Science

Science and Truth: More Lisa Randall Quotes

“Scientists actively approach the door to knowledge–the boundary of the domain of what we know. We question and explore and we change our views when facts and logic force us to do so. We are confident only in what we can verify through experiments or in what we can deduce from experimentally confirmed hypotheses.” –Lisa Randall (Knocking on Heaven’s Door)

“Although there is much we don’t yet know about the evolution of the universe, we have a spectacularly successful understanding of the universe’s evolution based on the so-called Big Bang theory supplemented by a period of exponential expansion of the universe known as cosmological inflation… This theory has agreed with a range of observations, including observations of the microwave radiation in the sky–the microwave radiation left over from the time of the Big Bang.

“Originally the universe was a hot dense fireball. But during the 12.75 billion years of its existence it has diluted and cooled substantially, leaving this much cooler radiation that is a mere 2.7 degrees kelvin today–only a few degrees Celsius above absolute zero. Other evidence for the Big Bang theory of expansion can be found in detailed studies of the abundances of nuclei that were made during the universe’s early evolution and in measurements of the universe’s expansion itself.” –Lisa Randall

“In some cases, we will understand the observations sufficiently well to know what they imply about the underlying nature of matter and physical laws. In other cases, we’ll spend a lot of time unraveling the implications. Regardless of what happens, the interplay between theory and data will lead us to loftier interpretations of the universe around us and expand our knowledge into currently inaccessible domains.

“Some experiments might yield results soon. Others could take many years. As data come in, theorists will be forced to revisit and sometimes even abandon suggested explanations so we can improve our theories and apply them correctly… even when new results might require abandoning old ideas.

“Our hypotheses are initially rooted in theoretical consistency and elegance, but… ultimately it is experiment–not rigid belief–that determines what is correct.” –Lisa Randall


Understanding Science Better: What is Science?

Understanding Science Better
I for one feel it is imperative to educate people about the merits of science. But before we can do that, we have to talk about what science is, and only then can we come to a better understanding of science.

Personally, I am no scientist. But I did take numerous science classes in astronomy, biology, chemistry, human physiology, and psychology at a prestigious university of science. Also, I practically devour any scientific work of popular literature I can get my hands on–especially in the areas of cosmology, evolution, and neuroscience. Occasionally, I read scientific journals and articles, just to keep with the times. So I think it’s safe to assume that I have an idea of what science is.

Here is what I understand science to be (but don’t take my word for it–read a book–reading rainbow).

Science, as we use it colloquially, commonly refers to the scientific method. As such, science is basically just a methodology for testing the validity of evidence.

This is exactly why science makes no assumptions, mind you. It can’t actually make judgements until it has tested evidence first. After a lot of observation and testing, the evidence either proves true, or else, it proves false. No assumptions made. Just pure discovery.

In addition, we must be mindful not to confuse science (the methodology) with a scientific theory. They too are different things.

A scientific theory is hypothesis in which a premise, a principle, supposition, or proposed explanation is made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation–and which relies on science for either confirmation or falsification of that hypothesis.

Fending Off Scientific Illiteracy
Often times we hear a scientist, or scientifically literate person, defend the merits of genuine science from the cultish anti-science fear mongers–who toss around science as a pejorative term. I recently encountered someone who, without intending to, simply made an ass of himself by demonstrating a flabbergasting ignorance as to what constitutes science.

We all have run into someone like this at least once. They are so certain they know a lot on a subject they clearly have never taken the time to study or inform themselves about the least. Most of the time we choose to ignore them, because their blatant Lingua Franca like appreciation of the subject matter, usually is a dead give away. Surely there is nothing we can say or do to convince them that their knowledge is wanting, because in their eyes, they know all there is to know.

I have an aunt that thinks eating microwave popcorn will give you cancer. She asserts her views as a matter of fact, but it never ceases to confound me at to why she continues to keep a microwave oven in her kitchen. Maybe the kitchen came with it? Who knows. But what concerns me is where she is getting her information. After all, there is no reason to believe microwave popcorn will give you cancer–but she heard it at church–and, well, instead of Googling how a microwave oven works she took a different authority’s word for it. An authority who, predictably, is as scientifically ignorant as my poor aunt.

