We often hear it said, "that has to be true because the great majority of the scientific or political community say it is." This is fallacious thinking as can easily be demontrated by reference to history. Aristotle surmised that everything was earth, fire, air or water. Most everyone just knew that the sun revolved around the earth before Copernicus and Galileo. Not too long ago it was widely believed that phlogiston was a substance present in all things that burned. Turns out there is no such thing, but burning is the oxygenation of a substance.
Most everyone thought that Newton had the laws of physics all figured out until Einstein came along with relativity which upset some time honored "facts" about the universe. Now, even some of Einsteins theories are being challenged. At one time the atom was a solid, ultimate particle. Now, there are electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks and strings. In fact, the physics of the ultra-small is quite different than that of the ultra-large and there is no accepted unification theory. Matter is energy and energy is matter. The more we learn the more we know that we do not know very much about how everything works; how life came about; and the great complexity of the cell.
Abe Lincoln said: "Most people believe about what they want to believe." That can apply to the most dedicated scientist as well as to the religious. When we dedicate our lives to a paradigm that we believe to be true, we want it to be true and it is therefore easier to interpret any new idea or finding as support for our paradigm. A scientist, as well as the religious adherent, can be found in the "if I hadn't believed it, I would not have seen it," club. Not too long ago it was announced that there was a unique gene in some who decided to engage in homosexual conduct. Many, who wanted to believe it, jumped on that bandwagon. It has since been shown that there is no such gene.
We are often overawed by high educational degrees and pontifical pronouncements. We should not be. No one has a monopoly on truth. It has been said that a Phd is one who knows more and more about less and less. Their knowledge is in a narrow field and they rely on others to form their body of fact. Evolutionists comprise many disciplines, such as Anthropology, Zoology, geology, natural history, etc. None of them knows it all. They rely on each other. Many of their premises do not necessarily lead to their conclusions.
In summary, I would conclude that we should have a healthy scepticism about all scientific endeavor. Today's fact may become tomorrow's discredited theory. Do not forget that what we see around us is the result of very intelligent creation and cannot possibly be the result of blind chance.
Years ago, I committed the following verse to memory, and still think it is pretty good advice:
On observing the people who blow
All the time about how much they know;
I've decided its best, to know somewhat less;
Than to know so much stuff that ain't so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Excellent, Dad! Let me be the first to congratulate you on a well-written, interesting, and true essay. Hear, hear! Can we put it on our web site?
I like your argument. The merit of it is shown frequently as scientific "truth" is revised, most of the time, to the chagrin of many in that particular field. And, I think that there is probably a lot more of that going on, which just doesn't get publicized, due to the political or cultural strength of the proponents. An example is the 1500-year cycles of warming and cooling of the earth. You can find the article on the web, or ask me and I will forward thelink to you. The lie is that global warming is predominantly caused by humans; the truth is that the earth naturally cycles itself.
So, once more, another excellent exegesis.
I think that although it is important to know scientific explanations for some things, there is just to much for us ever to understand everything. We may have scratched the surface, but we definitely don't have the body of knowledge we think we do! It's absolutely better to be skeptical on any findings of man.
Evolution by natural selection...has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong.
Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe (New York: Basic Books, 2005)
Amen. Very well put.
Post a Comment