https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4758
In Science We Trust
[EDITOR’S NOTE: A.P. auxillary staff scientist Dr. Fausz holds a Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering from Georgia Tech.]
Our society places a great deal of faith and trust in Science. The
reverence that many in our society grant to Science is clearly
illustrated in a 1998 article published in Science magazine.
The article is a compilation of essays and poetry submitted by the
students of Holmdel High School in New Jersey: writings which were, in
fact, solicited by the 150th anniversary committee of Science (Jackel, et al., 1998).
For example, a young lady named Megan McIlroy begins her essay, titled
“What Science Means to Society,” with the words, “In a society where all
aspects of our lives are dictated by scientific advances in technology,
science is the essence of our existence” (Jackel, et al., emp. added). The following is a poem written by Brian Sze in the same article:
“Seesaw of the Spirit”
As science develops, religion declines,
Because religion begins where science ends.
As more and more knowledge fills our minds,
Religious influence lessens.
Religion was based on assumed claims,
Which through time have been proved wrong.
But the Church has been too strict to change,
Which has been its downfall all along.
Creation gives us an account
Of man and woman’s first acts,
But evolution seems paramount,
Because it is supported by facts.
So now we are presented with a choice.
Scientific knowledge or conviction?
Everybody has a voice
In answering this controversial question
(Jackel, et al., emp. added).
In one additional example, Jenitta Kwong begins her essay, titled
“Science as Livesaver,” with “Science is everything to me,” and in her
concluding remarks suggests that, without science, “Life would be
meaningless” (Jackel, et al.).
How is it that high school children come to the conclusion that Science dictates all aspects of our lives to the extent that life would have no meaning
without Science? From what do they deduce that a presumed “seesaw”
between science and religion culminates in a controversial question? It
is difficult to believe that very many individual scientists or
technologists would suggest such a philosophy regarding science and
religion. Most likely, these sentiments reflect values that have been
passed on to these children by certain educators, their parents, and/or
various friends or mentors with whom they may have associated. In short,
our society has in some way conveyed to these children that Science has
a position of ultimate importance in their lives that is, sadly (and
mistakenly), terminally at odds with faith and religion. Perhaps most
strikingly, this misconception has also occurred with very little, if
any, input from Science itself.
No doubt, science and technology have given us many conveniences that
seem, at least in a shallow sense, to have vastly improved the quality
of human existence, but is that enough to suggest that Science is everything?
Is the importance placed on Science by our society warranted? More
important, does Science pose a better explanation for the meaning of
life than religion? To add context to these questions, it is useful to
examine the statements and writings of those who hold a preeminent
position in the scientific arena.
The fact is, Science goes farther than just claiming preeminence over
religion and belief in God in many of these statements. In 2006, several
scientists at a conference in La Jolla, California advocated militant
eradication of God and religion from society to be replaced completely
with the precepts of science. At this conference, cosmologist Stephen
Weinberg stated: “The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of
religion.... Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of
religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to
civilization.” And celebrated evolutionist Richard Dawkins said:
“There’s a certain sort of negativity you get from people who say ‘I
don’t like religion but you can’t do anything about it.’ That’s a real
counsel of defeatism. We should roll our sleeves up and get on with it”
(as quoted in Lyons and Butt, 2007).
Others have simply approached the debate by claiming that science makes
God and religion irrelevant. Famous theoretical physicist Stephen
Hawking recently wrote: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the
Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation
is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe
exists, why we exist,” adding, “It is not necessary to invoke God to
light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.” These statements
appear in Hawking’s 2010 book titled, ironically, The Grand Design (Hawking and Mlodinow, p. 181). Hawking goes on to explain:
The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for
reasons we can’t understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I
believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science
“God,” but it wouldn’t be a personal God that you could meet, and ask
questions (p. xx).
Here Hawking again attempts to de-emphasize God in favor of Science.
Even more, there is a subtle attempt in the last statement to replace
God with Science in suggesting that the “laws of science” might be
called “God.”