I want to begin to correct this painful, and embarrassing, form of scientific ignorance–and the only way to do that is to highlight the mistakes and make people aware of them. It’s the same as getting a test back from a teacher with dozens of red marks littering the page. The red marks are the red flags showing you the areas where you are completely ignorant. The idea of highlighting the mistakes is to, hopefully, ensure that the erudite student will go back and study those vital areas–and educate themselves more thoroughly. But most people, it seems, aren’t concerned with improving their understanding–they usually just take things at face value.

Needless to say, this causes the conversations to go downhill rather fast. The conversations often look something like this:

Scientific Minded Person, “We gain new knowledge not from religion but from the sciences?”

Religious Minded Person, “No … all scientifical knowledge is provisional and limited to the assumptions of science.”

Please don’t mistake my criticism of the problem as being unduly harsh on scientifically illiterate folk by making them sound borderline retarded. Heck, nobody would actually say “scientifical” now, would they? Actually, yes–this is an exact segment of a transcript of a conversation I have been reading on a forum where this religious fellow thinks all “scientifical” knowledge is provisional and limited by the “scientifical” assumptions it makes, apparently.

Perhaps what our “scientifical” minded friend was doing when he said that science makes assumptions is confusing general theories, or hypothesis, with formal scientific theories. But a working theory and a basic assumption are two very different things, as everyone well knows.

When informed that science doesn’t, in point of fact, make any assumptions at all, his reply was:

“Show me a scientific factual evidence that 2 + 2 = 4.”

The problem here is clear. Science is not the same thing as logic.

Both science and logic are methods of validation, but science often times runs counter-intuitive to logic. Logic dictates, for example, that something cannot come from nothing. But science, in the field of quantum mechanics, has shown that this logic doesn’t always hold. Subatomic particles, for example, phases in and out of existence all the time.

What we can say is that both science and logic are concerned with validating our understanding so that it might constitute real knowledge, and helps to paint a better picture of the reality in which we live.

Whereas science is concerned with the validity of evidence, logic is concerned with the validity of various types of rationale/beliefs. Unlike science, logic doesn’t test evidence. It tests the coherency of any given  premise based on certain ideas/beliefs about the world.

Logic = rational tool for testing the coherency of ideas/beliefs. 

Science = pragmatic tool for testing the validity of evidence.

Additionally, if something holds to be logically sound, then it becomes a formal proof. Even so, it still could be falsified, or merely theoretical, so should be considered provisional for these reasons.

As long as the logic is sound, however, then science is able to acquiesce the proof as a form of empirical support for helping to further along a hypothesis or else falsify it as counterfactual.

Conclusion
By talking about what science is, and doing away with all the misrepresentations, hopefully we can sponsor a greater interest in considering the merits of science and the impact is has on our everyday lives. My goal here has not been to explain how to do science. For that you should consult a real scientist. My goal here has simply been to detail a (hopefully) accurate representation of what science is and means.

Is Scientific Knowledge Provisional?

Usually science minded adherents can be divided into two prominent camps. First there are the realists, who hold that mathematical theories can provide direct insight into the nature of reality, and secondly there are the instrumentalists, who believe that theory provides a means for predicting what our measuring devices should register but tells us nothing about any supposed underlying reality.  I personally side with the realist camp, but regardless, the debate as to the value of science and what it can ultimately do for us rages on.


Recently I have heard several objections to the notion that scientific knowledge can only be provisional, but I think this notion arises from the mysterious way in which science works against our intuition. To clarify this point we could say, with regard to scientific knowledge, the distinction which needs to be made is when considering the status of our current understanding prior to new discovery and after discovery.


Thus, it seems to me, that any information which has not yet been discovered or exists theoretically (i.e., remains unverified) denotes a level of uncertainty, and so is provisional. Whereas any information which has been discovered and tested (i.e., verified) denotes an established understanding–-the basis for our scientifically gained knowledge.


