May 21, 2008

Orson Scott Card on Science

always find Orson to be a fine essayist. Here's one of his essays that's worth your time. Here's just one brilliant segment of his essay:

Why Science and Faith Don't Mix Well

It is not that science disproves -- or tries to disprove -- the existence of God. The acts of a transcendent creator are simply outside the realm of anything that science can examine.

Science is the process of trying to discover mechanistic causes of publicly observable phenomena. The trouble is that causation cannot be positively proven. Ever. Under any circumstances.

So the best that scientists can do is make guesses (hypetheses) about causation and then conduct experiments designed to prove those guesses wrong. If the experiments don't prove them wrong, then the guess is considered to be a good one, an educated one, and scientists assume that it is true, or true enough, until new evidence emerges to contradict it.

But in science, no answer is ever final. No assumption of cause is beyond question. We never know enough to say, "This subject is now closed."

And that's just on the subject of mechanical cause. When it comes to final cause, which we call "purpose" or "motive," science is simply helpless. It is up to historians and biographers and fiction writers to provide motive and purpose and meaning -- and their work is specifically considered not to be science.

Scientists must therefore conduct their work as if the entire universe were one big machine, in which everything that happens is caused to happen by outside forces that push on each other.

Every serious student of science knows that this does not imply that the mechanical model of the universe is a complete explanation of anything -- it's not provable, it's simply the assumption that must be made before any useful scientific work can take place.

Here's why: The moment you allow transcendent or metaphysical forces into the equation, by definition they cannot be measured or replicated on demand. So the moment you say, "This event does not have a mechanical cause, but rather a spiritual/intelligent/purposive/magical one," science has stopped cold.

Think how much progress medicine made back when diseases were blamed on gods, and "treated" through sacrifices or prayers alone. Whether invoking gods does any good is a matter of faith; it will never lead you to effective medical treatments.

That is why science simply cannot admit God -- or Intelligent Design -- into the public discussion of science. The moment transcendent forces are invoked, science ends. And that's why I am among those who do not want to see Intelligent Design offered as a scientific alternative to Darwinism in science classes. It is, at best, a distraction; it is not that ID is wrong, it's that it's irrelevant to the project of science.

Why Faith in Darwinism Is No Better

Just because ID cannot be part of the public discussion of science does not mean, however, that people who believe in Intelligent Design cannot be trusted to do good science.

Most scientific discoveries through history have been made by people who believed in God. Period. That's a historical fact.

Why shouldn't a scientist believe that the natural world has a purpose, that it was designed by God, and that life has value for reasons having to do with the purposes of that God? As long as he recognizes that science deals only with mechanical causation, his personal faith will not interfere with his ability to examine the evidence and perform useful and accurate experiments.

In fact, it is an open secret that throughout the sciences, researchers constantly use purposive assumptions to arrive that the hypotheses they test. They may disguise these assumptions by speaking of "elegant" solutions, or "symmetry," but the fact is that scientists commonly expect the universe to make sense. And "making sense" is a very unscientific idea.

Science thus becomes a game -- you are allowed to play only within the rules. But within that sandbox, scientists have made extraordinary discoveries that have transformed our understanding and our lives.

The tragedy is that many scientists forget that the assumption of mechanical causation has not been proven and cannot be. It is a natural human trait to want to believe that what we accomplish in our lives is real, that is has permanent, lasting value. Not all people are able to maintain the humility of a true scientist -- knowing that all his work will inevitably be contradicted, amplified, or otherwise redone by somebody else. And it is profoundly annoying to some of them, at least, to have to admit that they are only playing a game.

H/T to Michael Prescott

Posted by witnit at 10:55 AM | Comments (3)

October 30, 2006

The Male Contraceptive Pill

till a dumb idea.

The male contraceptive pill.

Men could soon be able to use a 'male Pill' that has no side effects, scientists have revealed.

The chemical implant acts as a contraceptive but does not change the balance of a man's sex hormones

You're a woman. It's getting hot and heavy. You stop him and ask, "Did you take your pill?"

And he says, "Uh, yeah, I did."

Are you going to believe him?

Posted by witnit at 7:05 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 11, 2006

The "Fact" of Evolution

oday I spent some time on the Internet trying to find out exactly what evidence supports the "fact" of evolution. I did a Google search on "Why evolution is a fact" and found Answers in Science. This seemed like a nice place to start, and so it appeared. They had a link called stating "Read more HERE about why evolution is a fact." that link led to a brief statement that in essence said that lots of scientists have found the evidence over the last 200+ plus years, so it is a fact. No links.