Accomplished scientists such as Hawking and Weinberg, high profile
evolutionist Dawkins, and a group of high school students from New
Jersey seem to be in agreement that Science holds a place of preeminence
over everything, even overshadowing religious conviction. They present
science as an omniscient benefactor that gives us everything we need and
tells us everything we need to know—very much as many relate to God.
Science, though, has a few things to say about its own “omniscience”
that have a direct bearing on the question of whether or not it has
eliminated the need for God. Furthermore, these observations have much
to say regarding the supposed preeminence of science in our society.
Scientifically Uncertain
Prior to the 20th century, science and the Universe were
believed to be strictly and objectively “deterministic,” meaning that
all constituent elements of the Universe could be uniquely characterized
and even predicted by fixed natural laws with straightforward (though
sometimes complex) closed-form mathematical representations or models.
For example, mathematical equations can be formulated for the motion of
an object in space using Newton’s Laws of Motion and for the orbits of
planets and artificial satellites using Kepler’s Laws of Planetary
Motion. This deterministic way of looking at the cosmos is often
referred to as “classical physics” or “classical mechanics.”
Interestingly, while many of the results of classical mechanics have
been shown to have a limited domain of validity, engineers still
successfully use the concepts daily in building bridges, designing
automobiles, navigating aircraft, and launching satellites into near
Earth orbit.
During the past century, however, the theory of relativity and theorems
accompanying the birth and growth of the emerging field of quantum
mechanics cast doubt on this view of determinism in the minds of many
scientists. Most notably, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of 1927
stipulated that the position and momentum of sub-atomic particles could
not both be uniquely determined to an arbitrary degree of accuracy. That
is, there will always be uncertainty in the measurement of at least one
of these values that severely limits accuracy when one tries to measure
both. Heisenberg’s result has since been extended to other pairs of
measurements for subatomic particles, such as energy and spin. These
momentous results present a fundamental limitation on the ability of
Science to uniquely determine the complete state of the Universe at any
given time.
Scientists initially believed that the uncertainty phenomenon was
simply a consequence of taking measurements. For example, one might
bounce a photon of light off of a subatomic particle and measure its
position based on the return speed of the photon. In doing so, however,
the momentum of the subatomic particle is changed and can no longer be
determined accurately. Thus, the observer and his measurements have a
profound effect on the resulting observation (Davies, 1984, p. 49). Dean
Overman states: “What one observes depends to some extent on how one
observes. The observer cannot be removed from the subject of the
observation” (Overman, 1997, p. 29).
On the other hand, many scientists have interpreted the results of
quantum mechanics to imply that the Universe itself is inherently
non-deterministic. Scientific philosopher Paul Davies refers to this
interpretation as “the ‘party line’ which maintains that quantum
fuzziness is inherent in nature, and irreducible” (1984, p. 42). Thus,
these scientists believe that quantum theory is an apt description of
the reality of the Universe, rather than simply describing the effect
the scientist has on the system when trying to take measurements.
Notably, Albert Einstein, who helped formulate quantum theory,
militantly disagreed with this interpretation as we see from one of his
most well-known quotes, “God does not play dice.” Einstein believed that
behind the quantum world of unpredictable fuzziness and disorder lay a
familiar classical world of concrete reality in which objects really
possess well-defined properties such as location and speed and move
according to deterministic laws of cause and effect (Davies, 1984, p.
42).
While scientists clearly do not agree on the correct interpretation of
quantum theory, one thing that both sides agree on is that the
uncertainty of the theory is inescapable and “irreducible,” as Davies
describes it. The Uncertainty principle has a profound effect on the
ability of Science to fully characterize the Universe. The “fuzziness”
of quantum mechanics ensures that Science will remain unable to explain
the Universe at its most basic level. Perhaps this can most readily be
seen in the inability of Science to even determine the underlying
meaning of its own quantum theory.
