Science has a PR problem.\u00a0 Perhaps it is because science is responsible for some technological developments that have outpaced our moral capacity.\u00a0 Or perhaps it is because the knowledge bestowed upon us through the scientific process increasingly pushes God out of the gaps.\u00a0 But some are irritated by “scientists” who arrogantly assert absolute truths about the universe when in actuality, underneath their assertions, there are only probabilities with error bars.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I believe that one of the most fundamental problems with science is that we cannot see<\/strong> it.\u00a0 The vastness of time and space and the minuteness of science’s edge, right now, defy the senses.\u00a0 We do not have the capacity to imagine the scope and breadth of time involved in the formation of the universe or even the time scale of the evolution of complex life.\u00a0 It is beyond our capacity to imagine how incredibly insignificant our place is in the cosmos.\u00a0 Likewise, the realities of life at the cellular level and the complexity of interactions at the subatomic level, escape logic and defy the rules by which we live our lives.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Science is a juggernaut of increasingly and unapproachable complexity.\u00a0 No longer are great discoveries made with home-made telescopes or in monastery greenhouses.\u00a0 Science has become so specialized and at its focus, so minute, or so vast, that it is beyond the human experience.\u00a0 The technical and mathematical skills required, and the sophistication of the instruments employed, all take us deeper and deeper, and further and further beyond anything that most of us can comprehend.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n These realities literally bring science to the level of science fiction.\u00a0 I once read a bumper sticker that said “I don’t have enough faith to believe in science<\/em>.”\u00a0 Although that sticker was posted by a Christian troubled about science’s role in the diminishment of God, it strikes me, that it may, on another level, represent the level of detachment science has accomplished through its very own progress.\u00a0 If one does not truly understand the scientific process and the absolute intellectual scrutiny of the process itself, it is easy to assume that faith is necessary to believe in science. To the average person, buying what science tells us does require a leap of faith.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Yet, there is a fundamental difference between science and faith.\u00a0 I once heard Donald Johanson talk about Lucy, his famous find.\u00a0 In 1973 Johanson found a fossil that dramatically changed the way we conceptualized hominid evolution.\u00a0 Lucy was a 3.2 million year old Australopithecus afarensis fossil that provided evidence that hominids walked upright before the brain got bigger.\u00a0 It had been believed up until then, that in hominids, a bigger brain evolved first, giving our ancestral kin the smarts needed to survive a ground based and bipedal existence. The paradigm shifted based on this new evidence.\u00a0 Such is the way of science.\u00a0 In his talk, Dr. Johanson clearly and simply differentiated science and faith.\u00a0 What he said was:<\/p>\n Science is evidence without certainty while Faith is certainty without evidence<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/p>\n I guess it boils down to what degree one values evidence.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n A related issue pertains to the fact that sometimes the results of science are portrayed with too much certainty.\u00a0 And sometimes writers<\/strong> overreach with their interpretation of findings.\u00a0 This is a legitimate concern.\u00a0 The greater scrutiny I give science, the more I see that this problem generally emanates from science writers (journalists) rather than from the scientific community.\u00a0 Humility and the acknowledgement of the limits of one’s findings (i.e., error bars), are the hallmarks of good science.\u00a0 This becomes increasingly important as we investigate deeply remote phenomena, be it the quantum realm, the formation of the universe, or even the geological evolution of our planet.\u00a0 Science attempts to form a clear picture when only intermittent pixels are accessible.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n A wonderful example of such humility is evidenced in Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species<\/em>. Some people use his own skeptical analysis as a refutation of his own theory.\u00a0 Reading the book negates such an argument.\u00a0 Every paper published in a reputable peer reviewed journal includes a Discussion<\/strong><\/em> section where the authors detail the potential flaws and confounds, as well as suggested areas of improvement for future research.\u00a0 If one accesses the actual science itself, this humility is evident.\u00a0 But in the media, over reaching is commonplace, and it warrants reasonable suspicion.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n There are however, areas of science where the evidence is so broad and so complete that certainty is absolutely asserted.\u00a0 Evolution by means of natural selection is one of those areas.\u00a0 Yet evolution and the dating of the planet for example run into controversy as they intersect with the beliefs of those who sustain a literal interpretation of the Bible. This is where two world-views diverge, or more aptly, collide.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Long ago, when we lacked an understanding of geology, meteorology, the germ theory of disease, and neurology, people tried to make sense of random events like floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, droughts, plagues, seizures, depression, mania, and dementia.\u00a0 We did this because we struggled to make sense of substantial, catastrophic,\u00a0 and seemingly random events.\u00a0 When such events occur, it is our nature to seek out patterns that help us make sense of it all.\u00a0 Vengeful deities were historically the agents of such destructive forces.\u00a0 Just as we are universally driven to explain our origins, as evidenced by a plethora of diverse creation stories, we are compelled to make sense of our destruction.\u00a0 As we have come to develop a better understanding of the world around us, little by little, God as a creative and destructive force has been displaced.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This increased material understanding of our world poses a serious threat to literal religion.\u00a0 Although, for most scientists, the target is not the destruction of God.\u00a0 On the contrary, knowledge is the goal.\u00a0 Unfortunately, because of this looming and powerful threat, science and knowledge have become targets for some religious people.\u00a0 The problem with science is that it threatens deeply held ideological belief systems that, at their core, value faith over evidence.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n It comes back to that Evidence question again.\u00a0 As humans we are more compelled by stories that provide comfort and give significance to our existence, than by the data that asserts and demands humility.\u00a0 This is not a problem with science, it is a problem with the human brain.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Science has a PR problem.\u00a0 Perhaps it is because science is responsible for some technological developments that have outpaced our moral capacity.\u00a0 Or perhaps it is because the knowledge bestowed upon us through the scientific process increasingly pushes God out of the gaps.\u00a0 But some are irritated by “scientists” who arrogantly assert absolute truths about … <\/p>\n