I watched a short video clip from BBC that caught my attention. Biotechnicians had successfully inserted a silk-producing gene from a golden orb weaver spider into a herd of goats. The point was for the goats to produce milk that contained the protein responsible for the production of spider web, a material with amazing strength. The researchers, in turn, could use the milk to produce threads with silk-like qualities, Amazing, but true. Nexia, a company behind this innovation has completed the largest Initial Public Offering in Canada and it is already stepping up production.
This story reminded me the story of dolly the sheep and microrobots in treatment of cancer because both of them are indicators of what is happening with the sciences. The nature of scientific discovery in the 21st century is changing. The science disciplines that were once so distinct are coming together again. I believe the collaboration of disciplines is the only key we have in solving our current problems.
From field to fields, scientists have been trying to explain the origin of the universe using very many different theories while the real problem is the same. Consider chemistry for example, the number of chemical variations may be impossibly large, but the principles that govern such variations are clearly limited. In biology virtually every discovery, including the double helix, has reinforced and refined Darwin’s theory of evolution, not question it. We have spent a lot of time segmenting the world, trying to understand its individual components, and we have done a great job at it. Science works and it works well. However, just as there is limited number of times that we can discover our existence or the DNA, we can discover the law of evolution, or dark energy, or thermodynamics, only once.
This, however, does not mean that science has played out its role. On the contrary, science is becoming increasingly critical to all of our lives. There are more questions to explore now than ever before, from the special relativity to existence of multi dimensions and the infinite number of parallel universes but a great number of the discoveries being made now and in future will be of a different nature than in the past. Instead of helping us understand the individual pieces of the world, science will help us understand how those pieces interact. For instance, you will find engineers collaborating with biologists to understand the toughness of spider silk and applying it in the making of synthetic kevla for bullet proof vests and to automobile bodies. Or you will see geologists, physicists, chemists and biologists collaborating to understand the effects of global warming. New discoveries, world-changing innovations, will come from intersections of disciplines not from within them.
This shift to interdisciplinary science can be seen in colleges, where students have many more hyphens in their majors than in the past. For instance, we now have college graduates in bio-chemistry, physics-mathematics and biology-psychology. In addition, different departments are coming together to explore specific issues relating to environment, bioengineering, sustainable development and neuroscience, among many others. This does not only apply to science but also translates into our daily survival because we live in a world of very hard problems. Many of the most important challenges exceed the capabilities of the individual imagination. As a result I believe we can only find solutions by working with other people of different disciplines.
As much as science is well understood by scientists, they cannot create any impact with the knowledge without involving the public. In his interview with Science for the Twenty-First Century, Zhang Kaixun the vice president of CAST Institute of Automation for Machine-Building in China says that the public perception of science has direct bearing on social progress and national prosperity. This means that it is through the popularization of science that scientific achievements produce a significant impact on society. Since most of what happens in a country is guided or controlled by government policies, there are situations where these policies affect directly and indirectly the public understanding of science. Media on the other hand could be considered a unique means of communication between governments and the public. In effect, the manner of communication through media greatly influences the perception of science by the public.
Among the most popular headline-grabbing stories over the past few months, has been the issue of the outbreak and spread of Ebola. The virus first broke out in the west Africa and has killed thousands of people in its wake. Amidst the confusion, fear and panic caused by the pandemic, several controversies publicized in the media and associated with politics characterized the Ebola issue. Liberia was one of the first countries to be hit by Ebola and is also arguably one of the least economically developed countries in Africa known for its government corruption and civil war. Thus the world had no doubt that the effects the Ebola virus would have on the already weakened country would be detrimental. However, one difficulty that the Liberian government perhaps never anticipated was resistance from its citizens. When Ebola was initially identified in Liberia in March 2014, the Liberian government initiated plans that aimed to reduce the spread of Ebola. However, following years of mismanagement and corruption on the part of the government, warnings issued to citizens fell on deaf ears. Many Liberians believed that the Ebola virus was simply a hoax fabricated by the Sirleaf government to receive more foreign aid and enhance their political position. It is safe to conclude that although the government may have been committed to improving the public understanding regarding the issue of Ebola virus, its bruised reputation led to disregard of information by its citizens. The media also played a key role in feeding the unfounded beliefs of the Liberians. Several articles were written, giving rhetorical proof why Ebola did not exist and Liberians were given no reason to doubt these non-governmental and non-scientific claims.
