Dear Friends,
As a scientist and educator, I sincerely appreciate what Ingrid wrote in the last post. Well put! I also appreciate Coldrayne and vita-man's perspectives, which are most enlightened.
By its very nature, the scientific method is a tool by which we try to minimize subjectivity and maximize objectivity in evaluating the workings of the material universe, which is already abundant enough in its mysteries to keep us fully occupied for the foreseeable future. At the same time, scientists are human, too, and we are as fallible as anyone else. And, of course, our instruments are imperfect, too. We can only do our best, and we try as much as humanly possible to conduct experiments and interpret the results with as much intelligence, integrity, and honestly as possible. The method itself is self-correcting, and when mistakes happen (intentionally or accidentally), the truth eventually surfaces, because while researchers are fallible, the scientific method itself is robust.
In doing science, we try to minimize the number of assumptions we have to make, and if we assume something, it must be for a good reason. With regard to evolution vs. creationism, a possible approach is to assume a creator exists at the beginning, and then everything else follows according to the natural laws which that creator put in place. Okay ... but that's an awfully big assumption. So, we play a game ... let's not make the assumption of a creator ... is there enough evidence to support the theory of evolution. Oh, yes, there certainly is. But does that necessarily mean there is no creator? Not at all. Science does not try to prove or disprove the existence of God, god, or gods. It merely tries to construct a rational model of the universe based on the fewest assumptions, reproducible experiments, and verifiable observations. At the same time, a model is not the real thing, of course, and certainly not unique.
Why the line between physics and metaphysics seems to be growing more and more blurry is very interesting. Extra-dimensions, time-travel, and non-locality were not too long ago found only inside colorful sci-fi novels, but are now topics of serious research upon which the brightest minds today build entire careers. Some have popularized these ideas and extended them quite liberally beyond their original context. While they help to feed the imagination, it's a bit premature to become religiously attached to them. We are merely beginning as a community of conscious beings to discover the truth of it all. Paradigms come and go, and tomorrow may bring a completely new way of seeing things.
Until then, may your step and path be light,
HF
