There is one tremendously positive
thing that has come from the creationist movement, and I wish more
atheists would dislodge their heads from their behinds and acknowledge
I am talking about the incessant challenges (no matter how
fickle or spiteful) that creationism poses to experts who were once
used to the massaging effect of the backslapping reverence they receive
from cohorts and desperate-to-please undergraduate students who adore
every vocalization their illustrious professors make.
detested this aura that some PhDs exude: Don’t argue with me; I’m an
expert! Even if one is an expert, one must still submit to the challenge
to explain oneself and demonstrate one’s claims adequately. Failure to
do so is a sign that one has succumbed to faith and now speaks from
‘authority.’ There is no (or should be no) authority in science except
reality itself, for even the most accomplished scientist draws
inspiration from and makes discoveries in the reality surrounding them.
are but the conduit through which reality speaks to our species, and I
doubt reality is as arrogant as many scientists indeed are.
have been countless cases where lesser-esteemed people have found very
glaring flaws in the assumed perfect work of experts, and rather than
being thanked for pointing out these flaws, these well-meaning
individuals were berated for not being ‘experts’ themselves and
dismissed on those grounds.
A PhD should never be viewed as a
seal of authenticity or become an armoured vehicle providing protection
from the scrutiny by others—even if these others be laymen. The amount
and complexity of information we deal with on this planet, at this time,
are simply beyond the grasp of even the most diligent and most gifted
person on the planet. Everyone makes mistakes. We all make mistakes even
in subjects and fields where we know better than everyone around us
does. That is what it means to be a primate—sometimes you miss a branch
while leaping about a tree and fall out of it even if you are supremely
evolved to live in trees!
A PhD does not prevent one from making mistakes or epic screwups if one does not pay attention.
can say from personal experience that I’ve seen experts fumble amid a
torrent of tricky questions asked of them by creationists that either
exposed their fatigue for the interrogation process or, perhaps, a gap
in their own knowledge / understanding of the subject matter they
oversee. Gasp! Yes, it happens.
I got to interact with numerous
professors in a way most people will never be able to replicate (even
if they study at university): To me, most professors were the buffoons
who could not plug a memory stick into their laptops. To me, most
professors were the morons who would call me to protest that their new
wireless mouse has no buttons (flip it around, genius)! Believe me, most
professors are a disappointing sight if you are hoping to see
intelligence distilled in human form.
And please, don’t come to
me with that pathetic excuse that ‘computers’ is not their field of
expertise. Computers are now so prolific that they fall in the category
of common sense (which is not so common after all). If you can’t even
discover that your mouse is held upside down, how can you accurately
discover the secrets of the universe by way of reason? The fact is that
most of these professors will never discover anything. I think we need
to stop calling them genius and perhaps use the more appropriate term:
savant—meaning sometimes brilliant at doing one thing, and completely
retarded when doing anything else.
So the one positive thing the
creationist movement has done is to place a few verbose and reckless
scientists under extreme pressure to fill in the gaps in their own
knowledge regarding evolution. Creationism is the most thorough,
deliberate, prolonged, and potentially harmful (of it triumphs) attack
ever launched against anything scientific, let alone evolutionary theory
or the big-bang theory—both of which have proven uncontestable even
within the scientific communities that thought them up.
to talk about my day job, but I bug test software to expose flaws in its
design. It is literally me against a team of about a dozen very
talented, very experienced programmers—many of whom truly are geniuses
in every sense of the word. When I do this kind of work, I am nobody’s
friend, comrade, or colleague. If you are a programmer, or UI designer,
or have had any part in the design of the software, when I put on my
bug-tester t-shirt, I am your enemy, and I will expose your flaws for
all to see and make you (a) take acknowledge them, and (b) fix them!
believe me, the more of a deliberate antagonist I am doing so, the more
bugs I expose, the better the end product is for it. If the only role
creationist play is that of the obstinate bug-testers of science, then I
support their obstinacy, their arrogance, and their perseverance,
because I know the science will be improve for it if the big ego morons
masquerading as idiots are fired and their ‘bad code’ removed from the
fields of science.
The peer review process has blind spots
I am at it, let me also address the flaws of the peer review process,
which also should never become a seal of approval or authenticity,
because it is riddled with biases and oversights that occasionally allow
a turd to make it into the drinking water.
A lot of established
science hides in the grey areas that exist only because of a consensus
(mere mass opinion amongst scientists) and speculation. These grey
areas, in particular, must be attacked so that we can get the complacent
experts who explain things from their own uncertainty to either back up
their claims with evidence or discovery, or retract / rephrase their
unfounded assertions and find a more suitable occupation.
that experts, by way of their PhD’s and esteem in the scientific
community, will never again be allowed to assume and proclaim rather
than investigate and demonstrate. In a major way, the creationist
movement represents a triumph of the common man over the once
untouchable academics, many of whom worked damn hard, for centuries, to
create for themselves panic chambers in society (the research lab and
the university) where they can all run to when we demand that they
explain what they are doing with our tax money!
