Science versus Faith

A while back I commented how dangerous it is that George Bush does not have a science advisor. In fact, he is the first President in years not to have a science advisor. It is clear from what I have read about the President, he disregards science and he has a general distrust of science. Maybe he thinks all scientists are liberal Democrats or maybe it’s something else.

When a leader stubbornly ignores something as important as science he does not represent the entire Country. The President of the United States is supposed to represent everybody but if he ignores an important group in our society (scientists) then he lacks important information needed to form an opinion. This “ignorance is bliss” attitude is dangerous.

The President admits he does not even read newspapers or magazines but instead gets his news from a few advisors that interpret the news and present it to him. Again, the President is supposed to represent all people not just a selected few. It is impossible to do this when you get your facts from a “filtered” source rather than from the actual source. Clearly the President has blind faith in his advisors. With this brief essay I want to open up the debate of science versus Faith.

First of all, let’s look at what comprises solid evidence. It doesn’t matter whether a scientist is liberal or conservative, so I don’t even want to go there. It only matters what evidence they collect through experiments to prove their hypothesis. Without getting too technical, evidence is comprised of proven documented experiments capable of producing similar outcomes if conducted by someone else, PERIOD. More importantly, what is NOT considered good evidence are eyewitness accounts and common sense.

Common sense tells us that the earth is flat, that the Sun truly rises and sets, that the surface of the Earth is not spinning at over 1000 miles per hour, that bowling balls fall faster than marbles, that particles don't curve around corners like waves around a floating dock, that the continents don't move, and that objects heavier-than-air can't have sustained flight unless they can flap wings. However, science has been used to demonstrate that all these common sense ideas are wrong.

Science has radically changed our criminal justice system for the better but we still rely on eyewitness accounts when we should not. We now know how bad eyewitness accounts are because of the DNA evidence that constantly proves them wrong. It has been well documented that people have trouble translating what they see and often fill in important details with inaccuracies. Therefore, eyewitness accounts should no longer be allowed in the court room. Only forensic analysis should be allowed into a court room as accurate testimony.

Though science cannot establish absolute truth, it can provide overwhelming evidence in favor of certain ideas. I am not a believer in absolute truth anyway. As soon as you subscribe to absolute truth, you close your mind to other possibilities; this is dangerous. Critical thinking is essential for science to function properly but absolute truths prohibit critical thinking. An important outcome of science is applying what you have learned and building on it through critical evaluations or through other supporting experiments. Absolute truths are an inhibitor in this process.

Faith based systems openly accept absolute truths and common sense ideology. They produce little or no evidence to back a hypothesis and only function properly if you are a “believer”. Critical evaluations are often met with hostility. Faith based systems often label critical evaluations as either too liberal or too conservative and focus on the individual conducting the experiments rather than the evidence collected.

I am not saying that faith based systems are a bad thing because they have their place; religion plays an important role in my life. But Faith and science should be two separate categories and should only be combined when the physical evidence or experimental outcomes support it. When there is no physical evidence or no experiments can support a hypothesis, then you do not have science. If you choose to still believe then you have faith. But again, these are two separate entities and everyone should realize this.

This President blurs the line between Faith and science often giving Faith precedence over all; this is the most dangerous thing of all for a leader. Al Qaeda does this same thing but they use a different Faith based system. I cannot understand how the leader of the free world can completely disregard science when it is such an important part of our society and educational system. But it seems like learning and education have never been this President’s strength.

When I hear phrases like “staying the course no matter what” coming from an individual that never gets his information from real sources, I get very nervous. I would prefer an individual that collects his own information and develops opinions and ideas from his own research. Part of the learning process is applying new information to situations and adapting accordingly. This learning process is the primary thing that separates us from animals.