The Trouble with Today's Scientists

One of my greatest concerns in today's world is the general bias of science that says, "if you don't agree with the mainstream, then you are obviously wrong," and the eagerness of the population at large to accept what mainstream science tells them without question or second thought. First let me say that I am somewhere vaguely between an "old earth" and "young earth" creationist, leaning more towards young earth. I am also a scientist (something of a paradox in today's world I realize) and as a result I tend to look at everything from a very "I want observable proof to back up your theory" attitude. I had a pretty heated debate with some friends in band at a basketball game on a recent Saturday afternoon about my beliefs as a creationist. The discussion was a microcosm of today's world in that there were four distinct types of people: "I agree with you" "I can't believe you're one of those people" "I'm stayin out of this!" "I disagree....but I want to hear what you have to say." Two of these fit with what a scientist should be, one does not belong studying science, and the fourth is a mindless sheep. I'll give you few guesses which are which. I know you're thinking that this is probably harsh, and that I'm obviously biased towards the creationist viewpoint, so of course I say those who agree with me are proper scientists (and I have to give credit to the other guy who wanted to hear what I had to say), and of course I'd call those who disagree with me mindless sheep. But wait!!! That's not it at all.

Alright, so let's start with the simple one. "I'm stayin out of this!" should be stayin out of it (and by it I mean science), because anyone who is afraid of a little disagreement or controversy, and who doesn't want to actively seek all possible solutions to a problem does not belong in science. Go watch TV or turn on some music or something.

So what's the difference between 'I can't believe you're one of those people' and 'I agree with you'?" you might ask as well you should. Seems I'm just being biased right? I think the guy who agrees with me is right and the guy who disagrees with me is a stupid-head....but wait! There are two guys who disagree with me! One's a scientist, the other obviously evolved from a primate named Lucy (I give you permission to laugh here...a little comedy for ya). Here comes the vital difference between science as a whole as it is, and science as it should be.

First off, let's deal with my fellow creationist, scientist number 1. He agrees with me, but that doesn't make him a scientist. I say he's scientist material because he didn't throw his own biases and assumptions into it. He stated fact. He's seen the evidence, he's drawn his conclusions, and his conclusion is that God made everything in a literal way, both a theologically and scientifically valid idea.

Alright, so now let's take a look at scientist number 2: "I disagree....but I want to hear what you have to say." He recognizes that science is merely the replacing of wrong ideas with ideas that are less wrong, that everyone thought Copernicus was a loony when he said the Earth orbited around the sun, that Kepler was off his rocker when he supported him, and that when deBroglie said that physical matter (like say for example a toaster) not only acts as a particle, but as a wave, it meant diddly squat. General relativity flies in the face of the classical view of the physical world held for centuries, and yet it fits. Quantum mechanics on the face of it is pish posh, and caused a major paradigm shift in our view of our reality, but it fits. As long as people have cared to ask the question "How?" the answer has been constantly changing, and somehow it always seems to be completely absurd to mainstream science. But I digress.

In the past few decades, God has become a dirty word to the scientific community. Why? Good question; a question of faith. For some unknown reason, "scientists" of today think that just because something has to do with God, it's scientifically worthless. This is the difference between Lucy and scientist number 2. Lucy assumes that because creationism has as its source of inspiration a literal translation (by varying degrees, depending on your stance as old earth or young earth) of the Bible, that no one should even bother taking a second glance at it. "These are crazy people! Stay away from um!" That is why Lucy is no scientist by even the loosest sense of the profession. Lucy doesn't even bother to stop and think, "well, gee, this actually has scientific merit and deserves some research."

But wait! Isn’t that what scientists do? They stop and think! They see something and they want to know how! So sorry Lucy, you should go watch some TV or listen to some music, or go play outside, because you are ruining science for the world. Scientist number 2 on the other hand is doing a great job. He stopped to look at the facts, see the other side of the coin, climb to the top of the tree to see what was around. He did as a scientist should do: he ignored his biases and looked at the thing objectively. The magic of it is, come the end of our conversation, he saw where I was coming from. He still disagrees with me, but he accepted the fact that, yeah, these creationists aren’t all crazy like tree frogs. In fact, they deserve some sort of respect for facing up against the wall of bias that has been built around science.

So what do I say to those of you who are admittedly not scientists? First off, no shame there. What I challenge you to do is challenge everything science tells you. Don’t just accept because some smart guy with thick glasses and zero social skills tells you to. Think. Analyze. Question! That’s the only way advances in science happen. So let’s get advancing!

~AndyJams~