The science of biology has things it can’t explain
Though it’s “Science has the answers!” as the boast.
You can search the latest journals, but you’ll find you search in vain
For the transubstantiation of the host!
The biologists won’t touch it; it’s a truth they’ll never find—
They refuse to even look for their solution
It shows that there are answers of a different, better kind…
And it clearly puts the lie to evolution.
So, yeah, I was looking through my aggregator’s suggestions, and found a blog I’d never heard of before, but which I clearly should have, a conservative political/religious blog by “Archbishop Cranmer” (roughly a Church of England version of Rush Limbaugh, in terms of political spectrum and self-importance). Today, he was grousing about Richard Dawkins. But my verse is actually prompted by one of the comments there, which takes Dawkins to task for the inadequacy of his scientific world view (excerpt):
But can he explain consciousness? Well, no he can’t.
Can he explain conscience? No he can’t.
Can he explain the existence of morality? No, he can’t.
Can he explain irreducible complexity? No, he can’t.
Can he explain the connection between the brain and the mind? No, he can’t.
Can he tell me what a thought is? No, he can’t.
Can he explain the mathematical impossibility of the formation of so much as even one protein molecule of RNA? No, he can’t.
Can he explain the uncaused cause for existence? No, he can’t.
Can he find any purpose or meaning in the existence of man external to man’s own individual desires? No, he can’t.
Can he even so much as show me the data that validates the models upon which he bases so many of his conclusions? No, he can’t. He has no data.
I suspect he also can’t tell how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Now, I have a couple of immediate reactions to this comment–the first is, most of these are difficult to answer only because they are phrased so poorly. They are framed in dualistic terms, so the scientific work that goes into investigating the related phenomena will be rejected for answering a different question. Secondly… it doesn’t seem to bother the commenter that his own world view is likewise unable to answer the questions. “Goddiddit” is as close as they come.
Sometimes, the inability of science to answer a question is simply evidence that it’s a bad question.