Diatribune

(The following entry constitutes the second part of a short three-part series on evolution. Part one can be read here)

Fundamentalists and other denialists of the process of evolution are fond of arguing that it is an invalid science, seeking to undermine it with either theological, ideological or philosophical (non)arguments (three examples among so many here, here and here), or outright non-science, pseudo-science and quackery - like intelligent design or creationism science.

As I put it before: only science is science.

Interestingly, it is a truism that all scientific disciplines are related in various degrees (and I should know, considering what I do for a living - nonetheless, see these two examples here and here, in case you do not believe me). Hence, that is why the fundamentalist/denialist (non)argument that evolution science is invalid, or wrong, is the most ludicrous of them all - not only for its (ahem) fundamental fallacious nature but also for its grave implications.

Not sure? Then allow me to make a list of the scientific disciplines (and/or subdisciplines) which underlie the science of evolution:

We have geology (and related disciplines such as Earth science, environmental geology, geoarchaeology, geochemistry, geochronology, geomicrobiology, geophysics and others), chemistry (and subdisciplines such as analytical chemistry, nuclear chemistry, organic chemistry, physical chemistry and others), physics (and the subfields of atomic, molecular and optic physics, as well as particle physics and condensed matter physics) and, of course, biology (and its branches of anatomy, biochemistry, botany, cellular biology, developmental biology, ecology, microbiology, molecular biology, genetics, biophysics, physiology, zoology, and others).

Now, the only purpose of science is to describe and understand the reality we live in - the universe, our planet, life and, ultimately, ourselves. Granted, much remains to be understood (this is why crazy folks like moi can have careers and contribute to this noble human endeavor) - that is, after all, the nature of science and of the scientific method. Nonetheless, it is from such acquired knowledge that we use (and have used) for all of our (past, present and future) technological advancements - thanks to what we call the applied sciences.

So, here's the clincher: if the science of evolution is wrong or invalid, then this means that all the scientific disciplines and subdisciplines it relies upon are also wrong/invalid. Let's give ourselves a quick review of what this means if the fundamentalists/denialists are right on this one:

Physics wrong - then we can't be having planes, trains, automobiles, satellites, rockets, space shuttles, telecommunications, cell phones, TVs, electricity, windmills, waterwheels, radios, microwave ovens, houses/buildings, boats, sound systems, musical instruments, etc.

Chemistry wrong - then we can't be having CAT-scans, electron microscopy, gasoline, refrigirators, insulation, plastics, ceramics, nuclear reactors, thermonuclear bombs (someone else blogged about this one

Geology wrong - then we can't be having mines, oil drills, cement/concrete, bricks, dams, asphalt, gemstones, water wells, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc.

Biology wrong - then we can't be having domesticated pets, farm animals and plants (by the way: selective breeding/cross-breeding constitutes the oldest form of genetic engineering/modification tech - but I digress), diseases (including genetically inherited ones), fisheries, alcohol (beer, vodka, et al.), game reserves, baking powder, surgeries, vaccines, antibiotics, gene therapies, organ transplants, blood transfusions, in vitro fertilization, etc.

Let me put it another way: if these sciences are wrong, then we would not be capable of seeing, speaking and hearing. Furthermore, we would not have computers and the internets. Ergo: I would not be able to type this blog and you would not be reading it.

In short - if evolution is not real, then nothing is, because you can't pick one science as right or wrong over any other ... since they are all interconnected.

So here's an idea - next time you see a fundamentalist/denialist yapping/blogging against evolution, simply ask him/her this question:

"If evolution ain't real, how come you can talk/blog about it?"

Then again, maybe everything is magic and we're all living in a dream ...

Nah.

P.S. Of course, you understood already that the very same of what I have discussed herein also applies for the science underlying our understanding of climate change and its effects, right? Good.

(Cross-posted from Another Point of View)
__________________________