Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Do Creationists Understand How Science Works? Apparently Not!

Apparently not. One of the Discovery Institute (DI) talking heads has a new book out, and in a 'video conversation' he claims that "Fossil Finds Only Confuse Human Origins".

But my issue is more serious than that bit of misleading labeling -- I mean 'video conversation'?  Just what is 'conversational' about the video?.  His words characterized my issue:
"The problem with such fossil finds is that they never provide the lasting clarity about human origins . . ."
Now, for years the DI has been claiming that science is too hidebound, that is they are too resistant to new idea . . . specifically Intelligent Design.  Think it through, did you see the DI supported 'Expelled' pseudo-mockumentary?  Their moniker of 'Big Science' to try and create this feeling that there is some huge secret monolithic organization controlling scientific thought.  How about the DI developed 'academic freedom bills' which have nothing to do with academic freedom, but are designed to cast doubt on actual science without offering a viable alternative.

And yet here we have Wells whining that new discoveries only confuse things and that:
" . . . each discovery complicates matters even more than they were complicated before."
This particular post from none-other-than little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer, closes with:
"If Darwinian theory accurately characterized the history of life and satisfactorily identified the engines of biological evolution, it would provide more clarity as time went by, not less. Don’t you think?"
Actually when I read this I saw a common theme (e.g.: Teaching People to Mistrust Science and If You Don't Know It All, Then You Don't Know Anything . . . Really? are a couple of examples that I've commented on it before). That if science cannot answer every question to an absolute degree of certainty, it should be tossed aside.  That's garbage, plain and ordinary garbage.  It's not even the creative kind of garbage we've all come to expect form the DI.

One of science's strengths is its ability to change as we learn new things.  I've said it before, scientific theories are like snapshots in time.  They are the best explanation we have today based on our current state of knowledge.  Tomorrow, as we learn more, we not only have the ability to adjust our thinking and theories, but we have the desire to do so.  If this were not the case, we would still be living in caves -- if we dared set foot in a cave in the first place.
I can see it now, a group of neanderthals standing in the rain, looking at a cave.  The ones with more forethought are trying to move into the cave and out of the rain.  But there is always at least one in the group who wants to stand out in the rain, because they don't know everything about the cave to begin with.  It might be wet inside, there might be an animal in it, it might even be dark -- or the ultimate whine 'the spirits might not like it'.  There's always at least one who refuses to even look inside the cave to get a better understanding.  Who needs understanding when you think you already have the answers!

Science is a process, and Wells' comments further convince me that the DI doesn't understand the process or how it works.  If they understood the process, they wouldn't say such foolish things.  And if they understood how the process worked, they wouldn't whine so often about not being taken seriously -- they would know why no one takes them seriously.  But admitting such would dry up their funding from religious sources, which is nearly all of their funding.  I mean if anyone was after actual scientific results, the DI is the last place they would go asking questions.

I do have a question for klingy and Wells . . . which is it?  Is science so locked into its dogma that it cannot evaluate new ideas . . . or do new ideas only confuse and complicate things?  So which is it?  I have a suggestion.  It's not that science is closed to new ideas, what they are closed to is religion and pseudo-science masquerading as if was actual science.  If Wells thinks new knowledge confuses things, I can understand that -- after all how much change does a Creationist ever admit too!

No comments:

Post a Comment