Mathematically Incomplete
In 1931, an Austrian mathematician named Kurt Gödel formulated and
proved a theorem that stipulated “for any consistent mathematical system
there exists within the system a well-formed statement that is not
provable under the rules of the system” (Overman, p. 27). This result,
known as Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem, implies that a
mathematical system can be shown to be consistent, but will be unable to
prove its own consistency within the rules of the system, thus cannot
be shown to be “complete.” This fact has serious implications for
scientific investigation, since mathematics is almost always utilized as
a framework for organizing scientific thought and making application of
resulting scientific principles. Scientific laws can be very often
recognized more by their mathematical formulation than their narrative
text. For instance, while many recognize the equation E=mc2
as a statement from the Relativity Theory of Albert Einstein, few would
recognize the statements of the theory underlying that famous
formulation.
Certainly, mathematical research subsequent to the work of Gödel has
identified very specific, limited mathematical systems that are
“self-consistent,” that is, they are both consistent and complete.
However, these limited results are not relevant to consideration of the
First Incompleteness Theorem in a context that involves formulating
scientific understanding and characterization of the entire Universe as
opposed to a limited mathematical system. Thus, Gödel’s theory
presents a critical impediment to the idea that Science can ever remove
the possibility of God from a full understanding of the Universe. As Overman explains:
Gödel’s theorem demonstrates that mathematics is incomplete because
the system leaves unanswered the truth or falsity of certain
mathematical propositions which are the logical results of valid
mathematical inferences (p. 28).
Since Science relies almost entirely on mathematics for developing and
expressing its premises and results, Gödel’s theorem and proof should
give great pause to anyone placing their total confidence in Science.
Mathematical incompleteness will not pervasively limit scientific
endeavor since mathematical constructions of closed systems can be both
consistent and complete. However, as Science continues to pursue an
explanation and corresponding model of the Universe as a whole, “at any
moment a contradiction could arise and shake the system down to its
foundations” (Overman, p. 28) due to the inability to show both
consistency and completeness of the mathematical framework involved.
The Unknowable
Related to the idea of “incompleteness” formulated by Gödel is the
concept of “undecidability.” Researchers have conceived many undecidable
problems in mathematics and logic. A well-known example from logic is
the so called “liar’s paradox,” which is
contained in the statement by Epimenides, a Cretan, who asserts, “all
Cretans are liars.” If one assumes that Epimenides is telling the truth,
then he is lying. But he cannot be lying because we have assumed he is
telling the truth (Overman, p. 26).
Conversely, if we assume Epimenides is lying, then his statement
becomes self-contradictory. The liar’s paradox is a logically
undecidable proposition.
As for mathematics, mathematician Gregory Chaitin formulated an
uncomputable number known as Omega (Ω), which represents the probability
that a computer program will halt when its input is a random string of
binary numbers. In general, probabilities fall between 0 and 1, where
zero represents an event having no chance of occurring (zero
probability) and 1 represents certainty. Davies suggests that Ω is
“close to 1, because most random inputs will appear as garbage to the
computer” and cause it to crash (1992, p. 133). However, Davies goes on
to point out that the expansion of Ω beyond the first few digits is
totally random, which implies there can be no algorithmic means to
generate Ω.
What is most interesting, though, about Chaitin’s result is that Ω is
representative of “halting” problems for computer programs, in general,
which have been shown to be mathematically undecidable. This prompts
Davies to suggest: “So knowing merely the first few thousand digits of
omega would give us access to a solution of all outstanding mathematical
problems of this type” (1984, p. 134). However, since Ω is completely
random beyond the first few digits, it is uncomputable. The implications
of this fact are further discussed by Davies:
Unfortunately, being an uncomputable number, omega can never be
revealed by constructive means, however long we work at it. Thus, short
of a mystical revelation, omega can never be known to us. And even if we
were to be given omega by divine transmission, we would not recognize
it for what it was, because, being a random number, it would not commend
itself to us as special in any respect (1992, p. 134).
This quote is truly remarkable. Of course, we might argue quite
reasonably that if such a number were to be given “by divine
transmission,” such a transmission might likely include an indication of
the meaning and importance of the data. That would certainly be the
proper way to view divine revelation.
