Science and Truth

Human beings possess a number of fears. In general, we refer to fear in its numerous negative forms. Unchecked, our fears can paralyze, stifle, and limit us. However some fears have served us well. The fear of not knowing is one such fear that has benefited mankind. On occasion, this fear has motivated us, protected us, and even lifted us. When we lacked knowledge, we vigorously pursued it piece by piece. Our fear of not knowing is partly responsible for where we are now compared to where we were centuries ago.

This is not to say that our fear of not knowing has hurt us from time to time. In fact, humans commit some pretty ludicrous errors in an effort to soothe our ignorance discomfort. The biggest of these mistakes occur in the form of abrupt conclusions and impulsive declarations. These types of mistakes run rampant on the philosophical battlefields shared by the quibbling realms of science and religion.

There has been long debate about the origin of humanity, our Earth, and our universe. The realms of science and religion have long been at odds over such questions as: Why are we here? Where did we come from? How did this all come into existence? What is the overall purpose?

Instead of uniting in our curiosity, we did what humans do best. We polarized ourselves and alienated one another over the subject. The stiff-necked faithful condemned the obstinate pagan. The self-appointed free thinkers mocked the canonist disciples. Back and forth these camps have thrown mud, hurled insults, and wholly discredited one another.

Fast-forward to this week. New studies and scientific models are challenging the theory of universal origin known as the Big Bang theory. This theory has long been championed as the single greatest evidence against the existence of Divinity. Now, there is evidence that maybe the Big Bang Expansion model contradicts mathematical and scientific realities that contemporary science has presently established. According to these scientists, “The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity.”

For years the “science” was conclusive on the Big Bang theory. There was sufficient evidence to establish the validity of the theory beyond a reasonable doubt. At last, there seemed to be a definite solution to the infinite nature of our universe and our origins. Too bad that pesky science got in the way and once again provided another explanation for the formerly unexplainable. Science has an annoying habit of doing that.

On a side note, I grew up with scientists telling me that Pluto was a planet. I made the stereotypical Styrofoam Solar System models and presented them just like every other kid in my grade. Since that time Pluto has be classified and reclassified so many times in order to account for new and improved information. Asking my elementary aged nephews now, they will tell me that Pluto is “the largest object in the Kuiper belt, the tenth-most-massive known body directly orbiting the Sun, and the second-most-massive known dwarf planet, after Eris…

Notice that one speck? No no that one. Look closer... that one! Yes that one. That is our Sun. One star in 100,000,000,000 in the Milky Way Galaxy, which is one galaxy of the 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe.

What?! You mean to tell me we can’t get solid correct information within our own infinitesimal Solar System, and yet we are so confident that we know exactly when and how the universe began based on hypothetical models of space expansion? Considering the size of our Solar System in comparison to the size of the Milky Way Galaxy, then compared to the universe at large... Even by scientific standards that is a significant leap!

I digress.

It seems that science is anything but conclusive. There exists a possibility that another study or discovery once again reveals the plausibility of the Big Bang Theory. It is possible that a whole new theory surfaces that feasibly explains the origins of the universe. Dare I say, there exists that small chance that creative design is scientifically proven to be a reasonable explanation? For the time being, let just be honest and say that the science is anything but conclusive.

Let’s take a closer look at other moments in our history when the science was “conclusive”:

Geocentric Theory – Scientists, scholars, and clergy believed for a time that the universe revolved around the earth. Based on their now-primitive observations and biblical interpretations, they deduced that the Sun, stars, and all other celestial bodies all moved relative to the Earth, which was considered a stationary object. Teachings to the contrary were considered heretical. Galileo Galilei was famously tried for heresy for his defense of heliocentric theory. Fast forward to today, and we know that our Solar System does indeed revolve around the Sun. Not only that, but our Sun is one of trillions of stars in the universe, and none of them are technically stationary.

Alchemy – This is a favorite of mine. Alchemy was an archaic field of science that was wildly popular in historic times. Its defining studies were dedicated to the discovery of immortality and the transformation of base metals into coveted noble metals such as gold and silver. The scientific consensus was that parts of the Cosmos could be extracted and altered in order to produce material perfection. So scientists went about extracting what they could from the “cosmos”. They tried to find gold in everything from sacks of grain to vats of human urine. Thank goodness we have evolved past this, or else professional gold mining would be an even less glamorous career in the workforce.

