Be wary when placing trust in junk science

Freedom New Mexico

A recent poll asked Americans who and what they trust. It found that Republicans trust religion more than science; Democrats trust science more than religion.

Neither should trust in science, as it is a discipline of proof.

Most religious beliefs cannot be proved, so those who submit to religion do so in nothing more than willing faith. When we submit to science, trust and faith should have no role. To act upon science, we must demand proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Science has proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that microorganisms exist and the world is round. Seemingly countless scientific truths require no faith.

Unfortunately, faith is often extended to ideas and theories simply because someone labels them as science. Too often, we place faith in junk science.

Anthropogenic global warming theory may someday rate as proven science. It remains unproved and in question by some of the world’s leading scientists. It requires an extension of faith in humans who insist it is true. We’re not certain, beyond reasonable doubt, this theory won’t unravel.

Throughout much of the 20th Century, suspects were convicted by jurors who placed blind faith in fingerprint analysis, deceptively characterized as a science. Today, we view much fingerprint analysis as junk. A higher science, DNA analysis, brought this to light by exonerating convicts whose lives were ruined by fingerprint junk science. Even sophisticated machines cannot match most prints with certainty, and usually it isn’t a machine doing the work.

“The supposed science of fingerprints is more like an elaborate boys club of certified examiners who decide — subjectively and not always consistently — what constitutes a match,” wrote New York Public Defender David Feige, in a 2004 article for Slate.

Science and religion shape our world. To make big decisions based on science, we need proof. Faith and belief are allegiances extended to religion.