In the US, a research done by the US global Change Research Program in 2009 showed that many Americans perceive climate change as a distant problem that will primarily affect the future generations of people in other countries. As a result global warming is consistently ranked as a relatively low public priority, compared to a range of other national issues (Pew Research Center for the people and the Press, 2012). Moreover, global warming and the environment more generally, have become politically divisive issues. This polarization may be considered as the product of the use of media as a conduit for casting doubt on the science of climate change among ideologically receptive audiences- in this case, the public . Surveys and experimental research have found relationships between exposure to conservative information outlets and beliefs in global warming. For instance, Fox News and other news stories that present evidence questioning the certainty of climate change would contrast with an interview with a scientist commenting on the existence of global warming. All these inhibit the development of the public understanding that global warming is a note-worthy environmental issue.
The above events are evidences that at times, governments are not entirely committed to improving public understanding of science and this popular trend diminishes the trust of the public in government interpretation of science. Media more often contributes to hindering the improvement of public understanding of science as it offers a free platform for public expression of opinions, whether true or untrue, that inevitably affects the public’s perceptions of science.
For most people, understanding science is no longer, if indeed it ever was, a product of free choice or formal training. It has become a necessity for modernity. Almost every facet of life in advanced industrial societies is mediated by scientific knowledge and its far flung applications. Consequently, the effects of media and politics on the public understanding of science are a vital topic of consideration.
Chemicals are bad, right?
Otherwise why would so many purveyors of all things healthy proudly proclaim their products to be “chemical-free” and why would phrases such as “it’s chock-full of chemicals” be so commonly used to imply something unnatural and therefore inherently dangerous? All too often the use of the word chemicals in the news, in advertising and in common usage has the implication that they are bad. You will always here of “purely organic, non-GMO, 0.000% chemicals among other emotive phrases on food, medicine even cloths. You never hear about chemicals that fight or prevent infection, help crops grow or make our life easier. Small pox for instance has become none of our worries; anaesthetics have made open surgeries as painless as a visit to the park. In lifestyle commentary, chemicals are presented as something that can be avoided, or eliminated using special socks, food, drugs, soaps or diets, and that they cause only harm to health and damage to the environment.
As a result if this controversial language often used concurrently with “chemicals”, a series of myths have emerged. These myths have created a single story or misleading information in that case that I am going to try and debunk in this publication. Here are the five of the worst.
1. You can lead a chemical free life.
Despite the current ongoing wave of confusion by marketing officials claiming their products to be “safe” to the human health and the environment; using the term “chemical-free” is absolute flattery. I am moved to call it plain nonsense. Everything, including the air we breathe, the food we eat and the drinks we drink are all chemicals. It does not matter is if you live off the land, following entirely organic farming practices, eating organic vegetables for breakfast, lunch and dinner from Monday to Monday or you are a city-dweller consuming just processed food, either way your surroundings and diet consists of nothing but chemicals.
2. Man-made chemicals are dangerous.
Having confirmed and ascertained that there is no way of leading a chemical-free existence and that we are living in a matrix of chemicals both synthetic and natural. The question that still remains is, are natural chemicals better than synthetic ones?
The answer is No. Whether a chemical is man-made or natural tells you precisely nothing about how dangerous it is. For instance, Sodium thiopental, is used in lethal injections which causes quick painful death on the victim but it is about as toxic as amygdalin, which is found in almonds and apple seeds. What makes Sodium thiopental dangerous and amygdalin healthy for human consumption and more so prescribed as a healthy practice?
The answer lies in the quantity that we consume.
I am not disputing the fact that there are many documented cases of man-made chemicals that have been banned due to health concerns. But on the other hand and to tip the balance, chemicals have done far more good than harm. For instance, brominated flame retardants which are no longer used in furniture due to allegations of unpleasant side-effects. However, these worries should be balances against the estimated 1, 150 lives saved because the chemical stopped furniture fires spreading.
