I took a class my sophomore year of college called “Biological Perspectives on Contemporary Issues.” It turned out to be, “Why Christians are wrong in all of areas of current debate, and scientific proof for why they’re wrong.”
In many cases, I agreed with, or at least could see some serious validity in, the professor’s points; I’m certainly not sold on anti-evolutionist creationism, let alone full-blown Young-Earth creationism. I’m not confident there isn’t a “gay gene.” I’m not some Bible-thumping homophobic backwaters idiot.
However, purely because of the way this professor thought–and thus led the class to think–I felt it my duty to disagree with him often and vocally.
This man had so much faith in the power of science to observe, describe, encompass, and power everything that ever happens that he–and in my mind, much of the scientific community–couldn’t see past the limitations of science.
As soon as I write this (and said it in class), it seemed like I’m some crazed anti-science “reason is wrong, faith is right” nut. I’m not. But science presupposes dozens of things, and as soon as you make presuppositions–assumptions–you are limiting yourself to only describe the narrowed view of the world that’s presented based on your assumptions.
One tiny, and probably very flawed, example I gave: science presupposes the non-existence of God. Right? So if something happens, and a scientist submits a hypothesis, and the entirety of it is this: “God sneezed, and then the stars came out,” this scientist would be mocked. It’s not a legitimate scientific area of study. Sure, you can think that, but can we measure it? No? Well then, science has no interest in it. Instantly, all things not measurable by mankind are outside of the range of science.
I’m not saying we can’t appreciate science, use science, study science, or anything. What I’m saying, and this is inspired much by my excitement in reading this article by C. John Sommerville, is that science is just a tool. It’s not full enough to form the basis for your entire worldview. It’s not capable of describing or measuring all things worth thinking about.
I wish this were longer. I just wanted to get out that one point before I force myself to sleep.
Saw your Facebook comment and followed it here. Clearly not my area of expertise, but I have to wonder if this professor (and so many others like him) could have been suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect (involves the consequences of unknown unknowns on one’s life.) Interesting 5-part series started yesterday at http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/
Hope you’re doing well. Miss you here in A2.
It’s great to see you writing again, Matt. Thank you for explaining your hypothesis with the sneeze example. so I could get my non-philosophical mind around this fascinating idea.
Also, Karen’s link is wonderful.