HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Sept. 27, 2005 Scientists and skeptics are often called arrogant, even though they readily admit that most of what we think can be known is not known – lets say that we still have 99.9% to learn about the cosmos. Isn't it ironic then that magical thinkers of all kind (clergy, fundies, new agers, superstitious types) first dispute the .1% that we do know, and then proceed to become experts on what we don't know? Even more ironic, is that there is no consensus among magical thinkers (even within the same religion, for example, one can find multitudes of sub-faiths which have critical differences). Take Intelligent Design for example. First we are told the universe is too complex to have formed randomly or without Higher guidance (I wonder what their basis of comparison is? Too complex as compared to what, other universes?) Second, we are told that the Big Bang is a flawed theory because it doesn't answer where the initial super-dense hot point came from. Third, they tell us that they do in fact know where everything really came from! In that great unknown, they say, lives God. How do we jump scientifically from knowing nothing about what's “outside” of our universe, to deducing that therein exists not just something, not just a living creature, not just an intelligent creature, but an all powerful, all knowing creature, which must be the most complex “thing” in existence? And, why can't we get a good to answer to the blatantly obvious question which follows, “Ok, then where did that creature come from?” Religion may find such a question offensive, but keep in mind that Intelligent Design is passed off as “science”, so it's the next logical question. That type of reasoning is called, “the God of the gaps”. It's like saying that because no one reading this knows what's in my pocket right now, snakes exist. Snakes exist, of course, and, there may be gods out there, but gaps in knowledge are not evidence. There could be nothing in my pocket, or, just lint (or more likely, a partially snotted tissue). Likewise, the “region” outside of our universe might simply be the next notch up the scale of the cosmos, where universes are made and destroyed as commonly as soap bubbles. Knowing nothing about this zone, my guess is as good that of any magical thinker. The difference is, I don't believe that my guess equals an absolute Truth with a capital T, nor do I try to pass off my opinion as science. I'm often amused by creationist propaganda. One in my collection is a little black and white comic book. It shows an angry and arrogant college professor explaining the Big Bang to his class. A very nice, calm and respectful Christian student disagrees, causing the professor to sweat profusely. It really is a hilarious to read! Anyway, the student debates the professor into a corner – he makes him reach the limit of his knowledge and the professor storms out of the class in disgust. The next few pages show several other unsolved science mysteries and concludes that, therefore, God exists. The back of the comic shows what happens too all of the evil arrogant scientists - they burn in Hell, while pretty Caucasian looking people with large fluffy wings and long flowing hair watch from far above, crying. This is of course 'God of the gaps' once again. Unfortunately, all too often, this type of thing works on many people, because as a nation, we are scientifically illiterate. I'm actually shocked that the comic didn't reach its flawed and silly conclusion sooner. Take sight, for example. How do we see? Light comes into our eyes and hits special cells which transfer the information to our brains where the datum is converted into an image that we perceive. This can branch into many end points or “gaps”. For example, what is light? Lets say simply that light is particles known as photons. Ok, what are photons? We could go a few steps further down and get to a level where he have no further clue. What are sub-sub-atomic particles made out of? No one yet knows. Does this mean that everything we do know about optics, lenses, the wave/particle duality of light, lasers, nuclear fusion, stars, relativity, and so forth, is wrong? Of course not – it just means that we don't have infinite knowledge. Does this prove that little gods sit inside light particles? Of course not. Might there be gods in light particles? Sure, but there might also be leaves, or Korean flags, or Smurfs in yoga poses. Let me bring this back to the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory itself doesn't try to explain what came “before”. This is not a flaw in the theory, any more than the above explanation of how we see is a flaw. A detective may have a great theory with lots of evidence as to why a husband murdered his wife. Must his theory encompass everything, including why human nature allows murder in the first place, for it to be valid? [Of course we have to remember that my analogy is flawed because the common use of the word theory differs greatly from the scientific use of the word theory, but I think the point of my analogy is clear.] The Big Bang is a rock solid theory, with mountains of good evidence. Like all real theories, it made predictions which have been tested and confirmed. It is perhaps the single most monumental discovery of the 20th century, and will go down in history as such. If magical thinkers want to challenge this theory, they will need real evidence, and approach the subject in terms of science. Finally, the Big Bang is rather unrelated to biological evolution – evolution was a fine theory long before we knew about the Big Bang. Creationists, however, often tie them together, because the evolution of mankind and the origins of the universe have specific meaning in various religious texts. The Intelligent Design movement is just Biblical creationism, revamped; the history of the movement and its various political affiliations and sources of money are clear for the most part – Google it. Are scientists arrogant? Some scientists sound that way at times, but they are only people after all, with the same motivations that people in any other field have. In general, however, science, as an institution, as a school of thought is not arrogant. Quite the opposite - it presumes to know far less than the magical thinkers presume to know. ------------ About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys. This is my second foray into the UK writing discordia. This time around, I want to be a tad more raw - maybe a bit edgier (does that sound "art-see"?) Maybe I'll address even more issues that most Americans consider taboo... About my personal background and life: I was born, I got some education, worked, ate, and had some kids. It seems I like to write – something that was unknown to me until relatively recently...How's that for detail? ;) Like so many these days, I too have a blog! But, I haven't updated it since the day after I signed up for it, so I won't bother to give out the link. I tend to make the same silly grammatical errors over and over again, and my many many attempts at proofreading often fail, so if you find anything wrong, send me some hate mail; I do love to get hate mail! Email: dahlek65@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
