"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree"
This quote is from Charles Darwin, the man who first put forward the theory of evolution through natural selection. So there we have it, the theory of evolution is so weak that even Darwin himself didn't believe it! And the eye is just one of a number of complex organisms that evolution has utterly failed to account for.
Or has it? I am sure that many people are very familiar with the misquoting of Charles Darwin because it is a famous example of a quotation presented as a fragment and completely out of context - or quote mining as it is often known. The section quoted above is regularly presented as an argument against evolution. Even to someone unfamiliar with natural selection this should immediately arouse suspicions, could Darwin really have doubted the theory which he spent much of his life tirelessly devoted to? To set the record straight, Darwin immediately went on to say:
"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."
In fact Darwin was boldly addressing some of the more weighty challenges to his theory in a whole chapter of The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties on theory". This is an obvious example and one that has been addressed by many people in many books, websites and articles - but I use it again here because it gives us a clear example of a common tactic used by those seeking to distort the truth. Furthermore, when the truth is being blatantly corrupted I feel inexorably drawn to highlight this disturbing trend.
The anti-evolution literature is full of quotations such as these which are taken out of context to encourage the view that most scientists do not accept evolution. What is being preyed on here is the worrying tendency to accept what we read without subjecting it to careful analysis. We must not accept anything solely on authority alone, the scientific method gives us a much better way – obtain the data and examine the evidence. I believe that accepting personal comments and statements without a measured consideration can be particularly dangerous (and this does not apply only to scientific matters).
Let's examine a hypothetical quote. Imagine that you read in a magazine that Dr Smith has stated "Anyone who believes that Archaeopteryx displays bird-like characteristics is very badly deluded". Clearly Dr Smith doesn't think Archaeopteryx qualifies as a transitional fossil form, but what evidence has he used to justify his assertion? Whatever he has used to make his decision, it hasn't been provided to the reader. In considering this statement I would search for the evidence regarding Archaeopteryx for myself and form a conclusion based on this data.
So much that is written about key scientific ideas fails to present any evidence whatsoever, and where it does it is often only snippets or second hand information. What I strongly encourage is to double check facts, read the source material, look up quotations and examine views attributed to people against their life's work and not by a one liner presented in a magazine column. I should add the caveat that I am not encouraging skepticism to the point of impracticality, there are of course authors and specialised publications in which the information has already undergone a degree of scrutiny.
I passionately believe that science is the search for truth. Learning to carefully examine the information we are presented with is vitally important. We should approach the data we receive with a good dose of skepticism and with our critical and rational thinking fully engaged. What I want to highlight here is that there is a lot of bad science out there which is masquerading as science. Furthermore, and this is particularly the case when it comes to evolution, there is an agenda to deceive in order to encourage opposition to the very best that science has to offer. Indeed, I urge you to remain skeptical when reading this and seek to find out the truth for yourself.
I have found the study of science to be enlightening far beyond anything I could have imagined. The evidence is there for you to find and examine for yourself. We don't have to accept the theory of evolution, plate tectonics or gravity just because someone told us to, we can investigate and examine the evidence and see for ourselves what the scientific community are so keen for us to understand. Open the door and step out on to the journey of scientific understanding, you will be swept off your feet with fascination, and perhaps onwards to new scientific discoveries that will make the wonders of the natural world a little bit clearer for us all.
Many thanks for reading - Dominic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I have as hard a time with belief in science as I do religion.
ReplyDeleteScientists are, in my opinion, more likely to use 'snippets of truth' for their own gain than anyone else. It's an interesting word, 'truth', because it suggests a definite, yet is so maleable and open to interpretation. My truth is not and cannot be yours also.
For example, no one can convince me that scientists have not managed to create a cure for the common cold yet. We already have succesful flu vaccines.
If this cure were released in a simple tablet form, think of the billions of dollars worldwide that would be lost by huge corporations who have cough syrups, decongestants, throat sweets etc as a kerching string in their affluent bow. Putting an end to that particular cash cow would only lead to a resulting reduction in the funding of further scientific research, so no one would win. Ergo, they keep it quiet.
The moment that science stops having its hands tied by the greed and desires of multi-nationals, then I will start to believe its 'truth'.
There is no evidence out there, available to the common observer, that hasn't already been green-lighted by those whose interests are likely to be affected.
Science and religion (in my opinion) both require us to start with a presupposition of “truth”. When carrying out an experiment, the scientist will have an end in view. Whether his end is to save millions with a cure for the common cold or to make millions, his own personal “end” or “truth” will inevitably affect the result.
ReplyDeleteTruth, by definition, should be something which is true for everyone, not just the individual. However, we are human and as such, have a finite perspective of reality. This is the reason why we search for truth. For example, if we already knew how life on earth began, we would not need to search for it. We can never know truth – this is our human condition. It is this very uncertainty that drives us.
I believe that the “agenda to deceive” (eg. with evolution) is not always intentional but is inevitable when one person’s perspective is presented as absolute.