Needless to say, it would be remiss not to point out that post-discovery scientific knowledge carries with it a tentative certainty-–and by this I mean the established knowledge may be incomplete and/or subject to revision (e.g., the Big Bang theory is incomplete, but so far as we know accurate, and other theories may later be improved upon, such as cardiovascular understanding which was greatly improved with the advent of MRI technology). 

What this suggests is that, because our certainty is tentative, absolute knowledge may be out of our reach even as we feel absolutely confident, or certain, of the knowledge we do have. Additionally, modern cognitive science also reveals that our certitude is an emotional construct, and in actuality, there is no such thing as absolute certainty–especially when we know the brain so often perceives the world incorrectly and that our intuitions are usually off by a wide margin.


Of course I am familiar with the common objection: But we know for certain how some things work (absolutely). Take microwave ovens for example. We know exactly how a microwave oven works. We can explain every detail as to what makes it work and, furthermore, can give lengthy explanations on how it works. Our knowledge of microwave ovens, then, seems to be absolute. We even know about electromagnetism and how microwaves function, so it’s not a big mystery of why a bag of Orville Redenbacher popcorn pops when you microwave it. And I’d agree, our understand with regard to microwave ovens and microwave popcorn is as absolute as it is going to get. 

But let’s not overlook the fact that this is only because it is an understanding which we were able to derive from prior discoveries in physics, discoveries which were, and may still be, subject to revision, refinement, and/or improvement. So the fact that our certainty rests on a foundation of ongoing research suggests there is a certain amount of uncertainty we must predict, even expect, as any future find may change our minds about the basic understanding of microwaves, even as this does not jeopardize our current understanding of how microwave ovens and microwave popcorn work, per se.


So although it is true there are both logical and scientific claims we can deem absolute, our understanding never starts out that way. We begin with uncertainty and then work our way toward certainty–which is basically saying we move from ignorance to understanding–and science it the tool which helps us do this. So anything which is absolute is only deemed “absolute” because of the prior provisionality which allowed us to test the competing options and then either falsify or prove them, and after which we gain further insights–thus adding to the certitude in our scientific knowledge. Even so, I would caution, since science has, traditionally speaking, had a way of surprising us with rewriting our understanding of the world (e.g., quantum mechanics being a fitting example), we cannot be sure, at least not a hundred percent anyway, that tomorrow a new discovery won’t have us updating the details of our current understanding and causing us to rewrite our textbooks on what we thought we knew.


Anyway, that’s the gist regarding the provisionality of scientific knowledge.