When you only
allow likeminded people to scrutinize your work, you are allowing a
positive bias to form in your deductions. And this is a well-known
phenomenon in statistical analysis and one that we should always be
vigilant against committing and compelled to point out (to the shame of
those who are guilty of committing it) wherever and whenever it is
Science isn’t rocket science
I’d like to
illustrate to those who are not scientific, how they can approach any
expert and speak with a voice that must be acknowledged.
enormous chunk of modern science isn’t fundamental science anymore but
merely speculative excess meant to sell books, secure interviews, grant
funding, and esteem the academics who—for all their intelligence and
education opulence—have no access to wealth, fame, and resources,
As someone who understands a great deal of the
fundamental (proven, testable) science on which the world operates, I
can safely say that one need not be a genius to make sense of this
stuff. Understanding science is like being a celebrity, anyone can do
I am but an engineer—the woodwork students of science—and I
have no problem learning any new mathematics or physics to follow the
conversation of experts. These experts are experts only in the numerous
abstractions they are wrestling with in an attempt to make another
fundamental discovery in science. Their fields of expertise requires
them to spend the vast majority of their time coming up with guesses to
try and make some mental progress towards an actual discovery. I
therefore accept Christopher Hitchen’s recommendation that we picture
all experts as if they were mammals as spot on.
So anyone who
tells you that you don’t have a high enough IQ or thorough enough
education are simply trying to make themselves look smarter than they
actually are, or they are simply trying to avoid questions that they
simply can’t answer. Most of the fundamental science we know of today
was invented by people who had none of the educational or technological
benefits DEMANDED to be a scientist today, but they did it, by
candlelight in most cases!
These were practical men and women of
science and discovery, not bloody academics who sit around and get fat
while they sell books and appear on television. This is why modern
science is so unappealing to the public, because the lugubrious
academics have tried to shore all of science up in their universities
where everyone must pay monstrous amounts of money to even see the
knowledge that belongs to our species as a whole, not to organizations
run by people who think they are smarter than the rest of us.
low hanging fruits of science have been picked, and this means that new
fundamental discoveries will take longer and cost more. And we see this
today, after billions of Dollars have been spent and decades have
passed, modern scientists indeed discover something new (e.g., the Higgs
Boson), but that does not change the fact that since Einstein,
scientists have mostly produced hypothetical arguments in an attempt to
push science forward. This is not a deceptive practice, but when these
imaginary deductions are presented to the public, they should be
presented as the often fallacious, baseless, and self-amusing nonsense
fantasies that they are!
And to the scientists, it may very
well be the case that some of your assumptions or speculations turn out
to be correct (and if so, you will get your Nobel prise), but until that
day comes, your ‘expert’ opinion is merely your opinion and should be
treated as such even by the general public. History is littered with
recordings of experts who were bitterly wrong. A little modesty is in
The scientific obligation
As we move
forward in this now global argument, I sincerely hope that as the common
man hears more buzzwords that they demand of the academics who author
such terms to explain them—especially the volumes of assumptive
literature that results merely from fraternal hand-holding and the need
to provide an explanation or hypothesis where none is warranted by
theory or evidence.
Any opinion can challenge any other opinion because an opinion, by definition, is subjective until demonstrated factual!
that is, perhaps, why scientists don’t like to be challenged unless it
is by sympathetic, likeminded colleagues who all share a collective
interest separated from that of the general public.
Who are you,
scientists, or who do you propose yourselves to be to so dismissively
address the true sponsors of your paychecks and funding when we demand
that you show us why we should continue supporting you?
support the right of the public to interrogate academics and scientists
(and politicians) who would be more than happy to tell us all, in dumbed
down terms, that when they speak, we, the public, must be silent. And
yes, I say we, because I am in that convulsing mass of unwashed buffoons
who don’t know how to wipe the drool from their chin because they don’t
have a PhD, and I too am fed up with being assumed borderline retarded
just because I don’t have a scroll of paper denoting my narrow field of
interest in the world around me!
I know some of you reclusive,
savant-like theoretical physicists don’t understand the concept of
society and consider yourselves on some god-appointed mission to spend
the common man’s tax money to pursue your intellectual infatuations, but
you would be jobless if society did not support you financially, and
they can, at any time, vote to have your funding stopped if they think
you have lost the plot or excluded them from your pursuit of ultimate
It is time that scientists, like politicians, stop
assuming that the common person is too stupid to receive a dignified,
thorough, and honest answer. It is time that scientists learn to speak
to the common man in a befitting tone, because we, the common man, are
the people sponsoring your endevours, so all your base belongs to us!
you don’t like this deal, then set up a shack in your backyard, fund
your own research, and pay your assistants from whatever profits you eke
out of your infrequent discoveries.
Signs of progress and conclusion
the last five years, I’ve noted, with satisfaction, a more sincere
attempt made by experts to address the public on scientific matters. The
creationist movement—irrespective of how obtuse, deliberate, insincere,
or deceptive it may be at its core—has forced a higher standard on the
academics who in previous decades had a jolly time addressing us in the
same fashion the historical story-tellers of the tribe used to. Yet they
blame us for not understanding science when they themselves can’t even
properly explain it—hilarious!
I would implore the common man to
never feel inadequate because they aren’t a scientists or academics.
Fundamental science (the only science worth knowing) is actually very
easy to comprehend and often the only thing you need to resort to to
force a PhD-decorated ‘boffin’ to readjust their spectacles and address
you as if you actually are a member of the same primate species as they
(Not to be taken out of context) as Democritus said, “Nothing exists except atoms and empty space, everything else is opinion.”
Follow The Last Contrarian on Twitter.
Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24's community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.