A simple analogy for this is like that: when 2 person X and Y see a swallow flying in the direction towards their house in middle of a field with a forest nearby. X loves swallow very much and "feels" (or subjectively hoping) that the swallow should like their house because their house was so nicely built, the smell is good, the color is soft (nothing really related to what is attractive to the swallow). So X believes that the swallow must be flying into his house as it is flying to that direction and is going to make a nest inside their house.
Y may also share the same feeling of X, but he knows that feeling is one thing, and fact is another. So he makes a ladder and using it to search around the house inch by inch, including the roof and every corner. But finally, he finds nothing related to swallow nest. Y declares that that is no swallow nest in their house while X still strongly believes that the swallow nest is somewhere inside the house that Y was not able to find it. And then both person see that the swallow is just flying past their house to the forest.
The ladder in this story is science. It is the tools for Y to find out the fact and not relying on beliefs. X can still have strong belief that Y did not find the swallow nest because he is not searching the house thoroughly or just neglecting to accept the fact.
Communism could be a belief because it has assumptions that human are born equal while some are more equal. And communists also believe that human nature could be unselfish and like to share everything if they are taught correctly. But we all know that now, this belief is completely against the fact of human nature from the evolution of selfish genes.
Environmentalist could also be a belief because they do not know how to distinguish correlation from causation to climates. They just simply believe human is the major causes for all the changes of climate without adequate evidences.
Nonetheless science could not be a belief. Because it is only a tool or a way to find out the fact. The tool could be improved when knowledge increase. According to the Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased (from feelings, from preference, from beliefs without root) interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established. Not just saying that this is God's mysteries that we, as a human are not able to understand.
Many creationists do not accept a generally adopted way in science to find out fact by logical induction and deduction. Just like this one: a beautiful but bigoted and snobbish woman - Wendy Wright. What a shameful waste!
When Wendy Wright was asking for the evidence of evolution, Dr. Richard Dawkins asked her to visit museums and to read more text book about the evolution evidences. She thought she had read enough and accursed Darwinist disguising their mistakes about the missing piece of the evolution theory. And she kept saying that there should be a lot of evidences in the fossils to show intermediate species before evolving to human. The fact is, there are really a lot of evidences about evolution out there, but her incomplete information from Christian organizations still remains in the 30s or 40s.
In addition, the level of evidences she required is far beyond a normal straight and reasonable person's thinking. It seems that she will be satisfied only if she could watch a monkey evolving in front of her eyes to become a human or else all the evidences by logical deduction will be counted as inadequate or insignificant. With this kind of evidence requirement, I think even no one could prove to her, the earth is in fact a globe but not flat. Because no one could ever show her in front of her eyes that the earth is round instead of flat. She will always feel that that the ground is flat as all of us do. And the earth is too large for her or as a human to perceive the earth is really round when we walk on the ground, sit on the ground, build things on the ground. But the evidences we have, are by experimental traveling from one place to another place pointing to the same direction and we go back to the original point. We may not practice this by ourselves, but we have to admit that it is a fact when many people tried it and got the same result. And also with this knowledge (not belief) of fact about the shape of earth, human developed many useful tools to improve our lives, such as flying crafts, ships, maps, satellites etc.
This is similar to evolution, human (including Wendy Wright) "feelings" also are never able to perceive events occurred over million of years step by step with small mutations unless through logical reasoning and scientific tools. When we find many fossils of species that bridging the gaps of fishes evolving to amphibian, we will be quite certain by induction that there will be gaps of species evolving to human to be found someday, somehow.
Moreover, one of Wendy's major fault about DNA is that: she thought because individual human's DNA is different to each other, that there must be a designer or creator to make this difference. Or else without a creator, all human should be the same. This argument was utilized by her repeatedly and seems she thought she is smart about this. But this argument is just a fallacy of thinking.
Firstly, if simply judging and concluding that because individual human is "unique" to each other then there must be a creator, this is certainly a logical mistake. This is as laughable as seeing a creature with 2 feet walking on the ground, and concluded that the creature must be a human. Everyone with sensible mind will know that, creature walking with 2 feet could be a chicken, a penguin, or many other kind of animals. So this deduction is at most a kind of belief or subjective wishes without any relation to the fact.
Secondly, she only noticed the minor difference of human's DNA and forgot the 99.9% of human DNA are the same. If the uniqueness of each individual human shows that there must be a creator, then how about the 99.9% similarities of human? Is that shows 99 times more that there should not be a creator because they are identical. However, for those who respect science, we know that this is that minute difference of DNA (in Darwinian's term, this is the mutation) will make evolution possible. Because if a specie is so stable, that all the members' DNA is 100% the same, this specie will not get a chance to survive in longer term. The environment of Earth is everlasting changing, without deviation of DNA, natural selection will remain only 1 outcome - the specie will be extincted sooner or later. Say, this super stable specie survives so successfully in a period of time, that they grow to huge population (growing in population is also an environmental change) with brutal competition on exactly same resources (because they are 100% the same) and hence no one could survive. The other scenario is that, as if this super stable specie faces a small change of environment, they will not stand a chance to survive because they are 100% the same. One of them not able to survive this environmental change, no other will be able to.
Moreover, Wendy Wright on one hand accused some people disguising the evidences against Darwinism which was mostly happened in the 20s or 30s, on the other hand, she also did not told the whole truth about the incident that she was sentenced to jail because of "just praying" outside an Abortion Clinic.
After all, ways of searching facts are never able to become a belief as a belief of a supernatural creator.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment