It strikes me yet again how willing humans are to assume the veracity and legitimacy of ancient wisdom and prophecies, in stark contrast to our willingness to put stock in empirical data.  Absolutely no modern scientific theory with cataclysmic implications (anthropogenic global warming, water crisis, etc) asserts that disaster is imminent within the next 18 months, but an ancient Mayan almanac forecasts the end of an age and it’s taken seriously. 

Despite being incredibly advanced, Mayan science was far more limited in scope and depth than that of modern western society.  What’s more, many people who put stock in the Mayan 2012 prophecy believe that ancient societies needed assistance from extraterrestrial and supernatural forces to build many of their most spectacular structures. 

What is the allure of ancient “wisdom?” Is it the mysterious nature? Is it the openness to interpretation?  Is it, in part, our propensity to doubt human ability?  Most people would assert that our greatest fault is hubris, but I would argue that the incredulity with which we view human accomplishment is equally troublesome.  If we have such a hard time accepting the unassisted accomplishment of ancient people, it isn’t such a stretch to believe that modern humans should defer to the wisdom of those very societies–equally alien to us as spacemen would have been to them.

1.) I was watching the movie Sunshine last night, which was directed by Danny Boyle (of 28 Days Later fame).  In it, the sun is dying and a team of astronauts is delivering an enormous nuclear device in hopes “restarting” the crippled star.  At one point we learn that the device has been constructed in a multi-national effort, using up all of at least the nuclear resources of the entire planet.  I really have to work to suspend my disbelief when, in apocalypse movies, humans actually collaborate on tasks of this magnitude.  First-of-all, people have actually all agreed that the sun is dying.  If scientists issued such a statement tomorrow, there would certainly be fervent disagreement about its truth from even the least scientifically literate. Next, world governments have “put their best people on it” in a collective effort to save mankind.  I have to admit that, for all its unbelievability (landing a space shuttle on an asteroid, anyone?), Armageddon  has it right here: America would probably have to just go and do it ourselves.  Finally, Sunshine raises some questions about “God’s Will,” and our subversion thereof, which would undoubtedly come up before any plans were in place, long before the mission was actually underway.  There would be no small number of people eagerly awaiting the Day of Judgment, and possibly undermining attempts to thwart it.

2.) The question of God’s Will raises another interesting subject, which I like to call the “Police Dichotomy.”  We’re all glad that law enforcement agencies are out there catching burglars, murderers and Bernie Madoffs, but the minute anyone gets a moving violation or gets caught with a dime-bag**, cops are “pigs.”  So it is with Science.  Scientists are great so long as we’re developing life-saving surgeries and fuel-efficient cars, but the minute we tell people “hey, chimps and people have a common ancestor,” we’re doing the devil’s work—no matter how much the latter informs the former. This is the Police Dichotomy of Science.  I can’t help but be reminded of Robert Hayden’s Those Winter Sundays***:

Sundays too my father got up early
And put his clothes on in the blueback cold,
then with cracked hands that ached
from labor in the weekday weather made
banked fires blaze. No one ever thanked him.

I’d wake and hear the cold splintering, breaking.
When the rooms were warm, he’d call,
and slowly I would rise and dress,
fearing the chronic angers of that house,

Speaking indifferently to him,
who had driven out the cold
and polished my good shoes as well.
What did I know, what did I know
of love’s austere and lonely offices?

*I define “apocalypse movie” here as any movie dealing with a (potential) mass extinction event affecting most-obviously H. sapiens, which is to include movies of any genre (horror, action, drama) set during or in the aftermath of any such event (I Am Legend, The Road, The Day After Tomorrow, etc), regardless of whether the disaster is man-made (28 Days Later), natural (Deep Impact) or other-worldly (ID4) and whether the event is averted (Armageddon) or not.

**Disclaimer: I wholeheartedly believe that many traffic laws and virtually all marijuana laws are outrageous/draconian.

*** I’m well aware of the potentially paternalistic image of Science and law enforcement that one might infer from this reference.  Rest assured, I am only pointing out the acceptance of thanklessness which must accompany both professions, even when entered into with the noblest of intentions.

