Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > saturn1019 > My Blog |
Censorship and the Suppression of Knowledge: Science as a Gateway to Truth and Understanding
|
Censorship and the Suppression of Knowledge: Science as a Gateway to Truth and Understanding Facebook has a cookie system which frequently places posts on one's page which are related to topics which come up frequently in your posts. They may not be sites which you "like," but it is a means to introduce you to pages that might be of interest and of which you are not necessarily aware. Since I frequently offer posts on topics involving science, it came as no real surprise the other day when an article appeared on my page from a site calls itself "Christian Prophesy." The article was entitled "Scientific Evidence For the Existence of God." After skimming through the article, it was not particularly surprising that not only was there a complete absence of anything remotely resembling scientific proof of the existence of any deity, but it was also abundantly clear that the author of the article in question had no scientific training or real understanding of what constitutes scientific proof of anything. In the discussion area following the article, someone rather quickly called the authors of the article to task over the complete lack of the evidence implied in the title and very correctly asked directly if the authors really understood what qualifies as solid scientific evidence. In a rather long winded response someone posting under the name of the site, the question was not only avoided, but the author rambled on about completely unrelated topics. Inevitably, the response included an attack on evolution and the ridiculous claim there is no scientific proof of evolution. The author then quickly offered a challenge to anyone to cite any real proof evolution is factual, and has ever occurred. Challenges of nature are naturally irresistable to me and I offered in response that evolution has been witnessed in the field and under controlled conditions in the laboratory, and I included 5 key points strongly supporting the theory of evolution, as well as the offer to provide dozens more if the author did not accept those 5. The points I offered were as follows: 1. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. It doesn't matter if you are an oak tree, a jellyfish or a human. Your DNA can recognize and read the DNA from any other life form. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended. It would clearly make more sense for an "intelligent designer" to make DNA specific to individual life forms, which would eliminate a lot of genetic disorders and genetic proof-reading errors. But that is not how life is constituted. 2. The fossil record shows the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another. You never find fossil evidence of stegosaurs in the same strata as kangaroos, for example. There are also numerous, unambiguous examples of the transitional forms radical Christians claim are not present. As a couple of examples, the transitional fossils demonstrating the evolution of whales from cow-like land mammals and of horses from small sized mammals is abundantly clear. However, it should be noted that all fossils are, by definition, transitional. 3. Human beings have approximately 98% of genes in common with chimpanzees and slightly less with gorillas, about 90% of genes in common with cats, 80% with cows, 75% with mice, and so on. This does not prove or even suggest we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged. Again, this makes no sense in a world where all life forms are created as independent entities, but it is perfectly clear when you view the world from the perspective that all life is intimately connected the common process of evolution. 4. Humans, , snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is , as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other. In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor. 5. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations. When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any are not. The authors of this website did not attempt to respond with any sort of point point objection to these lines of evidence. It would have been difficult to do admittedly, particularly in light of the fact I had already forewarned them that I was standing with a host of other points of evidence. There was a response of sorts. They rather quickly deleted my post and prevented me from further commenting on the thread. That isn't terribly surprising. Suppression of knowledge is not at all uncommon in human disciplines like politics and religion. In science, it is anathema. Reasonable ideas are pursued as long as they are supported reasonable evidence. But not all ideas are created equal. As the late Dr. Carl Sagan once noted, you don't get to wear the martyred cloak of Galileo simply having ideas run counter to the conventional wisdom. You also have to be right. Admittedly, I was somewhat disappointed I didn't get the opportunity to drag out the heavy artillery. The human body, marvelous mechanism it is, really isn't a very good example of magnificent grand design. Our bodies are walking natural history museums, full of evolutionary adaptations of varying quality, representing nature's capabilities to adapt, use and reuse evolved structures for different purposes when necessary to advance the cause of survival. Some of those adaptations work pretty well, some just barely. We also have no shortage of body structures once had valuable purposes, but now are no longer of any use to us. Here are some examples: **Goose Bumps. We all get them from time to time for various reasons. They don't really serve any valuable function now, but they were extremely valuable to our ancestors who had more hair. Not only did they provide insulation between the hair and the skin, but they were capable of making us look bigger and scarier to potential predators or enemies. Next time you get goosebumps, you can offer them a note of thanks for protecting your own direct ancestors from sabre-tooted tigers. **Jacobson's organ: We all have this small organ in our nose. it once helped us