However, Davies’ statements raise an engaging question regarding that
which is unknowable. In some sense, all of nature is a form of divine
transmission (“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament
shows His handiwork”—Psalm 19:1). Yet there is so much we do not
understand and, it appears, can never understand. Perhaps it is true
that the heavens also declare the boundaries of scientific knowledge. It
certainly appears to be true that mathematics and science pose a hard
limit on the extent of what Science can ultimately “know.”
Behold the Great and Powerful…Science?
In the movie classic The Wizard of Oz, there is the familiar,
seminal moment when the true “Wizard of Oz” is about to be discovered by
Dorothy and her companions. At that moment, the “Wizard” desperately
and frantically states: “Pay no attention to that man behind the
curtain!” (Fleming, 1939). Certainly, scientists are aware of the
limitations implied by results such as the Incompleteness Theorems, the
Uncertainty Principle, and the incomputable problems of mathematics. But
this awareness does not stop Science, or at least certain of its most
prominent representatives, from continuing to present Science as the
omniscient benefactor that so many believe it to be. When scientific
beliefs and theories, like manmade global warming and Darwinian
evolution, are challenged, often the scientific community will attack
the challenger, instead of addressing the merits of the challenge
itself, almost as if to say, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”
But scientific achievement is replete with modern examples of its own limitations. Overman comments:
The limits of our reasoning powers raise the question whether
scientific explanations for the origin of the laws of physics, the Big
Bang, or the origin of life are issues which fall into…the indeterminate
category represented by Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem (p. 28).
Origin of Universe
Scientists continue to be conflicted regarding how the entire Universe
came into existence in the first place. The longest prevailing theory
(besides divine Creation), of course, is the so-called Big Bang
theory—still the front-runner according to many scientists. However,
researchers like Stephen Hawking have exerted significant effort to
replace the Big Bang Theory due to their inability to explain the Big
Bang singularity and how it came into existence. In fact, Hawking once
observed that, at the Big Bang singularity, “the laws of science and our
ability to predict the future would break down” (1988, p. 117).
The difficulties with the Big Bang theory are, at least in part, a
consequence of quantum theory and the Uncertainty Principle. As noted,
the Uncertainty Principle limits accuracy in making measurements at a
sub-atomic level. This limit, however, has an exact numerical
characterization known as Planck’s constant, a physical constant
associated with quantum mechanics that was first derived as the
proportionality constant between the energy of a photon and the
frequency of the photon’s wave form. In short, light can be treated as a
particle (photon) or a wave, and Planck’s constant helps define the
relationship between the two. As it turns out, Planck’s constant also
happens to be the minimum amount of uncertainty that exists between the
product of the momentum and position of a subatomic particle. It thus
sets the boundary on the accuracy of those measurements in the
formulation of the Uncertainty Principle.
This factor is related to uncertainty at the beginning of the Universe
(according to the Big Bang model) due to another constant known as
Planck time (Williams, 2010). Planck time is the time required for light
to travel the distance of one Planck length. Both Planck time and
Planck length are derived from Planck’s constant, the gravitational
constant, and the speed of light. Remember that Planck’s constant
provides a numerical limit on how accurately Science can characterize
sub-atomic behavior. Thus, it might come as no surprise that Planck time
imposes a hard limit on theoretical, naturalistic models of the
beginning of the Universe. These models are unable to “predict” in any
way what may have been occurring in the first 5.39x10-44
seconds (Planck time) of the Big Bang model. If you are not familiar
with scientific notation, this number can be written as a decimal point
followed by 43 zeros followed by 539. This is an extremely small amount
of time, but large enough to befuddle scientists concerned with
promoting the Big Bang theory. [NOTE: We are not claiming that
scientists actually know what happened from Planck time onward, but
merely noting that they cannot know what happened before.]
One of the most prominent theories on the beginning of the Universe in
recent years suggests that our Universe is just one of a large number of
possible universes brought about by quantum fluctuation. Hawking
describes the theory this way:
One picture of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe is
then a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water. Many
tiny bubbles appear, and then disappear again. These represent
mini-universes that expand but collapse again while still of microscopic
size…. A few of the little bubbles, however, will grow large enough so
that they will be safe from recollapse. They will continue to expand at
an ever increasing rate…. These correspond to universes…in a state of
inflation (Hawking and Mlodinow, 2010, pp. 136-137).
