Scientific Arrogance: A Rant on Our Evolution’s Lingering Longing for Limitation.


I have a ripe gripe to snipe at science. Am i the only one who thinks science’s arrogance is getting a little bit out of hand. Don’t get me wrong, I love science. I have a bachelors of science and I have been working in various industries as a chemist for the past 6 years. I love my job and appreciate every piece of magic that science has helped us to discover. Modern Science’s ability to understand and manipulate the world we live in is the driving force directing our evolution, that is, if we choose to let it. BUT, i must rant..
While reading “Science and Akashic Field, An integral Theory of Everything” I was reminded of a interesting theory I encountered a few years back, in a thought provoking but mostly-quakery ridden book called “Darwin’s black Box.” This theory is called ” irreducible complexity.”This is one of two of the scientific-esque proofs of intelligent design. In short, the theory attempts to prove Darwinian evolution wrong and then, with out warrant, deduces that intelligent design must be the only other explanation.The overweighted assumption being, that if modern science is even slightly wrong then OBVIOUSLY the old testament and every one of its fairy tales must be 100% accurate. This theory attempts to “step aside” evolution by explaining biological systems in which, if any part of the system was to be removed the entire system would be useless or non-functioning. Some of its examples include the eye and E. Coli’s Flagellum, and in “Darwin’s Black Box”, they do a decent job of showing how the removal of any one part of these small but complex systems would deem the system useless, hence showing that small mutations over time isn’t enough to explain the complexity of modern biology. Although this theory has been shunned by the scientific community, so has almost all other revolutionary ideas at their inception. Some credible scientists have given theories on how such irreducible complex systems CAN be reduced, but these ideas have not been proven and the related timelines in the evolutionary records seem to be worth consideration. This is what made me look into this a little further, as well as read up on a theory called punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium also get its criticism from the scientific community but with little success at belittling it. Essentially this theory points out how most species’ evolutionary records are largely static, followed by sudden periods of evolutionary advancement and species’ division. The interesting part is that these periods of advancement seem to take place on much smaller times frames then we are lead to believe through traditional darwinian thinking. Some species have completely birthed new species in as short as 5 to 10 thousand years (theoretically evolution takes much longer)…. Things that make ya go Hhhmmmmm. I am in no way using this slight plot hole of darwin’s theory to conclude that god stepped in and sodomized these species so bad that new ones were born, but it does make ya ponder if there could be more to it then just step by step mutations.
I like to look at science as a closed minded philosophy, although i do realize that it may be the most useful of philosophies. The Scientific community is very stubborn and I would not be the least bit surprised if one day in the near future, one of its most prized ideas and/or theories will be thrown an un-connectable curveball which will require a complete rethinking and restructuring and maybe even an apology. Although science’s unmistakable influence on technology and modern existence is a grandiose manifestation, it has had limited contribution to explaining the bigger picture of our existence. From the sub-atomically small to the astronomically un-fathomable, all science falls flat on its face. Either direction we look, observations and mathematics eventually disagree. When we zoom more and more into the structure of atoms, into nucleuses… into quarks, we see particles which go freely into and out of existence as well as particles being in two places at once or suddenly displaying a interference pattern instead of a solid form. When we look into the stars, into the galaxies… into the mutli-verses, we see un-calculatable expansion, unexplainably uniform radiation readings, and limitless potential for alternative existences. Parallel universes, antimatter, and dark-matter are all just science’s attempt at justifying mathematical inconsistencies. Even dark energy is just a made-up idea to fill one of mathematics’ black holes.
So… anyway, Science is cool, but it needs to stop jerking itself off so much. Although its explanation of existence could be considered the most scientifically valid, this is obviously a biased accomplishment. All the explanations of the world, from religions to philosophies to meta-physics, WHEN DISTILLED, all provide an invaluable contribution to our understanding, evolution and enlightenment. Otherwise they would not exist . Science establishes limitations to effectively guide its progression, but if we’ve learned one thing from science, it’s that limitation is NOT in our nature.

– An Arrogant Scientist