4.a.1. Scientific methodology and psychology on biology

Within the scientific methodology, all of the theories, including those formulated according to the deductive reasoning, are susceptible to improvements or alterations due to contextual changes. A typical case is the technological evolution, when contributing new knowledge that allows greater accuracy and delimitation of the models or, simply, its substitution by others.

From another point of view, such as that studied by the sociology of science and social psychology, the success of a new theory depends on the correct application of the scientific methodology and on its acceptance or rejection by the scientific community and by society as a whole.

In this sense, certain contextual elements of personal, social psychology, and sociology of science can be a serious obstacle for the acceptance of new ideas, especially in biology and evolution. Only one example, which is common throughout history, will suffice to explain what I want to say, the initial problems of Galileo’s theory (1564-1642); one the main creators of the modern scientific methodology.

In the assumption that Conditional Evolution of Life is correct, it will be one of the theories that stumble across more difficulties when it comes to being accepted 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.

Regardless the problems, restrictions and requisites of the scientific methodology about new theories on the boundaries of perception; the assimilation of an alternative theory of evolution would never occur quickly due to that it affects codes and concepts recorded in our subconscious; which has, in turn, many other concepts related to them and depending on them.


This is an example of the scientific resistance to change from its 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 is divided into 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.

Although eventually, the alternative theory of evolution could be assimilated and accepted, 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 personal psychology that it considers definitively formed because it will be forced to work on its revision and, besides, it will consider it unnecessary, given that it cannot be mistaken in such basic and important concepts of human psychology.

That mentioned in the last few paragraphs concerns personal psychology, but the problem is more serious since certain 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.

As a result, I am going to try to break down or neutralize certain preconceptions of social and personal psychology that can negatively influence the assimilation, the attempt to comprehend the proposals of this theory or the neutral application of the methodology of learning.

The preconceptions are not, nor in the very least, negative in of themselves. On the contrary, they are necessary to avoid the repetition of constant mental thoughts and reasoning; precisely because of their function, the preconceptions can act as a true limit to the learning and understanding of certain innovations.

The preconceptions that worry me the most are found anchored to the following contextual elements:

  • 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 a religious person to follow the argumentation of the new theory because he/she has some very firm concepts about biology and evolution which, in principle, he/she does not want to change or even doubt or revise

      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 it is no evidence, even if it is very reasonable. Furthermore, because that idea will sound like a religion - the existence of a common 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 very busy now! Besides, with the ideas I have, it suits me fine! I do not understand anything about modern biology and genetics!

    • Given the subject matter, which is the object of the present theory, the advanced age of a person can have a large negative effect

    • Other personal and specific situations, such as personal consideration in relation to one’s own intelligence, can affect or be prejudiced against this theory. If a person does not consider he/she very intelligent, he/she would not like to think that his/her children cannot be intelligent either. As far as this topic is concerned, the alternative theory of Evolution of Life explains within the scientific methodology the conditions and why if he/she could have very intelligent children.

  • Social psychology

    • In its moral sense, the beauty and goodness of a model are aspects completely independent from the goodness of its scientific methodology. However, many people will not be willing to accept a theory declaring that intelligence has an inherited nature; simply because it does not seem fair to alter the equality of genetic opportunities that exist in the theoretical model of biology and evolution of its personal and, surely, social psychology.

    • 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.

      Certainly, an alternative theory of evolution will touch on certain delicate issues.  I agree with the principle of sexual equality, but I do not believe is a good policy making biased comparisons on differences that they could easily be entirely true. There is also a high level of subjectivity in valuing the differences, something that I will not do.

    • To a certain extent, another problem with social psychology could be the racial problem. At this point, I am referring to the one indicated in the previous paragraphs.

    • We can find similar social and personal conditioning according to the education received, social class, nationality, etc.

  • Sociology of science

    • In spite of the scientific methodology, any theory about life would have different approaches according to its era. What I want to point out is that many theories that we know of today as completely normal and do not imply neither philosophical, nor religious, nor any problem of any kind, were revolutionary and dangerous in their time.

    • Nowadays, there is a great freedom of expression, but deep down, as I have commented in the previous point of personal psychology, we are still humans and certain ideas are hard to accept. Also, due to social psychology and the subsequent effect within the sociology of science to certain modern ideas on biology, genetics and evolution there is no doubt that the subtle scab of the Holy Inquisition could come off if these ideas are expressed 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. Particularly, 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 carried out in different subject matter. In addition and more importantly, is that anyone can publish his or her ideas on the internet without any kind of social filter, even if it means a substantial effort.



4.a.2. Scientific methodology and the theory of evolution

The theory of evolution of Darwin is the biggest mistake scientific methodology has made on a modern theory; despite I believe it is completely true about the origin of man from an anthropological point of view.

In my opinion, science should have been, or at least currently be more humble and acknowledge the fact that there are many ways of justifying life and evolution, and that due to its limitation or its incapability,  the methodology of science has not been able to prove nor dismiss the essence or either one.

A similar analysis but more extensive about this evaluation can be found on the page of Criticism of Darwin’s theory in the book online about Conditional Evolution of Life.

Among the many troubles posed to the scientific research methodology, the following can be cited:

  • 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 being as an entity with intelligence and finality on a human being internal scale. Society was not prepared for it despite it being obvious.

    Another solution would have been a loose biblical interpretation in the sense of taking the passages of creation as a metaphor, but not the church neither the scientific community was willing to give up their plans.

    The only option that remained was to design some mechanism that would fit into the scientific methodology, and could theoretically lead to the evolution of life. Darwin decided to go to great lengths to argue his theory of evolution of the species instead rationalizing it with evolutionary processes and elements in Europe; the main difference is that for being so distant, they seemed much more convincing and, above all, impossible for a personal verification.

    The rest is well known. They say there is evidence of random mutations and whatever within a proper scientific methodology...

  • The theory of Natural Selection is a tautology

    It is more than obvious that all living beings exist because they have survived their lineage.

    Furthermore, natural selection 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 environment to survive; of course, I am not only referring to the little birds on the Galapagos Islands.

    We never know, scientists have even empirically proven that the objective of life is just that. I wonder 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 how information was transmitted to create a new being. That is, that genetics did not exist. Well then, random mutations or variations are just concocted and problem solved.

    They also said, with their scientific methodology, that there is evidence that the mutations were random; nevertheless, I think that it is a part of the theory that they have updated a few times and are still working on it... it would explain so much insistence on adaptation.

    We still do not know which type of statistical distribution have the famous mutations in despite their randomness.

    I am not surprised that Mendel was ignore by the famous scientific community for 50 years and on top of that, sometimes it is being said that the documents from his studies had been lost in his desk drawers. I even believe that they insinuated that statistics is a science that should not be trusted within a good scientific methodology. 

    Indeed, the laws of Mendel actually 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 be long-term to be accepted. In many cases, natural selection theory is reasonable, but creates important problems with accelerated changes in the evolutionary processes of living beings. Here, the tendency is to deny such changes as in the one of human intelligence where the changes are sent to the past; and there it is, problem solved.

    In short, 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 I had just read an article about the genome in a newspaper, "serious 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 was sinking.