The line between art and science has become very thin and, I believe, totally blurred. To justify their scientific claims, to avail the world of the knowledge of their theoretical constructs, scientists have taken the devices of modeling and artist’s conception out of the studio and into the laboratory.
Currently, in the artistic world, we have modelers who can construct a human body to the finest feature, sculpt imaginary monsters like the Creature From The Black Lagoon, and perhaps even an alien for autopsy. Historically we have had scientific modelers like Newton, who is said to have had a working to-scale model of the Solar System, and Da Vinci, whose robot lion was recently re-created. Today we are building intelligent robots which can jump, run, speak and, through computer advancements, even “think” and use reason, and teach themselves. We are advancing in our work and proficiency replicating human body parts, having already created artificial but functioning limbs and organs like hearts, wombs, joints and bones. What is important to note, for our purposes here, is that all these man-made constructs are based on actually existing living examples. They are replicas modeled after real things, constructed using known measurements and rules, and following certain established ratios and proportions. The art object, in each case, is based on a known commodity.
There are also today, however, many constructs of human invention, which, like the intent behind the fabrication of the Gill Man, attempt to make the imaginary, or that which is unknown, seem realistic. These particular creations are drawn, sculpted, and computer-generated so as to try and illustrate, if not outright provide the sole support for, certain scientific ideas with no basis in reality. The reason for this section, in our journey to discover the Origin of Man, is to call attention to the fact that many of these models, theoretical and 3-dimensional, especially those meant to illustrate aspects of scientific theories like Evolution and the Big Bang, are more griffin than pyramid, more cicatrix than circle. They are, too often, imaginary.
These Artistic Conceptions, which I will capitalize from now on when referring to only those involved with science, are no real problems in themselves. Certainly, as we have already alluded to, many, many great discoveries of importance and benefit to humanity have come from this model, at first ethereal in the mind of its receiver, then made reality through the work of pen on paper and other manipulation of 3-dimensional materials. The problems arise when the model is allowed to stand on its own, without real-world, verifiable proof of the model’s accuracy, and so legitimacy.
The problem is so rampant practical science has not only taken a backseat to theoretical science, but also, and largely because of these models, theoretical science can be seen as now inspiring a perverted sort of idolatry, a worship of symbols of human creation, which are then esteemed as representative of Truth. Once in place, set in the proverbial stone, the model soon becomes the reality. Troublesome is that when the existing models are deemed outdated, or the representations found to be incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise incorrect, rather than tear the old idol down the theoreticians proceed to try to patch it up, and if that doesn’t work, they sculpt a new model and place it on the very same faulty foundation.
It will not be my place to prove all this to you here. Think about it yourself. All I ask is that when you research any of the aspects of the scientific explanation for the Origin of Man is that you pay some attention to the hypothetical (mental models), photographic, 3-dimensional, graphic, illustrative, and tabular models and hypotheses on which the science is based. Ask yourself, when you find these models being used as support (and it will be very soon in your research), whether the model alone is proof of the theory.
These Artist Conceptions are not just visual, but also auditory. To begin with our ears then let’s take a listen to the AUDIO of “The first million years of cosmic sound compressed into ten seconds“. If this sort of thing is believable or in any way significant to you, there is more courtesy of the University of Virginia’s Department of Astronomy. One of my favorites is this sound, I’ve used the short version because, well, the long one is more of the same static. This static (bad tools, maybe?) is described as:
The raw sound constructed from the observed angular power spectrum of the microwave background. This is the fundamental observational basis for Big Bang Acoustics. In practice, a number of distortions are present in these raw sounds, which have been removed using a sophisticated program (CMBFAST).
If you’re into video instead, check this out, a perfect example of the Artistic Conceptions I am talking about. Roam around a few University Astronomy Departments, like here, here, and don’t forget here , the “Center for Theory and Computation,” whose entire mission is to ” …promote excellence and innovation in theoretical astrophysics” (one wonders if this is a Creative Writing Class, or Conceptual Art seminar…talk about being in the belly of the beast…). See how many times you read the words “hypothetical model”, “construct”, “construction”, “idealized”, “interpretation”, “simulation”, and even “artist’s conception” itself.
This above is Big Bang Inflation, which we discussed previously. Below, another type of Artistic Conception you are probably more familiar with, and which we will get to in short time.
Hearken back to last post when we discussed for a bit the way plastic surgeons make themselves judges of beauty, stepping outside their realm of expertise. With the case of Artist’s Conceptions the evaluation of a theory’s merit is too often a study in the beauty, or believability, of the model constructed to illustrate it. The case is little different here. Anyone can dream of anything, an origin of the world which began as a little flax seed, whose energy inside burst forth and produced the world, and it would be easy to illustrate the direction and supposed speed of that burst. The best artists can make even the most unimaginable or grotesque appear quite real.
The main purpose of science is to be a grounding, to provide an unbiased base whereby we may distinguish fact from fantasy; if not always indisputable truth, it should at least be as close to absolute Truth as we can get. The erection of new theoretical fables not near the complexity or believability of the old ones, and the creation of new worlds based entirely on conjecture, bring about in their turn new inconsistencies and paradoxes. Considering the many past dilemmas and problems we have yet to solve, and the still more we have not even yet attempted, the making of these Artist Conceptions must not be seen as science. It is art, and while I love art, and respect real science, I am leery of their cohabitation because of how easily, as Plato said, the public can be influenced by propaganda.
Next up, we begin our survey of the scientific explanation for the Origin of Life. As you will see, we are all slime, at bottom. From what I am reading about the theory behind Evolution and the Big Bang, though, I am just about certain some of us are much more in tune with our slimy aspect than others.
Truthopia 