Scientism and on Due Criticism


Scientism
As most of you may know by now, Stephen Hawking recently commented in his new book The Grand Design that the origins of the universe needn’t have had a Creator, therefore God is unnecessary in explaining the origins of the universe. Predictably this statement has rubbed some theists the wrong way. All across the blogosphere disgruntled theists have been popping up having a bone to pick with anyone who agrees with Hawking’s audacious (yet scientifically compelling) statements.
One such disgruntled person emerged over at Debunking Christianity with a clear agenda—debunk Stephen Hawking. I joined in on the discussion because I saw this person throwing around the pejorative term scientism. Anyone who was agreeing with Hawking’s expert opinion was inviting her unfounded criticism. She made her intentions clear when she attacked all those who felt science was a valid means of explaining things. Well, it is. Science works… period. It’s beyond me how some just can’t seem to get used to this fact. As such, her usage of the term scientism was strictly a pejorative slander intended to provoke. In his new book Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk Massimo Pigliucci reminds us that “The fact that scientism is an insult, not a philosophical position that anybody cares officially to defend, is perhaps best shown by the fact that there is no noun associate with it: if one engages in scientism one is “being scientistic,” not being a scientist.”[1]
Pigliucci’s quote shows quite eloquently that the term scientism is a made up one. Even so, when I used some playful hyperbole and called her on her misusage of the term, she suddenly became defensive and offered an irregular definition of it, stating that “Scientism (a term reserved for those asserting some form of supernatural dualism).”
Well, I guess it could be interpreted as this, but I found it sort of confusing as to why she’d use this particular definition here. Is she implying that Stephen Hawking believes in supernatural dualism?  Or is it more likely that she was back peddling from those stunned by her lack of tact and ignorance about the term she was bandying about? Whatever she may have been about, the thing that needs to be emphasized is that scientism is, specifically, a pejorative term for the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other enquiry (Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 2005).  
Scientism has been a derogatory term since the physicist E. Rutherford first said, “…there is physics and there is stamp collecting.” His critique was regarding pseudo-scientists who thought in supernatural terms about science, not so much dualism as a misapplication of science, and therefore criticized them by labeling their misconstrued science as an –ism. Rutherford’s gist was that by supplying the –ism, he was criticizing those who were not practicing science—they, in fact, were practicing a form of philosophy (specifically positivism, hence the –ism).
At its best, however, the term scientism is only a crass reductionism of the actual philosophy of science. In fact, scientism, as Pigliucci observed above, is not even considered a real philosophy. Unlike the philosophy of science, which does rely on the scientific method to gain credibility, scientism does not. Moreover, scientism lacks skepticism (part of being related to positivism), and skepticism is vital to philosophical inquiry, thus scientism can’t be relied on as a proper philosophy in the proper sense.
As used by our infamous critic, however, she seemed to be unaware of the terms negative implications as she was using it to mean excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques, i.e. faith in science. But this usage is hard to gauge, since by any epistemic standard we are justified in believing in science, a) because it works, and b) because its knowledge and techniques are excessively powerful.
Regardless of how the term is used, scientism is pejorative, and moreover, it is self negating terminology. How so? Knowing that the practice of philosophy is distinctly not the same as the practice of science, to suggest one is practicing scientism is merely to suggest they are practicing something other than actual science. Okay, so then, what are they practicing per se? Philosophy? Pseudoscience? Religions? It’s best to be clear if you’re going to criticize something as idiosyncratic as science.
Why even bother dinking around with useless terminology which nobody takes seriously? As I said, scientism is a made up term, made up by Rutherford to mock opponents who abused science. I don’t think Stephen Hawking can be accused of practicing scientism, and I certainly don’t think it is fair to suggest anybody who puts their trust in the authority of a well respected and world renowned physicist should have to settle for such abuse either. My suggestion would be just don’t use the term. In today’s world it is just an outmoded piece of vocabulary, and if you think it has any sway, then you need to think again.
Due Criticism
Now normally I wouldn’t just call anybody out, but when I see someone using a stupid term, an offensive term, and bandying it about just to feel superior… then I have no problem taking them down a peg and asking them to eat crow. Part of being an advocate for reason is to sponsor reason by correcting ignorance when I find it. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who is actively attempting to use the term scientism is an ignoramus in need of some correcting. So I called her out, first by correcting her usage of scientism, and then I offered her a link to some information which would correct another misconception she had. This time about Hawking’s use of M-Theory to justify there is no reason to invoke a Creator/God for the explanation of the origin of the universe.
She stated about M-Theory that:
I’ve heard that The Grand Design relies on M-theory. Well, that’s nice, but if so then it is just a theory. One for which there is no experimental evidence as of yet… Besides, string theory (on which M-theory is based) is unfalsifiable.
She then goes on to say that “Hawking has given up on doing real science and is “hawking” metaphysical gibberish like this…”
String theory may still only be a theory, but it is a promising one in the area of particle physics, and that is obvious for anyone who has kept up with the literature and read Lisa Randall, Brian Greene, Leonard Susskind, and so on. Also, it appears that string theory may have found its first real solid evidence in the area of four-qubit entanglement and black holes. I didn’t know if she kept up on the physics papers, so I politely supplied her a link to a PDF of an academic archive called the Physical Review Letters (http://publish.aps.org/) and sent her to an article written by a group of physicists at Imperial College in England about how they recently discovered a way we can test string theory.
From the article “Four-qubit entanglement from string theory” the authors state:

