.

Impossible Dreams

The universe may start dying in just 10 billion years, alarming new model predicts (Live Science, 4 August 2025). We trust that our perceptive readers are not shuddering in fear over this prediction or selling their homes. Why is this considered live “science”? Why is reporter Harry Baker giving this speculation the time of day, other than perhaps for clickbait?

A surprising new paper suggests that the universe’s expected lifespan is just 33 billion years, and that the cosmos will start dying in less than a third of that time. However, this is only one possible theory.

Pause for astonishment at the fact-free nature of this post in “Live Science”—or should that be Lie Seance? How does this differ from armchair speculation by pseudoscience kooks? Michael Shermer, Mr Pseudoscience Debunker, where are you?

If the new timeline is correct, the universe will stop expanding in around 10 billion years and begin to rapidly contract much faster than other models have previously predicted, Live Science’s sister site Space.com recently reported. Other models suggest that the Big Crunch may not happen for hundreds of billions of years.

The true identity of dark energy remains a mystery, however, meaning that the new model is purely theoretical.

Who should care about models that vary by thousands of percentages and cannot be verified in the lifetime of anyone alive today?

Did ‘primordial’ black holes born right after the Big Bang help our universe’s 1st stars form? (Space.com, 1 Aug 2025). Lie Seance’s sister site SpacedOut.com has some of the same crew of imagineers posing as science reporters. So Robert Lea, how about going back in a time machine to find out if primordial black holes have star-creating power?

New theories on dark matter’s origins point to ‘mirror world’ and universe’s edge (UC Santa Cruz, 1 Aug 2025). “Theory” is not supposed to be an excuse for fact-free speculation. Here is an example from a university that should know better that verification of this notion is impossible, even conceptually. As for dark matter, after 25 years we are still waiting for secular cosmologists to find the particle.

An interstellar mission to a black hole? Astrophysicist thinks it’s possible (Cell Press via Phys.org, 7 Aug 2025). Someone was drunk when dreaming this one up. It won’t happen in the lifetime of the “astrophysicist” Cosimo Bambi who thinks “it’s possible” so he won’t ever be held accountability for confibility.

Bio-Astrology Fantasies

Cosmic rays could help support alien life on worlds outside the ‘Goldilocks zone’ (Live Science, 4 August 2025). Maybe it’s Clickbait Week at Live Science, because Joanna Thompson joined the game.

A new study suggests that cosmic radiation could potentially provide the energy to kick-start extraterrestrial life deep beneath the surface of icy worlds like Mars, Europa and Enceladus.

Before even giving time to whatever “facts” this article adduces to support this unverifiable claim, take a break to listen to a conversation between Stephen Meyer and chemistry professor/inventor James Tour at Evolution News.

Chemists Explore ‘Super Alcohol’ That May Point to Cosmic Life (Univ of Mississippi, 7 Aug 2025). Science Daily (or Science Dilly) titled this press release, “Scientists create mysterious molecule that could spark life in space.” It’s about two guys from UMiss, drunk on Darwine, who apparently skipped science class.

“This is essentially a prebiotic concentrate — a seed of life molecule,” Fortenberry said. “It’s something that can lead to more complex chemistry if given the opportunity. Think of it like an acorn that will grow into a tree in the Grove.”

Look at their mugshots. Ryan and Ralf should be arrested for impersonating scientists (16 July 2014 commentary). Reading their speculations might make you feel like calling Ralf. Guess who else bought this fake science hook, line and sinker? Lie Seance.

NASA finds multi-billion-year-old ‘coral’ on Mars (Live Science, 7 Aug 2025). The headline is a lie only barely shielded in scare quotes. It’s not coral; it’s an eroded rock similar to others the Mars rovers have found. Did the headline get you to open the article and score clicks for Lie Seance?

New Research Suggests Life Could Survive Beneath the Surface of Mars and Other Planets Using High Energy Particles from Space (New York Univ, 27 July 2025). Feeding on cosmic rays, the alien cells thrive and engage in dreams of civilization. This is known as “research” in today’s academia. Try it at home. Sit in a recliner, close your eyes, and dream, dream, dream.

Unobserved Histories

Ocean sediments might support theory that comet impact triggered Younger Dryas cool-off (PLoS via Phys.org, 6 Aug 2025). Here is a fictional event (the Younger Dryas cool-off) explained by an unobserved object (a comet impact) to support an unwarranted speculation (“theory”).

