Am I alone here in my concern and frustration that thinking individuals reject well-established scientific theories like big bang and evolution?
My distress stems directly from the religious right's attack on public education in the arena of science (i.e. major court cases, in their chronological order: Epperson v. Arkansas, Segraves v. State of California, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, Edwards v. Aguillard, Webster v. New Lenox School District, Peloza v. Capistrano School District, Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al., Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al., Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover). This monumental, multi-pronged attack on science is further diluting this country's subpar scientific literacy, which negatively impacts our economy and weakens our position in the global marketplace over time. Here's why this happens:
Science powers the economy of tomorrow.
Disclaimer: the use of "tomorrow" here is figurative. It can be decades before a scientific breakthrough manifests itself economically.
It is impossible to exaggerate this truth. Here's a good example, one in line with my disclaimer:
Quantum mechanics, initially formulated in the 1910's, powers 1/3 of the world's economy.
With this being said, will religious fundamentalists ever understand that science does not represent "one viewpoint" against which competing faith-based worldviews can be legitimately contrasted and compared as if on a level playing field?
If science is a viewpoint, then it is nature's viewpoint. Here's how:
Science is us asking the questions and letting nature provide the answers.
The bad news for science is that humans are conducting it. We do and will continue to err in our recording and understanding of the experimental data we gather throughout the natural world.
The good news is that forward progress, however expensive and slow, is assured by the coupling of two wonderful things: unfettered investigation and systematic garbage collection. This self-correcting mechanism that weeds out nonsense incorporates a stringent peer-review process whereby experiments are repeated at the hands of disinterested scientists, all of whom are eager to make a name for themselves by debunking the findings of other scientists. This provides a rock-solid foundation for incrementing towards increasingly accurate explanations of natural anomaly.
Despite the unfortunate human element muddling the advance of science, it is in our best interests for everyone to recognize the following:
Technology is a concrete testament to the power and legitimacy of the scientific method.
Note: the irony of anti-science campaigners depending on the fruits of science to campaign at all is not lost on me. This is hypocrisy truly unbounded.
As of yet, the scientific method is the only means by which humans have escaped this planet to explore the vast unknown universe abroad. At this level of human achievement, personal revelation is not, in the slightest measure, a contributing factor. This should not come as a surprise or offense. It's simply the result of our human circumstance.
Apart from the extreme practicality and usefulness of the scientific method...
We cannot prove scientific theories.
Scientific theories never graduate to become laws. The absolute best we can do, with the methods and tools of science, is gather observable data and formulate natural explanations (scientific theories) that unite them. For those explanations that survive the butchering block of ongoing scientific scrutiny long enough to gain the recognition of the science community, we are permanently standing by to dispassionately dismiss the ones whose predictions contradict observation (dismissal requires but one counter-observation). Such is the process of science.
This brings us to the quintessential aspect of science and scientific theory:
Disproof for standing scientific theories is the ongoing goal and the very process of practicing science.
Here is what this implies (it cannot be said loudly enough):
Well-established scientific theories are the cumulative result of what we have failed to disprove, rather than the result of what we want to be true.
Note: if you're a religious fundamentalist, please read this statement again and, for the love of God, comprehend it.
On this note, I expect rational and scientifically-literate people to take well-established scientific theories such as big bang and evolution seriously. The reason for this is dirt-simple:
The combined investigative effort of 150+ years of scientific scrutiny on the part of millions of collaborating experts has utterly failed to disprove evolutionary theory. With respect to big bang, it's somewhere on the order of 60+ years. These disproof efforts cease if and only if they succeed.
If you think the science community could mastermind, engineer, and perpetuate a big bang/evolution conspiracy on this scale, for so many decades, you do not understand science. And you probably didn't catch the part about disinterested scientists eager to establish their careers by disproving the work of other scientists. If there is a counter-observation out there waiting to debunk big bang or evolution, the scientist who discovers and successfully demonstrates it will immediately be heralded worldwide as a hero of science, and become a crucial part of scientific history.
What would happen if big bang or evolutionary theory was proved wrong and dismissed?
Would the several decades' worth of gathered and recorded observational facts supporting the failed theory have to be discarded?
The answer is no. Why?
Scientific theories unite existing facts (in science, fact is synonymous with observation) and predict new ones. If a theory is disproved, the facts upon which that theory rests remain untarnished. These facts must be accounted for by the next proposed theory placed on the butchering block. Here's what this translates to:
Science is in the business of being wrong in order to leave behind what is likely right.
