My little rant about Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson

So, recently I ran an event that had Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson speaking at the event.  In fact the event was really mostly a time for him to speak and then autograph some book he wrote afterwards.

Neil is self-proclaimed “non-religious.”  I realize that his has his own belief and thought process and I can accept that, but it was difficult to see how far off base he really was. It was even harder to watch some 2000 people hang on his every word.

At one point, he said, “if Christians want to refute scientific data on the basis of their belief, that is fine, but their belief does not make it correct.”  He went on to say, “I long for the day when the religious understand  that their beliefs cannot refute science.”

So, with all of that, I have the following to say….

The definition of scientific method is as follows:

“Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.”

I must reference the bolded text above.  I believe this is a key line in the definition of the scientific method; the interpretation MUST be unbiased. I would argue that Dr. deGrasse Tyson is biased against religion, as he has several times referred to himself as “non-religious, not against religion, but enlightened beyond it.”  By his own statements, deGrasse Tyson, convicts himself of being biased.

My next argument is the lack of controls in his scientific method.

The description of scientific controls is below:

A positive control is a procedure that is very similar to the actual experimental test, but which is known from previous experience to give a positive result. A negative control is known to give a negative result. The positive control confirms that the basic conditions of the experiment were able to produce a positive result, even if none of the actual experimental samples produce a positive result. The negative control demonstrates the base-line result obtained when a test does not produce a measurable positive result; often the value of the negative control is treated as a “background” value to be subtracted from the test sample results, or be used as the “100%” value against which the test sample results are weighed.

For example, in an enzyme assay to measure the amount of an enzyme in a set of extracts, a positive control would be an assay where you add some of the purified enzyme, and a negative control would be where you do not add any extract. The positive control should give a large amount of enzyme activity, while the negative control should give very low to no activity.

So, in the scientific test, you need to add positive and negative controls to fully test the method. Under this understanding, and being that Dr. deGrasse Tyson was specifically talking on the Big Bang theory, how do you establish a positive and negative control? There is really only one way, the positive control being GOD, and the negative control being the BANG. So, how then, does one add positive control to their experiment? Do you really believe you have the scientific power to add God into the test?

I completely argue that in any test of the Big Bang theory, there has never been a positive control. You cannot pressure God to throw His power in for your little experiment. So, you cannot with any shred of decency, tell me that your scientific study has proved the Big Bang created the universe instead of God.

The next time you want to present your “factual data” you might want to consider the very premise of scientific method – solid controls – something which you cannot do in this equation. Your argument sir, is dead wrong, and completely biased in your own opinion, or one might say, belief. If you want to criticize a group of people for their beliefs, you might want to look into your own mirror, and realize that your belief cannot prove scientific data.