Piltdown Man – Many scientists were eager to locate the missing link connecting modern humans to evolutionary ancestors. In 1912, skull bone fragments were discovered in a gravel pit located in Piltdown, England. Upon assembling the skull, scientists were happy to deduce that the missing link had been found. They called him the Piltdown man and the science was conclusive.  For the next forty years, a considerable part of the scientific world reveled in their accomplishment. Their hubris abruptly ended in 1953 when it was revealed that the entire thing was a hoax. Someone had combined a human skull, an orangutan’s jaw, and a chimpanzee’s teeth to pull it off. For FORTY YEARS the science had “settled” the debate. How fitting that the fraud was exposed by…you guessed it…science.

This is not an attempt to diminish the importance of science at all. Throughout history, science has stood the test of time. Science has not failed. However, humans have; and they have done so in spectacular fashion. These examples just prove that science is anything but conclusive. New technologies, methods, and experimentations always push the boundaries of contemporary science and open our minds to previously untapped knowledge and revelations.

Is it any wonder why a portion people may be skeptical of “scientific findings”? The same tactics are being repeated over and over again: A theory becomes popular and widely accepted as gospel, scientists and the general public must all toe to new line of thinking, opinions to the contrary are seen as heretical and deranged, evidence is presented that challenges the status quo, the theory is adjusted or abandoned, and then the cycle repeats. World history has witnessed the same cyclical errors with every generation. Like I said, these are not errors of science; these are human errors.

Skeptical about climate change?

“THE SCIENCE HAS SPOKEN!”

Don’t believe the vaccine/autism hype?

“THE SCIENCE IS CONCLUSIVE!”

Concerned about drug induced impaired driving?

“YOU’RE DENYING THE FACTS!”

Time after time, science is used to justify some political point or promote some passionate campaign. Science was never intended to do that! Science is a means of finding the truth through observation and experimentation. Many have come to believe that theories and science are one in the same. This is convoluted thinking. In reality, science is used to establish the validity of a theory or hypothesis, or eliminate it altogether. That is why theories come and go, but the scientific processes and methods remain constant and repeatable.

Science is a means by which we can discover truth and prove truth. It is not the end-all-be-all truth. But it is nothing to fear or hate either. While science cannot prove the truth of everything within its current parameters, it certainly has proven many things. Scientific discovery through observation and experimentation have given us insight into the laws that govern our universe and our lives.

Make sure you understand how important science is and what role it plays in your life. It is not an omnipresent danger that erodes your faith and destroys your beliefs. Science is simply another piece to the puzzle that allows us to see the bigger picture. My faith has certainly not been challenged by theories regarding evolution or origin. I look scientific discovery and ask, “how does this enhance or enlighten what I already know?”

This ought not to surprise you, but I don’t know everything. My faith is not an attempt to know everything either. There are an infinite amount of things that I have never observed. I never observed a creation or a big bang. That is not to say there is no evidence. There are mountains, rivers, planets, stars, and life that all suggest that some power beyond our current comprehension and understanding is behind our existence. To others, the evidence may suggest something else. Who is right? Perhaps both? As with all truth, this truth will be established with more time, technology, and knowledge.

In conclusion, this conflict does not have to be a conflict at all. It doesn’t have to boil down to a narrow battle of fact versus fiction or enlightened versus ignoramus. Both camps essentially share the same purpose: seeking truth. With that perspective, truth seekers on both sides ought to appreciate the experience and knowledge that others have. Any moderation and respect shown from either side will accomplish more progress and understanding than short-term “truths” or shortsighted dogmas.

Reconciling my faith and my testimony with established scientific truths is not as difficult as some may seem. While I am judicious in my acceptance of some scientific theories as fact or gospel, I have accepted many scientific findings as valid and important. In fact, some findings have served me well enough to strengthen my faith and validate my testimony. I eagerly anticipate more scientific findings that will add upon the truth that we already have.