This article, published today in a major Swedish newspaper, reports that a possible scientific explanation has been found for the parting of the red sea event from the bible. This is a horrific example of science being used in reverse, where you start with a conclusion and then work your way backwards to find evidence that will support that conclusion (conveniently ignoring evidence pointing the other way). This is not how the scientific method should be used. When examining claims such as this one, it would probably be a better idea to start by first trying to figure out whether or not the event actually took place.
This does nothing to support the claim that the parting of the red sea actually took place, nor does it even begin to explain how the event was in any way an act of god. Hooray for pseudoscience. It really bugs me when faith groups try to present their superstitions as science. Sort of like how racists dress up in suits to gain the support of the public.
The original paper can be found here.
I can't read the article but I see nothing wrong with this "reverse use of science".
ReplyDeleteBasically, the question: "is there a plausible scientific explanation for an event that could be (mis)interpreted as this biblical event" is a valid one. The existance of a plausible scientific explanation doesn't prove anything, except that this "similar" event is not impossible.
If a question is interesting, even just as a puzzle, there will be researchers that will work on it.