Science Forums 2

[HydrogenBond]

Evolution is good science. What I don't understand is why science is so insecure if evolution has so much scientific backing? I am not saying creationism is correct or right, but based on the arguments of science, why are they afraid?

It is like a modern auto dealer who has someone wanting to put a rubber band powered auto business near his business. If he really thought it was silly, he would let them to build it because in the end reality will set in and the fool would lose his shirt. If, on the other hand, he went to the zoning commission and called in favors on the city council to prevent construction then he is not too confident in his modern auto. What the science mouth says (good science) and the way the science body language is acting ( we need a monopoly) appears different. It is illogical to expect a defensive emotional reaction from a "sure thing".

Again I am not saying creationism is sound science or even science, but the defensive reaction by science tells me science seems to feel the need for a monopoly or protectionism, that other areas of science don't ask for. I asked myself what defects do they see?

This situation reminds me of a friend who became involved in a odd church with his family. That church preached getting back to original things and would not allow them to celebrate Christmas, since this was partly Pagan. I thought it strange to take away this fun time from the kids. I questioned what is the big deal. I tried to understand the strong insecure reaction. It was like the church feared the competition since it was standing on shaky ground, even though it pitch the validity of its claim as the true religion. It should not have mattered in terms of the nuts and bolts of faith, but it did matter in terms of their philosophy.

The way I explain this emotional reaction from science, is evolution is not based purely on logic. It does contains logic in the analysis, but it also uses statistics to support fuzzy premises and to fill in discontinuities. So it can't project cool logic. All those breaks from pure logic creates an emotional aspect since these are gaps where logic fails. This blend of logic and emotion is philosophy.

Creationism has bigger gaps in its own logic, but they don't claim to be cool logical science but use emotion in a forward manner via faith. Evolutionists can't see their own emotional gaps due to logic breaks. The defensive reaction appear to be connected to their being afraid emotion may shift young people away from the partial emotional logic of evolution. With a monopoly you can control the young mind to just eat and swallow whole. If there is competition, the salesmen has to put up with those questions from the comparative shoppers and the competition that is next door.

You won't see chemistry challenged by the religious people nor science giving it much thought if it was. This is solid in the mind of both. Evolution is insecure science. This vulnerability is why religion is able to get a foot hold. It is not clearly enough defined to eliminate the emotional sentiment. This adds philosophy to the science. Religion is showing how one can start with pure philosophy and add a little science to it. They are both on the border of pure science and pure religion.