This is a question that should be asked on a regular basis after all public funding is quite extensive in this area. Evolutionary science mainly relies on the hypothesis or theory first method.
This means if the theory requires for certain mechanisms like in this case, generate mass, equipment is used to fit it into the desired framework. Large Hadron Collider is a typical example of this, they are hoping to find evidence of this particle that Nobel laureate Leon Lederman called the “God particle.” This machine cost over 6 billion dollars to manufacture plus all the hours researchers put in. Then there is a ‘theory’ which is not observable called, “Dark matter.”
This idea was invented in order to fill in a gap that was a major problem…
“Dark matter is a proposed form of matter that could make up 22 percent of the universe’s mass-energy budget, vastly outweighing all the normal matter, like stars and galaxies. Astronomers can’t observe dark matter directly, but they think it’s there because of the gravitational pull it seems to exert on everything else. Without dark matter, the thinking goes, galaxies would fly apart.
“As if that weren’t weird enough, scientists think another 74 percent of the mass-energy budget could be made of some strange quantity called dark energy. This force is thought to be responsible for the accelerating pace of the expansion of the universe. (For those keeping track, that would leave only a measly 4 percent of the universe composed of normal matter.”
Calibrating accurately how much smoothing, or blurring the telescope is causing to its images is being debated by some in this area, because if the calibration is off, so are the assumptions of dark matter and dark energy. I’ve been critical of scientists embracing such a concept because of the limitations for observing space. Jumping to conclusions is a major problem with research, there are many other examples not related to space as well. Millions of hard earned money from the public have been spent on researching this area.
On a brighter note, adult stem cell research continues to reach new highs. A new treatment restored a man’s vision which he lost 60 years ago! Stem cell transplants may in fact be critical treatment for chemical burns! And since the stem cells are from the patient themselves, there is no worries of rejection. Could funds be shifted into better research that has promising results that benefit mankind rather than into a complex model that scientists research for many years and most likely can be falsified or can never be verified?
The answer is, “yes” there is a lot of waste going on in the field of science and by shifting the funds from non-important research to more important will vastly improve scientific research!