by Dr. Ed Berry
Counter opinions on September 21 attempted to defend Steve Daines by providing details of the creation side of the debate. This is not the way to defend Steve Daines on this subject.
A proper defense is as follows:
Fact: Evolution-creation science is “not settled” and may never be settled because neither the creation nor the evolution hypothesis can produce a falsifiable prediction.
Therefore, one’s position on this issue has no relevance to one’s qualifications to be a US Senator.
Where does this no “falsifiable prediction” stuff come from?
I will tell you a little story.
John Kemeny, born in 1926, entered Princeton in 1945, where he studied mathematics and philosophy. He took a year off to work for Richard Feynman on the Manhattan Project in Los Alamos and received his BA in 1947. While a doctoral student he was appointed as a special mathematical assistant to Albert Einstein. He received his PhD in 1949 at age 23.
Years later, John Kemeny was the Head of both the Philosophy and Mathematics Departments at Dartmouth College and he taught a “Philosophy of Science” course using his book, “A philosopher looks at science” and one other book.
One day, Kemeny shocked his class when he told them the “Theory of Evolution” is not a valid scientific theory. I was there. We discussed this at length. The reason is every valid scientific hypothesis must be able to produce a prediction that can be tested. More specifically, this prediction must be falsifiable.
If it can’t produce a falsifiable prediction, it may still be nice science but it cannot claim to be a “proven” theory.
“Falsifiable” means if a prediction does not agree with new data then the hypothesis is wrong. If you have not seen Richard Feynman explain this, go watch the video on PolyMontana.com.
Albert once said, “Many experiments may prove me right but it takes only one to prove me wrong.” He was referring to the fact that a hypothesis may make some good predictions but if it makes only one false prediction, then that hypothesis is wrong.
So when Matthews Bradley challenged Steve Daines on the evolution-creation issue, Bradley was out of line because he was assuming he is correct about something that is not proved. This is not unusual for Democrats to do.
Both parties confuse science with religion.
But this failure to differentiate reality from assumptions is not limited to Democrats. Perhaps the most outrageous Republican example was the Evangelical claim that Mitt Romney should not be president because he believes in a different definition of God than they do. Well, until someone provides acceptable evidence of what God looks like, then such attacks are invalid and out-of-line.
We separate religion from science and have an Amendment that protects religion because no one can prove their particular belief is true. If a subject is measurable and quantifiable then is it a matter of science. If not, then it is a matter of religion.
What about climate change?
Climate change is science and it has a hypothesis that can be falsified. More specifically, the hypothesis that “our carbon dioxide emissions cause dangerous climate change” can be falsified.
While complex, the climate change hypothesis is contained in the climate models and these models make predictions. Your tax dollars provided some $100 billion for these models so no one can make the excuse that these models were lacking in funding.
What is the result? The predictions of the climate models do not match reality. The models do not even agree among themselves. In short, their predictions are wrong. Therefore, the climate change hypothesis is wrong.
Now we can throw this one back at the Democrats. Anyone who does not accept the verdict of the scientific method is playing in the realm of religion, not science. People out there “believe” in human-caused climate change even though the scientific method says they are wrong.
OK. We have freedom of religion but in this case the climate change religion impacts our energy production, our economy, and our jobs. Therefore, those who believe in the climate change religion are not qualified to hold public office.
Who’s not qualified for the US Senate?
Congressman Steve Daines accepts science and does not believe in the climate change religion. His Democratic opponent, Amanda Curtis, like all good Democrats, is a flaming climate change believer, and we can be sure she would interject her false belief into her votes on our economy.
In summary, Steve Daines is qualified to be our next US Senator and Amanda Curtis is not qualified.
Here’s the letter I sent to the Daily Inter Lake for publication:
The replies of September 21 to Matthews Bradley’s letter of September 2, argue evolution-creation science. But evolution-creation science is “not settled” and may never be settled because neither the creation nor evolution hypothesis can produce a falsifiable prediction.
John Kemeny shocked his Philosophy of Science class at Dartmouth College when he explained how evolution is not a valid theory because it cannot make a falsifiable prediction. We discussed this issue at length. Kemeny learned his philosophy of science as a special assistant to Albert Einstein.
One’s position on evolution-creation science has no bearing on qualifications to be a US Senator and the science arguments are irrelevant.
By contrast, climate change belief is significant to one’s qualifications for US Senate as it directly relates to America’s energy production, economy, and jobs.
The Democrat claim that our carbon dioxide emissions threaten the planet has been invalidated by the scientific method: Climate model predictions are wrong, therefore the climate change hypothesis is wrong. To continue to believe in it is religion, not science.
Steve Daines does not believe the climate change religion and Amanda Curtis does. Steve Daines will solidly support America’s and Montana’s economy and Amanda’s climate change belief disqualifies her as a rational candidate to the US Senate.