It's getting easier to find well qualified candidates for a fool's errand..

It’s easy enough to engage someone who makes claims that must be taken as a matter of faith, and it is legitimate to point out the impossibility of proving or disproving many such claims.

But if you’re going to refute a faith based argument by citing scientific fact or methods, one would be well advised, in my opinion, to have a care with how such facts and methods are handled.

An argument based upon fact that is poorly deliberated and sloppily executed does far more to illustrate weaknesses in the premise than a simple dismissal without comment.

Case in point.

In a stunning display of ignorance Kenneth H. Keller, a professor of science, technology and public policy at the U of M's Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs gives the proponents of Intelligent Design yet another example of how entrenched stupidity, unfounded fear and in all too many cases, bald hubris are employed against their positions.

Like many ID antagonists, Keller attempts to use his position as a high priest of the church of science to dull the wits of his intended audience…

“Science affects the world today more than ever before and the world properly expects -- insists on -- influencing what scientists and engineers do. But that requires some understanding of how science works, of what is possible and what isn't.”

…but unlike most ID antagonists he not only misuses the concept of scientific method and proven fact…he proves that he doesn’t even understand his own sacred scrolls.

“In the evolution/creationism debate, we hear repeatedly that evolution is "only a theory, not fact," that we are "uncertain" about many of its details, and that we ought to be teaching a counter theory called "Intelligent Design," a stalking
horse for creationism.”

“To say that something is "only a theory" misses an important concept in science. We don't call something a theory to suggest that it is not yet proved.”

“Nothing is ever proved in science for all time, but theories, over time, come close. For example, if you contemplate stepping off the edge of a cliff, I'd suggest you give prudent heed to the theory of gravity; it may not be proved yet, but I wouldn't count on its being wrong.

You'd be wise not to waste too much time trying to build a perpetual motion machine because another theory, the second law of thermodynamics, gives pretty reliable guidance that it won't work.”

Alright, let’s take a look at what’s on our plate here. Over here, next to the peas we have a greasy piece of the “theory of gravity”…don’t eat it, but before we give it to the dogs, lets dissect it a bit.

What is a theory?

The dictionary defines it as “An organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena”, which is to say, for instance, something that cannot stand the scientific test of repeatability but has enough evidence to support it‘s scientific viability and usefulness none-the-less..

Is gravity a theory? Not in the context that Keller is attempting to use it.

Gravity can be measured precisely both quantitatively and qualitatively. We know, for instance almost exactly how fast a falling body will travel given any specified distance it falls. On Earth, the force of gravity is a constant 32 ft/s2 or 9.8 m/s2 ( not counting the effects of centrifugal forces, which can also be measured precisely).

Gravity is a cosmological constant as well. Due to something we call the Universal Gravity Equation we can calculate the mass of a body in space that we can’t even see.

Gravity is a proven, measurable physical force in the universe..it isn’t a theory in the context that Keller is attempting to use it..but you aren’t supposed to know that.

Next to gravity, Keller has served up a steaming helping of the Second LAW of thermodynamics which he treats in a similarly imprecise and misleading fashion, and throws in a set of circumstances in support of “global warming” that appear to run counter to the argument he has presented in the first two instances. What the hell, at this point what's he got to lose.

Yea, I’m saying he’s chasing his own circular argument‘s tail.

The funniest thing about this whole exercise in obfuscation and misinterpretation is that the main premise of Keller’s complaint revolves around his observation that people just don’t understand what science is and are therefore misusing it to defend the (as he see it) indefensible.

I wonder, if upon having had the opportunity to re-read his ill conceived piece this paragraph makes Keller cringe as readily as it did me:

“ Debate about scientific issues is reduced to a series of anecdotes: about animals whose ingenious physiology proves that there must be Intelligent Design; about someone's memory of warmer or colder winters; about differences claimed between altered and unaltered plant species that can't be measured. Lost in it all is a fundamental truth expressed recently by Alan Leshner, who said, "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."

God help me, the irony of that statement is actually painful.