“Common science,” akin to common sense, is what protein chemist Douglas Axe calls an activity we’ve all grown up doing: observing phenomena in the world, analyzing them using models in our mind to see how they work, refining our models as more data comes in, sometimes overturning our understanding of a thing when the data convincingly turns against the way we thought of it.
This requires no training, no PhD. We do it naturally from childhood on.
In his new book, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed, Dr. Axe grants readers permission to listen to their inner “common scientist.” See the short video conversation above for more.
Obviously, this is not to discount the importance of technical, professional science. But one thing I notice, as a science consumer following the evolution debate, is the way Darwinists use technical detail to obfuscate the issue of biological origins. The method is to spew out a lot of jargon, or mount a display of learned references, to impress readers and listeners, to intimidate opponents, to divert the discussion from major to minor matters, or all three.
For many people, unclear communication is simply a failure of sympathy — where you don’t think to try to imagine whether your audience is able to follow what you’re saying. With the most dedicated Darwinists, especially those with a technical background, it’s a shrewd tactic of misdirection.
We see this in politics: if you’re a canny politician you may set traps for an opponent to get him talking about trivia instead of the vital issues where you are vulnerable. In scientific discussions, you can do the very same thing.