<body>

10.19.2008

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Take this week in Science news. On the one hand, we're getting more information on exactly how life arose from non-life (aka abiogenesis). On the other hand, creationists are still busy lying to discredit Darwin's work.

Labels: , ,

posted by Sacrilegium

at 1:53 PM Permalink

|
0 comments

8.26.2008

The alternative to perfect science is.....make shit up?

Science denial is a curious thing. The amount of denial involved in hardcore Creationism is troubling when you consider how many people go for it.

Mostly that's down to lack of education. Most of the science deniers don't really know the science they deny. Mostly I find they don't really know the basics of what evolution even really is, let alone what evidence we have for it. Ignorance is at least understandable. Denial, though...

So many different fields of science converge to support evolution. You can always find a handful of cranks, but there is a consensus among specialists in many areas that all point to the same thing. Biologists know the body is an imperfect machine that's more "duct-taped" than designed. Archaelogists know the Earth is way older than 6,000 years. Cosmologists and Astronomers know the universe is vast and way way way way way older than 6,000 years. Carbon dating, radiometric dating, the fossil record, molecular evidence, the speed of galaxies moving away from each other, the mutation of virus strains, the study of social behavior and DNA of apes...how far must the list go? How many different lines of evidence in completely different fields does one need to be convinced?

Skepticism is a good thing, and Creationists take a skeptical approach to the sciences. That's good on the surface. But when you get down to the details and see just how many alternate lines of evidence support each other and support this, you have to go back to them and ask what their alternate explanation is for all of that evidence that points in one direction. It goes a little something like this:

A: Carbon dating is unreliable. Astronomers are mistaken in interpreting red shift. Biologists misunderstand genetic drift.

B: Really? Hmmm. Well then, what is the real explanation for all they observe?

A: I'm glad you asked! It's all explained in this handy book hobbled together by ignorant desert people thousands of years ago.

B: *forehead slap*

That's an inconsistent application of skepticism and of standards. Because science isn't absolutely 100% foolproof, etched in stone, unwavering and sure of itself, people greet it with skepticism. Fine. You should! All scientists do. But then you don't apply the same level of skepticism to a book with a talking snake, magic tricks and a zombie as its main character? That's horribly inconsistent and it's intellectually dishonest.

If a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, what does that make a foolish inconsistency?

Labels: ,

posted by Sacrilegium

at 9:06 AM Permalink

|
0 comments

7.10.2008

This image says so much. I barely know where to begin.


The intention of the cartoon is obviously to ridicule Science for constantly making new discoveries that change its paradigms. Given the source of the cartoon, you'd be safe in guessing that the message is something like this: Those Scientists change their mind all the time. They don't know what to believe! Meanwhile, we have all the answers right here in our Bible.


Let's address this a little at a time. Firstly, Science does not discover paradigm-shifting new information very often. Certainly not about the origin of life, as this cartoon suggests.


But I can understand why someone would have that idea. When we watch the news, we often hear of new studies or experiments that seem to challenge conventional wisdom. This is both a good and bad thing. It's good because it shows that research is still being done. We're constantly in a search for the truth, and research that might shake up the core of What We Know does get published and publicized.


It's bad because the news is bad about follow-up reporting. We hear about an exciting new study, but we don't hear about it when nine months down the road the study has been picked apart and shown to be flawed. We don't hear about the failures in replicating the results, or how brutal peer review has been. We just hear the initial "Hey, look at this crazy thing that might be true!" and that's the last we hear of it. Until another study comes out saying something completely different but also new.


There's also what is known as The File Drawer Effect. Whenever research is completed that confirms other research, scientific journals tend to publish them less often. They want to publish solid research, but they also want to appeal to their readers. They want exciting, groundbreaking work. If you do a perfectly good study that shows water is wet, you're less likely to get published. The mainstream media will only latch onto the best of the best (in terms of entertainment value), so studies showing what we already know don't really make the airwaves.


And in 2008, let's face it - Science has come a long way. We now have a much better understanding of our world than we did 100 years ago. New discoveries that shake the foundation of Science are few and far between. Most of the crazy new studies you hear about in the mainstream media turn out to be false alarms once they're sufficiently investigated.


Even Einstein's theories which shook Science to its core didn't really overturn much. Newton's model of the universe still holds true as far as it goes. Einstein just filled in the gaps and dropped out the bottom, teaching us much more. Quantum mechanics hasn't really overturned anything either, just filling in more gaps and leaving us all a little confused. One day we'll bridge the Einstein/Quantum theories and open up our understanding even more, but it's unlikely we'll overturn what we know now.


So I can get how scientists seem wishy-washy or unsure of much of anything. I get that. But don't people realize that's a good thing? Science is about the search for the truth. It's about being open to new ideas (as long as they're good ones). As someone once said, Science is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that must never be questioned.


The changes in our body of knowledge show that the system is working. The peer review process is constantly incorporating new ideas and new experiments, mixing them in the sea of What We Know and in a constant state of re-evaluation. Changes to what we accept as Truth is part of our learning. Sometimes we stumble. Sometimes we're wrong. Sometimes we get shown a new way we never thought of. But we keep learning and recalculating our world so that we end up with better understanding. New ideas are put to the test. If they're bad, they're discarded. If they're good, they get absorbed. You should expect big discoveries from time to time. If not, what are we learning?


Of course if all that's too much for you, you could just turn to religion. Put your money in the collection plate and take your answers home with you. They may not be the right answers, but hey. Correct answers are hard work. And sometimes you have to take "I don't know" for an answer. The horror!

Labels:

posted by Sacrilegium

at 8:09 AM Permalink

|
0 comments