“Minds are like flowers, they only open when the time is right.” ―
Can we still—or could we ever—really have trusted science to deliver the truth to us? Next question: what is truth, and will I recognize truth when it’s presented to me?
I recall, in school history, reading all about the Flat Earth Society. Seems amusing to me now to think that some people did actually believe during the “four-corners-of-the-world” belief period, in a flat earth. In fact, there was a time in our history when a person could be burned at the stake if you believed otherwise!
But, to have believed in the Flat Earth theory, you would have had to be living in Galileo’s time and a common belief system. Although, historically, and to be fair to real science, there never was a time when scholars ever considered the earth to be a flat disk. There was just too much evidence to the student of real knowledge to accept “Biblical proof” that the earth was flat.
There also was a time when opinion-of-the-day science—common belief science–could “prove” that objects heavier than air couldn’t fly. Fortunately, the Wright Brothers didn’t believe popular science, and they went on to invent the airplane.
“Our way of thinking creates good or bad outcomes.” ―
When I was in high school (circa 1940), our science teacher taught us that the smallest particle in the universe was the atom. Today, physicists are talking about protons, neutrons, and smaller stuff called quarks. And, to make things even “smaller,” physicists are now talking about the Super String Theory.
On the opposite end of the scale, how large is the universe? Ever-better telescopes, satellites and space probs are continuously setting farther boundaries to our universe. Could the day come when science has to admit that our universe is infinitely small, and at the same time, it’s infinitely large? And, even more interestingly, can physics and science ever deal with that infinity? How do we make laws—hypothesis, theories and postulations—when dealing with infinity?
And, before I leave this problem, there is one more of my favorite ‘scientific’ vexations that I’d like to address: Darwin’s theory of evolution! Just like physicists continuously have to “upgrade” their theories on matter and the universe, so, too, should the Darwinian theorists of evolution ‘upgrade’ their ‘facts.’ Especially with the new discoveries now made in human DNA, the evolutionary theory has taken some serious hits, and one of Darwin’s inaccurate theories that is of special annoyance to me, is his theory about the survival of the fittest. Admittedly, Darwin wasn’t the first to use the phrase, survival of the fittest, that honor goes to the English philosopher, Herbert Spencer. But Darwin certainly made it popular in his works, and popular science of the day carried it forward, and still maintains an iron clad hold on a disproven theory.
In the first place, popular science insists on ruling out any possibility of a divine force in Nature. According to them, to consider intelligence in a non-conscious universe is out of the question! Their view? Roll the dice. What you see is what you got! Personally, I think that way of thinking is so far off the mark it should have been taken out of our physics texts a long time ago!
“A thought is a Cosmic Order waiting to happen.” ―
No matter how hard you try, if you give a hundred monkeys a hundred typewriters, and in a hundred years they will still not have printed out an intelligent copy of the Gettysburg Address; unconsciousness cannot deliver in an orderly universe! therefore, although there is some truth to be gleaned from the survival of the fittest theory—the part that involves consciousness—an unconscious universe cannot produce order no more than rolling a pair of dice can give you a predicted, orderly result every time.
So much for truth theories in an unconscious universe. Let’s consider a conscious universe. A Conscious universe can pre-program a hundred monkeys so that they can, even in much less time than a hundred years, type out a copy of the Gettysburg Address. Secondly, using today’s technology, it takes no great feat of ‘magic’ to preprogram a pair of dice to roll, roll after roll, and give you the same results. And, how easy is it, using your computer keyboard, to type out anything that you want and have it displayed instantly on your monitor in a predicable, orderly fashion?
Sure, the information that appears on your computer monitor is, by itself, an unconscious manifestation, but it can only happen because of the conscious, orderly mind behind that monitor’s manifestation.
That brings me to my final argument against Darwin: it takes co-operation, not competition, to make our universe move forward! Competition can only work in selective instances, and usually involves just that: conscious selection within a species. For example, a feral cat can lose its natural instinct to hunt insects and mice for food after several thousand years of domestication, and eat only prepared meat and clean water, but it’s still a cat! It hasn’t evolved into a tiger or flying ‘fur-thing.’
An article in NewScientist, titled “Suicidal Cells,” explains intelligent selection very clearly. “When cooperation breaks down, the results can be disastrous. When cells in our bodies turn rogue, for instance, the result is cancer. So elaborate mechanisms have evolved to maintain cooperation and suppress selfishness, such as cellular “surveillance” programmes that trigger cell suicide if they start to turn cancerous.”
Advanced science understands this quite clearly; but popular mainstream, every day non-thinking science still has to catch up and this leads me to my main point that I’m wrestling with today: that cooperation, not blind unconscious is the “new truth!”
The same article in NewScientist continues, “the concept of the survival of the fittest could be used to justify socialism rather than laissez-faire capitalism. Then again, the success of social insects could be used to argue for totalitarianism. Which illustrates another point: it is nonsense to appeal to the “survival of the fittest” to justify any economic or political ideology, especially on the basis that it is “natural”.
Survival of the fittest is not a blanket truth that applies in all cases. Think Einstein, Gandhi, or Martin Luther King and compare them to war generals, greedy corporations and invasive aggression—survival of the fittest—although there is selective truth here, that truth needs “upgrading,” like so much of science also needs upgrading.
In order for us to survive and continue our struggle upwards where we can dream of one day being invited to join our galactic cousins, we really need to update our social sciences and bring them in line with cosmic law—and learn cooperation—then demonstrate this new-found knowledge, that we can be a valuable contributor to our universe.
Cooperation, with a healthy touch of intelligent, (not natural) selection is the New Truth!