• Home
• Date-O-Matic
• Verse-O-Matic
• Web Tools
• WP-Members

Sad Science

I recently had an interesting conversation with a coworker (actually a subordinate of mine). I was returning a copy of a recent issue of Time Magazine after photocopying an article that I wanted to read later. He assumed that I was reading (or copying) the cover story on the Creation vs. Evolution debate and asked what I thought of the article. I mentioned that I was actually interested in a different article.

Well, he went on to say that it was a great article and I should read it. He asked me what my take on the situation was and what I believed. I said that since I am a Christian, I side with the Intelligent Design crowd. At this point, he mentioned to me three things, 1. He does not believe in God so Intelligent Design really doesn’t make any sense, 2. His degrees are in Anthropology and Pre-med, and 3. With a formal science education, he felt that there was little room for me to debate him on the subject. So, I figured that I had better let him dig his own hole before I filled it in.

He told me that since evolution was a fact that has been proven by science, there should not be a discussion of Intelligent Design in the classroom. He went on that there are no holes in the fossil record and that even if there were, based on an analogy of criminal forensics, you don’t need every piece of evidence to complete the picture. He closed by making some statement that included a statement to the effect of modern humans evolving from apes.

Now, for those of you who know me, you should already see where I am going to punch holes in his theory. Let me start by saying, I didn’t want to turn this into an argument of positions. All that would accomplish would be to force this man into his corner entrenching further into his position. Besides, we have had, as a course of our work, many interesting and in depth discussions of a geopolitical, economic, or ethical nature. As such, I know he respects my opinions and positions on many issues, regardless of whether he agrees or not. I did not want to change that because I want him to retain an open mind, put some thought into my point, and maybe some seeds would be planted.

My education was very similar to his and I told him so. My degree studies were in Biology and Anthropology. More specifically, my Biology emphasis was Zoology and the majority of my work in Antropology was in Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. (So, don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.) So with this, I worked backward through his position.

1. Anyone who paid attention in even the most basic Physical Anthropology class (especially an Anthro major) would know that the statement “Man evolved from apes” is incorrect even in evolutionary circles. Anthropologists believe that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor, so by stating it incorrectly, you are revealing to me that you may not actually fully understand your own position.

2. Ditto for stating that Evolution is a fact proven by science. I informed my friend that, again, if he paid attention in class, he would recall that by definition the scientific method only disproves or fails to disprove. It never can actually prove anything. All of our laws of science come unglued the day a core theory is found to be incorrect. It has happened time after time after time throughout history (including modern history).

3. While it is true that a criminal forensics professional does not need 100% of the evidence to put forth a theory of the crime, they do need enough of the right evidence to develop a theory, and even more to support it. Furthermore, that does not mean the developed theory is indisputable fact, and we have seen evidence of this play out in our courts. So it is with Evolution. We have pieces of evidence from the fossil record combined with our own observances of natural selection. That’s fine to develop a theory, but frankly, there is not enough evidence to support it as indisputable fact. Since science is about continual questioning of the world around us anyway, why would you want to close your mind to question what we think we know to be true. Not very scientific, is it?

4. Now here is where we found some common ground (other than our degree studies). Let’s call a spade a spade, I don’t like the term “Intelligent Design.” It sounds like it was created to appease those that would otherwise oppose a discussion of Creationism in the classroom. Let’s just say that we want to teach Creation as an alternative. While there may be room for some alternative debate in science class, Creationism is really religious in focus and should be treated as such. So the proper arena for this debate is on a philosophical plane and not in the laboratory. The spiritual world and the physical world do not often directly intersect. This is why religion, and more specifically, Creation, needs to be taken on faith. Science, which by definition must be able to observe to test hypotheses, does not have room for faith. My friend agreed.

I tried to tie things together so that maybe we can reopen discussion at a later time. Science, while never admitting that faith is acceptable, actually takes things on faith all the time. The holes in any theory that one cannot fill in must be taken on faith until the scientific method either disproves them or fails to disproves them. But, and this steps toward philosophy, if it fails to disprove, you are still taking those things on faith, whether you like it or not.

So if you can come to understand that, then here is some philosophical food for thought and contemplation. Do you know the difference between a Christian and an Atheist? If the Atheist is right, he’ll never know it. And that is a sad fact.

Comments

• 

• Categories

  • Book Reviews
  • Rocketry
  • Science
    • Energy
  • Trading
  • Web
    • My Bookmarks
    • WordPress
      • Verse-O-Matic
      • WP-Members
    
    
    

    •