Sunday, November 06, 2005

Short version of previos post

I like the “hard sciences” a lot (i.e. have a degree in one, read tech. journals for fun, etc.). I also have come to enjoy the “soft sciences” (in particular, philosophy and sometimes politics). And, therefore, I find myself quite unnerved by the current Creationism/Evolution issue before the Supreme Court.

I heard a hard-science guy state, “A theory only has to have one failing before it’s proven wrong.” Then he went on to state how Intelligent Design is flawed because it requires creation to be perfect and the human back is not as evidenced by the number of people with back problems (I’m assuming this is not his only problem-spot). But what if his view of Intelligent Design is flawed. And what about the idea that the Sun is shrinking at 6 feet an hour and, if we go back in time 5 billion years (growing the Sun 6 feet per hour), then the edge of the Sun is between Neptune’s and Pluto’s orbits. Doesn’t THAT one fact disprove a 5 billion year old Earth? And how silly is it, really, to state the Creation theory can be disproved?!? How can you say that an all-powerful God who does things we don’t understand could NOT have created the Universe? Is it not possible that this God made the Universe yesterday, and that everything you observe is created? And what if (I’m borrowing from Twilight Zone) this God created everything yesterday, and all our memories and all our books were created by this God YESTERDAY! Can you PROVE otherwise? No, duh.

Point is this: hard-science cannot tell us about the past because that is the topic of History. The origin of the Earth, the Universe, and Matter is 100% out of the hands of hard science. If the Supreme Court had any foresight, they would take this case and BAN the discussion of the origins of Earth, Universe, Matter in the Hard Science classrooms, but leave it in History, Philosophy, and history of Religions. Anything else is simply delaying another case because hard science is overstepping itself.

[Personal opinion at this time: post-modern philosophy plus the evolution of Relativity is causing most everything said by “hard science” to be treated as suspect if not rejected by default. Example, the Earth was and is no more, the center of the Universe. But this is wholly un-provable. While it seems silly to think that stars billions of light-years away are spinning around the Earth once every 24 hours or so, it is NOT provable one way or the other. Why? Because astro-physics is mainly theory. We cannot test much since we can barely get past the Moon - how are we going to create astro-sized experiments?!? So we are stuck with observation. But Observation + Relativity means we cannot say anything for sure. So when hard science calls Evolution a “scientific fact,” they are in fact saying that hard science is becoming soft science and/or a set of beliefs (a.k.a. religion). Evolution is happening, no question. That’s why the term “evolution” is used in so many sciences, both soft and hard (e.g. social evolution, political evolution, etc.). But it says, in itself, NOTHING about origins.
Further, who cares if man evolved from chimps. Our DNA is similar, whether we evolved or not. That does NOT change anything we do, it does not prevent any kind of “scientific progress.” It’s a worthless thought (that is, it adds nothing / it helps in no way).

No comments: