Does the Earth revolve around the sun?

To the editor:

The writer of the Oct. 18 “Good news, Bad news” letter is alarmed that: “We live in a nation that could provide leadership to combat growing climate change,” but people in government are blocking the effort. No need to be alarmed on this. Be alarmed about “fake science” that is misleading so many folks these days.

As Cal Thomas stated in June, regarding scientific consensus, “climate scientists who disagree on that consensus have been largely shut out of the debate. Their papers and ideas are blocked from mainstream scientific journals and, thus, are not subject to peer review.” He goes on to show that “scientific consensus” has at times turned out wrong.

One of the publications I subscribe to is the prestigious “Science” magazine published weekly by the American Association for Advancement of Science. A lot of smart people publish their works in it. However, when you go to the third page, you will see a list of people, starting with the editor in chief, of more than 100 people and their job titles. Next to that is a list of about 200 people on the board of reviewing editors. At the bottom, in very small light gray print, it says: Science serves as a forum for discussion of important issues related to the advancement of science by publishing material on which a consensus has been reached as well as “including the presentation of minority conflicting points of view” (my emphasis).

The biggest thing in science today is genome biology. The rate of new discoveries and technical advancements is just mind boggling. You would think with all that evidence resulting from trying to figure out how such a truly massive array of molecular machinery even works, it would be a “no brainer” supporting “intelligent design.” Yet where are the “minority conflicting points of view” on ID versus macro-evolution? I’ve not seen them.

The magazine seems hell-bent on pushing macro-evolution in almost every issue, no matter how stupid it looks.

The same can be said for young age versus old age of the Earth. There is actually more evidence for a young Earth than for a billions of years old Earth, yet that evidence is never presented. Why? Ditto for heliocentricity versus geocentricity; does the earth go around the sun, or does the sun go around the earth? There still is no solid proof that the Earth goes around the sun; but it is still taught in schools as dogmatic fact. Why?

Same kind of sophistry/cover-up applies to man-made global warming; nothing solid, just a lot of endless speculative propaganda.

The education establishment today is supposedly teaching kids about critical thinking. And they probably do, just as long as they don’t get too bold and start thinking outside the confines of the “politically correct science box,” and thereby discover the many faceted world of “fake science.”

Phil Drietz