Knowledge and doctrine

First there was the condom debate in the Forum pages of the Straits Times, in late November, then there was the why-don't-schools-teach-evolution? debate in the second week of December.

The condom debate was sparked off by Dr John Lee, Master of the Catholic Medical Guild of Singapore, who took issue with the easy availability of condoms from shops, like 7-Eleven outlets. He argued that we should not be promoting the use of condoms. He quoted studies that showed that condoms had pores, which while microscopic, were still larger than the size of the HIV virus, so it would be misleading to the public to say that condoms could help against the disease. His position was that the authorities and public-health organisations should stick to a sex-within- marriage doctrine, rather than talk about safer sex with the use of condoms.

His arguments were effectively rebutted by AfA, the Association for AIDS, who pointed out that Dr Lee was selective in his use of scientific data. Quality condoms are made by a triple-dip process, meaning that the rubber is laid on in three different stages of manufacture. Even if a microsopic hole existed in one layer, it would be extremely coincidental if the two other layers had holes at exactly the same spot. The empirical data also showed that use of condoms correlated well with a very significantly lower transmission rate for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Can any responsible person forswear the real, observed, benefits that condoms bring, as a matter of public policy, in exchange for a pious hope that everybody would stick to sex within faithful marriage?

A good rejoinder would be "Get real!"

* * * * *

 
The Evolution debate started with a parent writing in to share his observation that the school syllabus does not include the Theory of Evolution. He thought this was of concern. Indeed it is. The ideas generated by the Evolution theories (there are more than one, but they all share the central idea that evolution occurred, a matter that is no longer in doubt among scientists) are critical to an understanding of the whole field of biology. You cannot understand anatomy, natural ecology, resistance to antibiotics, the cycle of flu outbreaks, the blowholes of whales or the skin colour of humans, without the context of evolution.

Anyway, this first letter was immediately seized upon by Tan Chor Kiat, whose reply to the Straits Times, said,

It is impossible to prove scientifically any particular concept of origins to be true. The essence of the scientific method is experimental observation and repeatability. A philosophy of origins can neither be observed nor repeated . . . . . Since no human being observed, measured or recorded his observations of the beginning of the universe or of the evolutionary processes, evolution must be accepted by faith.

There are basically two models of origins -- evolution and creation. Although many people believe in evolution, there are many others, including thousands of scientists and other educated intellectuals today, who reject it. One who holds to the idea of creation need not necessarily be a religious person.

There is as much scientific evidence to substantiate the model of creation as there is to support the theory of evolution. Much past evolutionary evidence was modified or proven wrong in recent times by evolutionists themselves. Leading evolutionists have admitted their failure to find missing links in the evolutionary record. They regret that there are still millions of missing gaps in the phylogenetic tree. These are the 'in-between' organisms that must have existed if one type of organism evolved into another. . . . .

. . . . The above is only one example of the weaknesses in the theory of evolution. The theory is not that scientific as supposed. It is only fair that people be enlightened on this and given the option to choose. I am sure the Ministry of Education has made extensive studies on this and made the wise decision of excluding the theory of evolution from its school syllabus. . . . .

. . . . If the theory of evolution is to be taught as part of the school science syllabus, then the model of creation must also be brought alongside . . . . .

Thank goodness a Jeffrey Lee Pheng Guan wrote back to rebut. I shall quote what he said, for I couldn't have said it better myself:

. . . Mr Tan asserts that evolutionists regret that there are still millions of missing gaps in the phylogenetic tree. He fails to mention that paleontologists have found so many intermediate fossils that are transitional between amphibians and reptiles that it is difficult to define clearly where one group ends and the other begins.

Throughout the letter, Mr Tan trots out the usual plethora of pseudo-scientific arguments used by people to disprove evolution.

These include the classic argument about how much evolutionary evidence was proven wrong in recent times by evolutionists themselves, so the theory is not considered scientific.

This statement is a quoted-out-of-context caricature of routine scientific debate. Biologists do not deny the fact of evolution, they just disagree about its mechanism and tempo. This kind of debate is de rigueur in all healthy, growing branches of science -- the Theory of Evolution being a particularly luxuriant and productive bough.

Such misguided assertions about it would probably not have been brought out at all if schools had rigorous lessons on it. So, perhaps our students should be taught evolution after all. If nothing, it would give them a chance to assess the theory for themselves, critically and objectively. An appropriate enough aim for a good scientific education, don't you think?

 
* * * * *

Behind these positions lie the fundamental difference between knowledge and doctrine. Knowledge is necessarily fuzzy and imperfect. It is ever-changing in response to an unceasing quest to understand the universe as it exists. Conceptual models are launched and tested against empirical observations. Sometimes the observations tell you quickly enough that the concept is wrong. Into the trash then. Sometimes, the observations indicate that it is probably right; you're getting warmer, but do find out more. Occasionally, the observations are overwhelmingly supportive of the theory -- in fact, evolution, far from being controversial, is one such well-supported theory -- and then you would say that it's a pretty good explanation of how this little bit of the universe works.

But never is anything "proven" in the sense that it is absolutely, infallibly, right. Whatever we know is based on probability and context, and is always subject to modification and enrichment by new information. There will always be gaps in our understanding, because if there were not gaps, then we would claim to be all-knowing. The gaps drive us on. Knowledge is constantly refined by new theories, new questions, new data and new ways of looking at things. The driving force of knowledge is doubt.

The driving force of doctrine is faith. The character of doctrine is that it explains all within its scope. Its most critical property is that it must be internally consistent, never mind if it is inconsistent with external facts. It depends on its absolutism and its aura of infallibility for its appeal. This is true of the Creation Story, as is true of the motto "From each his best, to each his needs" from the communist ideal, in spite of the very well-known innate selfishness of humans.

Now, when doctrine collides with knowledge, as in the above debates in the Straits Times, a funny thing happens. Doctrine insists on judging Knowledge by Doctrine's own standards of absolutism and crack-free all-explanability. It belittles Knowledge for its gaps, for the fact that there is a 0.001% chance that condoms might fail, and for the fact that scientists themselves continue to debate about the finer points of Evolution. It says, "See, you're not absolutely consistent in your ideas, you admit there are areas your theory does not fully explain, therefore, it's all rubbish."

It's like saying that since we can't completely explain every detail of the cellular mechanisms in our bodies when we age, and since there are people who age faster than others, for which we don't have a full explanation, therefore the whole notion of growing old is bunk. If only the secret of youth were so simple!

Notice how Doctrine does not feel it has to justify itself by reference to observed findings. It merely points out that Knowledge sometimes conflicts with some petty observation somewhere, and uses it to dismiss the whole of it. At the same time, it draws attention away from the fact that Doctrine itself has even less empirical data supporting it.

But remember we have to live in the real world. We cannot operate, we cannot negotiate our way around by ignoring how things really are. We cannot function without knowledge. And frankly, if we look at all the grief, all the disputes, all the madness in this world, I think you can trace a lot of that to doctrine, and the conflict between imperfect reality and infallible belief.

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

See also the article Swimming elephants and the demise of gods 

Addenda

None