We have seen substances that are upheld as terrible cases of chemical pollutants, for instance dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane commonly known as DDT was used as pesticide which had terrible side effects but still the world health organization still supports its use for control of malaria transmitting mosquitoes stating:
“DDT is still needed and used to disease vector control simply because there is no alternative of both efficacy and operational feasibility, especially for high-transmission areas.”
3. Synthetic chemicals cause cancer
I have been reading and watching a lot of news through different media outlets about research showing links between particular chemicals and occurrences of cancer and other diseases. Sometimes the stories even claim that a substance definitely cures it.
But more often than not there reports only cover part of the scientists’ conclusions. They just mention that an effect on cancer (either positively or negatively) was seen in the presence of a chemical. I call this correlation, but it does not necessarily imply a causal link.
For example a number of diagnosed cases of cancer correlate with sales of organic produce, but no one would seriously suggest that man-made chemicals used on farms somehow protects people from cancer. We hear in adverts of healthy products or clubs claiming that the chemicals we eat everyday predisposes us to cancer, or they can give us organic products that will “clean” our bodies from the chemicals we “pile” in our bodies to save ourselves from cancer.
My point is that basing conclusions on correlation it not useful, unless it is accompanied by other observations such as a plausible mechanism to explain it. Once a correlation is seen, then scientists can start looking for that other supporting information.
4. Chemical exposure is a ticking time-bomb
We constantly hear phrases such as cocktail of chemicals and time-bomb in our daily conversations. I find these terms pretty emotive, although they make very good and catchy news headlines. How comes is it only now that we realize that we are living inside chemicals? We have been permanently living among a cocktail of chemicals ever since our existence.
So why have we suddenly become more aware of all the chemicals in our environment? On the other hand I may attribute this due to the development of amazingly sensitive technologies that allow minute quantities of chemicals to be detected.
We cannot now claim that us living with chemicals is living with a time bomb. If that is the case then we need to get out of these chemicals meaning water, air and everything else we have.
5. We are subjects in an unregulated, uncontrolled experiment
I will confidently say this is the most controversial topic in the news nowadays blaming scientists for using people in experimenting their new
I feel very confident to say there is no conspiracy here. The reality is that use, manufacture and disposal of chemicals are strictly regulated and controlled. Each chemical used as food passes through a long complex series of safety tests before it is allowed by the relevant authorities. New drugs go through vigorous tests by different institutions before it can be released for human use.
Chemists in academia and industry have to adhere to these regulations in the process inventing or manufacturing amazing new chemicals to better our lives.
I was privileged to attend a prestigious research lecture titled Critical Lessons in life and Medicine from Africa to the first world delivered by Prof Mervyn Mer from Wits University in South Africa and Professor Jeffrey Lipman from Australia at Wits University in Johannesburg South Africa. I sat in that auditorium surrounded by doctors, academics, medical practitioners, medical students, professors and masters degree holders while I was not even close to acquiring an undergraduate degree I had this feeling that I was in the wrong place. I was lost in some instances when the speakers swarm into the medical jargon or jokes I could not understand.
The central argument of the entire evening was how medical practitioners help bacteria become more resistance to antibiotics. In his talk on drug administration in the ICU department, Professor Jeffrey Lipman from Australia presented data of his forty years of research how under-dosing, treating viral disease with antibiotics and over-dosing has contributed to increase in bacteria resistance which was well evidenced. Furthermore, Professor Mervyn Mer from Wits University explained how poor drug administration and wrong medication has led to increase in cases of TB due to bacterial resistance. All these arguments are very valid and solid, however, throughout the lecture, I could not stop asking myself why can’t these medical practitioners tackle the menace at the root cause. I am not a medical practitioner or anywhere close to that but I think if they can try to fix these two issues below we may be moving closer to eradicating bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
As much a we are proposing and advocating for medical practitioners to give right medication and doses when administering drugs to patients, the method involved in development of the drugs themselves is flawed. Lets look at a simple summary of drug testing process as this is the most crucial part of drug development process. This process happens in different phases testing for absorption and metabolism, effects on organs and tissue, side effects, effectiveness, dosage, relationship with other drugs among others. These phases include:
20 – 100 Healthy volunteers take drug for about a month. The flaw here is that if we are putting an antibiotic into a healthy human being who does not need the antibiotic. How will the bacteria not become resistant to the antibiotic?
