4.a.1. Scientific methodology and psychology on biology
Within the scientific methodology, all theories are susceptible to improvements or alterations due to contextual changes. A typical case is a technological evolution, when contributing new knowledge that allows greater accuracy and delimitation of the models or, simply, its substitution by others.
According to the sociology of science and social psychology, new theory success depends on the scientific methodology and its acceptance or rejection by the scientific community and society.
In this sense, certain contextual elements of social psychology and sociology of science can be a severe obstacle to the acceptance of new ideas, especially in biology and evolution. A typical example throughout history will be the initial problems of Galileo's theory (1564-1642), one of the leading creators of the modern scientific method.
The Conditional Evolution of Life stumbles across lots of difficulties when it comes to being judged due to represent an alternative theory of evolution and the enormous implications of social and educational psychology as well as personal psychology that its acceptance would have.
Although eventually, the alternative theory of evolution could prevail, it needs time so that the subconscious can go on reorganizing. It would not be at all surprising upon reading the following paragraphs for the reader to touch the back of the neck. The subconscious does not like to review basic concepts of its psychology that it considers definitively formed. It will need to work on its revision; besides, it will consider it unnecessary, and given that it cannot be mistaken in such basic and essential concepts of human psychology.
The following is an example of the resistance to change from ideological roots!
"Each person is different, but not because of his/her race. 95% of the current genetic variability already existed when the species was born.
Few ideologies would have caused more hate, death, and suffering than racism. The belief that the human species has groups whose origin, color, and appearance indicate innately inferior moral, emotional and intellectual qualities to those of the group (generally of white skin) that formulate the theory."
El País 20-12-2002 Science
The last few paragraphs concern personal psychology, but the problem is more severe since specific changes in biology and evolution are unpopular with many people, which provokes negative pressures within the field of social psychology, given that it studies how an individual's relationships with others are affected.
Let us try to break down or neutralize preconceptions of social and personal psychology that can negatively influence the assimilation, the attempt to comprehend the proposals of the CEL, or get a neutral application of the methodology of learning.
The preconceptions are not, nor in the very least, harmful in of themselves. On the contrary, they are necessary to avoid the repetition of constant thoughts and reasoning; precisely because of their function, the preconceptions can act as a real limit to the learning and understanding of specific innovations.
The following contextual elements increase risky preconceptions:
Personal psychology
Philosophical-religious
The alternative theory of evolution has a dual nature, but there is no incongruity between its philosophical aspects and the scientific methodology. Despite all of this, there is no doubt that it will be hard for religious people to follow the argument because they do not want to change or even doubt or revise some of their firm concepts about biology and evolution.
Likewise, an agnostic person is not in favor of the work of thinking that there are intelligent beings different from humans because, to that person, there is no evidence, even if it is very reasonable. Furthermore, because it will sound like a religion - the existence of intelligence in all living beings.
Another type of personal approach can be that of convenience: Look how now we will have to change a bunch of ideas. They are just ideas, and I am busy now! Besides, with the ideas I have, it suits me fine! I do not understand anything about modern biology and genetics!
The advanced age of a person can have a negative effect.
-
Imaginary consequences
Other personal and specific situations, such as personal consideration to one's intelligence, can affect the CEL. If some people were not very intelligent, they would not like to think their children could not be intelligent either. As far as this topic is concerned, the CEL explains, within the scientific methodology, the conditions and why they could have brainy children.
Social psychology
The beauty and goodness of a model are aspects utterly independent from the goodness of its scientific methodology. Many people will not be willing to accept a theory declaring that intelligence has an innate nature, only because it does not seem fair to alter the equal opportunities in their personal and social psychology. It is a fallacy of the God complex.
Another current topic in social psychology is sexual equality. In the area of modern genetics and biology, there are many differences between the two sexes, but whatever attempt to explain the reasons or consequences will create a significant initial rejection, despite the guaranties of the scientific methodology applied.
Indeed, an alternative theory of evolution will touch on delicate issues. Of course, there is the principle of sexual equality in the sense of balance of the qualities. Nonetheless, It is not a good policy to make biased comparisons on differences that they could easily be entirely accurate. The subjectivity is high in the evaluation of the differences between sexes, something we will not even try. It looks more appropriate to believe in a dynamic and natural equilibrium between sexes.
To a certain extent, another problem with social psychology could be racial.
We can find similar social and personal conditioning according to the education received, like social class or nationality.
Sociology of science
Despite the scientific methodology, any theory about life would have different approaches according to its era. Many theories that we know of today as entirely inoffensive, they were revolutionary and dangerous in their time.
