I think I have figured out why evolution has always rubbed me the wrong way. If you look at the subject called History
, science is very often used to gather and verify data, such as carbon dating to make sure pottery is from a given time and atomic composition to make sure it is from a given geological area. Although history makes heavy use of science, history is not itself science. The modern study of history is a good science foundation with a Liberal Arts cap.
I had been erroneously working under the assumption (based on the sales pitch) that evolution is pure science. But in reality, evolution has a science foundation with a liberal arts cap. That liberal arts element makes it political and dogmatic. It creates the same emotion as discussion of the civil war between northerns and southerners.
If it was pure science, all the way to the history cap, the theory should be able to make predictions in the lab. This is a necessary requirement of the scientific method and can be done by the rest of science. But it is not a requirement of history. For example, if we look at those pictures, of the ascent of man from ape to present, that is a popular learning tool, what would the next picture in the series look like, after man? Pure science can usually make such a prediction and will even attempt this, to push the frontier. But history does not try to predict the future, but is concerned about the past.
If you look at the bible, face it, there are many things that can't be verified by science with smoking gun evidence. But there are also history records in the bible about ancient empires, for example, that is verifiable. The bible is not just mythology, but also record keeping.The history cap of evolution would like to throw out the entire bible, rather than filter it for verifiable data. If you know anything about history, when we throw out data, the history can get subjective. Again, I apologize if I mistakenly ragged on the science foundation. I did not yet understand that evolution had a liberal arts cap that subjectively rubbed me wrong.
Below is the introduction page of the first addition of Charles Darwin's important book. It is definitely a pivotal work. Notice the bottom of the title; "or the preservation of selected races in the struggle for life". This is not usually part of the history cap, which has been placed on top of the science foundation.
I am not saying Darwin was a racist, but rather his historical times shaped the way he would see things and his book needed to be relevant to those times. Darwin was a well educated and wealthy Englishman, whose culture and class demonstrated survival of the fittest at his time. Based on that real time observation, why not look for natural data to extrapolate this to nature. Was the cart before the horse? This does not challenge the science foundation, it is a history question.
Well before Darwin ever saw animals in Galapagos, Darwin lived in the social jungle as one of the fit animals from blue blood stock. If he could show the social jungle also existed in nature, that would explain the way of the world; selective advantage=selective race, as his title indicated. The Church was not as concerned about race, but recruited everywhere including in the jungles. It had a history of helping the poor, which were not the fittest of the social animals. Later social Darwinism was not accepted, like the Church had always maintained. But the natural history cap that has been spawn (cart before horse) was retained due to the blur created with the science foundation. This is not Creationism, just a history cap concern., which will be lumped into creationism, to blur the history cap so it creates the illusion of being pure science.