Several hundred Health- impaired patients take the drug with no dosage information. Meaning there are several tests that will be taken with different doses in order to find the correct dosage. To me this is exposing the bacteria to wrong amounts of the antibiotic and therefore increases the chances of the bacteria becoming resistant to the antibiotic. The scale escalates when the drug testing process gets to
In this phase hundreds and thousands of health impaired patients are subjected to the drug to determine the effectiveness of the drug in treatment of large populations. It is on this phase that control experiments are done . We think we are testing and making our we are now exposing the antibiotic to a large number of bacteria.
Lastly but not least is there a possibility of treating patients without necessarily using antibiotics?
In several instances, the public understanding of science has proven to play key roles in informing the decisions of individuals across the globe. This article analyzes the roles that both government and individuals play in optimizing the choices that individuals make specifically in sectors related to culture and health.
The public understanding of science plays a specific role in optimizing choices for individuals in the field of health. As much as the individual may be responsible for the choices they make, the government, via media and other outlets, controls and monopolizes the kind of information that reaches a population. For instance, the information that the government lets out is vital in the kinds of choices individuals make when it comes to blood transfusion. Blood transfusion is often portrayed as the only option that individuals have when they find themselves in a medical dilemma that involves varying levels of blood loss. To the outside world and the layman, blood transfusion is often portrayed as the only way that they could survive such loss of blood. However in the medical world, there are various options that allow an individual to survive a situation that involves blood loss. Alternatives to blood transfusion include medical procedures such as volume expanders, growth factors, intra-operative or post-operative blood salvage and blood substitutes. These alternatives are of course rarely heard of due to politics and other factors involved in the release of such information to citizens. The exception occurs perhaps only when it comes down to a life and death situation.
However in some cases, governments provide individuals with adequate data and information that would enable them optimize their choices. Yet as related to the issue of making decisions, certain factors such as addiction may prompt individuals to still make wrong decisions. For instance as from December 2012, Australia effected a new initiative that was tagged plain packaging. This initiative was geared towards drastically devaluing cigarette packaging and smoking. Despite this, the percentage of adults who smoke in Australia is still an average of 17. In addition, tobacco companies face a dilemma of a conflict of interest in terms of economic deficiencies due to this new initiative. Thus regardless of the fact that the government clearly makes known the harmful effects of smoking on the human body, these decisions by individuals are still influenced by other factors apart from depth of knowledge and information.
The information the government provides also helps in making decisions on some cultural practices. For instance, in the past years, the HIV/AIDs epidemic has threatened the existence of the Luo tribe in Kenya. The major cause of this has been attributed to the widow inheritance culture that has been practiced for a very long time. This culture commonly referred to as tero demands that when a husband dies the deceased widow is to be inherited by a kinsman. This leads to multiple infections circulated in case the death of a husband has been caused by HIV/AIDs. In defence, the local Luo people explained that the culture is to ensure the continuity of the deceased husband’s lineage and offer support and security to the deceased family. In 2000 the government of Kenya imposed a ban on the culture but faced a lot of friction from the Luo leaders and politicians saying they could not abandon the long practiced culture. The government through the ministry of Health, organized workshops and civil education programmes to educate the Luo people on the dangers of having multiple sexual partners. Amidst numerous challenges faced by the government, certain parts of the Luo people have eventually come to the realization through information provided by the government, that doing away with their long-cherished culture was more beneficial than holding on to it.
The above examples and illustrations show clearly that the public understanding of science does aid in making informed decisions by both individuals and communities. However the essay also raises the question of whether governments are to take sole responsibility of the decisions that citizens make. The example of plain packaging introduced in Australia highlights the fact that both individuals and governments are responsible, to some extent, for the decisions made by individuals. The case of tero on the other hand emphasizes on the role of scientific information in helping societies question some of their customs Therefore, it can be concluded that public understanding of science assists in individuals making refined, educated decisions that affect themselves directly and others around them, but public understanding of science is but one of the many factors that plays a role in decisions made by individuals.
Tanimola Somolu and Wycliffe Aluga
African Leadership Academy
The eagle has very unique characteristics that one can apply as the principles on which to base success in every thing they do. In most cases we use these principles in our lives, entrepreneurship and even leadership. Today I would like us to learn from The Eagle on how to run a successful Scientific Research Process. I have been in the process for the last 8 months and here is what I got to share. You too should share it.
1. Eagles fly alone at a high altitude and do not mix with sparrows or other smaller birds like geese, ravens or pigeons.
From the higher altitudes they widen the scope of view. They are able to see what the ravens and pigeons cannot see. With the lager scope of view, they are able prey on a very large space As a young scientists, what are the people you associate with? What are your topics of your discussions? What are the pages you like on Facebook? What are your favourite websites? They say birds of the same feathers flock together. You should associate yourself with people who have the same vision as yours. You cannot win when you associate yourself with failures. I do not suggest you go and kick out your friends though. But sometimes if your friendship is not directing you to your ultimate goal, then you have to let reassess it.
2. Eagles possess vision. They have a strong vision, which focuses up to 5 kilometres from the air in detail.
Eagles are said to have double sight but one vision, yet they are able to focus on one particular thing at a time for example a rat or a stick. It is known as the most focused bird, it can see everything, yet focus on only one thing. In your research/invention period as a young researcher, you will face a lot of distractions, Facebook, friends, School work, some frustrations when people do not see what you are envisioning among many others and it will make you Frustrated However you are the only one who knows what your focus is and you should focus on it. Use the frustrations you get along the way as the stepping stones towards your ultimate goal.
3. Eagles only eat live food.
They only eat live animals. This is because they need new strength every day. Feed yourself new information to make you grow. As a young researcher you cannot experiment on every observation you make since you do not have the time or the resources. Luckily enough there are thousands of renowned professors experimenting and writing about thousands of topics every single day. Also theories are being formed, proved and disapproved every day. Something you knew last weekend may not be the same today or towards the end tomorrow. Therefore you need to be feeding on new information every day, you need to different papers, same papers from different researchers and publications. As much as people eat food to live, scientist eat information. Do not rely on old information and keep on refereeing to it every time.
4. The eagle is the only bird that loves the storm.
Every other bird runs for cover during a storm, but the eagle gets a chance to relax. It uses the force of the storm to just stay up there without flapping its wings. What do you do when you have four research papers to submit in a weeks time? What do you do when all you experiments fail? What do you do when you cannot perform a practical because there is no one to fund it? Challenges are good for a dreamer, someone with a vision. Actually for a scientist, having no equipment to run your experiment is the best thing that can happen to you because it will give you a chance to invent new spectrometers and analytical equipment. Storms should make you better. Challenges test your characteristics of solving problems which is a very crucial muscle in your journey as a scientist.
5. An Eagle always tests before it trusts.
For the female to allow a male to mate with her, she goes to the ground, picks up a twig, flies up two miles and drops the twig. If the male is able to catch the twig, he takes it to her. She flies up once again and drops the twig, and the process is repeated several times, and when she is fully convinced about his capabilities, she allows him to mate with her. As a researcher, you will work with very many people not only in the lab but with fundraising for the research, writing, editing and publishing of research papers among others. It will be very healthy for you to build a team which operates on high golden levels of trust. I do not think you will be smiling when your paper is publishing with another person’s name. TRUST is a result of TIME and TEST.
