The Rule Didn’t Survive The Evidence
Sometimes someone screaming “THAT’S THE RULE” will end up making them eat their words later.
Yes. For the website, we should stop cushioning the point.
The problem with rules is not that people observe patterns. The problem begins when people take those patterns, declare them law, and then scramble for explanations when the evidence proves the law was never absolute.
My Yukon Gold potatoes did exactly that.
Yukon Golds are classified as determinate. The rule says they set tubers near the seed piece, send stolons from the lowest nodes, and do not produce more potatoes farther up the buried stem when they are deeply hilled.
That is what the experts say.
Mine did it anyway.
I planted the seed potatoes about six inches below the original surface of the bed. As the plants grew, I kept hilling them. More growth meant more soil. By the time I checked one corner of the bed, there was roughly fourteen inches of soil between the original seed pieces and the surface.
I expected to dig down to find potatoes.
Instead, I moved about one inch of dirt and hit a full-sized potato.
Then I found stolons higher up the buried stems.
Then I found a tiny new potato forming right beside the larger one.
Before the evidence showed up, the language was absolute.
They only set potatoes near the seed piece.
They only send stolons from the lowest nodes.
Deep hilling does not make them produce potatoes farther up the stem.
It is impossible.
Then the evidence showed up.
Suddenly the explanations started.
Deep soil. Darkness. Adaptation. Botanical anomaly. Semi-determinate behavior. Special conditions.
The rule did not survive contact with reality, so the language changed to protect the rule.
And that is the part people need to pay attention to.
When evidence contradicts an absolute statement, the answer is not to pile nuance on top of the evidence until the original statement can still be defended.
The answer is to admit the statement was too absolute.
That same problem runs through fresh-milled flour. Someone observes one result and turns it into a commandment. A method that works becomes the only method. A tendency becomes a requirement. Then someone tests it and gets a different result.
Suddenly their wheat is different.
Their mill is different.
Their humidity is different.
Their recipe is different.
Their technique is different.
Their result is treated like an exception that needs to be explained away instead of evidence that the original rule was incomplete or false.
That is backwards.
Evidence should refine the rule.
The rule should never be used to dismiss the evidence.
Science is supposed to change when observation exposes a weakness in the explanation.
Good teaching should do the same.
Learn the science.
Learn the patterns.
Listen to people with experience.
But never hand your own eyes over to an expert.
If the result in front of you contradicts the rule, question the rule.
Sometimes the rule is incomplete.
Sometimes the rule was overstated.
And sometimes the rule is simply wrong.
Creation does not answer to the experts.
It answers to THE Expert.
And every once in a while, YHVH makes that point so clearly that all you can do is move one inch of dirt, uncover a potato, and laugh.
