I just read one of those typical “science stories” you see virtually every day.

This one, like they all do, cited “a new study” and “new research.”

The report had good news for us all: “Earth could continue to host life for at least another 1.75 billion years, as long as nuclear holocaust, an errant asteroid or some other disaster doesn’t intervene.”

I saw this NBC News report on Drudge, so it must be true, right?

It got me to thinking, though. What about global warming? I thought the scientists had said that was going to be the death of us all in the relative short term.

So I checked to see the source of this “new study.”

You won’t believe it: It’s from Andrew Rushby of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom.

The University of East Anglia, of course, was the school that recognized catastrophic global climate change was a hoax, but covered up the email discussions between researchers who didn’t want to lose their government grants to keep the hysteria at a fever pitch.

When I see stuff like this, it leads to the question: “Do I care what scientists say any more? Do I even believe in science?”

Experience more of Joseph Farah’s no-nonsense truth-telling in his books, audio and video products, featured in the WND Superstore

Well, the answer to the last question is an emphatic yes.

I believe in science – at least the traditional definition of science.

What is the definition of science?

It’s worth reviewing.

  • a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences;

  • systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation;
  • any of the branches of natural or physical science; a systematized knowledge in general; knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

I like those definitions, do you?

I particularly like the second. I think it gets right to heart of the scientific method.

What is the scientific method? Here’s what the Oxford English Dictionary says: “a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”

I like that, too.

Tell me something.

How did these researchers at East Anglia University determine the world has at least 1.75 billion years left?

Did they use scientific methodology? Did they consider all the possibilities, including how much longer the sun will continue to shine? Does any scientist or team of scientists have the capability of considering all the possibilities?

I think not.

Furthermore, the particular “scientist” behind this study makes some pretty amazing pronouncements that go well beyond the ability to “observe” and “experiment.”

For instance, he states categorically that life first appeared on Earth nearly 4 billion years ago. Did he see it? Did he observe it? What evidence does he have for that statement? He continues with more sweeping suppositions: “We had insects 400 million years ago, dinosaurs 300 million years ago and flowering plants 130 million years ago. Anatomically modern humans have only been around for the last 200,000 years – so you can see it takes a really long time for intelligent life to develop.”

I know, you hear this kind of thing from “scientists” all the time. But is it really science? Is there any evidence whatsoever to support these statements. If so, I would like to see it. I’ve searched and searched and can’t find any.

Where’s the observation? Where’s the testing of the hypothesis? Where’s the scientific method we’ve been using since the 17th century?

It’s simply not there.

This kind of guesswork and wishful thinking based on what most “scientists” have been taught uncritically and unquestioned by other men is, let’s face it, nothing more than a new religion. It’s accepted by faith. It’s certainly not science. Maybe it would be better classified as science fiction.

But this is what we get day after day from the “scientists,” and it’s all dutifully recorded and published by journalists and media people who also report it without question.

Do you get the feeling there’s an agenda at work here that goes well beyond science?

Do you believe what you hear and read in these daily science stories that contain no science whatsoever?

If the scientific community isn’t careful, its reputation will soon be lower than the reputation of the media that report their findings.

And that’s saying something.

Receive Joseph Farah's daily commentaries in your email

BONUS: By signing up for Joseph Farah’s alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email.
  • Where we will email your daily updates
  • A valid zip code or postal code is required
  • Click the button below to sign up for Joseph Farah's daily commentaries by email, and keep up to date with special offers from WND. You may change your email preferences at any time.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.