O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge—by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen.
(1 Timothy 6:20-21) NKJV
We’re critical of the philosophical construction of the scientific method because it’s been meticulously crafted to exclude any possibility that the truth can be either an acceptable premise, or a possible conclusion.
Archaeopteris is an extinct genus of tree-like plant with fern-like leaves. A useful index fossil, this tree is found in strata dating from the Upper Devonian to Lower Carboniferous (383 to 323 million years ago), and had global distribution.
– Archaeopteris (Wikipedia)
We accidentally debunked the scientific method and it ended our academic career.
We made the mistake of exposing a major weakness in the experimental method used in cladistic phylogenetic analysis.
To make a long story short, we showed that your experimental result is entirely dependent on your experimental design: garbage in, garbage out.
This means that scientists can’t help but produce biased results, because the supposedly impartial experiments are constructed by the theoretical paradigm that they’re in.
With that being said, we love science with a passion. Science in its purest form is about systematically organizing facts and data, and looking for patterns that emerge. We love organizing. We love to see order emerge from chaos. It’s fascinating. The conclusions that we draw from the patterns we see are shaped by the organizational structure we used. For this reason, we have to be very mindful about this structure and attempt, in so far as it’s possible, to eliminate any personal bias from it. This is where the problem lies. This is the point, long ago, when popular science (SciPop) diverged from the truth and went on its merry way.
When we were working on Archaeopteris we weren’t a Christian, but what we learned is that computers can only tell you what you tell them first. A computer isn’t a source of new knowledge or some startling revelation about human origins. If you want to believe that humans are the product of evolution then that’s how you’ll code your character state matrix. A computer can only tell you what you told it.
Matty's Paradigm 
One Reply to “Archaeopteris”