The Solid Surfer.com

Pluto's Demotion and the Flaws in Speculative Science

A major flaw in the world of science was unexpectedly but blatantly uncovered yesterday. For apparently astronomers have decided that Pluto is no longer a planet.

Are they incorrect? Perhaps, perhaps not; frankly I have no idea. But the flaw involved has nothing to do with Pluto's actual classification. Rather, the error is in the height of the pedestal on which so many people place scientific judgement. The Pluto decision demonstrates that accepted scientific conventions are not always set in stone and can even be flat-out wrong.

For the past 76 years, leading astronomers have proclaimed Pluto a planet. Now they don't. Clearly both views cannot be correct. How different is this from debates in the 1600s over the shape of the earth? At one point scientists thought the earth was flat. Then they realized it's round.

The point is, even the most brilliant groups of scientists can make mistakes. They can also, as we see, quickly change their minds. We should hence recognize that many standard scientific views are not necessarily correct merely because intelligent scientists say so.

So when groups of scientists declare, purely on speculation, that global warming is the world's greatest threat, that intelligent design is bunk, and that DDT is dangerous, we should resist the impulse to believe them simply because they are scientists. Scientific conclusions need true evidence, not majority opinions.

Thanks to a 76-year old scientific misjudgement (if, at least, you believe in the new solar system categorization), our former ninth planet may have lost its hierarchy in the cosmos. But it has actually done the world a great favor, by providing a promiment demonstration that scientific paradigms are not automatically sacred and that scientists do commit mistakes and disagree.

Regardless of how the debate over Pluto concludes, the process involved appears to be the most revealing portion. Science is a powerful tool, but like all fields, it relies heavily on a human element which we must consider when examining its findings.

Reducing Oil Dependence: Clean Energy From Algae

As previously discussed on this blog, America has numerous options for reducing its unhealthy dependence on foreign oil. Ethanol, for one, has been a recent newsmaker, and hydrogen fuel, oil shale, tar sand extraction, synthetic petroleum, and even nuclear fusion have entered the possibility mix.

But while all of these techniques show great promise, they face the overwhelming downside of high costs. In time, innovation should lower these expenses, but this provides little consolation to our immediate needs, given the petrodollars that continuously flood into terror-supporting regimes.

So what should America do? A Cambridge, Massachusetts start-up called GreenFuel Technolgies Corporation has an exciting answer: Start collecting the seaweed from our sushi rolls.

Well, not quite that nitty gritty, but algae is indeed the name of the game. GreenFuel has developed a unique bioreactor system that stimulates the marine weed to convert the carbon dioxide from smokestack emissions into clean-burning biodiesel, ethanol, hydrogen, and methane. Just grow the algae, place it in the smokestacks, apply GreenFuel's conversion process, and presto: the emissions are soaked up and transformed into energy.

This is accomplished, meanwhile, without creating substantial additional costs; algae growth is inexpensive, and little fossil fuel power is required beyond the coal already burning beneath the smokestacks.

GreenFuel's process is quick, handy, and can be implemented on a large scale almost immediately. For the time being, this technology really does appear to be the answer. It may not supplant foreign oil entirely, but until the costs of ethanol, oil shale, and fusion decline dramatically, it is an excellent and highly welcome alternative.

Israel, Alternative Energy, Walid Shoebat, and more

Plenty of interesting news from the past few days. First and foremost, efforts are ramping up to stop Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's suicidal withdrawal plan from the West Bank. As the Gaza debacle has shown, withdrawal has led not to peace, but simply to more terrorism, and this disaster must not be repeated. To that end, Israel's Center For Security Policy (CSP) has launched an advertising campaign against the withdrawal on U.S. national television. Accompanying the spot, CSP's Mideast Fellow Caroline Glick (who is also the Deputy Managing Director of the Jerusalem Post) has written an excellent analysis of the situation. (It's a 20-page PDF, but is a quick read and very well worth seeing.)

On a related note, progress continues toward creating viable energy alternatives to Middle Eastern oil. WorldNetDaily reports on a start-up company called Hydrogen Technologies Applications that claims, unbelievably, to have created a method of powering motor vehicles using only water. Yep, you heard that correctly - the company's machine runs on pure H2O. Skeptical? So are many others, according to the article. But the company's founder and president insists on legitimacy, and given that they provided a thorough demonstration (note: video link) for Fox News, I'm remaining cautiously optimistic.

Meanwhile, an even greater energy source could be arriving soon as well: Scientists clear major technical hurdle in generating nuclear fusion.

And in more sci-tech news, Israeli researchers have invented a hemispheric force field to protect tanks against enemy fire from all directions, even if the tank is moving. I was just as astounded to hear this too (you'd almost think it came straight out of Star Wars), but rest assured, it's very real (note: another video link).

In other reports:

The justices of California's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have just received my vote for impeachment and replacement. These disgusting leftists have ruled in the name of "multiculturalism" that public schools can teach the Islamic religion, but cannot recite the U.S. pledge of allegiance. This case should be appealed to the Supreme Court and overturned immediately.

