|
One would think that if any particular facts in life were unassailable, these facts would inspire confidence. The sort of confidence that allows one to ignore futile attempts to dispute them. But no; for some odd reason, the most vocal proponents of evolution feel somehow threatened by those with a competing agenda. Apparently it is not enough to simply present the evidence and draw the most logical conclusions. One would think anything undeniably self-evident would stand on its own merits, and any dissenting opinions would merely flail harmlessly on the sidelines. But no. There is a war going on that has nothing to do with the integrity of science or a search for the truth. It is a war that digs down to a basic disagreement of humanity, a disagreement that has been going on for many more centuries than Darwin or modern science can take credit for. This war, however resolved it may appear from certain perspectives, shows no signs of ending any time soon. But whatever the truth about biological life's origin turns out to be, rest assured that no pooh-poohing, harsh public invective nor controversial legislation will stop the steamroller of progress from one day rolling right on top of it. EVOLUTION: Members Only Observe the canon of "evolutionary biogenesis as fact:" As long as it lies within the bounds of Darwinian theory, those who commit effort toward explaining given physical phenomena are always afforded a serious listening ear by the scientific community. This occurs regardless of how tenuous the conjecture may be. However, this same ear is not lent to anyone conjecturing an equally (or less) tenuous explanation, if he or she happens to hail from the intelligent design "non- scientific" camp. Thus evolutionary scientists prove by their own actions that advances in their field are not based on merit alone, but also on the consensus to never challenge the established rule set. These same card-carrying, evolutionary party members, when publicly called on this behavior, will simply deny it and sarcastically declare that "true" science is always acceptable. The last time I checked however, intelligent design proponents were not mixing any potions in a back room. Suggesting reasonable, alternative explanations for something not completely established as fact should garner a bit more respect than the Defenders of the Evolutionary Faith will permit. What is one of the classic traits assigned to the ignorant, and to those who would halt our forward progress as a species? Narrow-mindedness. EVOLUTION: Will the real theory please stand up? Data and scientific methods of one evolutionary theory's camp are routinely questioned and impugned as "inconclusive" when they do not support a different camp's theory, despite the inconvenient fact that a similar measuring stick could be applied to the accusing camp's assertions, with equally inconclusive results. Along the many branches that have sprouted out of the evolutionary tree, there is a great deal of disagreement about conjecture and conclusion, as well as data and extrapolation. I find it interesting these competing camps do not seem to appreciate the credibility problems this produces in the eyes of the rest of the "non-scientific" world. These camps keep trudging ahead in multiple specific directions, feeling justified and empowered within the impregnable tunnel of the singular evolutionary path. With simplistic logic, one could observe and conclude that all these differing opinions that are being characterized as hard scientific fact can't all be true at the same time. The amusing abasement of the evolutionary argument occurs, regardless of the posturing and public vituperation against dissenting ideas, because the collective proponents of specific theories of evolution expose their own arguments as suspect by not coming to a unanimous conclusion. This troublesome fact is most often kicked to the curb by self-righteous proclamations regarding the spurious nature of any ideas foreign to one's own. The one thing all these venerable icons can zestfully agree on is the general concept of evolution itself. Details, which should be the supporting structure of the general theory, are merely secondary elements to either support one's own specific theory, or to tear down someone else's. And heaven forbid any attention is paid to those irritating little morsels that suggest a particular interpretation of the physical evidence may not be entirely accurate. I frequently get the feeling that evolution as a concept has quietly superseded the realm of purely scientific study. It seems to have become more of a way of looking at life, a philosophical filter through which to perceive everything in existence. For many, it has become an unquestionable authority on the state of biology, psychology, sociology and chemistry... or just name your field of science or qualifiable aspect of reality. That's a lot of power for us to impart to something. To this I ask: At what point did evolution evolve from science to religion? EVOLUTION: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." I saw in the January 2009 Scientific American magazine, included along with the usual interesting articles, an unfortunate stream of propaganda squirting from its pages. I found an alarmist call-to-action in an article by Glenn Branch and Eugenie C. Scott, called "The Latest Face of Creationism." This article squawked a great deal about how certain community organizations in the United States have been attempting to pass legislation that would allow teachers (notice that reads "allow," not "force") to include intelligent design alongside evolution as a possible theory of biological origin. Mind you, you and I are both fully aware that intelligent design is certainly a scientific retooling of creationism. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the theories of intelligent design are ultimately grounded in the account of universal Genesis as depicted in the Hebrew scriptures. However, to suggest that intelligent design, as a theory (not a fact), is just a deliberate bait-and-switch to force public school students to believe in God is not only a paranoid claim, it is somewhat insulting. To include an alternative theory in a biology or anthropology class is not to introduce religion, nor is it a means to squash scientific truth. Nowhere in these legislative attempts has anyone even remotely suggested handing out Bibles in science class, or making a mockery of evolution. How many students disagree with the school system about the value of learning higher math? Quite a few of them, I dare say. Do we remove math books as a result? Of course not. Then why are the secular objections of some students, parents and teachers recognized as a viable censor of any alternative biological theory? Every day, across the United States, students are taught evolutionary theory; where are all the religious objections one might expect from the community groups that are trying to "corrupt" our educational system? Surely, if we're on a just and even playing field, the individuals who believe in Biblical creation are having their Constitutionally-guaranteed religious freedom violated by being "forced" to sit through classes that effectively tell them their belief is false. Nonetheless, you won't hear these sorts of religious objections to evolution because in fact, learning about evolution in science class has absolutely no bearing on one's spiritual (or lack