But the site does have an Evolution 101 series of pages outlining how evolution works. It does a find job of outlining evolutionary theory without linking to any real evidence. Just assertions that the evidence exists. Okay, fine. They conclude with Big Issues and start out saying this:

All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors. Biologists are not arguing about these conclusions. But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens—and that’s not an easy job. It involves collecting data, proposing hypotheses, creating models, and evaluating other scientists’ work. These are all activities that we can, and should, hold up to our checklist and ask the question: are they doing science?

Those opening sentences rather floor me. Because it seems to me that evolutionary biologists are jumping the gun: ALL available evidence? REALLY? Or are biologists operating teleologically, knowing that designless evolution simply HAS to be true (primarily because the alternative, conscious design, is impossible because there is not giant white-bearded man in the heavens with a huge penis called GOD or JEHOVAH or whatever you want to call him), so therefore all the AVAILABLE evidence MUST support evolution and besides we are scientifically sophisticated biologists who aren't so naiive as to believe in a GOD, and therefore we have NO REASON to be "aguing about these conclusions."

Now here's my issue: I'm trying to find out if those who say evolution is a fact do so in a scientific way or a faith-based way. I'm not taking issue with people who have chosen to believe in evolution. I want to find out if those who say it is a fact can actually back up that statement.

I'm not having trouble finding individual biological facts. I'm having trouble finding solid support that evolution itself is a fact. It seems everywhere I look that scientists say that it is a fact and that there is plenty of evidence, but no one seems to bring it all together scientifically to establish that evolution is a fact. See where I'm going?

I've hit this kind of thing before in other areas, particularly Shakespeare studies, where so many Shakespeare scholars will tell you that it is a fact that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays, and yes they can quote a number of individual facts, but when you bring those facts together you have something far from proof that he wrote the Shakespeare plays. And the Shakespeare scholars get all emotionally charged, just like Christian fundamentalists do when you challenge them with the idea that the earth is actually more than 6000 years old. "But the Bible says so and it's the word of God." Okay, you have what you consider an authority, and I have no problem with you saying that the Bible is your primary authority for the belief that the earth is 6000 years old, but don't quote the Bible as an authority for the FACT of the earth's age. We aren't talking fact here; we are talking belief...faith.

It seems to me that the "fact" of evolution is supported in the same way. A group has gotten together and decided that it must be true, and so all the individual facts seem to support their faith-based conclusion, but when you actually sit down to examine those individually facts, they do not really support the statement that evolution is a fact.

And yet I see evolutionists say that evolution is a FACT and they quote a bunch of authorities, and select some facts, but in the agregate they still have not gone any farther than belief...or faith...just like the Christian fundamentalists.

If you believe that evolution is indeed a PROVEN FACT, fine. Tell me one thing that you know is provably TRUE about evolution. The truly significant parts of the theory.

I have not problem believing in evolution of some sort. And I think the emotionally charged responses I get from evolutionists and fundamentalist Christians are similar: Someone gets testy when you begin to challenge their FAITH. Their fundamental anchor points about how reality works are being challenged. Nobody likes having their myths messed with. And frankly, right now for me, evolution as a proven fact is as much of a myth as the Bible proving that the earth is 6000 years old.

Again, I don't have anything against evolution per se. I in fact have faith that it does happen in some ways at some times. But I don't see how evolution precludes a God or a divine intelligence or (for want of a better word) a designer. Why must they be mutually exclusive?

I do think many vociferous scientists, like Dawkins (who is a fine writer, by the way, and should not be avoidede just because of his vociferousness...he is a very humane writer), act like raving fundamentalists in their attacks on religion. It's almost like they were personally traumatized as a child by religion and now must use science as a stick to beat it into submission.

I grant that the Christian God has some problems. Frankly, I think the God of the old testament is a psychopath. More Satanic than divine. (Very much like Allah, in some ways.) So I can understand that scientists have a problem with THAT God.

But a Christian God is not the only way to view the Divine. So many of these scientists set it up as an either-or: either Christian God OR meaningless evolution.

Why not some other more rationalist God AND evolution?

I just don't get it sometimes, other than that there are some powerful beliefs that must be guarded by the priestcraft at all costs. Whether findamentalist Christians or fundamentalist scientists. It just seems to me that evolutionist zeal is less toward "evolution is a fact" and more towards "Christianity cannot possibly be true."

Posted by witnit at 8:53 AM | Comments (14) | TrackBack