Science isn't infallible



Science isn't infallible
EDITOR:
Modern scientists tend to extol the purity of science and scientific methodology sometimes to the extreme of denying that there is meaning or value to anything that cannot be measured or detected by our senses. Sometimes scientific theories go far beyond immediately measurable data or the normal boundaries of science.
The "Big Bang" hypothesis, for example, that the entire universe resulted from a primeval explosion of proto-matter and energy, is widely accepted even though it is not proven and belies common sense. How or when did this matter originate before it exploded? Common sense tells us that nothing exists unless somebody or something causes it to exist. There has to be a creator or a prime cause of a prime mover. Like the domino effect, some form of energy must topple the first tile before the others follow suit.
Theoretical constructs such as black matter or the indeterminacy of the nature of subatomic particles involve insights and leaps of thought that go beyond science. Science cannot explain everything there is to explain about the universe. Yet there must be some explanation for everything that exists, and if scientists cannot offer an explanation, then the answers must lie beyond the scope of science.
Too many people are under the impression that science is an unbiased consensus of facts and figures. Such is not the case. Biographical sketches of numerous scientists show how their atheistic and agnostic attitudes affect "science."
The Rev. EDWARD J. NERODA
Youngstown
Slogans vs. science
EDITOR:
When people start "taking sides" on complicated issues, the facts tend to become overshadowed by slogans and people start saying things that are untrue. This has clearly happened in the evolution (Darwinism) controversy, as evidenced by some letters published recently in The Vindicator.
Charles Darwin was a 19th century British naturalist who visited many parts of the world. He studied the wildlife that he observed carefully, and worked from his observations to a theory of how different kinds of plants and animals evolved. Later generations of scientists have tested Darwin's concepts and found them valid. A massive body of scientific knowledge supporting and extending his work has been developed in the 124 years since his death.
Darwin's work is attacked from time to time because it seems to conflict with the Bible. This is an issue only for those who insist that the Good Book is literally true, word for word, from cover to cover. Those of us who see the Bible as a complex blend of divinely inspired wisdom, history, poetry and eternal truth have no problem with turning to the world of science for help in understanding what Scripture says.
A recent assault on Darwin, called "creation science," holds that Darwin and his successors are wrong because life is too complicated to have developed without guidance from a deity. This notion should not be rejected outright, although it seems likely that a divine hand (if there is one) has worked in harmony with the systems identified by science rather than creating the world from nothing in six literal days. Creation science is presently supported by some interesting calculations and observations, but not by solid evidence. It therefore is not a science at all, but just an interesting hypothesis.
If people of science seem overly critical of creation science, it may be that we see its supporters as right-wing ideologues, not seekers of truth. Their drive to put their beliefs into school curricula is seen not as a way to improve public education but as a device to undercut America's traditional separation of church and state.
ROBERT D. GILLETTE, MD
Poland

By using this site, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use.

» Accept
» Learn More