of spiritual) point of view. Therefore, how does the inclusion of an allegedly scientifically spurious theory like intelligent design truly threaten the unimpeachable "law" of evolution? Remember, evolution is proven as fact in the sense that a single organism may develop changes in response to its environment, but it still remains only a theory in terms of the actual origin of life on this planet. Biogenesis via evolution has never been demonstrated by scientific method, only inferred by the current evidence. The fascinating thing about these frivolous accusations of Constitutional Rights violations is that nowhere in any of these legislative attempts is it even hinted at that religion be "taught" or "imposed." The inconvenient fact the ACLU pit bulls, and others, do not appear to appreciate is that there are many reasonable and well-educated human beings on this planet who endeavor to think for themselves. These reasonable individuals don't wish to usurp the Evolutionary Throne of Omnipotence... they would simply prefer to think they have more options available than the one they are being force-fed, er, I mean, spoon-fed from grade school on by the intelligentsia. Does this mean I'm suggesting that evolution is nonsense? Certainly not. In their fear-laden reactive behavior, the vocal proponents of evolution forget it is the open mind that is best suited to discover scientific truth about the universe, not the members-only, business-as-usual attitude that only produces the same old results. Someone can argue with you until he or she is blue in the face that two plus two equals seven. Perhaps at some point, the argument could become so clever that you actually begin to question your own mathematical faculties. The mathematical fact that with whole numbers, if you add two plus two you will always produce four is beside the point. The person has begun to wear you down, against your own confidence that what you know about the real world is correct. Ironically, this technique of misrepresentation that the legal watchdogs for evolution fear, is the same technique used to produce the current public ethos they're fearful of losing. In other words, the widespread belief in evolution as the singular fact of our biological origin is not the result of an actual and undeniable physical proof, but a long history of postulating on collected evidence, and interpreting it in a similar fashion. Granted, the truth of our biological origin is not as self-evident as the math problem mentioned, but the discourse of conjecture has been indelibly dictated by the pertinacious assumption that there is no feasible scientific alternative to evolution. The very complexity of life and the similarities between so many species, outwardly and in DNA, seem to hit us over the head with an obvious conclusion. Biological organisms all subscribe to the same rules in terms of converting matter and energy, and in possessing some form of input/output system able to trade information and interact with the environment. There are threads of traits that are common to almost all living organisms. The champions of evolution insist that their explanation for these shared traits is the only one possible, the only one that makes any sense. I submit to you: Even disregarding the possible existence of a creator being, I am appalled at the utterly pathetic tunnel vision this suggests. Are we to simply accept the insistence that because no one can think of a "scientifically acceptable" alternative, there can't possibly be one? A method of deflection that evolution's proponents have been leaning heavily upon in recent years is this: the attacks on evolution's verity are meaningless if an alternative explanation is not proffered. This is a glaring example of misrepresentation. Gerald Schroeder, and others with degreed scientific backgrounds, have published papers and books presenting facts to back up their own theories, which fly in the face of random (unguided) evolution. But the ugly truth of this matter is that it hasn't mattered how cogently any scientist presents his or her argument. If the argument suggests anything other than the Darwinian paradigm, it is immediately relegated "pseudo science" status. See the problem? Even when someone steps forward with a researched and well laid out alternative explanation for biological origins, thus fulfilling the directed demands of the evolutionary inquisitors, he or she is still not seriously considered. EVOLUTION: Faith is as faith does While we're dancing around the subject of ignorantly believing in nebulous, intangible entities, let's look at blind faith in another form. The non-believers in a cosmic creator accuse the believers of erroneously believing in an entity that can't be seen, touched, talked to or physically verified. But there is a great hypocrisy here waiting to be exposed. I've noticed that "life" itself is assigned godlike status. What do I mean? Life (something that no reasonable person would deny is self-evident) is attributed the power of machining every function in our biological reality. This is of course an acceptable way to characterize any biological behavior, simply because life itself is a general term for all of biological existence. But herein lies the hypocrisy: Scientists don't understand how life exists. They observe, examine, hypothesize, experiment and draw conclusions about the things that happen in life, but they have no idea why life exists in the first place. Now, you'd be correct in pointing out that what I'm speaking of is philosophy, not science. Science's inability to answer philosophical questions does not devalue what science can answer. I just think it odd that scientists mundanely speak about how life does what it does, and then rest comfortably with multiple (different!) improbable ideas for why it exists in the first place. This same faith in life simply existing is not much different than faith in a god that can't be seen, touched, talked to or physically verified. Yes, you can see the table, touch it, even talk to it if you like. In the end however, if you can't conclusively prove how that table arrived where it is or how it was formed, then how can you possibly assume you know these facts based on examining the table in its current state? Probable explanations are not, and never have been, facts; why is that concept so hard to grasp and accept? EVOLUTION: Back to square one The real questions regarding all the flexing and posturing of the evolutionary side are these: Why are they so threatened by a theory they flippantly chuckle about as nonsensical and ignorant? Why does a theory they dismiss as scientifically ungrounded produce such fear and retaliatory words and measures? Up on their intellectual Mount Olympus, do these purveyors of "truth" actually believe a bunch of genuflecting primitives who worship a fairy tale could possibly pose any threat at all to a theory that is ultimately provable? The picture these questions bring to mind is of a child who is constantly afraid no one will want to be friends with him, so he forms an exclusive tree house club with himself as leader. Anyone who challenges his leadership is banished from the tree house, thus ensuring his leadership will remain intact and he will always have others to play with. The only problem with that plan is that eventually all his playmates will discover there are other (and possibly better) places to play than the lonely child's domain. |