| On an unrelated note, I will build this D&D character one day... |
Stop acting like you know everything. This really should be first and foremost for all scientists, everywhere, all the time. There may be some things that can be definitively known, but really there is far more out there that we can't be 100% positive about. The example that is setting me off on this point (and the whole post, really) is the Big Bang. Firstly, it's just a theory. Secondly, just take a step back and think about it. The universe was once "small and hot," then "expanded rapidly and cooled down." The scientists on these shows throw these terms around like it makes all the obvious sense in the world. What really sets me on edge is when the Big Bang is used as the explanation for the beginning or creation of the universe. Sorry, but that doesn't fit. You're pointedly ignoring the implied question: so what was around before that beginning? If we're going to talk about timelines, and if we're going to give the universe an age (about 13.75 billion years old), then we have to logically continue the line of questioning about what was around 13.75 billion years and 1 day ago. Nothing? So all time, space, and matter just popped into existence spontaneously for no reason? And before that, what? Some kind of nothingness so profound that we can't even comprehend it? That's not very scientific. Yet everybody is just so quick to assume that the Big Bang theory is correct, it's like nobody is asking about all the things it doesn't explain.
I will also note that, while I'm loathe to bring anything even close to a religious discussion onto this blog, the Big Bang theory is one of those scientific explanations that just give credence to the belief in higher powers or intelligent design. I mean, c'mon, you're leaving some pretty damn big holes in your theory; holes which are bound to have a god or two crammed in to fill in the gaps.
The same goes for the explanation of life on Earth. I'm no creationist, but saying lightning zapped a bunch of random elements and created sentient life is pretty damn far-fetched. That is, unless you are so hardcore in your scientific beliefs that you don't see the difference between human consciousness and the stimulus-response version of life found in amoeba. If you think there is nothing special and inexplicable about the human mind, it's self-awareness, it's ability to think abstractly and hypothetically even in opposition to the most basic rules of natural survival instinct; if all that is just chemical reactions and electrical signals to you...well, then I guess life is already pretty sad and dull for you, so it really doesn't matter what I say.
As one more addendum, there are all sorts of things that people have historically considered to be scientific fact. Most notably: that the sun revolves around the Earth, that the Earth is flat, that disease is caused by evil spirits, and that it is physically impossible to run a mile in under four minutes. Science is like the U.S. Constitution: it was made to be changed and altered.
Now, before I add political debate to the post that has already flirted with religious debate, I'm going to stop before it can get any worse.
A large part of the arrogance you describe can be put on the fact that documentaries are designed for 30 minute entertainment segments, not serious discussion. The scientific community is ridiculously stringent on how and what it states as fact (hence the "theory of gravity"). Nobel prizes are only awarded after years of scientific study, to the point where many famous discoveries are gone unrecognized because their creators have since passed. Documentary makers are not so strict, and saying "we think" "maybe" and "possibly" after every sentence makes for bad television.
ReplyDeleteNow, the big bang theory. Every major astrological body is progressing outward from a central point. That's...about it for the big bang theory. You are right on about calling it the beginning of the universe is ridiculous, just like calling a particle the smallest possible unit is crazy. Man has always used religion to explain where science left off, and even if we knew everything religion could explain why things happened the way they did.
Now onto the creation of life. I've got no idea on the lightning thing, but as far as evolution goes, it is about as close to scientific fact as we can get, and is regarded as one of the most successful scientific discoveries ever. To say that variations that do well succeed, and variations that do not fail makes sense. This extrapolates backwards quite nicely, and is strongly supported by creatures and organisms still survive from lots of different steps of the progression of life's evolution.
That having been said, you can't look at the current steps of evolution and say, "That's impossible!" It would be like rolling ten twenty sided dice and getting 6,18,5,12,19,18,3,15,13,6, then turning around and saying that that result is impossibly rare and some higher power must be involved.
That a single celled organism can mutate over time to become something as incredible as the human mind is mind blowing to me, and it excites me to no end to think of all the permutations science and evolution can think up. It is hard for me to see the complexity involved in healing and trees and, well, everything, and not get excited about it.
The scientific misconceptions of the past you mention were held before the current system of scientific review was in place, and when scientific study was heavily influenced by organizations like the church. That isn't so say that current theories are necessarily true, just that we have a much, much higher degree of confidence in them.
Don't take this to say that I am arguing against religion. Science and God can coexist, so long as you don't use religion to explain the inexplicable.
The only thing one wants to avoid is using science as a crutch the way a zealot would use religion as a crutch. Saying you don't believe it's true unless a scientist tells you its true isn't much better that saying you don't believe it's true unless a priest tells you.
DeleteIn my mind, both science and religion fail when they deem themselves to be mutually exclusive. Then everybody is just being narrow-minded in different ways.