Science and Truth

One of the hot subjects of contention in America at the moment is the matter of evolution versus intelligent design. For those who haven't noticed, the Wikipedia entry defines intelligent design as follows:

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design not as a valid scientific theory but as pseudoscience or junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

I am not going to enter the debate but would draw your attention to the word that both sides of the argument claim as the validator of their theories: "scientific". This is the word that we accept as the stamp of approval, the final arbiter that decides whether something is true or false. When the great god science proclaims its judgement, we all bow in submission and feel reassured in our understanding of the world.

Being as contrary as I am, I do not accept that we have to be quite so respectful of this particular god. It seems to me that science is not an immutable statement of truth but rather an interim suggestion of what might be true in view of what we know so far. Looking at its history, we have to admit that, every so often, it undergoes a sea change and emerges as a very different animal from the one we knew before. And, to me, this indicates that science is something to be aware of as an interested observer but not to accept as the final arbiter of anything.

Those who worship the god would have us believe that science explains clearly what is going on around us and that we would be fools not to accept it as true. But, if we examine it with an open mind, we find that it is just as "fuzzy" and undecided as any other of our systems of thought. The reality of science is that it names and suggests but cannot give a final answer.

Take gravity, for instance. In my post, O Water, I made this statement:

Your human laws
Of gravity and surface
Do not describe the natural fact
But only lend it reason

This is an assertion in poetic form that science does not have the understanding that we so often ascribe to it. Note that the word "lend" indicates an impermanence, a suggestion that what is given now will later be rescinded.

We are told that Newton discovered gravity but really that is an overstatement; we have always known that "what goes up must come down". All that Newton did was ask the question, "Why?" To begin to answer that question, he decided that gravity is a force, one that we now accept as fundamental to the existence of the universe.

But what the heck is it and why is it so? The plain and simple fact is that we do not know; we can measure it, explain what it does, use it in our calculations of the beginning of the universe, but we cannot say what and why it is. All we have done is to give it a name. This is reinforced if we look at Webster's definition of the word:

Main Entry: gravity
The gravitational attraction of the mass of the earth, the moon, or a planet for bodies at or near its surface (2) : a fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles, between aggregations of matter (as stars and planets), and between particles (as photons) and aggregations of matter, that is 1039 times weaker than the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between aggregations of matter.

The definition turns in upon itself; gravity is, apparently, a "gravitational attraction". The rest is mere obfuscation to disguise the fact that nothing has been explained. So we can measure it but we can't say what it is. How exact and sure is this wonderful science we worship!

In case you think I've just picked on a single instance of the weakness of science, let's have a look at another one. Closer to the business of evolution is the word "instinct". And this is what Webster has to say on it:

Main Entry: instinct
A largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason b : behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level.

It looks like an explanation but is really just a statement of what we already know: that organisms react in predictable ways without the intervention of reason. There is no explanation of the mechanism that creates these responses.

You might say to me that this is just a definition and that we must look to science for an understanding of what instinct really is. But you will find that there are no answers from that quarter either. "Instinct" is the convenient grab-all that science uses to explain all behavior that is not instigated by reason; no attempt is made to explain how it works or what it is.

In effect, science merely names what we observe. We see that there is a difference between behavior motivated by reason and that motivated automatically and we choose to call the second "instinct". When asked why an organism behaves in a certain way, we can then answer "Instinct", as though this explains everything. But really we are just saying that it behaves that way because it behaves that way. What an astute observation!

I am not saying that science is nonsense. In point of fact, I believe (what an unscientific word) that science is carrying out one of the Creator's initial instructions to Adam: to name all that is. But we should not get carried away with what we have found out so far. Science is not infallible; it grows and changes with our theories, our current understanding.

To return to the business of evolution and intelligent design, it seems to me that neither side make any great point when claiming to be scientific. Since science is not fixed and decided forever, I do not agree that it can be the final deciding factor in the argument. What really matters is truth. And, quite frankly, I don't care how unscientific a statement may be; if it's true, it's true.

Technorati tags: Science; Evolution; Intelligent design.