Miguel Servet (1510-1553) (Public domain image) 
-
Nowadays, there is extensive freedom of expression, but we are still humans, and many ideas are hard to accept. Also, due to the effect within the sociology of science to specific modern ideas on biology, genetics, and evolution, there is no doubt that the subtle scab of the Holy Inquisition may come off when these ideas are open in public.
The technological advances have considerable influence since they augment the field of scientific research methodology while allowing further testing or rejection of theories. Notably, in biology and genetics, we find ourselves in a new phase due to the technical advances in informatics.
-
The modern society of information is changing not only the way of working in all branches of science but the methodology of learning itself, given that they have at their disposal the latest advances among them. Moreover, anyone can publish new ideas on the Internet.
4.a.2. Scientific methodology and the theory of evolution
The theory of evolution of Darwin is one of the biggest mistakes of modern science, although it is correct about the origin of man from an anthropological point of view.
Science should be humbler and acknowledge there are many ways of justifying life and evolution, and that due to its intrinsic limitations, it has not been able to prove nor dismiss the essence or either one.
A similar analysis but more extensive about this evaluation is on the page of Criticism of Darwin's theory in the Conditional Evolution of Life book.
Troubles posed to the scientific research methodology are:
The very definition of science
There is no doubt that in its time, the concept of science was revolutionary and meant a radical distinction from philosophy; consequently, its disassociation from religion, which posed a genuine problem for the progress of science.
For this reason, the slightest indication of metaphysics in science had to fade away. The problem appears specifically along with the concept of life and its evolution.
As geology was revealing evidence that the Earth was millions of years old, something had to amend, and the theory of Lamarck needed a living being as an entity with intelligence and finality on a human being internal scale. Society was not ready despite being obvious.
Another solution would have been a loose biblical interpretation in the sense of taking the passages of creation as a metaphor, but nor the church neither the scientific community was willing to give up their agenda.
The only remaining option was to design some mechanism that could fit into the scientific methodology and theoretically lead to the evolution of life. Darwin decided to go to great lengths to argue his theory of evolution of the species instead of rationalizing it with evolutionary processes and elements in Europe. The main effect is that with the distance, it was easier to accept and, above all, impossible for personal verification.
The rest is well known. It is incredible, but scientists said there was evidence of random mutations or whatever within a proper scientific methodology and before knowing about Mendel laws!
The theory of Natural Selection is a tautology
It is more than evident that all living beings exist because they have survived their lineage.
Furthermore, the natural selection theory includes a rather destructive philosophy in the sense that the objective of life is to survive. Adapting to the environment seems to be a consequence of this objective, although one could also change the environment to survive; of course, the reference is not only about the little birds on the Galapagos Islands.
We never know, scientists have even empirically proven that the objective of life is just that. Who knows if people using this kind of scientific methodology understand it or just believe it.
It does not explain evolution
Although something was suspicious, they did not know the transmission of genetic information to create a new being. That is, genetics did not exist. Well then, the academia adds genetic mutations or variations and problem solved.
They also said there was evidence that the mutations were random; nevertheless, that part of the theory has updated a few times and more to come. It would explain the insistence on adaptation.
Scientists still do not know which type of statistical distribution have famous mutations, despite their randomness. Randomness is the God of science; when it cannot deduce any rule, it states the changes are random!
Curiously, the scientific community ignored Mendel's laws for 50 years. According to extensive sources, his studies were in his desk drawers. Nowadays, we all know he tried to publish his ideas, and prominent scientists rejected them.
Another criticism of Mendel's laws was that his statistics were not reliable.
Indeed, the laws of Mendel threatened the theory of evolution in one of its most volatile affirmations.
Long-term abuse
The mechanisms of natural selection can be so slow that they need to act in the long-term. In many cases, natural selection theory is reasonable but creates significant problems with accelerated changes in the evolutionary processes of living beings –like intelligence. The tendency is to deny such changes or to send them to the past, and the problem solved.
In short, the Darwinian theory of evolution rejects short-term evolution.
Unlimited adaptation to other scientific and technical progress
Despite the evolutionary mechanisms of species that do not fit in with Darwinism or its updated versions, it is still unrecognized that Darwin's theory has some considerable gaps.
On the contrary, the arguments are adapted and strengthened to limits outside of any logic or scientific methodology.
The influence of fashion in scientific methodology and the theory of evolution
A good example was only yesterday (June of 2003) when an article about the genome in a newspaper as formal as they can be. Among other things, it said, "The Y chromosome, which is much smaller than its counterpart, the X chromosome, was considered practically a fossil with very few genes and heading towards extinction due to accumulating genetic defects…"
How impudent! It is not the first time that something similar appears, and the scientific community does not reject or criticize it; if it were the other way around, it would be as if the world were sinking.