Entries

Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Quick survey

to try say that evolution is false on the basis of some form of argument one would assume the non-evolutionist would apply the same set of argument to whatever he/she believed to be true and to do otherwise would seem to border on hypocritical or at least, appear as a form of double standards, that you would require proof for one theory but accept that the alternative is defined as unprovable and un-disprovable.

it is one thing to admit that what you believe in is unprovable, but it is another to try to prove something else wrong when you don't actively try to disprove your own first (even if only because your own is un-disprovable).

and then to admit that one's believe is "religious", not "scientific", one would agree that the two are not always compatible, or at least one cannot view the former with the standards of the former, and vice-versa. it is ridiculous to say first that one theory is unprovable and does not need proof, and then go on to say that everything IS proof. one would have to believe otherwise, that proof exists, and if proof exists, there must be the possibility of disproof, except the disproof should not exist if the theory does indeed hold true.

it is just as ridiculous to say that the scientific method rests as much on faith as does religion, because the very crux of the scientific method is that faith is just a placeholder for what we don't yet know. in other words, faith is required if one is to believe in a hypothesis that is not yet proven to be true. one would require even more faith if one's hypothesis is proven to be false. but the belief in a theory does not require faith. it requires logic, and it goes by a strict set of standards with which other scientists apply to the hypothesis. the more scientists there are working on theories, the less funding there is for each person, and so there is always that personal motivation to disprove a theory and in so doing prove that one is unqualified for funding, thus leaving more for oneself.

and yet in a sense, science does require faith: faith that the naturalistic method must work, and must hold true; faith that logic is the path on which all theories must walk, for if they fall off the path then they cannot be scientific, and cannot be theories; faith that evidence is indeed required to prove or disprove something. it requires faith that even if there is not evidence now, it does not mean there is no evidence in future, or forever.

but that is where the faith stops. beyond which science does not allow for faith. it calls for logic, evidence, proof. it calls for the use of mathematics to illustrate the logic of certain positions where possible, for there are few greater illustrations of the logic behind a theory than the ability to construct it in a mathematically sound framework.

even if it is possibly argued that science is but another way of thinking that requires faith, that science is but another religion in disguise, then the argument that science is wrong does not hold. for if it is deemed to be religious, than it holds that it has to be judged in the same way as religion, and it cannot be judged in the same way as science. in which case it cannot be judged at all for there is nothing it can be judged by that can be used to judge another religious belief, that is not biased; or at least, proven to be a standard criteria. the question then, becomes what makes your religion better than my religion (of science)?

but of course, science is based on data, on evidence, on naturalism: that what we can observe is what is. that what we cannot observe, we cannot rule out completely, but is what we cannot prove, and therefore not allowed by the scientific method. it does not mean what we cannot observe does not exist. it only means it cannot be proved. it allows for endless possibilities, indeed, even the possibility of a supreme being, but the onus is on the proposer to prove it, and the non-believer to disprove it, and in the end, only those that can be agreed on by a set of well-defined criteria, will be accepted as scientific truth.

to say that just because something is "theoretical" and has not been proven to happen all the time would only hold water if such rigor for proof were applied to other aspects of life. to say that would also require us to reject all forms of knowledge: that just because gravity has been proven on earth doesn't mean it has been proven on every single spot on earth, and every single living and non-living thing, on every single point in the universe, and so we may as well stop believing in it.

my point is that if something is to be rejected on the basis of science, then the alternative must also be proven on the basis of science, as the most suitable replacement theory. otherwise, as incomplete as a scientific theory might be, if it can explain all that we can observe, and there are no proves against it, then we must accept, as scientists, that such a theory is true. but until something simpler, more elegant comes up, we are forced to accept it.

and so there are very few voices for the theory of evolution, because majority of those who do believe it, don't know enough about it to say for sure that it must be true. but then that is the nature of those who find that science is the direction in which to seek answers to life's questions (and more questions to those answers) to not believe in something until they know for sure it is entire believable.



on a personal note the notion that humans are so special kind of reeks of humanistic narcissism. that indeed it is true that everything is for the taking, to the point that it is to our detriment.

Labels: evolution, religion, science

1:44 AM