6. Eagles prepare for training.
The Eagle builds its nest in a high cleft on a mountain. The nest is made in such a way that it is very comfortable for the eaglets as they grow, yet it has thorns that are covered with cotton. Then, when they are fully grown, the mother removes the cotton covering the thorns. This makes them uncomfortable and they leave the nest and learn how to fly. How are you preparing yourself for the next step in pursuit for your goals? Are you stuck in your comfort zone? The research, idea or invention you are thinking about now, how does it prepare you for your journey in the next step of achieving your goals? If it does not then you should be accussed of academic suicide. What about the people you are working with or you will work with? Are they ready? You should train others who work with you so that they can help you grow in your vision.Make a footprint in this world by making someone else get where they want to be, and at the same time, they help you get where you want to be! Remember, in a marathon you will never have time to sit down and rest and if you are planning to pursue science to the next level, then you should prepare yourself hard enough for that. Train in the mountains and run in the plains.
7. Eagles find a place of renewal.
When an eagle grows old, its vision becomes low, its beak and claws becomes blunt and its feathers fall off. It cannot prey as effective and it used to. It cannot fly as fast and high as it used to. However, it does not sit down and die in agony, it finds a lonely, comfortable place, pulls out all its feathers, claws and the beak. It then stays in that place until new feathers grow and can fly once again. Many a times you will find yourself in front of a high way. Your research has hit a horrible dead end. You experiment has been spoiled. Your instructor has painted you research paper with red markings and you need to re-type the whole paper. Or sometimes life just becomes unbearable. This is not the time for you jump in front of a train, or soak your pillow with tears. This is time for you to look back and shed off old habits that do not add anything to your life. Look back to some of the things you do that weigh you down get them out of your life and allow new habits that will help you achieve your goals.
Now you get where the saying As Old an Eagle came from it is ever active no matter the age!!
May you SOAR on wings of an eagle!
Remember, you cant be SOUR if you want to SOAR
Success is a result of a series of failures.
Lets join the Eagles’ team and SOAR.
NOTES FROM THE VIDEO ‘7 PRINCIPLES OF THE EAGLE’ .
BY MILES MUNROE
Scientists generally insist that all phenomena can be described, in principle, in terms of measurable quantities which can be calculated using simple mathematical laws, thus reducing the universe to a mechanism and humans to complex sub mechanisms whose will and feeling correspond nothing more than patterns of chemical interaction among molecules. The vast majority of these scientists are bent on eliminating the concept of God from all descriptions of reality and its creation. However, the question remains can we describe every phenomena with numbers and chemical equations? Can we control the effects of our own inventions? Are we drowning in our innovations?
With the invention of automobiles, air pollution is threatening humanity, the industrial revolution has brought air and water pollution, the green revolution has introduced innumerable poisons into our food system, advances in physics have brought about the nuclear threat and possible holocaust, appliances and other modern amenities have inadvertently spawned drunkenness and obesity with urbanization the breakdown of morals, ethics and mental stability.
Even with the advances in medical cures, new and incurable diseases have only increased. It seems that the goals of knowledge and pleasure have not yet been achieved.
It is often found that scientists are biased in their search for the truth, giving preference to evidence which supports their desired thesis and unscientifically rejecting alternative theories as unsuitable without proper consideration. Is it true though?
The Creation Theory
Although scientists are subject to the four defects of all human race, namely, bhrama, pramada, vipralipsa and karanapatava, (their mistakes, are subject to illusion, have cheating propensity and defective perception), their findings when presented with some sort of verifiable experimental proof, are accepted as factual descriptions of reality. (Science and God.) This means that the creation theory is heavily based on the four defects of humans.
Theories of creation, formulation of life and evolution cannot be adequately proven and they do not produce substantial evidence in describing the reality. Scientists have not provided us with adequate answers to the fundamental questions about the universe, galaxies, supernovas, string theory, cosmology, upper dimensions among others.
It is too often that scientists forcibly assume that their laboratory experimental evidence can be applied elsewhere under undocumented circumstances. In addition to that, almost all currently accepted theories of Evolution and Creation are unverifiable and often contradicted by reliable evidence. It becomes more interesting when concepts such a consciousness, a creator intelligence and soul are introduced as viable concepts, the scientists demand that they be detectable by experimentation.
