Who Am Us, Anyway, Part Deux

The evolution debate is largely one of superstition versus science. For those of us who actually understand what science is, its limitations and strengths, it always seems an absurd discussion. Imagine standing in a heated room in the middle winter and having someone tell you in all serious that there is no such thing as winter. After all, it's warm, isn't it? It's hard to argue against such things. You have a tendency to stare at them and wonder if they're the same species.

Okay. Forget evolution for the moment. Let's first try to define what science is.

Science is the organized study of fact is coupled with human modeling of what those facts represent. Underlying this concept are a few assumptions and principles. Facts can't be discarded because they're inconvenient. The integrity of a scientist is not based on money or status but on the quality of his data and the consistency of his model. Models must be based on facts and must have provability and predictability. Provability means that new facts hitherto undiscovered will support the model. Predictability means that the model will guide the searching of new facts.

Einstein's model of space time and the behavior of light and gravity were elegant and beautiful concepts. But they remained unproved until the actual observation of the bending of light was observed. Einstein's model was disprovable-- if the light hadn't bent it would have disproved the model. It was predictable-- it prescribed a set of experiments that would have specified behavior. Often provability is extremely difficult while disprovability might be relatively easy. Therefore, defining the nature of disproof can be as important or even more important than defining the nature of proof. Einstein's model of space-time and gravity is a good example of this. It is still yet to be completely proven, despite the fact we use it all the time. But attempts to disprove it have failed. Therefore, the evidence currently falls on the probably true side rather than this is a stopgap until something better comes along.

Modern science, that is in the last century or so, has tended to believe in universality. That is, behavior observed locally or in one specific venue is presumed to be indicative that the same behavior will be observed in all similar localities. Physics is physics regardless of where you do it. That means that the speed of light is the same at the core of the galaxy as it is in New Jersey. There is no possible proof of this: we can't go everywhere. But the hope is that inconsistencies in the behavior of the observable universe will give evidence one way or the other. The evidence has landed heavily on the side of universality though some cosmological observations have been a tough challenge.

This is what science is. Not what science means emotionally. Science is a cultural mechanism for handling lack of knowledge. It is recognition of ignorance. It is a celebration of the unknown. It is a mechanism of finding out. Uncertainty is central to science. Good scientists must be comfortable (though not satisfied) with not knowing something. They spin models of what might be the underlying mechanism producing an observable fact. Then, they devise means to determine whether or not they can prove or disprove that model.

This is an interesting phenomenon. Human beings are not general comfortable with not knowing. Yet, here is a cultural process that requires not knowing. Scientists are also comfortable with a partial truth-- perhaps more so than a complete truth. A complete truth is essentially a fact and as such must therefore be proven. A partial truth can be viewed as an incomplete model. It answers some questions but not others, poses new questions that are interesting and fails in some area of the data. The failure can be as enlightening as a success in science.

A good example is Einstein's model of space-time, gravity and relativity. All well known phenomena. Einstein's model operates beautifully at large scales and fails miserably at small scales. The quantum model operates beautifully at the small scales but does not scale up. So we have two models of the same universe that do not agree. Do we throw up our hands and give up?

No. We accept the limitations of the models and use them where we have deemed them appropriate. The failures of both models have useful information. Both suggest the problems that must be overcome by a third model that must explain the behavior of the first two models. But this in no way detracts from the validity of the models in their respective domains. It just says where and when you can use those models. To use an analogy, if a model is a house and the toilet leaks in the basement, you don't throw away the house. You either fix the toilet or work around it.

Such partial truths are so important to science they have their own name: a theory. A theory is a partially proven model.

Given the toleration of uncertainty by science, it's not surprising that science often runs afoul of that other cultural institution that deals with uncertainty, religion.

The two institutions handle the same data differently. Science presumes the world is real, therefore unknown, and pursues knowledge. Religion declares the world supernatural, inserts an organizing principle (which may or may not be knowable by a human being), and declares certainty. What's surprising is not that they are in conflict. What's surprising is that the conflict is so muted.

What's not surprising is where the conflict arises today: evolution.

There are few theories that come as close to the area religion holds sacred as the theory of evolution. It falsifies all creation stories. It presumes the rise of human beings without the need of a creator at all. It, in fact, removes from religion the whole necessity of a creation myth-- a common underpinning of all religions. Every religion has a creation story. Evolution says none of them can be scientific fact. Ever. Period. End of story.

Creation myths are important stories. They tell human beings where they come from, describe why they are here and implies where they are going. Perhaps ancient people believed they came from a hold in the ground ascending through concentric worlds, or were born from a magic couple licked out of the ice by a mystical ox or were created from dust in a mysterious garden. Certainly these days many people believe their creation myths to be fact: Got up today. Had a cup of coffee. Read the paper. Got on the train to work. God created the world in six days.

Evolution puts religion in the unenviable place of ignoring a very important piece of science, trying to micromanage it or removing creation myths from the realm of fact entirely and place them squarely (and safely) in the realm of the metaphorical. It's not surprise there's resistance to the idea.

Religious adherents that try to restore creation stories to the realm of fact have to beat science at their own game by disproving evolution. But the home field advantage lies with science. Scientists can tolerate dissident thought and uncertain results. They get them all the time. When the evidence is short a fact or two, or three or four, the adherents claim victory. The scientists are bewildered by their conclusion. Missing a fact or two? That's not disproof any more than missing an observation of Mercury because of cloudy weather disproved Einstein's theory.

The only weapon in the adherent's arsenal is a general misunderstanding of science by the public and a willful misunderstanding by intelligent people who should know better.

It might be nice if humans were able to live completely in the scientific world or the religious world. But we can't. Even monks use electric lights and bricks. Science is an extension of technology and technology is as much a part of who we are as standing upright and speaking. Scientists, for their part, are always pursuing the human endeavor of creating meaning-- religion's chief asset.

My own feelings are based solidly in the work of Joseph Campbell. Religion and other myths give me potential meaning in life. But science defines the facts.