detect<b> pheromones </font></b>and locate potential mates. We are born with it in a more or less functional state, but early in life its development is arrested and it is now more or less useless. Some companies still market various perfumes and deodorants they claim to contain<b> pheromones </font></b>to heighten your sexual appeal. But those claims are decidedly lacking in well documented scientific studies. Almost everyone is marginally familiar with Jacobson’s organ. Everyone has seen snakes and other reptiles flicking their tongues in and out. They do this because their tongue captures odor particles carried by moisture in the air. The particles are then transferred to their Jacobson’s organ. This is how snakes smell, and demonstrates our common ancestry with snakes and other reptiles. **Auriculares muscles: These are muscles in your ears which don't function much anymore, beyond the ability to amuse guests at parties with an unusual talent for wiggling your ears. But if you own a cat, you can quickly see exactly why these muscles exist. A cat can turn its ears nearly backwards from the normal front facing configuration, which enables them to detect and interpret sounds all around them. Our distant ancestors had this capability. We no longer require it, but the now underdeveloped muscles remain present to remind us of our evolutionary past. **Plantaris muscle: About 90% of humans still have this underdeveloped muscle in their feet, but it is effectively useless to us. Our ancestors used it extensively. It helps the feet grip nearly as effectively as your hands and is extremely beneficial if you spend a lot of your time climbing and living in trees. We have little use for it, so it is either essentially useless or in a minority of cases, entirely absent in your body. **Wisdom teeth: At a time when our jaws were larger and our diet consisted almost exclusively of plants, wisdom teeth helped us better chew plant matter, aiding in the digestive process. These days, with our smaller jaws, they are primarily used for the enrichment of dentists. Some of us are fortunate enough they are either absent or just never grow in. I was one of the lucky ones in this regard. **The Appendix: There is still considerable debate as to just what the purpose of our appendix was, but there is no debate about the fact that it is mostly useless to us now. When it becomes infected, doctors remove it without concern and once absent, it poses no issue to the patient who has it removed. **Recurrent laryngeal nerve: This is actually a system of nerves which runs from your brain to your larynx, regulating its operation. The interesting thing is it only needs to be a few inches long, but this isn't the way it is designed. It runs from your brain down the length of your neck, clear down to your heart, wraps its way around the aorta then back to your larynx. The same nerve system is present in most chordates; giraffes, gorillas, sharks, kangaroos, bald eagles, you name it. Its structure is the same in all of them. It has even shown up in the fossil record and in cases where it is preserved in the extremely long-necked sauropods, its length can reach 95 feet. Some distant ancestor of all chordates probably used this nerve system for a different function. We all still have it and it serves a vital function, but the fact it is several times longer than it needs to be is evidence it once had a different, unknown purpose. ** nipples: Nipples have an important function in mammalian females, who generally are charged with the care and nurture of infants. In males, they serve no purpose whatsoever. But I can use myself again, as an example of how the fact that males have nipples is an interesting piece of evidence for evolution. Below my left nipple is a brown smudge, some might simply dismiss it as a birth mark. My father had it too and claimed it was a spot where a once bit him. But such injuries are not generationally passed. The reality is, the spot is an underdeveloped third nipple. If you examine the same area on my right side, very closely, you can make out the 4th nipple as well. These vestige nipples are more common than you might think: Evidence of a time when our ancestors were likely to produce litters rather than the more common single offspring in modern times. It makes no reasonable sense for males to have nipples at all. It makes even less for males or, for that matter females to carry the evidence of multiple sets of nipples unless they are taken in the context of evidence of our ancestory. There are numerous other interesting examples in our bodies and throughout nature and the topic is fascinating. But the argument against intelligent design can be carried as strongly by some of the things our bodies can't do as those they can. For example, plants are able to produce food from the process of photosynthesis. All they need is sunlight and water. A similar process would obviously be highly advantageous for us. Instead, we have to rely on other living things, be they fruits, plants or other items to be our food source. It is obviously a highly inefficient, even wasteful way to arrange things, particularly since the sun provides more than adequate energy every day to sustain us. Neil deGrasse Tyson also once joked about the appalling inefficiency of placing the sewage removal system next to the playground. Belief systems can lock us into antiquated superstitions, rituals, biases, prejudices and can even lead us to do less than what is in our own best interests in hopes some deity will save us from problems of our own creation. Knowledge systems are our best defense against these baser tendencies. There are those who might argue in counterpoint we are all somehow required to respect the beliefs of others, regardless of the level of evidence available to support those beliefs. I am willing to recognize the right of others to their beliefs. I am not willing to recognize that there exists a right to have those beliefs go unchallenged, especially when the challenge is reinforced ideas with superior evidence in support. We are compelled to understand and accept the world and universe we live in on its terms, not on ours. |
Become a member to create a blog
