Why science is not just a theory.

 So. It has come to my attention that apparently some people who dub themselves "Creationists" have a bit of a problem with the theory of evolution. /dripping with sarcasm. But no. As someone born Catholic even, I always thought that God had caused the Big Bang somehow - I mean, if the world was only 6000 years old (or so, I don't know how old people think it is), WHERE WERE THE BLOODY DINOSAURS!? I loved dinosaurs. But anyway, that's off the point. It never occurred to me that the world actually could be created in 6 days. Never seemed logical. But you don't think about that sort of stuff when you're a kid. You just believe in whatever you're told to believe.

Now I'm older, and (presumably) with a bright young adult mind (yeah right), it's now up to me to extrapolate on all the things I've ever been told and believed, and find out more information to help me thresh out my own view of the world. The following is more sort of like a stream-of-consciousness rant that appears to start in the middle of a well-formed essay and ekes out far past a normal expository piece of writing's end point to try and prove something to myself. Or a theory. Or whatever. What I think Creationists think. Why I think the tag 'evolutionist' is a fallacy in itself and how it misrepresents what (I hope) is really going on.

The problem, some creationists see, is that those 'evolutionists' don't even agree about their own theory. There are arguments over the interpretation of the fossil record, whether gradualism or punctuated  equilibrium occurred or even over the randomness of mutations vs the targeted nature of natural selection. While this is unfortunate for science, because it cannot present a united front - what creationists don't see is that evolution is not something to be batted for. It is something to be knocked down, again and again, until it fits with all the facts and findings. Hence evolutionists cannot actually argue with creationists about their supposed supported theory, because they admit they don't know everything about it! The key point is in the search for new knowledge, rather than being complacent and thinking that all the knowledge you need to know is in 66 tiny little books, often compressed into one rather larger one.

"Evolutionarism" (or whatever... I don't even know if it's the right word) is not a religion, nor is it a single viewpoint. It is instead a philosophy in the seeking of knowledge - they aren't trying to fight *against* christianity, they are simply seeking out more and more facts to try and round out their knowledge of the world - the so-called 'theory of evolution' is simply a product of this seeking. Those who seek the path of evolutionary knowledge (which is a bit futile in the first place, to be perfectly honest - it really isn't the easiest thing to study) shouldn't waste their time trying to explain the theory itself to other people. They should instead concentrate their time on learning and learning new facts, on carrying out new and untried scientific research (and trying to come to logical conclusions from this complete data), and pretty much just bettering their understanding of it. If they are to speak to those who are not so willing to learn (or at least want to limit their learning to specific subjects and view points) they should restrict themselves to encouraging them to just broaden their horizons, rather than trying to impart their own conclusions (which have only been come to after impartial and logical study) on them. I'm guilty of that sometimes - the emotional barrier just breaks down and all the pent-up frustrations with illogical arguments and the names people call each other when they are dead certain that their *own* way is right (which no one should ever be) just come out. I've heard self-dubbed creationists call one man's interpretation of the fossil record "schizophrenic" - I mean, it's not professional at all. Stick to the facts. Please. You may think his chain of logic is faulty (which is entirely fair), but I have no doubt he is sane. Or at least not hallucinating, anyway.

Science is not a religion. The scientific method is something that has been fleshed out over a long period of time (or rather - a short one in the brief period since mainstream 'free thinking' started taking place since the freeing of philosophical thought from the constraints of religious beliefs in the Renaissance - so hopefully in addition to thoughts under the religious bent there are others, too) and is constantly being changed and (hopefully) improved so that it gives us the best possible way to find an understanding of the world that is currently around us. I have to say, its sheer scope makes it not the most efficient and a huge, lumbering, beast, but it's better to be given all the facts rather than what others think are the best selection for us. It differs from religion in that it gives us no prescribed learnings to swallow - only a recommended (and here I use "recommended" - NOT required) method for finding out our own learnings and a chain of common logic to interpret them. It is a form of freedom, of the ability to make your own decisions in your life, of the highest order. You make decisions right from the heights of philosophy down to dumb physical limitations. Or at least, I think it is. The logic I've been raised with finds absolutely nothing wrong with this chain of thought.

I think all those who consider themselves 'scientists' (in the pursuit of learning) should spend at least some time reading literature of a creationist/religious bent, and other such material which doesn't necessarily follow the same logic that they do. It's important to study religion as a different chain of logic - sometimes they match up, sometimes they don't, but in order to see all the viewpoints of the world it is definitely important. I believe you need to take the logic you have and apply it to everything you read and see if it matches up - or even if you can learn something about why so many people believe in it.

The sad thing is, sometimes I feel as if Christianity does indeed feel the need to fight against the theory of evolution. Sure, they have problems with it. Fair enough, it doesn't match up with their own learnings and it definitely doesn't match up with the Christian literature. The problem is though, is that they often progress from villifying the simple facts of the evolutionary theory (which, as we all agree, are definitely not set in concrete and are wont to change at any time should some new evidence arise - which, ironically enough, wouldn't change it much at first. Theories change much like evolution - slowly. After all, we are human and the time taken to take this new fact into account and assimilate it into the greater picture takes time - and impartial acceptance, which is hard) to villifying the entirety of the scientific method. Ok then. There are no problems with disagreeing with evolution (heck, we disagree with ourselves all the time!) but once you start attacking the logic of the scientific thinking with emotive and not always logical arguments (read: the schizo comment before), that's when even the best of us (read: not me) start to get angry. EVERYONE is entitled to their own form of logic and it's not up to anyone else to dictate that, although it is up to us that we follow the path of logic that conforms best to our own personal sense of right.

Science's problem, almost, is that it is hard. It is hard to have to come up with your own sense of righteousness and direction. And if it doesn't stand up and make a case for itself (which it often doesn't, because everyone is too busy learning), it stands at risk of being swamped by unquestioning religious believers, who have been given a simple explanation and a simple acceptance. Now, I know you could say that they go and do research on their own beliefs as well, but in my logic, anyways, religion doesn't really have the potential to undergo a huge upheaval from the bottom out the way science does (and has). Think quantum physics. The discovery that the earth was round. Space exploration. Things have changed the face of science, and modern society has made science a thing that everyone has potential access to through (at least in the 1st world) education and the internet, rather than an elite group of monarch-endorsed 'thinking gentlemen'. Science has been made accessible to women, of which I am very grateful for. The ability to just... just go out and *find* things out. No assumptions. The ability to completely change. It is an amazing gift.

Lest I fall into the trap of waxing lyrical (and thenceforth start spouting emotive arguments, which should be beneath anyone with a decent sense of logic)... I should probs stop ay. I would also like to quickly stress that although all this ranting about science I completely and utterly stand behind as an idealistic theory, I recognise that, like I said, science is hard. It is far too easy to fall into the trap of defending things like evolution like a religion just to present a strong and united front against something that doesn't follow your sense of logic rather than presenting a justified account which takes into account as much as you can. I'm not against Creationism. I can't figure a ribbon of logic through it that makes sense to me, but it is completely justified if someone else can. Its lack of detail worries me, but there is plenty of other things to puzzle out the details of first to keep me busy. To pull a cliche, I'm only human. I want to concentrate on things that are easier and more definite (rather than working out infinite subtleties) for me to understand. I'm inherently lazy. I try and recognise that fact, and do something about it, but sometimes it's just too easy not to.