 |
|
|
Assuming that you are reading this after you have digested the substance of my several proposals, I need to make a few comments concerning what you have just read, particularly for those readers who may not be familiar with the philosophy of science and the communication of information in science. Scientific inquiry is about the discovery of ideas that were not previously known. Most often, these ideas emerge from the inquiry as theories; best guesses as to how the new evidence fits with what is already known. And, most of us publish these theories with the firm conviction that, while they may not ultimately become the final word on the subject, they are the very best explanation for what is presently known--and will stand the test of review by our colleagues. Implicit in their publication, in fact, is the invitation to such a review. ..... What I have written here is my best guess concerning how to explain the evidence available in the several areas of inquiry I considered. I wrote it with the clear understanding that my theories would not sit well with all of my readers and would invite criticism. To me, and hopefully most other investigators, criticism is an absolutely essential element of scientific discourse. We not only don't dread criticism; we welcome it. It makes us better at what we do. However, as in most aspects of civilized discourse, there are rules; rules to insure that the criticism will contribute to the search for truth. ..... Without question, the rule that is most often violated is the requirement for objectivity. There is no place for personal bias in scientific interchange. The rules demand that discourse be limited to what is known, or what can logically be concluded from what is known. Admittedly, your logic and mine may lead to different conclusions. That is fair criticism. What is not fair is rejection of an idea out of hand simply because it doesn't fit with how you think things ought to be. Valid criticism must be accompanied by alternative ideas that begin with the same evidence and lead logically to different conclusions. ..... In the business of scientific discourse, the provocation of these alternative ideas is--or at least ought to be--one of the primary goals to be accomplished by publishing one's theories. No credible scientist enters the arena of discourse with the idea that his/her conclusions will be the last word in that area of inquiry. We learn from one another--necessarily--by being critics, and by being criticized. That's what good science is all about. ..... So, with that bit of introduction, I'd like to review what I have done in the preceding chapters and suggest where I think it might go from here. If I have been successful in what I presented, then, in addition to offering some new ideas for you to consider--and inviting constructive alternatives to them--I hope I have also contributed some guidelines on how discourse on these subjects might constructively be conducted in the future. ..... In the past, this area of inquiry has been characterized far more by conflict than by concord. Suggestions of that conflict could be clearly interpreted from the comment of the seminar participant with which I introduced the subject of this discussion. In his mind at least, science and religion are at war with one another--and those of us who spend our lives trying to explain the world of nature are the enemies of religion. The presumption of conflict guarantees that the truth will continue to elude us. In reality, the only conflict that exists is in the minds of people who choose to see it that way. ..... One way to perpetuate the conflict, of course, is to question the validity of the data. For example, I have assumed in my arguments that the interpretations of the fossil record by the professional paleoanthropologists I have quoted represent a trustworthy enterprise on their part. Certainly, there are differences of opinion among scientists in that field concerning certain details of interpretation. But the overall scenario of human evolution I presented does not represent the opinions of a few isolated scientists. It is a clear consensus among most credible workers in the field. Of course, it could be argued that all of them are working together to subvert the truth. The suggestion of conspiracy, however, is not an argument. It is simply an avoidance of reality. As a scientist with decades of experience behind me--and a burning passion for objectivity--I have not found in any of the data I have quoted the slightest hint that they were not obtained by scrupulous inquiry and thoughtful interpretation. ..... I may or may not be on the right track with the theories I have presented here, but I think they make the most sense given what we currently know about the issues involved. Whatever their merits are ultimately judged to be, I believe that future discourse must follow the guiding principles I have used. That is, that the revelations of scientific inquiry will continue to provide new information that will require integration with biblical accounts; and that no ultimate conflict is possible between these two sources of revelation.
|