In Defense of Possibility

In Kuhn’s final chapter of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, he writes, “…the unit of scientific achievement is the solved problem,” (169). For a human society in which discovery and understanding the world is highly valued, it makes sense that Kuhn boils scientific achievement down to the very thing humans crave the most—answers and resolutions.

Humans are not happy to situate themselves in a world where things are uncertain. Whether the explanation of life is scientifically-based or spiritually-based, the answer to the origin of life explains the very nature of human existence. Were we created? Have we morphed over billions of years? Creationists say yes to the first, and evolutionists say yes to the latter. Either way, it seems that the point of each theory is to grant some truth to human life.

Scientists are quick to denote that creationism is not a part of science—this is ultimately supportable because science is rooted in hypothesis, experiment, and evidence, which cannot be done regarding the theory of creationism. However, the theory of evolution is also not testable. It is, though, able to be witnessed over a long period of time and noted through the examination of fossils.

What Kuhn found to be most revolutionary about Darwin’s theory of natural selection and evolution was its inference that science has no ultimate goal. He writes, “But nothing that has been or will be said makes [science] a process of evolution toward anything,” (170). In other words, because evolution distinguishes that there is no definitive existence of any living thing, it also infers that there is no ultimate end goal to science.

With this in mind, I read “Backward, Christian Soldiers!” by Kurt Andersen from New York Magazine’s website. He writes vigilantly against the implementation of intelligent design being taught in schools, and on the second page of his rant he writes, “In science, there is no such thing as fixed, irrefutable truth. That’s the difference between empiricism and faith.”

There is something assuming in that statement, though. If science is not rooted on a fixed, irrefutable truth, why is it truth that creationism is ultimately wrong? While I myself do not find creationism to be a scientific theory which should be taught in science class, it seems definitely worthy of being considered in a humanities course as a means of explaining human life. If science prides itself in promoting an environment without truth, it should be all the more ready to support the discussion of intelligent design. There is, after all, no ultimate fact battling its validity. For many Christians, evolution is as much fact as creationism.

And if science is a process in which humans attempt to explain the world, why is religion so easy to chastise? Is it not equally a means of explaining human life? And even if it was created by humans, was not also science created in the hands of humans? Are not numbers an invention of the human brain? Language? Concepts? Time? These are all measurements of human understanding.

Reading Andersen’s piece I became angry for creationism because he described it as “believing in magic.” Wizardry, fairytales, and alchemy have been proven as incorrect explanations of the world. Religion itself has evolved—no longer do people believe in Zeus. This parallels science in that people do not believe the earth to be the center of the universe any longer. It is not fair to discount faith as a means of rationalization because of what was once believed; archaic scientific explanations are equally as ridiculous.

Not one person ultimately knows what is and what is not on such large terms. Kuhn saw this too, writing, “The Origin of Species recognized no goal set by God or nature,” (172). He goes on to end his work with the following: “Any conception of nature compatible with the growth of science by proof is compatible with the evolutionary view of science developed here. Since this view is also compatible with close observation of scientific life, there are strong arguments for employing it in attempts to solve the host of problems which still remain,” (173). Arguably, there is no ultimate answer to how humans came to be and where they are going.

Why close the mind to a rational possibility?



WRITTEN IN REFERENCE TO:
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/columns/imperialcity/14721/
“Backward, Christian Soldiers!”
Kurt Andersen
New York Magazine Website

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Thomas S. Kuhn
Chicago University Press
Chicago, Illinois and London, England
1962, 1970, 1996