1. © Colin Frayn, 2008 www.frayn.net What are we discussing? ‘Science’ is the process of discovering and testing knowledge through rigorous, evidence-based methods Scientists use the scientific method to check their theories Science is not based on –Opinion “It’s true because I say so and I’m older than you!” –Intuition “It feels like it ought to be true!” –Dogma Einstein said so, therefore it must be true!” –Desire “I really want it to be true!”

2. © Colin Frayn, 2008 www.frayn.net Scientific Method (1) In order to build reliable models of the Universe we need :- –Hypotheses (ideas) that we can test –Models to explain these hypotheses –Evidence for (or against) these models –Methods for validating this evidence –Methods for assessing the hypotheses based on this evidence –A public sharing of these results –Thorough, continued error-checking

3. © Colin Frayn, 2008 www.frayn.net Scientific Method (2) Scientific method –We propose a hypothesis –We make predictions based on this hypothesis –These predictions are tested based on reliable evidence –The evidence is assessed to see how it supports or denies the hypothesis –The evidence and the results deduced from it are subjected to rigorous review –Results are published openly –Results are open to modification if a superior theory ever arises

4. © Colin Frayn, 2008 www.frayn.net This is not Science! Many claims arise of the form ‘This is just not science!’ –A science conforms to the scientific method –Anything that doesn’t is not a science …and has no reasonable claim to accuracy The Theory of Evolution has been tested by scientific method –It is supported by lots of evidence –It makes testable predictions –It fits beautifully with the rest of science

5. © Colin Frayn, 2008 www.frayn.net Scientific Evidence Imagine a murder trial –What is considered evidence? DNA, fingerprints, murder weapon, nearby witnesses, strong motive… –Can we convict without a witness of the actual crime? Yes, of course we can Evidence for Evolution –You don’t have to see something happening to know that it’s true! Chicks hatching from eggs, butterflies in a chrysalis –You don’t see the changes happening, but you know they do! –Evolution makes many predictions Those predictions can be tested They always turn out to be correct

6. © Colin Frayn, 2008 www.frayn.net “Creationists are not against Science” Yes, they are! Sciences that are wrong if the Universe is 6,000 years old: –Physics Especially all of astrophysics, astronomy, cosmology, quantum physics and relativity –Geology Especially any part dealing with dating methods –Chemistry Especially any part overlapping with genetics & geology –Biology Especially evolutionary theory & genetics –Archaeology, Historical Anthropology

7. © Colin Frayn, 2008 www.frayn.net What does Hovind’s theory imply? If Hovind is right then at least one of these is true of millions of scientists: Mass stupidity –All scientists are idiots Ignorance –All scientists are ignorant of all of his theories Mass delusion –All scientists are in denial about the ‘truth’ Lies –Science is part of a huge conspiracy

8. © Colin Frayn, 2008 www.frayn.net Hovind’s Conspiracy Claim Scientists cover up the ‘truth’ because… –They think that if everyone believes evolution it will become true –They must teach the lie to keep the paycheck coming in –They understand the bigger picture of how evolution is the foundation for the New World Order –That is all they have been taught –They hope there is no God to answer to –Pride (This is Hovind’s explanation; these are taken directly from his presentations) Does he honestly believe this? Does anyone?

9. © Colin Frayn, 2008 www.frayn.net If it were true… If one person could prove any substantial part of science is wrong: Scientific Implications –All of science needs to be rewritten –Massive amounts of money floods into science –Many more jobs, public interest, excitement Awards –Nobel prizes for the discoverer –Set to become more famous than Einstein Huge amounts of money from books, speaking events, prizes etc.