Falsifiable predictions in the fields of high-energy physics or cosmology are hard to come by, especially for ambitious attempts, such as string/M-theory, to accommodate all the fundamental interactions. In the field of quantum information theory, however, previous work has shown that the stringy black hole/qubit correspondence can reproduce well-known results in the classification of two and three qubit entanglement. In this paper this correspondence has been taken one step further to predict new results in the less well-understood case of four-qubit entanglement that can in principle be tested in the laboratory.[2]

Granted string theory is not yet well established, what she failed to recognize is that there is nothing to suggest it’s invalid either.
In the past, the criticism of prominent physicists such as Feynman and Glashow, who criticized string theory for not providing any quantitative experimental predictions, look to be out-of-date as it now seems there is a way of providing quantitative experimental predictions using four-qubit entanglement. I suppose only time will tell, but my point is that anyone who assumes that string/M-theory is purely philosophical in nature has jumped to conclusions before all the evidence is in.
It seems with this most recent math, and new ways to test it such as the LHC at CERN, string theory may turn out to be both testable and falsifiable. So my question, and the one I posited to her, was this: once tested, if verified to be true, would you correct your mistakes with the properly updated information? I’m not saying this alone would definitively prove M-theory, but it would be strong evidence for its feasibility.
But this wasn’t good enough for her. She then went on to weasel out of having to do any research by reading the article I supplied her, by deferring responsibility to the authority of physicist Peter Woit, saying, “The Complaint by critics such as Woit is that M-theory is not even mathematically coherent. Peter Woit is a mathematical physicist so what he says does carry some weight.”
Right after she accused others of failing to supply a valid case for relying on Stephen Hawking’s authority as a leading physicist, she turns around and does the same? This hypocritical tactic didn’t go unnoticed by me, so again, I referred her to the Physical Review Letters hoping she would chance to read the article. Whether or not Peter Woit can understand the intricate math of M-theory I cannot rightly say, but I know Ed Witten fully supports string/M-theory—and if he does then I feel that settles it.
Of course, seeing as how she refused to read any of the actual research in the field of physics, let alone particle physics, and refused to look up any of the physics papers in the academic archive I kindly supplied her with, I felt compelled to ask her why she felt like continuing to talk about physics when it was apparent that she just didn’t know what she was talking about. I wasn’t trying to belittle her intelligence, but by this point my patience was up. She had several chances to read the paper and continue an educated discussion on the topic, but instead she chose to launch into a series of ad hominem attacks. First she harangued me for criticizing her criticism in a verbal blitzkrieg of ridicule (an odd thing to be ridiculed for when you think about it—a criticism of a criticism). Surely, you’d think that if one could dish it out then they could take it? I guess not.
Does your ESL certificate entitle you to authoritatively discuss quantum theory? No? Me neither. What I can do however is I can evaluate arguments for validity and coherence. Reading around in the popular lit I find that there are critics out there who have strong opinion that current trends in research are giving too much credence to a theory they feel has few merits. It seems to me they have a good argument.
Seriously? Bringing up the fact that I am an ESL (English as a Second Language) instructor—as if this would embarrass me into silence—is how she answers the challenge to read a few physics papers in the area she’s criticizing—which she continually refuses to do? Does that even seem rational to any of you?