Note here that our own Universe is considered to be “in a state of
inflation.” It is theorized that with such a large number of universes
to “select” from, it is possible that a universe such as ours would
exist. Specifically, Hawking says:
There seems to be a vast landscape of possible universes.
However…universes in which life like us can exist are rare. We live in
one which life is possible, but if the universe were only slightly
different, beings like us could not exist (2010, p. 144).
This idea has mathematical tractability, subject of course to
mathematical incompleteness and the potential of undecidability. With
the inherent limitations of mathematics and logic, as well as the
self-admitted impotence of Science with respect to predicting anything
inside of Planck time, one might wonder how Professor Hawking can state
with such certainty that universes like ours would be “rare.” In truth,
we would have no way to know if every universe emerging from this
hypothetical fluctuation wasn’t exactly like ours. Generally speaking,
given the scientifically determined inability of Science to fully
characterize our own Universe, verifying the existence and
characterizing the nature of other possible universes seems quite a
chore—pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Medical Science
Advances in medicine are often held up as some of the most impressive accomplishments of Science. Many of the essays in the Science article (mentioned at the beginning of this article—Jackel, et al.,
1998) included references to advancements in the field of medicine.
Eradicating Small Pox and treatment advances brought on by the Germ
Theory of medicine are certainly some of the most impressive
accomplishments of mankind. Even in the field of medicine, however,
serious limitations in the ability to achieve desired results can be
seen.
For example, the U.S. government claims that in 2013 it will spend
$29.7 billion on AIDS research, and that at least $25 billion has been
spent on AIDS research per year starting in 2009 (Kaiser…, 2013). That
amounts to over $100 billion spent on AIDS research in the last five
years without finding a cure. Certainly, new
life-extending treatments have been developed as a result of this
research. But the primary objective of scientific endeavors in AIDS
research, that is, a final cure for the viral infection, remains
unrealized with no indication that it is likely to come anytime soon.
Similarly, cancer research has been carried on throughout most of our
lifetimes with enormous levels of government and private funding.
Furthermore, it cannot be said that the money is simply spent by
bureaucrats with Science having little say. A 1999 report on sources of
cancer research funding indicates that one of the top funding agencies
for cancer research publishes its results in the “open scientific
literature” and “reviews its strategic research plan with the research
community each year and publishes it” (McGeary and Burstein, 1999, p. 4)
Again, many new treatments continue to be discovered, but a basic
understanding of cancer, allowing for a cure instead of physically
grueling treatments, still eludes researchers.
The science of medicine may one day cure AIDS, cancer, diabetes, heart
disease, and maybe even the common cold. However, when Science is unable
to design a camera that can remotely compare to the human eye, or a
microphone that performs as well as the human ear, it is no surprise
that Science doesn’t have sufficient understanding of the human body to
cure a disease, even with incredible amounts of funding being poured
into research. Until those goals of modern medicine are achieved,
Science as a whole might prefer for us to pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Conclusion
Science is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. Gödel’s Incompleteness
Theorem, the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics, and the
undecidable and uncomputable problems of mathematics and logic show us
that scientific omniscience is impossible—which further implies that
scientific omnipotence is unachievable.
Mathematical incompleteness tells us that facts from outside of the
system are required to prove the system to be both consistent and
complete. Science relies implicitly on mathematics for the useful
formulation of scientific or natural laws. Furthermore, anything outside
of the system (i.e., the physical Universe) is irrelevant to science
since it cannot be observed and therefore cannot be measured and/or
modeled. Perhaps even more fundamental, the uncertainty principle limits
the ability of Science to characterize or measure that which is
observable. Thus, in actuality, Science is impotent in the ability to
understand even that which is in its purview.
Quantum theory is fundamental to one model of the beginning of our
Universe, which suggests that many universes bubbled out of a quantum
fluctuation and one of those bubbles grew into everything we can
observe. This is ironic because it is the uncertainty principle of
quantum theory and the concept of Planck time that places impassable
limitations on the ability of Science to understand such a phenomenon.
