Letter: Bad science

What is objectivism in science? I attended Dr. Keith Lockitch’s speech entitled “Creationism in Camouflage: The Intelligent Design Deception” Thursday (Nov. 10) evening and found a number of flaws in his argument. When the floor was opened for questions and answers, I had a hard time wondering where to begin.

His claim is that Intelligent Design is repackaged Creation Science, which is motivated from the Bible. As such, it does not have a naturalistic explanation and is therefore not science, but an assault against biological standards, nonintellectual, and unreasonable. The truth is that science and the supernatural can coexist. He missed this important point because he wants to make an objective look at Intelligent Design, but defines objectivity as excluding the supernatural. By excluding any option, you automatically bring in bias, which is not objectivity.

Because of his bias he failed so see the benefit of challenging evolution and allowing students, in say public schools, to see the scientific evidence to support both hypotheses and allow the students to come to a conclusion. He fears a return to the Dark Ages if this were to occur.

He is in fact ignoring overwhelming evidence against evolution. If dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, then how do we explain the discovery of an unfossilized dinosaur bone with red blood cells and other soft tissue still inside it? At its core, evolutionists use circular reasoning to date fossils, which is bad science. Evolutionist astronomers are at a loss to explain the lack of supernova remnants in a supposedly old galaxy. We observe 205, but expect 7,000 more if the Milky Way were billions of years old. The truth is that by rejecting the evidence, evolutionists are trying to hide insecurity in their hypothesis.

Eric Landquist

Graduate student