How science works

Cold fusion, reparative therapy, Intelligent Design, plate tectonics. There are a number of explanations of how facts fit together. Some of them are accepted as science theory some are not. What makes the difference? Does the proposal provide ways to test whether or not it works? Do the facts support the theory? Is it falsifiable? (Please note that falsifiable in science is the ability to be proved wrong and is used rather than truth)

Cold fusion was a very popular idea. One experiment seemed to show that it happened, but then it couldn't be repeated. Science isn't about miracles or one time happenings. Science is about what can be repeated, show to happen again and again.

Reparative therapy still remains popular in some circles, but the problem is the people who espouse it don't do any clear testing of whether it works. And the other major scientific and psychological organizations look at study after study that shows that it doesn't work. Science is about peer review and repeated study. If something brings more psychological problems than benefits then it can't become a scientific theory, if you change the meaning of words to make your study work, then it's not science. Reparative therapy had a wonderful time when it was cutting edge and was presumed to work. Changes in behavior happened. But, though it took longer than cold fusion time after time it was shown not to work and not to help.

Intelligent Design is the latest attempt of creationism to mix religion and science to the detriment of both. The biggest problem that it posits an outside creator. There is a wink, wink, nudge, nudge, oh it could be an alien, but everyone who supports Intelligent Design believes that it is a Creator God. But science isn't about the supernatural. Science isn't about God. Science works with facts and replicability and falsifiability. Science limits itself to the natural world. And while as a religious person I believe that God is in the natural and supernatural, God is also subtle enough that we don't necessarily see the work that God is doing.

Plate tectonics is one of those theories (now it is a theory in the scientific sense) that was dismissed when it first came up as an idea. But the scientists used their idea to figure out tests for falsifiability. And when those tests didn't prove the idea wrong they wrote papers that were peer-reviewed. And then they went and figured out more wast to test for falsifiability and published the results of those tests in peer-reviewed journals. They didn't start with popularizing their point of view. They didn't send preachers and teachers to teach the controversy. They did the hard work of testing and verifying and asking if this is so what facts should we be able to find.

Intelligent Design proponents and reparative therapy supporters aren't willing to do that hard work. While some of them publish in peer reviewed journals, they don't publish on the ideas of Intelligent Design and Reparative Therapies. While some of them cite works that have been published in peer-reviewed journals, they seem to get called by the researchers they quote for misusing and misstating the evidence. They fail for the same reason cold fusion failed, what they suggest isn't replicable or falsifiable. They just have some supporters who don't listen to the evidence and keep parroting tired old myths as if repetition proves their point.

Science is about looking at the evidence and changing the theory to fit the evidence. Proponents of Intelligent Design and reparative therapies are about twisting the evidence to fit their beliefs. For them I quote from Augustine in The Literal Meaning of Genesis.

even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. Â… If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.