In my defense, anyone who doesn’t understand the value of multiculturalism and the importance of sharing our cultural knowledge and experiences with one another is, in my book, a complete ignoramus. That said, I am not ashamed to be a “cultural ambassador” who helps the Japanese learn something about other cultures, let alone my own. But enough about me, I brushed of the ad hominems as a refusal to engaged in a well informed discussion and also as a sign of bald faced insecurity—since who but an insecure person would attack someone else’s credentials when they don’t even know that person from Adam? Or for that matter, lobby untrue things against someone you know nothing about? For all she knows Ed Witten might be my uncle (of course he’s not—I’m just pointing out her fallacy of hasty generalizations). Not that it matters, but I don’t have an ESL certificate. I don’t need one. My degrees are in Advanced English Theory and Criticism and the other is in Japanese Women’s History with a focus on cultural feminism—just to set the record straight.
Next she went on to say:
Does the Google not work for you? I mean, it would be pretty easy to take your vast knowledge of quantum and string theory directly to Peter on his blog. It isn’t hard to find. There you could show him just how smarter you are. But you’re not going to do that are you? I think we both know why too. ESL certificate holder vs. post doc in advanced theoretical physics equal massive fail for you doesn’t it.
Fail? Actually, not really—since I am not an ESL certificate holder but an advanced theoretical language/literary theorist—or something along those lines. But just to be clear on the matter, I reminder her I wasn’t contending with anything the professional physicists were saying, I was contending what SHE was saying.
Google works just fine for me, in fact that’s how I found the Physical Review Letters, which I now check regularly for new and fascinating physics articles. If only she’d join me in reading it, then I am sure our discussion would vastly improve.
Even as I find her just like every other theist with a bone to pick with everyone who rejects their tenuous beliefs, she was obviously overcompensating to be part of the intellectual elite, perhaps it was to show that theists can be smart too, or perhaps it was part of an ulterior motive to knock all those internet atheists down a peg or two and deflate some egos, I do agree with her on a couple of points. First off, I fully agree that the popular lit is meant to allow us to get acquainted with difficult or complex scientific theories, thus informing the general public, and keeping us in the loop. If we’re well enough informed then, yes, we would gain the ability to critique and evaluated these scientific theories and advances. I also agree with her that there is a division between physicists who either support string/M-theory or find it convoluted, but what I must adamantly disagree with her on is the fact that she has made premature assumptions that the critics are undeniably correct.
Regardless of whether or not string/M-theory proves itself a valid scientific theory, I am not qualified to say, but I personally would wait until there is solid disconfirmation to write off a theory as interesting as string/M-theory. Maybe that is my personal bias, but I would say it is also prudent, since science isn’t about rejecting a theory on the basis of whether or not is sounds good. It’s about testing the theory and finding out whether or not it passes muster as a scientific theory. Until recently string/M-theory was just a theoretical theory, but now it looks as if physicists have found a way to test it—and so I remain optimistic and leave it in their capable hands.
Have a Serving of Humble Pie—Why Not?
Needless to say, scientists like Stephen Hawking write popular books on science so that the layman (like me) can assimilate the difficult information which only scientists are fluent in. I totally am with Larry King on this one, we dummies need someone smarter to take us by the hand and explain it to us. By reading physicists’ and cosmologists’ popular works, as well as their academic papers, one can become reasonably well informed and perhaps even join in on a discussion about the concepts and the philosophical implication or ramifications of these cutting edge theories.
What I can’t put up with is letting someone who obviously has no clue as to what they are on about belittle people for trusting in science, then allow this same person to toss around groundless insults, then hypocritically turn around and use science to justify her agenda. Normally I’d let bygones be bygones, but when someone turns around and attacks me for calling them on their bullshit, then as an advocate for reason I’m going to turn up the beacon of reason a notch or two—and maybe they’ll see the light. The point is, however, at the end of the day even a layman can be well enough informed to have a valid standing opinion about areas outside of their expertise. But when someone is blatantly ignorant of the areas they are criticizing, then perhaps they are the one who deserve the criticism?

