I am a man of science. I have an awareness of science. I am not a scientist - that takes years of study and hard work that I was not willing to put out. But I have studied science and hold a Bachelor of Science degree in Electronic Engineering, and as such I know enough about science to comprehend many of its concepts.
One thing about science is that it tends to portray universal truth. An Arab scientist and an African scientist and an American scientist all believe pretty much the same things about science. Scientists throughout the world, for example, believe that feathers and lead balls - dropped from a leaning tower in a vacuum will both hit the ground at the same time. They also believe that light travels at a speed of about 186,000 miles per second (in a vacuum of course). To be sure, there are areas on which scientists disagree. There are also many areas on which scientists know very little, admittedly so. In these areas we get a lot of surmising and a lot of hypothesizing and a lot of disagreement. But that don't matter here because the stuff I want to talk about and the aspects of science I want to invoke supporting that stuff will be confined to areas that all scientists do agree on. It's relatively simple stuff - almost like 2 + 2 = 4. Well, maybe a little more strenuous than that, but at least its nothing more difficult that your average high school physics student should understand. There are two main concepts of science I wish to invoke:
1. Probability Theory
And
2. Nuclear Physics
Now at first glance these topics seem like pretty heavy stuff, but the parts of them I will use to support certain theories are not nearly so complicated and I hope my presentation will help make it easy for all to understand.
Take Probability Theory for an example.
Most people, getting on an airplane to fly from say Washington, DC to Chicago, believe they have a pretty good chance of getting there in one piece. Usually, when we take an airplane anywhere we end up getting there safely. We know that millions of people fly in airplanes every day, and most of them get to where they are going in one piece. But some don't! Once in a while an airplane crashes, and people get killed. Now even though we know there is a chance of crashing and getting killed every time we get on an airplane, we, or at least most of us, fly regularly with not much more fear than we would have of
crossing a busy city intersection during rush hour. Why? The reason we take the chance is because we know that the probability of crashing is low - maybe one in a million or less. So we get on airplanes and we cross busy intersections because we accept the odds We know enough about probability theory to feel safe in these endeavors because we know we know there is a pretty high probability of us surviving the excursions even though our very lives are at stake. If only half of the people that flew made it safely to their destinations, not so many of us would fly very often. Fifty percent success is not very good odds to bet your life on. If maybe one out of a thousand got killed on airplane flights, the number of people wanting to fly might increase slightly over the fifty percent case, but still not many takers. In the case of one out of a million or more though, air travel picks up.
And so it is with many of our day-to-day decisions. The introduction of AIDS for example gives us all greater challenges requiring a reasonable understanding of probability theory. Free and promiscuous sex with members of high risk groups such as homosexuals and drug addicts is not smart. "Safe" sex with members of low risk groups is acceptable to some but avoided by others. Sex as usual with lifetime monogamous partners should be of little concern. We all make decisions like this everyday using the theories of probability and don't even realize it. This process is often called intuitive decision making, or just plain intuition.
Scientists make decisions about major issues on a more elaborate scale of probability theory. One application, for example, is in the launching of a space shuttle. The space program has established probability criteria such that the only way they will launch a shuttle rocket is if a prespecified probability of the capsule returning safely to earth is met. Their acceptable risk factor is much higher that what we would accept for flying on an airplane. Some day space travel may become as safe as earthbound aviation, but that goal is still a ways off. For space shuttles NASA has selected some number - say a 99.5 percent probability of mission success. This means that they can reasonably expect to return the astronauts safely 199 out of 200 missions. It also means that out of those 200 missions, one of them (Like the spacecraft Discovery) probably isn't going to make it. But, it's a number they have decided to live with. The bottom line is that the space program and the astronauts have a fairly reasonable idea of what their probability of success is for any given mission. If factors change that probability to a lower number(factors such as bad weather or a fuel leak or a faulty indicator) they call off the launch until the acceptable limit can be reached.
These are all examples of probability at work. In some cases the analysis is relatively simple. We as everyday citizens don't have to do an in depth mathematical analysis to decide if we should go on an airplane flight. We intuitively know that the probability of success is very high so we take the flight without thinking about it very much. Launching a space flight, on the other hand, requires entire teams of scientists analyzing the probabilities before the final decision to launch is made. And even then - sometimes- they are wrong.
That's it - that's all you ever wanted to know about or at least all you really need to know - about probability theory to get an appreciation of what points I hope to make in this writing.
Now for Nuclear Physics
Scientists have developed various techniques to age date material. One method, for example, involves Radiometric Dating. Naturally occurring radioactive materials breakdown into other materials at known rates. This is known as radioactive decay. Scientists can measure this rate of decay and using this method they can determine the age of the material. These scientific techniques are not controversial - they are accepted by all qualified scientists.
As a result all true scientists "KNOW" that the earth is not less than 10,000 years old as claimed by bible fundamentalists but rather has been here a few billion years. Humanoid fossils reach back a couple million years. Based on this awareness I have come to believe that "literal" interpretation of the bible is in direct contradiction of what I know about science. I believe the science. The scientific community uses all kinds of universally accepted techniques to solve problems and to make scientifically qualified decisions in the face of uncertainty. It is my contention that if "the scientific community" did an objective analysis of the validity of any and all religions they would conclude (with very very high probabilities of certainty) that they are all false mythology. I believe that science can prove the invalidity of religion. I believe the science.
What Then?
If my contentions are correct, what should we do about it? I believe that same scientific community could come up with approaches to resolving human problems free from the biases of our false religions. For example take the case of the Muslims. Many Muslims believe that all who do not accept their beliefs are infidels and that one way to earn a higher place in Muslim Heaven is to slay the infidels. I believe that it is the responsibility of rational scientific people to articulate the inappropriateness of this view. By the same token, God did not bestow upon his chosen people, the Jews, a holy spot over there in the Middle East (parts of which the Muslims believe that Allah bestowed on them), no matter what their respective Bible/Koran says. People must learn to resolve conflicts without divine intervention but rather in the interests of global harmony and well being amongst all humans.
A much more demanding issue is the matter of AIDS in undeveloped countries. A growing epidemic continues while the United States government, pressured by science denying religious fundamentalists, insists that UN funding should only be spent on "abstinence only" programs and refuses to allow funding for condoms. These same folks want to deny good sex education in our schools
With increasing tempo, the religious right are making inroads to teaching "junk science" in our schools. They attack evolution as an unprovable "theory" and demand that the biblical "creation theory" be taught on an equal basis. I do not criticize the religionists for their zeal because they don't know any better. I do admonition the scientific community for their aquience on the issue. A recent survey showed that over fifty percent of Americans believe in the biblical version of our creation. In my view this reflects a major failure by our scientic community. I feel that part of their responsibility should be the education of the masses on these profound issues.
Where is the scientific community uproar over the abstinence only policies being pursued by our government? I believe that the scientific community does not tread on humanities sacred cows for several reasons, On the one hand, some of them have not come to grips with these "realities" in their own minds. Many others choose to avoid the controversy for business, financial, political or personal reasons. To me, it is astonishing that "the scientific community" allows "junk science" to prevail in the public arena. For this reason, I say that our scientific community is flawed.
Note: This is an unfinished document. I plan to significantly expand on the section later to include additional ways more "scientific" approaches to resolving human problems.
This section was last updated 16 July 2004