As Science standardizes the language of investigation, it excludes those theories that aren’t communicated in that formal grammar and lexicon.  So goes the Evolution/Creation “debate.” Evolution is part (a significant part) of the standardized Biological grammar, just like less “controversial” elements of that language like cells and proteins and glycolysis.  Creationism is not communicated in this grammar.  It is communicated in language that in the Abrahamic Religions includes God’s will, His power, the breath of life, the Tree the Knowledge, and Original Sin.  There is nothing inherently wrong with with this grammar and lexicon, it’s just not Biological Language. Intelligent Design “theory” (ID) is, if you think about it, an attempt to translate the language of Creationism into Biological Language, using all the grammar and lexicon of that language…except that which pertains to evolution.

But I digress.  The problem is that as any language disappears from a field of inquiry, so to do the speakers of that language.  More often than not, the first to leave are proletarians disenfranchised by the standardization of language.  Think for a moment about internet message-boards.  Spelling and grammar errors in a post are mercilessly attacked by those who disagree.  Socioeconomic status and intelligence are connected with the knowledge and proper use of standardized language every day.  This connection is often made through the use of gross caricatures, like media portrayals of Southerners with heavy accents and poor English, but that doesn’t make it untrue.  Poor, uneducated people of below-average intellect often don’t speak “proper” English.

It is this connection that sets the stage for populist antiscience (anti-intellectualism specifically pointed at Science).  Those who espouse antiscientific points of view aim to wrest control of the language of inquiry from the grip of the upper-classes who have standardized it.  The ensuing battle is essentially a class-conflict.  Since one cannot “redistribute” knowledge itself as one would wealth, antiscientists want to reintroduce the languages spoken by the poor and uneducated to a particular field (e.g. Biology), thereby redistributing the power of the educated with respect to that field. Of course, when politicians promise to fight to bring the disenfranchised back into the philosophical fold, they are basically saying “to each according to his need,” with regard to the power of knowledge, which is earned through education.

Much as there is power to be had from exploiting under-class disenfranchisement and religious fervor, however, I’m not proposing that this is a conscious effort on the part of a cadre of devilish, secretly-Marxist politicians bent on stifling progress.  Rather, it is the unavoidable consequence of populist leaders’ laudation of “salt-of-the-earth” proletarians for their personal gain and of their promise to undo Scientific standardization of the language of inquiry.

I will, however, argue that for the purposes of relating Science to Religion (evolution to creationism, etc.) with a view toward argumentation, this understanding of Science isn’t useful.

What Science truly represents is the standardization of the lexicon and grammar of a respective field of inquiry. In normal usage, “grammar” is essentially the structure of language, a way of putting together words (the “lexicon”) so that they make sense.  Grammar in the scientific sense is similar, it’s the structure that makes the lexicon make sense.  It is a standardized parlance that allows two researchers to communicate ideas to one another efficiently.

I’ll use a basic example.  If my fiancée said to me “I liked dinner last night, but next time we should cut up some peppers,” and I were to reply “definitely, I thought the filling needed more onions too,” we would both know that we were talking about tacos. Tacos, in this case, are the “grammar” in which the lexicon of filling and peppers makes sense.

Of course, you could say “well given those terms and the usage, one could easily guess you were talking about tacos.” This may be true, but the ubiquity of tacos actually furthers my example.  Everyone knows about tacos, so everyone knows taco grammar. I’m going to assume that pretty much everyone has also seen CSI Miami on CBS. Whenever the ballistics expert played by Emily Procter does a ballistics test, she has to tell someone how she matches one bullet to another by the striations that the barrel makes on them. She has to do this because it is assumed that you, the audience, do not have this knowledge.  Two CSIs would never have a conversation like this, because they both understand how a ballistics test works.  So it is with Scientists.

What Science does (which is significant in considering what Science is) is standardize the grammar and lexicon of a field of inquiry, i.e., the “language” used by those who wish to answer a particular question.  The history of science is essentially the story of this standardization with regard to the to discussion of numerous formerly philosophical questions.

Take motion.  Before Newton’s Pricipia was published in 1687, philosophers had been writing and debating about the laws of motion for 2,100 years.  Newton and subsequent Physicists standardized the grammar and lexicon.

Evolution is the same with regard to the question of how life on earth got here, and how human beings came into existence.  For nearly all of recorded history, creation myths ruled the roost, and even during and after the Enlightenment, philosophers were making arguments for creation. In 1802, William Paley wrote his famous “watchmaker” argument.  But evolution, genetics and evolutionary biology have since developed and begun the process of standardizing the grammar and lexicon of creation.