February 14, 2006

        There is a struggle going on in the S.C. legislature. The conservatives want the science teachers to SHOW HOW the Darwinists got to their conclusions, and do so in front of the children. No more of this "It's true because I say so." The education community, at least the community of pointy heads in Columbia, is AGAINST it.

        Now, for better or for worse, I consider myself to be a fairly well educated person. But I didn't come by it lightly. And if the truth be told, I probably got further within the education community than I had any right. I have learned most of my science and math far away from the halls of academia. And I did it by using critical analysis. But here I am, and there we are: so be it.

        One of the things I have learned is that nobody of any importance asks the question, "How do you know that?" Most people, today, simply except is as fact any sentence which comes out of the mouth of a man or woman sitting in a room filled with books. It becomes even more believable if the person has Dr. or PhD somewhere in the vicinity of his or her name. If the person speaks with a Brit or slightly German accent or has to have subtitles, no argument on earth would convince most of us to believe otherwise.

        The sad truth is that most people who consider themselves to be authorities are, in fact, completely full of crap. Not so much because they are trying to lie, but because everything they learned was from someone else who was full of crap, and so forth all the way down.

        Here are some interesting theories which are considered as fact or near fact:

1. Human beings are descended from apes in a smooth, slow, linear, evolutionary process.
2. There are five distinct races - yellow-brown, v. dark brown, light brown, tan, & pink.
3. The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second everywhere in the universe.
4. There is only one universe.
5. We're pretty sure about how the universe began.

The actual facts are these:

1. There is simply no truth to this. We may be, MAY BE, in fits and starts, possibly related to a type of proto-human which may or may not have evolved in Africa. Everyone thought, when "Lucy" was found, that this proved conclusively humans evolved from some kind of proto-ape creature. Walter Cronkheit did a six hour special on it. Alas, the latest information is screwing up all the theories, and once again Walter is as wrong about Lucy as he was about Dan Rather's reporting on the Tet offensive in Vietnam. Seems she isn't a direct ascendant, after all. Also, there are three predominant theories of evolution, any one of which if believed, cancels out the other two. We don't even know what we mean by the phrase, "Evolution is a fact."
2. There is only one race. 70,000 years ago, when a supervolcano erupted in the south pacific, every other humanoid species (except the newly discovered Hobbits) were destroyed along with lots of other animals. Archeologists and geneticists think, THINK, there may have been about 6,800 of us left, hiding in the bushes in Africa. After that, we all went some place else. What people think of as "race" is nothing more than skin pigmentation and the ailments that come with each melanin type. They're still not positive that we evolved ONLY in Africa. It's just fine if we did, but there's no real proof.
3. The speed of light is a theory which is supported by experiments in this sector of space. But some scientists are pointing to actual experiments which show that either Einstein was wrong, or that the speed of light is a variable, depending on where you are in the universe. We already know that time and light slow down in a black hole because gravity is different there. Really different. If light travels at different speeds, say, at the border of the universe, it would solve a lot of thorny problems. Like, the universe is not older than it ought to be.
4. In order for Einstein to be correct in his general theory of relativity, there must be at least three universes. Some suggest that there are ten. Some string theorists say that there are an infinite number of universes and that the only real question is: are they all co-existant jumbles of bubbles or ever increasing and decreasing shells?
5. Actually, scientists have only little itty bitty clues, and that's all. They make great discussions of probability but so far, that's about all. That isn't to say each theory doesn't have its passionate advocates - they do. But being passionate proves nothing more than a gorilla at the Yerkes Primate Institute in Atlanta proves by thumping his chest at the lady gorillas to prove he's boss. And that puts us right back at the first theory we were talking about which also can't be proven.

        Please understand I am not saying to substitute critical analysis with any scripture of ANY religion. I am saying that for too long, intellectuals have worshiped at the altar of science and their god is now being put to the same critical analysis which should have been its measuring stick. No wonder they don't like it!

        But critical analysis is a two-edged sword and those with withering or timid faith will not be rewarded.

        As for me, I worship the God of my fathers. And if science discovers by critical analysis that puppies evolved from kitties, then for me, that is the way God did it.

        Politically speaking: do we need politicians who use science or religion to demagogue their way into public office? What price will our children pay for political, cynical misuse of God's science? And who would have thought that the supporters of science would eschew requiring scientific analysis?!

        Dick Anderson