Beyond Common Sense - science tag

Charles Darwin

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:14:00 GMT

Considering the breathtaking speed at which our understanding of (and mastery over) nature has matured over the last one hundred years, it's almost impossible to understand there is still a debate about the merits of biological evolution one hundred fifty years since the publication of the Origin of Species and mountains of (conclusive) evidence (and zero counter-evidence).

Perhaps it's not too difficult to see why the debate still rages on. It appears everyone (the farmer, the politician, the elementary school science teacher, the preacher, the nurse, etc.) these days is suffering from a mass delusion, a sort of superiority complex thinking they know more about such subjects as Genetics and Molecular Biology than career scientists in these fields.

I've never heard of a cab driver or an office clerk expressing opinion on quantum electrodynamics or general relativity. Nobody at the airport seem to argue about thermodynamics. When it comes to evolutionary biology, however, it seems everyone believes they have sufficient knowledge in the subject that their views are as valid or even more valid than that of the biologist (I find it curious that these way of thinking about evolutionary biology does not apply when it comes to one's health--who disputes drug resistance?).

Now, if I were to say "I do not believe in quantum mechanics," no one would pay attention to me. Scientific theories are not upheld or discarded by anyone's subjective feelings or state of mind. Neither does one's lack of understanding establishes grounds for rejecting a scientific theory.

Alas, the rules for evolutionary theory are different. If Jack the Plumber can't understand ("see") how human beings and primates share common ancestry, evolutionary theory must be wrong. Heck, Jack could just outright deny evolutionary theory because he blinked once, blinked twice and figured he just does not believe in it. And in the land of government for the people by the people, enough Jacks could bring to power someone who does not even understand technology and power are synonymous in the planet we call home.

Supernatural Dimension

Sat, 12 May 2007 18:59:00 GMT

I listen to and like the BBC but they often do not seem to be willing to post comments contrary to their honored contributors. In this BBC article, a self-prophesed scientist claims all sorts of pseudoscience/religious nonsense: Here is my comment:

"There is already enough confusion among lay persons about science and the scientific method. This commentary by a medical 'scientist' only adds to and deepens the confusion. For starters, there is no struggle between science and the divine. Science assumes (almost) nothing, religion assumes everything (God thus the universe). Religion/the Divine/God/etc is in itself the product of our brains and thus is to be studied scientifically. The comment "[science] leaves more unanswered questions" almost seems to imply scientific investigation confuses rather than enlighten us. When we look at the moon through a telescope, our initial questions about the moon (does it have mountains, for example) are in fact answered. A curious mind, however, doesn't then dismantle the telescope and sit idly but builds an even more powerful telescope and starts asking finer questions, more questions. Lastly, science does give us certainty about ourselves and our origin. There is no supernatural "dimension" except in the conversations of human beings living in the four dimensional space-time. No amount of commentary, books (holy or otherwise) can hide the fact that no proof of supernatural phenomenon, much less God/the Divine, exist today despite how long these ideas lasted. Speaking of enduring ideas, humanity believed for millennia as they looked up at the night sky, stars are mere decorations not far off from where they stood."

Mary Midgley on The God Delusion

Sat, 05 May 2007 21:55:00 GMT

Midgley's critique of The God Delusion in the October 7-13, 2006 edition of the New Scientist magazine can be summarized as an embarrassing display of lack of understanding of Dawkins’ central arguments.