Most of our scientific ideas are probably partial or wrong. This is not a fault of science or its method. It is a natural limitation of being human and attempting to understand the unspeakably complex world in which we find ourselves. The ever-present possibility of big bang or evolution being wrong, however remote, is not reasonable grounds for dismissal. Why?
The data gathered in science dictates our scientific understanding of the natural world.
Scientists do not decide what is scientifically valid by a show of hands. If you have a natural explanation that accounts for all of the facts (observations) on hand, then that explanation is the prevailing scientific theory. If an incoming observation contradicts what this prevailing explanation predicts, then the explanation is dismissed. Please note this is not a matter of scientists willfully "changing their minds" per personal disposition; it's a matter of observational data changing their minds for them. Intellectual honesty demands this type of response. And the unraveling of nature's secrets heavily depends upon it.
If you're a Christian who accepts well-established scientific theories, then I implore you to speak about them with any of your brethren who reject them. What could you possibly say or do? I think the best approach is to educate and demonstrate that scientific realities are not threats. They're something we should celebrate and incorporate into our faiths. Given what's at stake per the attack of Christian fundamentalists, I say this is the duty of every moderate Christian in this country. Even if I'm wrong on this point, you're probably our best hope of resolving this terrible conflict between science and religion.
Disclaimer: I am singling Christianity out because we are mostly a Christian country. Plus, our religious right attack on science is globally unique, especially considering the scale it has unfortunately inflated to.
If you're a religious fundamentalist who opposes big bang and evolution, then I would urge you to reconsider our expanding universe and genetic unity with all organisms on this planet as nonthreatening, beautiful, and worthy of celebration. I won't bother discussing objective evidence here because you don't value it, at least when it appears to bear teeth. You should also be aware that your position forces you to intentionally misunderstand scientific theory in principle. How can this be?
The recognition of scientific theories as the ongoing result of what we cannot disprove implies that well-established scientific theories are very, very likely true. A scientific theory that has survived scientific scrutiny for decades therefore has decades' worth of observational facts in support of it.
This truth makes an absolute mockery of the creationist canards proclaiming evolution and big bang as having no supporting scientific evidence.
Here's my last point:
Understanding the natural world is best served by seeking truth irrespective of emotional or moral ramifications.
You're free to dislike and discount our genetic relationship with all organisms on earth.
You're just as free to trivialize and caricaturize the expansion of our universe.
These natural realities don't give a shit.
.
My distress stems directly from the religious right's attack on public education in the arena of science (i.e. major court cases, in their chronological order: Epperson v. Arkansas, Segraves v. State of California, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, Edwards v. Aguillard, Webster v. New Lenox School District, Peloza v. Capistrano School District, Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al., Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al., Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover). This monumental, multi-pronged attack on science is further diluting this country's subpar scientific literacy, which negatively impacts our economy and weakens our position in the global marketplace over time. Here's why this happens:
Science powers the economy of tomorrow.
Disclaimer: the use of "tomorrow" here is figurative. It can be decades before a scientific breakthrough manifests itself economically.
It is impossible to exaggerate this truth. Here's a good example, one in line with my disclaimer:
Quantum mechanics, initially formulated in the 1910's, powers 1/3 of the world's economy.
With this being said, will religious fundamentalists ever understand that science does not represent "one viewpoint" against which competing faith-based worldviews can be legitimately contrasted and compared as if on a level playing field?
If science is a viewpoint, then it is nature's viewpoint. Here's how:
Science is us asking the questions and letting nature provide the answers.
The bad news for science is that humans are conducting it. We do and will continue to err in our recording and understanding of the experimental data we gather throughout the natural world.
The good news is that forward progress, however expensive and slow, is assured by the coupling of two wonderful things: unfettered investigation and systematic garbage collection. This self-correcting mechanism that weeds out nonsense incorporates a stringent peer-review process whereby experiments are repeated at the hands of disinterested scientists, all of whom are eager to make a name for themselves by debunking the findings of other scientists. This provides a rock-solid foundation for incrementing towards increasingly accurate explanations of natural anomaly.
Despite the unfortunate human element muddling the advance of science, it is in our best interests for everyone to recognize the following:
Technology is a concrete testament to the power and legitimacy of the scientific method.
Note: the irony of anti-science campaigners depending on the fruits of science to campaign at all is not lost on me. This is hypocrisy truly unbounded.
As of yet, the scientific method is the only means by which humans have escaped this planet to explore the vast unknown universe abroad. At this level of human achievement, personal revelation is not, in the slightest measure, a contributing factor. This should not come as a surprise or offense. It's simply the result of our human circumstance.
Apart from the extreme practicality and usefulness of the scientific method...
We cannot prove scientific theories.
Scientific theories never graduate to become laws. The absolute best we can do, with the methods and tools of science, is gather observable data and formulate natural explanations (scientific theories) that unite them. For those explanations that survive the butchering block of ongoing scientific scrutiny long enough to gain the recognition of the science community, we are permanently standing by to dispassionately dismiss the ones whose predictions contradict observation (dismissal requires but one counter-observation). Such is the process of science.
This brings us to the quintessential aspect of science and scientific theory:
Disproof for standing scientific theories is the ongoing goal and the very process of practicing science.
Here is what this implies (it cannot be said loudly enough):
Well-established scientific theories are the cumulative result of what we have failed to disprove, rather than the result of what we want to be true.
Note: if you're a religious fundamentalist, please read this statement again and, for the love of God, comprehend it.
On this note, I expect rational and scientifically-literate people to take well-established scientific theories such as big bang and evolution seriously. The reason for this is dirt-simple:
The combined investigative effort of 150+ years of scientific scrutiny on the part of millions of collaborating experts has utterly failed to disprove evolutionary theory. With respect to big bang, it's somewhere on the order of 60+ years. These disproof efforts cease if and only if they succeed.
If you think the science community could mastermind, engineer, and perpetuate a big bang/evolution conspiracy on this scale, for so many decades, you do not understand science. And you probably didn't catch the part about disinterested scientists eager to establish their careers by disproving the work of other scientists. If there is a counter-observation out there waiting to debunk big bang or evolution, the scientist who discovers and successfully demonstrates it will immediately be heralded worldwide as a hero of science, and become a crucial part of scientific history.
What would happen if big bang or evolutionary theory was proved wrong and dismissed?
Would the several decades' worth of gathered and recorded observational facts supporting the failed theory have to be discarded?
The answer is no. Why?
Scientific theories unite existing facts (in science, fact is synonymous with observation) and predict new ones. If a theory is disproved, the facts upon which that theory rests remain untarnished. These facts must be accounted for by the next proposed theory placed on the butchering block. Here's what this translates to:
Science is in the business of being wrong in order to leave behind what is likely right.
Most of our scientific ideas are probably partial or wrong. This is not a fault of science or its method. It is a natural limitation of being human and attempting to understand the unspeakably complex world in which we find ourselves. The ever-present possibility of big bang or evolution being wrong, however remote, is not reasonable grounds for dismissal. Why?
The data gathered in science dictates our scientific understanding of the natural world.
Scientists do not decide what is scientifically valid by a show of hands. If you have a natural explanation that accounts for all of the facts (observations) on hand, then that explanation is the prevailing scientific theory. If an incoming observation contradicts what this prevailing explanation predicts, then the explanation is dismissed. Please note this is not a matter of scientists willfully "changing their minds" per personal disposition; it's a matter of observational data changing their minds for them. Intellectual honesty demands this type of response. And the unraveling of nature's secrets heavily depends upon it.
If you're a Christian who accepts well-established scientific theories, then I implore you to speak about them with any of your brethren who reject them. What could you possibly say or do? I think the best approach is to educate and demonstrate that scientific realities are not threats. They're something we should celebrate and incorporate into our faiths. Given what's at stake per the attack of Christian fundamentalists, I say this is the duty of every moderate Christian in this country. Even if I'm wrong on this point, you're probably our best hope of resolving this terrible conflict between science and religion.
Disclaimer: I am singling Christianity out because we are mostly a Christian country. Plus, our religious right attack on science is globally unique, especially considering the scale it has unfortunately inflated to.
If you're a religious fundamentalist who opposes big bang and evolution, then I would urge you to reconsider our expanding universe and genetic unity with all organisms on this planet as nonthreatening, beautiful, and worthy of celebration. I won't bother discussing objective evidence here because you don't value it, at least when it appears to bear teeth. You should also be aware that your position forces you to intentionally misunderstand scientific theory in principle. How can this be?
The recognition of scientific theories as the ongoing result of what we cannot disprove implies that well-established scientific theories are very, very likely true. A scientific theory that has survived scientific scrutiny for decades therefore has decades' worth of observational facts in support of it.
This truth makes an absolute mockery of the creationist canards proclaiming evolution and big bang as having no supporting scientific evidence.
Here's my last point:
Understanding the natural world is best served by seeking truth irrespective of emotional or moral ramifications.
You're free to dislike and discount our genetic relationship with all organisms on earth.
You're just as free to trivialize and caricaturize the expansion of our universe.
These natural realities don't give a shit.
.