Thus, in order to formulate its model, Science is using the very tools
that place some of the elements of the model outside of its bounds.
Hopefully, the answers to the questions at the beginning of this article are clear. Science as an omniscient benefactor is a non sequitur.
Science is certainly not omniscient and has no hope of ever being so.
It also follows that, while Science has shown much success in meeting
some apparent needs of society, it is ultimately incapable of providing
everything we need—such as cures for some of our most prevalent
infirmities.
The true contributions of Science to our society should never be
discounted. Society, though, should take much greater care in where it
decides to place its trust. Conversely, Science would only make itself
that much more of a boon to society by embracing its limitations and
operating more fully within them, instead of hiding behind the wizard’s
curtain and pretending to be the omniscient benefactor that society
wants to make it.
In the biblical Old Testament, God challenged Job, saying, “Where were
you when I laid the foundations of the Earth? Tell me, if you have
understanding” (Job 38:4). The origin of our Universe represents one of
the pursuits of Science that is, in fact, outside the normal bounds of
scientific endeavor. It cannot be empirically modeled, no physical
measurements can be made and, as God points out to Job, no man was there
to make direct observation.
More to the point, God inspired Solomon, king of the Jews, to write:
“He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity
in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does
from beginning to end” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). Here we see that God not
only wants us to understand that we were not there at the beginning of
the Universe and have no basis of understanding that event, but also
that He has created the Universe with built-in limitations on the extent
of man’s ability to characterize it. He has made us fundamentally a
part of the system. As Overman states: “[T]he observer cannot be removed
from the subject of the observation” (p. 29). Paul Davies also
discusses the profound impact that the observer has on the system being
observed, as a consequence of quantum effects (1984, p. 49). Being part
of the system, we have no hope of characterizing what we observe to its
most fundamental level and, as Solomon relates to us, that is a direct consequence of God’s design.
So as we discuss the limitations of Science illustrated by scientific
laws like the Uncertainty Principle and the Incompleteness Theorem, we
see that we are merely discovering manifestations of design constraints
that God Himself placed on the Universe when He created it. These
principles were put in place by God’s design as sure as Newton’s Laws,
Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion, or Einstein’s Relativity Theories
were, providing further evidence for the existence of design in the
Universe and the God Who developed that design. Furthermore, we see this
all the more clearly through a realization of our own inherent
limitations to understand His work “from beginning to end.”
[NOTE: Although neither God nor His creative activity can be directly observed, indirect evidence for His existence can be gathered through scientific observation (e.g., evidence of design that leads to the conclusion that He exists).]
REFERENCES
Davies, Paul (1984), Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Davies, Paul (1992), The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Fleming, Victor, Dir. (1939), The Wizard of Oz (Hollywood, CA: Warner Brothers Pictures).
Hawking, Stephen (1988), A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (New York: Bantam Books).
Hawking, Stephen and Leonard Mlodinow (2010), The Grand Design (New York: Bantam Books).
Jackel, Robert, et. al. (1998), “Science—Far More Than Required High School Coursework,” Science, 20:1858-1860, March.
Kaiser Family Foundation (2013), “U.S. Federal Funding for HIV/AIDS: The President’s FY 2014 Budget Request,” http://kff.org/hivaids/fact-sheet/u-s-federal-funding-for-hivaids-the-presidents-fy-2014-budget-request/.
Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2007), “Militant Atheism,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2051&topic=24.
McGeary, Michael and Michael Burstein (1999), “Sources of Cancer
Research Funding in the United States,” National Cancer Policy Board,
Institute of Medicine, http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Disease/NCPF/Fund.pdf.
Overman, Dean (1997), A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield).
Williams, Matthew (2010), “Planck Time,” Universe Today, http://www.universetoday.com/79418/planck-time/.
The
dominant view of the origin of the Universe in the secular community,
as well as a sizeable number of religious individuals, is the Big Bang
Theory. The Big Bang Theory does not harmonize with Scripture on several
counts,1 but neither does it harmonize with the scientific evidence, as two recent articles in major science magazines point out.