The War For/Against Science

A recent edition of National Geographic magazine had as its cover story a lengthy essay entitled "The War on Science," in which it analyzed and derided the various anti-scientific and pseudoscientific theories that today are found in such plentiful numbers—such as 'the moon landing was faked,' and the view that global warming is some kind of liberal plot. And the granddaddy of wackiness: that evolution is a "theory" and that creationism is a viable alternative theory.

It is said that only about 50% of Americans believe that evolution and natural selection is the real deal. The Nat Geo essay is presented, predictably, with a slight air of condescension, as is fitting for a magazine that is dedicated to the popular science demographic. "Look at those poor dummies who don't believe in the holiness of science."

What is missing to the article, and to the modern discourse, is any acknowledgement that there may be some reason to doubt science.  I wonder, sometimes, if the wacko extremist anti-science folks exist simply as a balance the extremism of the opposite side. I would argue that those who worship science may be just as misguided as group who believes that the moon landing was held on a sound stage in Arizona.

Says Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health:  "Science will find the truth....ultimately it will find the truth."

Except that it really hasn't at all, and the history of science is really the history of "truths" that are gradually proven to be, at worst, utter horrifying falsehoods, and at best, incomplete but useful premises. Scientific "truths" have been steadily overturned throughout history. At one time alchemy and astrology were declared to be scientific truth. Steadily, such ridiculous ideas get overturned, and even now on a daily basis, beliefs formerly held as truths are abandoned or revised.  If there is an 'ultimate truth' out there, science by no means has found it. Consider some examples:

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity began its development in 1907, and 108 years later science really doesn't fully understand the nature or behavior of light and matter. Intense debate rages among different factions in the world of quantum physics, even among such basic questions as whether light is a matter or energy.

The doctors who advised the mothers of these
children were quite certain that science was truth. 

In the early 50s, highly trained doctors, priests of science, believed that Tholidomide, a drug being used to combat certain respiratory infections, should be used off-label to combat morning sickness in pregnant mothers. They were scientists after all, so of course they had the truth.  The result were tens of thousands of babies born with horrifying birth defects of their limbs. Many of the photos are almost too awful to look at.

Just today, in the science section of my morning Sunday newspaper, I learn that the most up-to-date studies show there is no statistical validity to the belief that fish oil supplements laden with omega-3 oils have any benefit toward reducing the chances of stroke or heart disease. In the same newspaper: no evidence that eating apples really does anything for "keeping the doctor away." Just last week, mind you, my general practice doctor reminded me to take my fish oil supplement. But he no longer insists on PSA testing—such is the speed with which scientific truth changes.

Other modern medical wisdom currently under review as possible bunk:  that cholesterol is a form of poison in the system (some people who reduce cholesterol seem to be at more risk for debilitating arthritis); that a baby aspirin consumed once a day offers protection against anything at all. The small scientific truths that are debunked daily are too legion to count.

Evolution, while of course explaining how species develop and change and "self-select" due to their suitability to the conditions in which they must live in,  is now recognized to be slightly incomplete as a paradigm.

Only a couple of hundred generations ago, Raphael's
ancestors were bashing in skulls with mastodon femurs. 

The pure theory of evolution is that it's a matter of pure accident—species who happen to be born with a mutation that proves beneficial have a better chance of survival and passing along those beneficial genes.  Yet it appears that the development of species often happens much faster than would be the case by mere genetic accident. Can you really explain the rabid change of the human species from cave-dweller to  audience members at Copeland symphony in a mere 20,000 years?

So it's now proposed that there is a mechanism by which current conditions, and even free will, can actually change your genes in mid-stride. The genes you had as child may not be the same genes you have 25 years later, when you conceive your own children. A person abused as a child may actually have their very genes altered, as do those of a child leading an enriched early life. The implications of this are enormous. Evolution may not be entire matter of pure genetic accident, but may actually have some overtones of karma and even willful intention.

If this is so, then evolution, as is the case with every other scientific "truth," may be be an idea that is itself be still evolving.

Truth, by its definition, is a stable, non-changing thing. What is often called truth, by Francis Collins and others, often proves itself to be just another temporarily useful fiction, subject to steadily changing revision.

Evolution, No Longer a "Theory"

Nothing has infuriated me more over recent years than the belief held in some quarters that "evolution" is an interesting theory, but not one that has been proven scientifically. Something called "intelligent design" is sometimes held up as an equally likely truth for how species—and specifically the human one—came to be in its present form.

In the following paragraphs, I will now demonstrate for all time that evolution is a true principle; and also that it operates both in living, reproducing organic species, and also in objects previously thought to be inanimate.

I direct you to the silverware drawer and cutlery collection in the Mercurious household.

Now, Mrs. Mercurious and I, in 33 years of marriage, have only every owned two sets of dinnerware. (Mrs. Mercurious might be embarrassed to let Geezerette friends know that we are so severely handicapped in the cutlery arena, but suck it up, I say, this is science. She would also want me to polish up the good silverware before photographing it, but here too, the speedy needs of science triumph.)

Like many families, we have one set of everyday cutlery that is used 99% of the time and which goes through the dishwasher regularly. We also have a set of "good" flatware that comes out on special occasions and gets washed by hand and carefully put away after each use.

These species of dinnerware look like this:

A closeup of the genetic markers, the handle patterns, shows there are two species, and two only,  present here: 

Mind you, these are the only two sets of flatware Mrs. Mercurious and I have ever owned.  But within that very same silverware drawer, you can identify the following random selection of offspring, each with a distinctively different look and feel: 

Mrs. Mercurious will argue that in 33 years, these assorted orphans have been abandoned by friends, neighbors and strangers who may have accidentally left behind cutlery during visits. This strikes her, I guess, as a more comfortable explanation that the genuine magic implied. But while visitors have left cell phones, liquor, gloves, scarves, etc. behind at our house, I myself rarely travel around with flatware that might be misplaced. So I find it beyond the realm of probability that random forks and spoons have slipped out of vistors' pockets or purses to gradually populate our kitchen drawer. 

No, it is not migratory behavior we are witnessing; what we have in our silverware drawer in the Mercurious house is incontrovertible proof that simple parent cutlery can gradually give rise to all manner of genetically evolved offspring. I would also argue that this study may also be the definitive disproof of intelligent design as a concept: there is nothing whatsoever intelligent about this strange collection of knives, forks, and spoons. 

I am now off to do an analysis of mysteriously orphaned socks abandoned over the years in our laundryroom, to see what more can be learned about this newly proven science of evolution.