America does have good news as well, though - columnist Michael Barone tells why, despite the typical barrage of bad news from the media, Americans (and the world) should be optimistic about the future. One such reason, by the way, is that the much-hyped global warming scare is indeed just hype. (Here is a second article that concurs, as well.)

And finally, former PLO terrorist-turned-Israel-supporter Walid Shoebat offers a harsh but inspirational critique of less-than-stellar Jewish support for Israel. This may not be the easiest read, but it's certainly a must-read.

America's Road To Energy Independence

On several past occasions, I have analyzed and discussed varied forms of alternative energy, from refining oil shale to producing synthetic petroleum created via thermal conversion to drilling homegrown oil under the assumption of it being a renewable resource.

All these techniques are excellent paths towards achieving independence from Middle East oil, but as I recently learned (hat tip to Israpundit), an even better method exists: alcohol-based fuel. That's right - a combination of ethanol (the stuff you drink) and methanol (wood alcohol that you should never ever drink) is an excellent subsitute for gasoline.

According to the above sentence's linked piece, written by aerospace researcher Dr. Robert Zubrin, America can already produce oil-less electricity through nuclear, wind, solar, and hydroelectric power. What we haven't done yet on a large scale, though, is achieve a petroleum-free gasoline substitute. Many alternative methods have been proposed, the most popular being hydrogen fuel cells, but until technology improves, these will largely remain inefficient. Alcohol-based fuel was rarely considered in the past, but with rising oil costs and the increasing dangers of depending on energy from the Middle East, the article claims that now is a perfect time to switch.

Is this truly realistic? Naturally I'd tend to be skeptical, the logic being that if it worked, we'd have attempted it already. And except for occasional users such as the Indycar Series, America obviously hasn't done so.

But another country has.

Though virtually unreported in the mainstream news media, Brazil in the past few years has transitioned almost entirely from gasoline to alcohol. Tired of rising oil prices, Brazil invested heavily in ethanol-based cars and fueling stations over, and today the country has become entirely energy independent. Most of the fuel comes from homegrown cane sugar, and Brazilians have benefited triply from lower prices at the pump, increased agricultural output, and lower pollution. Now, India, China, and other nations with soaring energy needs are carefully eyeing the Brazilian model and planning accordingly.

If Brazil can throw off the chokehold of Middle East oil, America certainly can too.

Oil A Renewable Resource?

We have always believed oil to be a finite resource. According to standard geological theory, oil was created millions of years ago by decaying fossils, accumulated in underground pools, and has largely been used up over the last 150 years. Humanity must soon develop alternate energy sources, because when oil runs out, we could be in for a bumpy ride.

But what if all this is wrong, and oil is actually a renewable resource? That's the theory expounded by Dr. Jerome Corsi in his book Black Gold Stranglehold (co-writtten with Craig Smith) and in a series of articles for WorldNetDaily.com.

Corsi believes instead in abiotic oil theory, the hypothesis that oil is continually created in the ground. This, he explains, is why despite so much consumption during the past century, the world's proven oil reserves have risen today to record levels.

Could Corsi really be onto something? His evidence is quite convincing, based both on observed and mathematical data. (See his articles for some explanations.) At the same time, however, his theory does contradict a century of geological thought, and the rising oil reserve levels could just be a result of better discovery methods.

Nevertheless, Corsi does bring up many valid supporting points, and any scientific theory (even a century-old geologic one) always risks being supplanted by something newer and better.

Persuasive evidence exists both for and against his position, so perhaps the best we can say is that the jury's still out. But this theory should certainly be investigated quickly, as its confirmation would quickly change the balance of power among the world's energy players.

Imagine if the U.S. had abundant, renewable oil right inside its borders. That'd mean an end to energy policies based on oil scarcity, permanently low prices at the pump, no more oil renvenues heading to terrorist-sponsoring nations, and no need to continually appease corrupt and unelected Middle Eastern dictators. If Corsi's theory is correct, all of the above could quickly come to pass.

Intelligent Design Part II

Not so surprisingly, my recent article on intelligent design theory has been one of this blog's most controversial posts. Several readers have emailed me to disagree, and most of them have included a recent Charles Krauthammer column in defense of their positions.

I certainly respect Mr. Krauthammer's views, and fully agree with him on many other issues, but like many other opponents of I.D., he too dismisses the theory not on scientific grounds but because of implications.

Says Mr. Krauthammer in the crux of his argument:

Let's be clear. "Intelligent design'' may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory'' whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory'' that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species, but that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today.'' A "theory'' that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science -- that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution -- or behind the motion of the tides or the "strong force'' that holds the atom together?

My response, however, is that despite his claims of attacking I.D.'s scientific validity, Krauthammer really only argues against the implication of divine involvement. Intelligent design is not just a filler for gaps in scientific knowledge as he claims; rather, it's a well supported theory backed by mountains of scientific evidence in fields as diverse as chemistry, biology, geology, and astronomy. (See my previous post on I.D. for more on this.)

Krauthammer clearly implies that scientific knowledge alone will ultimately explain everything in the universe, but this is a monumental assumption that is as self enclosed as he claims intelligent design to be. There is no set limitation on what scientific knowledge can or cannot lead to, and if the leading evidence points to a non-scientific outcome (such as anything supernatural), then so be it. Of course this is not empirically disprovable, but neither is Darwinian evolution or anything else theorized to have occurred prior to human civilization. We cannot technically prove or disprove either theory (or any other theory) of human origins; we can only examine the evidence for each position and determine the most likely possibility. Viewed within these appropriate parameters (which rightly leave out implications), intelligent design's scientific merit becomes quite apparent.

Intelligent Design In Schools

Intelligent design theory has been, to say the least, quite a controversy. Support for or opposition to it being taught in school has pitted teachers vs. school board members, scientists vs. religious leaders, Democrats vs. Republicans, and many others. Proponents insist that the theory is valid science, while adversaries dismiss it as a disguised method of injecting creationism into the classroom. In recent days, the clashes have escalated; last week the Kansas Board of Education passed a resolution mandating that I.D. be taught alongside evolution in classrooms, while in Dover, Pennsylvania, voters ousted several supporters of the theory from the local school board.

So where do I stand on this issue? I believe that intelligent design should indeed be taught in classrooms. Why? For one reason only - it truly is good science. This is not to say that Darwinian evolution is entirely wrong. But intelligent design certainly has enough evidence and plausibility to at least be considered a valid theory. I'm not a science writer and won't defend those particular merits here, but many excellent books and websites do just that; some popular ones are PrivilegedPlanet.com, a related blog called ID The Future, and the slightly more religious-based GeraldSchroeder.com.

Now, if intelligent design is indeed true, the implications for humanity are, of course, staggering. This alone is enough for many people to support or oppose the theory. But implications should not be involved when considering whether to teach it in classrooms; only scientific validity matters. And as the above websites demonstrate, intelligent design contains plenty of this.

Teaching I.D., in fact, is far more consistent with the scientific method than banning it. Whenever a substantiated theory arises in any area of science, it should be accepted at minimum as containing the potential of being truly valid. To dismiss this possibility due to implications would simply be poor science. Indeed, if all new theories were discarded as such, evolution itself never would have survived the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. Intelligent design deserves no less consideration.

That said, some of the implication-based criticisms do raise valid questions, and I'd like to address the most common ones I've encountered:

Criticism #1: Darwinian evolution has been proven to be correct, so there is no need for any competing theories.

Answer: This may be true on a micro-level, but not on the macro-level necessary to dismiss competing theories. On the micro-level, we certainly have observed that species can both develop new characteristics and undergo natural selection. Among bacteria, for example, genetic mutations occur regularly, and when under attack from an antibiotic, only those bacteria with resistant genes will survive. Our constant need to develop new antibiotics, in fact, is a direct result of this bacterial micro-evolution.

Macro-evolution, however, is an entirely different story. We have never observed one species actually transforming into another (and certainly not doing so randomly), a la Darwin's theory. Darwinists, of course, reply that such change occurs only over many thousands or millions of years. But while this position can certainly be theorized and supported by evidence, it just as certainly cannot be definitively verified. Potential evidence is not the same as proof.

Criticism #2: Intelligent design is dangerous because it represents the imposition of organized religion onto people.

Answer: Certainly many who do wish to impose organized religion believe that intelligent design supports their reasoning. But the theory itself advocates no particular faith, and clearly can be taught without violating our public schools' church-state separation.

Criticism #3: Opposing evolution is akin to the Catholic Church's opposition of Copernicus and Galileo in the 1600s.

Answer: Actually it is quite different, on multiple levels. First of all, the Church persecuted Copernicus and Galileo on religious grounds and forced them to publicly retract their scientific findings (extremely controversial at the time) that the Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the Sun. Intelligent design demands nothing of the sort with Darwinism, and advocates of I.D. maintain that it be taught alongside, and not in place of, evolution.

Secondly, unlike macro-evolution, Earth's rotations and revolutions can be directly measured. We know factually that these occur because we regularly observe them in action. This quite differs from a technically unproven theory, as discussed above in the answer to Criticism #1.

Criticism #4: Advocates of intelligent design don't seem so intelligent themselves in the eyes of mainstream America.

Answer: In fact, polls indicate that a majority of Americans support the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution.

Even with such support, though, scientific validity and not public opinion should decide the issue. Most people dismissed Einstein's theory of relativity upon its first proposal, but ultimately scientific merit triumphed and today we largely accept it.

Science is all about discovering how the world works. And since intelligent design provides a scientifically plausible and evidence-backed explanation of our planetary and biological origins, it certainly deserves to be taught as such.