Proper Science Education
The purpose of the Educational System dated back from the era of Pyramids in Egypt and Laws of Moses was to teach people to live. In the 20th and 21st Centuries the purpose of education as documented and perceived, is to teach students how to solve the problems of life, yet educators are simply propagating how to increase one’s entanglement in this material world by economic development and sensory enjoyment. How to use science and engineering to make us more secure and comfortable. CCTV cameras to monitor our environment, nuclear weapons to rule others who do have the technology, computer programming to trust a single micro chip with the lives of entire human race etc. We do not find a department in the universities which teaches what is the actual goal of life. And what is the results of this.
1. We have taller buildings but shorter temples.
2. We spend more but earn less
3. We have wide freeway but narrower viewpoint.
4. We buy more but enjoy less.
5. We have bigger houses but smaller families.
6. We have more convenience but less time.
7. We have more degree by less sense.
8. We have multiplied our possessions but reduced our values.
9. We talk much, love too seldom and hate too often.
10. We have learned to make a living but not life.
11. We have added years to life but not life to years.
12. We have been all the way to the moon and back but have trouble crossing tract to meet new neighbours.
13. We have split the atom but not our prejudice.
14. We have higher income but lower morals.
15. These are times of all kinds of food but less nutrition.
16. More medicine but less health.
The Failure of Science
In mathematics, which underlies all other branches of science, the is an imaginary number “i” ( the square root of -1 ) is essential in for most complex theoretical calculations. However this imaginary number cannot be proven by experimentation. It is also not possible to prove by experimentation the Third Law of Thermodynamics or Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Yet these principles are absolutely essential in modern scientific theories.
In the beginning of the 19th Century, it was believed that atoms are the smallest particles in an element that cannot be subdivided. In the 20th Century, subatomic particles such as neutrons, protons and electrons were discovered. Newtonian mechanics was accepted as the scientific explanation of reality until it was discovered in the 20th Century that it failed to describe the motion of these subatomic particles. Quantum mechanics was devised to cope with this inadequacy. The Theory of relativity was also devised by Albert Einstein to help further explain fundamental concepts.
Because General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics appear to contradict each other, Quantum Field Theory was developed. So we can clearly see that the evolving theories of the scientists are constantly changing as they scramble to adjust these theories. They can never be perfect because the scientist themselves are imperfect and subject to the four defects of humans.. With our limited knowledge, tiny brains, limited experience and resources we cannot hope to understand the unlimited.
The Big Bang Theory
Having been cornered, scientists generally support the Big Bang Theory of creation, which postulates that in the beginning of creation all the matter in the universe was concentrated into a single point of mass at higher temperatures which them exploded producing super heated cloud of sub atomic particles. However this initial condition is mathematically indescribable. A point of infinitesimal circumference and infinite density is called a “singularity.” – an impossibility.
This means that scientists should be convicted of the crime of making unverifiable supernatural claims, just as what they accuse the transcendental saint of doing. Various Big Bang theories led to a stage of uniformly distributed gas which is expanding. Again, what happens after that is the subject of further speculation and has not been properly explained.
Life from Chemicals
Scientists have long theorized that life emerged from a primordial chemical soup without direction of any higher organizing principles. They theorize that simple molecules randomly combine into inconceivably complex organic compounds which again evolve into higher self-reproducing organisms. How any of this happens is yet to be explained. James Watson, co-discoverer od the DNA molecule wrote, “not only will the exact structure of most macromolecules within the cell remain unsolved, but their relative locations within cells may only be vaguely known”
The great question is: How can inert matter, acting according to simple physical laws alone generate the remarkable molecular machinery found in even the simplest cell?
The simplest of all!
Scientists claim that electrons in a conductor flow in the opposite direction to the flow of current. While current is the rate of flow of Charges. How can they be flowing in opposite directions?
Scientists are obsessed with the concept that complex life forms have evolved progressively form simple building blocks. However, direct experience shows just the opposite, that complex forms actually originate form even more complex forms.
I suggest that a body of knowledge does not exist which provides sufficient explanation of the nature and origin of the universe and living organisms that inhabit it.
Credit to Swami B. B. Visnu
Based on the video Scientific Verification of Vedic Knowledge