When the Homily is about Immunology

Another example of retarded science reporting

Read the headline: "Human evolution speeding up"

Read the little snippet of fine print wherein lies the REAL fact: "rapid adaptive change is plausible."

You all know I am profoundly weary of speculation (however informed), questionable interpretation (however educated), and extrapolation (however reasonable) being reported/accepted as objective and verifiable fact.

Somebody please explain to me how they came up with these "facts": If evolution had been proceeding steadily at the current rate since humans and chimps separated 6 million years ago there should be 160 times more differences than the researchers found.

Stop and think about this: How do they know what the current rate of evolution is? How are they predicting or even identifying "differences", let alone "160 times more differences?" Especially if you are going to count something as minor as lactose intolerance and dental variations. And what exact proof do they have that chimps and humans split off 6 million years ago? As opposed to say 7 million or 5 million or 10 million years ago or EVER? Or are all these "facts" actually in the same category as this "fact": "Most anthropologists agree that humans first evolved in Africa..."

Ah yes consensus....like the magisterium of old. Obey and don't ask questions.

I won't even touch the mystery of Jews evolving intelligence because of their being pressured into certain jobs during the Middle Ages. I thought they said this stuff occurs "over thousands of years"...now let me think...when was the medieval period? Hmmmm....I guess intelligence must be as simple as lactose intolerance. Surely we've isolated that Ashkenazi intelligence gene, right? No? Oh.

When do you suppose these guys will be brave enough to admit: We are really not sure. We are guessing. We are looking at data and trying to piece it together. We could be wrong. Such statements should absolutely be the voice of science...even some of the most well known and seemingly verified facts and laws of science have in recent years proven to be open to exception. Much more can today's much less verifiable and already open to interpretation and speculation "facts" (like chimps and human having a common ancestor 6 millions years ago) be expected to have potential for exceptions, change or even utter abandonment.

Science is becoming less and less as it should be and is more and more becoming a religion: a statement of faith and dogma not to be denied or questioned. And it is wielding political power such that we have not seen since the Middle Ages and the Church. I wonder if the reason we report science news stories with much grander and definitive conclusions than the actual evidence supports (often the researchers original published paper is much more REAL) is because we don't like the idea of science not being omniscient?