Earth’s ‘oldest’ impact crater is much younger than previously thought – new study (The Conversation, 9 July 2025). The experts thought a crater formed 3.5 billion Darwin Years ago. Now, these different experts who weren’t there to witness it say it happened 2.7 billion Darwin Years ago, give or take 2.79999999 billion imaginary Darwin Years.

Six million years of vole dental evolution shaped by tooth development  (PNAS, 31 July 2025). Four Darwinists actually watched these little mammals for six million years and saw stuff happen to their teeth. Sadly, they had to watch millions of them die from starvation until the lucky tooth shape emerged. Hey; stop criticizing them. This might be science, if you suspend disbelief in the creative power of “evolutionary time.”

Disentangling the influences of natural selection and developmental constraints on morphological evolution is challenging due to discrepancies between fossil and modern data. Mammalian teeth could bridge this gap, as the mode of development of complex molars seems to have facilitated the diversification of mammals observed in the fossil record. In arvicoline rodents (voles, lemmings, muskrats), molar elongation leads to more complexity during development and over evolutionary time, indicating that tooth development shapes tooth evolution. However, transitions toward extreme complexity evolve more slowly, suggesting the same developmental mechanisms enabling its evolution may also impose limits on further change. This work demonstrates how simple modifications of development can mostly explain large-scale evolutionary trends, providing a link between fossil evidence and experimental biology.

Oh, You Can Trust the Experts!

Here are some reassuring news items to prove that scientists know what they are talking about. Stop doubting. Other fields of study in academia are not as trustworthy as the Science Department. Scientists have methods. They have checks and balances. They have integrity.

Organized scientific fraud is growing at an alarming rate, study uncovers (Northwestern University via Phys.org, 4 August 2025). Organized crime has infected Big Science. “Northwestern study instead uncovered sophisticated global networks of individuals and entities, which systematically work together to undermine the integrity of academic publishing.”

Scientific fraud has become an ‘industry,’ alarming analysis finds (Science, 4 Aug 2025). “Sophisticated global networks are infiltrating journals to publish fake papers,” this article says.

For years, sleuths who study scientific fraud have been sounding the alarm about the sheer size and sophistication of the industry that churns out fake publications. Now, an extensive investigation finds evidence of a range of bad actors profiting from fraud. The study, based on an analysis of thousands of publications and their authors and editors, shows paper mills are just part of a complex, interconnected system that includes publishers, journals, and brokers.

The peer-review crisis: how to fix an overloaded system (Nature, 6 August 2025). What? The peer review system that sets science apart isn’t working?

Are professional economists truly objective when forecasting GDP? Maybe not. (Wake Forest University, 5 August 2025). Don’t trust your life savings to professionals where a “subtle yet powerful influence of political affiliation” influences their expertise. Is that true of other sciences?

The super sleuths trying to stop shoddy science (Particle via Phys.org, 6 August 2025). And you thought that checks and balances like peer review prevented shoddy science. Why are they needing to try and “stop” it?

Exclusive: retraction-prone editors identified at megajournal PLoS ONE (Nature, 4 Aug 2025). A third of retracted papers at a “megajournal” can be traced back to 45 editors. What were their motives?

We need a new ethics for a world of AI agents (Nature, 4 Aug 2025). An increasing number of scientific papers are being written by or augmented with help from AI large language models (LLMs).

AI–AI bias: Large language models favor communications generated by large language models (PNAS, 29 July 2025). After reading the previous headline, consider that LLMs trust other LLMs more than they trust human beings! Sounds like a doom loop. Does any scientist know anything anymore?

Scientists can help stop a slide to nuclear war — don’t shut them out again (Nature, 5 Aug 2025). The hubris in Big Science knows no bounds. After reading the above headlines, maybe the best strategy for stopping nuclear war is to do the opposite of what scientists advise. Where were they when Iran was about to complete nuclear bombs before Israel and America stopped them?* They only care about nuclear bombs when conservatives like Donald Trump are in charge of foreign policy.

*Ironic that UK expert Nicholas John Wheeler at The Conversation (5 Aug 2025) never mentions Iran in his Pollyanna solution to preventing nuclear war: in a nutshell, ‘let’s all recognize our common humanity and sing Kumbaya together.’ Radical Islamists couldn’t care less about that. They are willing to die for their religion and take the world down with them. Don’t let Wheeler anywhere near the US State Department.

We could go on. It was hard to know when to stop adding to this list. Big Science has become so corrupt, so infected with Darwinism and woke socialism, it seems the only hope is to start over with a new set of God-fearing scientists who really value integrity from first principles.