The problem is that people have a tendency to accept whatever they’re told by someone in authority because it gives them the sense of “certainty” that they lack.
Firstly, thanks to both of you for your comments. I appreciate you taking the time to reply and some very interesting points have been raised. I would like to deal with some of the points as best I can.
ReplyDeleteI have to say to Man about Town that you’re concern about scientific evidence being hidden for financial gain has little to do with the scientific method itself. If a cold cure has been found but not yet disclosed because of the pressure of big business then that is not an indictment of the scientific method but a failing of mankind (whose tendency is often to put greed before welfare). Also I would point out that whilst I share equally cynical views, I can’t comment on whether a cure for the common cold must have been found without understanding the virus and its mutation rate in detail. It may well be completely plausible that a flu vaccine is possible whilst a cold vaccine remains elusive – they are different viruses after all.
Furthermore there is plenty of science that is very unlikely to be moulded to shape the whims and fancies of rich businessman. Science explains the natural world in detail and it does it in such a way that enlightens, astonishes and fascinates (in my view anyway). Science teaches us why mountains rise up, why the sun shines and how that light travels, why certain objects have different colours, why animal groups share common traits, why the stars and the moon seem to move in the sky, why earthquakes occur, why certain metals rust and others do not, why methane smells and why whole continents have moved over large expanses of time. Of course this is quite a random selection which I have just thrown together, but it is an effort to show the wonderful diversity of knowledge which science offers and the vast depth of its explanatory power. In most of these cases I can’t easily think of financial driven reasons for manipulating the data.
I do accept the comment about my definition of truth seeming to indicate the infallibility of scientific truth, I didn’t quite mean to suggest that so strongly – although I did say that for me science “was the search for truth” and I didn’t indicate it was truth in its purest form. Science can make mistakes (and does) and also it can be manipulated or undertaken unfairly which has undeniably occurred. With any human pursuit we have to take in to account the tendency of human behaviour to veer from correct standards of discipline. However, science is a self correcting discipline and it is open for contributions from anyone, it is because of this that those who have falsified data (or even physical objects such as fossils) have been found out and their assertions overturned by the real evidence. This method has helped to accumulate an ever expanding body of knowledge that explains so much that was once mysterious. That is the kind of truth I wanted to convey, I realise any fact can never be 100% proven and anything in science must be possible to disprove.
That brings me on to another point made in the anonymous post which deserves to be addressed. It was suggested that a scientist will have a preconceived notion in mind which will surely affect their conclusion. But this goes against the scientific method. The scientist may wish to prove something, but in order to do that the experiments have to be set up so that there is every chance of disproving the hypotheses. Not only that but the experiment will be repeated again and again, data will be carefully analyzed and checked for discrepancies. The scientist must try very hard to disprove what he in fact wants to prove. Finally after all this has been painstakingly completed the data will be submitted to a scientific journal where it is scrutinized by peers who are experts in that particular field. If the scientist has made errors these will normally uncovered and if so the article will not get published, of course the scientist can then refine his hypotheses and try again.
I am not suggesting that science is perfect but this does significantly reduce the possibility of scientists manipulating data to strengthen a preconceived notion whether ideological, political or financial. Finally this addresses the comment about people having a tendency to accept what they are told, this tendency is anathema to a scientist (at least in his professional work). That indeed was one of the major points in my original post, science gives us a different way of ‘knowing’ and it is a very testable and reliable way. I will borrow the phrase used by Eugenie C. Scott (in the admirable book Evolution vs. Creationism) that science provides “truth without certainty” but in my mind it gives us the most certainty we can ever expect to find.
Well, I hope you both manage to read my reply. I can certainly write a lot when I get going! Feel free to respond again to my musings. Thanks for reading, Dominic.
Since I am advocating adherance to solid scientific discipline, and also because I made special mention of mis-quotations, I wanted to add a note to my comment above. Eugenie C.Scott did indeed use the phrase "Science: truth without certainty" as a chapter heading in her book. However, she explains that her use of the phrase is derived from a quote by the anthropologist Ashley Montagu - the whole quote is "The scientist believes in proof without certainty, the bigot in certainty without proof". I thought it was worth mentioning so that I remain as factual as I can.
ReplyDeleteAlso I realise that "you're" in my second paragraph should be "your" but I don't seem to be able to edit the text!
Dominic
I totally agree with Dominic here and i would like to reiterate on the point made that scientists will have a preconceived notion in mind which will surely affect their conclusion...
ReplyDeleteThis is a common tactic employed by Pseudoscientific belief systems which, although they claim to be scientific, do not in fact, follow the scientific method.
Scientific hypothesis can only affected by empirical evidence that can be tested by third parties. If the hypothesis is in agreement with the evidence it becomes a theory. The theory can then be used to make predictions. Confirmation of these predictions with new evidence will strengthen the theory. (Of course the opposite is equally possible where new evidence may occur that cannot be explained by the theory, then back to the drawing board....)
Si