I know I am going to get blasted for this, but it suprises me I never see any ATSers questioning science. I personally, being a chemical engineer
study quite a bit of science, engineering, and dabble in pretty much everything. I, however, having learned so much about it, have learned about many
of the holes, flaws, and truths about the models and such found in most elementary textbooks and believed by the common individual.
In my Sophomore year of college, I asked my Physics professor why it seemed that every year, I would be told that whatever I learned last year was
just a simplification and a model, and that now I was learning how it works. For real this time?
Of course not.
Science seems to perpetuate itself for the sake of itself. The other day I read an article in the times which I sadly cannot find at the moment
claiming that we must "defend science" from its attackers.
My first response was, "Are you kidding me?" Of course science needs to be defended, but this particular article was claiming that anyone who
didn't blindly believe evolution, and believe it should be taught to our children was endangering science. I would counter that not challenging it is
the only real danger to science.
I liked Dr. Pratt's response, which made me feel a little better, that all scientists haven't changed their scientific discipline into another
Let me step back a second. There was a time I whole-heartedly believed evolution as well as creation. It was a fun time for me back in highschool. I
was a relativist. I believe many things could be true-- and even rationalized both were true and that the Bible actually lined out events close to
evolution--so it might just be some error in man keeping God's history.
But after careful study over the years I have discovered a few things.
1. Evolution is taught early in middle or primary school. This is unnecessarily early in my opinion, especially when it is only a theory and
contraversal. It's like teaching gay rights in 5th grade social studies.
2. The form of evolution taught, is most often the gradual form, where animals slowly change over millenia into other animals. People rationalize this
is possible based on what they see in life. Changes in one generation to the next-- so the theory is plausible that maybe a horse's great
great...great grandfather was a horse.
3. No serious evolutionary biologist believes this form of evolution yet it is taught almost exclusively. They believe in rapid mutations over short
periods of time. Mainly because no close intermediates have EVER been found. And logic would say you would have to find some, or at least one.
The reality is, the young are taught a deliberately incorrect version of the theory which seems plausible, and serves as a great creation myth. (like
any in the Bible, or Greek mythology, you name it) Children take it on faith (yes science, being accepted on faith, like all science unless you
yourself are testing in the lab or looking over data from the said lab)
I will continue by saying evolution is not necessary to study biology, not even collegiate level! I studied at a presitious institute as an
undergraduate. (which produces at least one Rhodes scholar a year, and ranks in the top five of all time for total number just to clarify that I
didn't graduate from Podunk U.) In our biology classes it wasn't even mentioned. Because it ISN'T relevant. There is a specific class studying the
theory and some aspects are crucial to cellular biology on a short term scale, but otherwise unimportant.
Finally, I will add that the wide belief that no scientists disagre with evolution is deeply flawed, and actually is a terrible lie put out by
scientists with agendas. I have spoken with a number of PhDs who are fearful to publicly admit their faith for fear they will be discredited. Even one
who was fired for refusing to teach Satanists.