[1] Massimo Pigliucci, Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk, The University of Chicago Press, 2010, loc. 3334-37 Kindle.
[2] L. Borsten, et al. “Four-Qubit Entanglement Classification from String Theory.” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 100507, September 2, 2010

Planck Time and Nothing From Something

Included below are some videos which help explain the confusing concepts of what happened at the beginning of time and before the universe. I add these because of two reasons, 1) cosmology is highly engrossing and is on the way to answering our most profound questions, and 2) theists and Christians still talk about singularities and don’t have an adequate grasp on basic fundamental physics to understand that their arguments actually seek to disprove their hypothesis.

Not that it bothers me, I just get tired of hearing junk theories, and would like to bring them up to speed. The problem is, because of the highly popular rhetoric sponsored by those like William Lane Craig, many Christians simply recycle his arguments not realizing they are fully outmoded as his cosmological picture is over thirty years old. It’s hard for non-believers to argue against an already outdated premise, so why not keep with the times? Because, if believers ever did study modern physics and learn the most recent models for today’s cosmology, this updated cosmological understanding would inevitably dissuade them from their faith-based professing in believing that the Bible offers a superior cosmological view of creation, and in turn, it would shatter their fragile faith by informing them that the reality they live is completely different from the one their God supposedly was to have created, thus defeat their purpose of proving themselves inexorably right by showing how falsifiable the Biblical claims actually are.

If Christians and other theists took the time to understand the science they readily like to reject, it would be eye-opening! What we would get would be akin to another Galileo tying some rocks together episode, in which what followed was an entire Earth shattering event where the Christian ecumenical traditions, were all but nearly destroyed, where real understanding supplanted archaic superstition, and each wrong premise came tumbling down and Christianity, ultimately, was forever changed. Indeed, Christianity was instantly yanked into the modern world with one little tiny scientific experiment. And if science was this powerful, if it could jeopardize everything believers held fast too, then it was too dangerous to peacefully co-exist with the religious worldview, in fact, Galileo found this out the hard way when the Inquisition put him on trial as a heretic. Science, it seemed, could destroy the Christian worldview entirely, and ever since Christians have realized it they have been desperately seeking to separate the two overlapping spheres, by forcing wedges between that which they venerate as sacred and spiritual, and that which they rely on as an everyday fact of life. In order for their cherished faith-based beliefs to work, they must keep the supernatural separated from the natural, lest the natural contaminate the batch of beliefs, allowing science to dilute the supernatural variety until it is all but extinguished. As Christopher Hitchens had pointed out, science seems to have a way of breaking religion’s monopoly.
Such dangerous ideas championed by the naturalistic scientist have been a bane to faith, just look at how long the religious have been denying Darwin’s theories of Evolution and Natural selection as invalid when in fact the opposite is true–Evolutions been validated and confirmed!–but what’s even more eye-opening is how powerful a tool science can be when applied correctly. Arguing against the validity of that which has been confirmed true is a futile gesture, which only seems to destabilize the Christian homogeneity whenever a person agrees with science over their doctrinal beliefs, thus fracturing the faith into newer sects and infinitesimally smaller and less influential denominations. Although, in my opinion, this is the only way for a troubled  institution to survive, mainly for parts of it to update itself, while other parts continue working until they need an overhaul. Thus religion is continually conforming to the scientific worldview and not the other way around.

If you want a scientific prediction, here is one, based on the Churches delay in catching up to the modern scientific understanding of the natural world: I predict 50 years from now all Christian denominations, which acknowledge the merits of the scientific method, will believe fully in Darwinian Evolution. Those that do not will go the wayside, or else, become so insignificant as to not be relevant to the overarching Christian faith as it should exist 50 years from now.
If Christians would stop taking things on a matter of faith (and some liberal Christians  already have) they might actually begin to learn the real truths as revealed by science, instead of just blindly denying them, and pretending that’s refutation enough. It stems to reason there would be substantially less cognitive dissidence within the faith which relied on the prowess of science, and the realities revealed by such, rather than pure blind faith. Because the denial of any well supported scientific theory only puts further strain on one’s ability to maintain a semblance of faith, this makes scientific reason the bane to all religious held beliefs, and religion a bane to all rationality. But I find comfort in this revelation, for I personally can let forth a great sigh of relief, as this is not my problem to contend with.

The bottom line is, science is a secular tool, it takes no sides, it is neutral, but I take the side of science, because unlike most supernatural held beliefs, science is dependable. As for those who will stubbornly cling to their state of denial, who kicking and screaming will continue to profess it takes just as much faith to believe in science as it does to believe in God, they do not know what they are speaking about, and so I no real point in arguing with them.

Enjoy the videos!