Can you even science?

Lately I've been watching videos on the ol' YouTubes in which atheists bloggers watch and take apart Christian "science" videos. What is really striking about the Christian videos is the total lack of understanding of what science is and does, what the consensus on various theories is, and a poor grasp of the way the world works.

Now, I am not a scientist, and I don't pretend to play one on tv or anywhere else, but I do enjoy reading about the discoveries of science, and I've tried to learn the mechanisms of various sciences that interest me. Given my lack of expertise, it would be tempting to say I have faith in science. This is utterly ridiculous. Faith is believing in something for which we have no evidence. Today, I would like to examine a few accusations fundies throw at science in an attempt to discredit it so they can establish their understanding of their holy text as some explanation for the way the world works.

So this first accusation, it takes faith to believe in evolution. No, no it doesn't. There is ample evidence from the finding in geological layers to DNA to fossil evidence to demonstrate that evolution happened. We have seen speciation in organisms. We have a good model that makes predictions. While I am not a biologist, I have talked to biologists who have studied natural selection; I have read articles and seen the evidence. And if I felt so inclined, I could go to a university and take courses where I could do the experiments myself. I could become a biologist and help improve the theory.

Before I go on, I would like to point out a confusion among fundies about what evolution is. Since their holy book depicts the creation of everything (universe, galaxies, solar systems, our world and all the plants and animals on it) in one story, they seem to think that evolution must encompass all of those facets, and they hold up as a flaw in evolution that it does not address the beginning of life. Well, yeah. That's right. It doesn't. What we call the theory of evolution only addresses how the diversity of life came about. It is silent on how the universe started or how life got going on this planet. It doesn't matter how many times science-minded folks correct them on this. They continue to chuckle about how evolution is flawed in this way.

It should be obvious, but for the record: there are different scientific fields and different theories that describe each of these steps. And, sure, we can say that the universe evolved, but the theory of evolution does not describe that series of events.

Part of the accusation of having faith in evolution consists in relying on experts, like religious people rely on their priests, preachers, imams, and rabbis. But there are important differences. Religious authorities are actually experts on what their holy books say and what the dogma of their religion says. They have no more contact with a divinity than any person attending a service. They can't travel up to the afterlife and have tea with a deity and come back with news of the supernatural.

Scientists are not just experts on what their books say. They don't just read Newton's Principia or Darwin's Origin of Species and interpret the text. Depending on their field, they observe nature, form hypotheses, test those hypotheses, engage in calculations, collect data, and so on. They may be behind a telescope, over a microscope, in the lab or in the field, but they engage nature. They also go read what peers in their field are doing, go to conferences where new ideas are being expressed, and work with fellow scientists in order to pool all their knowledge.

And I should add that, when I listen to a lecture by someone like Lawrence Kraus, I accept his findings as what is most likely true because he has demonstrated expertise and is recognized in his field as an authority. A theory is not true because he says it is, and I would even add that I don't consider what he says as an absolute truth but as provisional knowledge that may be updated as our instruments improve and our understanding grows. He is the best guide to his field because of his experience examining the reality he studies.

This last point brings up a criticism that science is always changing while scripture stays the same. Actually, scripture has changed. We have multiple translations and there are textual notes about issues with the text. We have had scads of religions and denominations of religion because people quibbled over the interpretation of their holy books but none of that really matters. Science "changes" because it is the expression of our understanding at a given time. The reality of these processes is what it is no matter what we understand, but we need the right tools to examine that reality and collect good data. Then we interpret. Our understanding improves with time.

Some fundies marvel at this universe in a way that's different from the awe I experience. I do thinks it's incredible that the universe works the way it does and I'm astounded to be here to witness it. They seem to look out and think it's impossible that it all just happened. They proclaim that something can't come from nothing without pondering that maybe it's impossible for there to be a nothing at all.

Others go a different route and ask how we can be sure that reality exists at all. Maybe it's an illusion. Sure, it could be, but, if it is, it's an illusion I have to cope with somehow. I cannot not deal with the physical reality that presents itself to me. I cannot close my eyes and wake up in a different reality as if I were in some fantasy film. This constant presence of physical reality combined with an inability to escape it tells me that I must at least start my belief system from the supposition that it is there.

Now, if you could only present me with your supernatural in such a way or introduce your deity in a similar way, we could start to deal with that. The fact of the matter is, we can't. The only confirmable reality is physical.