Only a very few research scientists have the opportunity to work against that disjoined view by openly studying life as something clearly and cleverly designed. I am one, and I can count the others on my fingers. There are more who would like to have ths opportunity, as shown every now and then by a paper th
at gets past the policing system of an establishment science journal. A recent example is a description oft the architecture of the human hand as being “the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way.” Infractions like this almost always bring out the whistle-blowers, which almost always brings reprimand. Everyone must decide for himself or herself what they can do under the shadow of te materialist flag, knowing that if they press too hard they may lose even the small opportunities they once had. (p. 265)
Real case histories bear this out, time and again.
Two months after this paper on the human hand was published, it was retracted—not by the authors but by the journal (PLoS One), and not for any technical error that cold be described, but because of “concerns with the scientific rationale, presentation and language.” This sounds very much like the vague language of prejudice. Consistent with that, the retraction mentions only one specific objection: “Following publication, readers raised concerns about language in the article that makes referenes to a ‘Creator.’” Evidently PLoS One marches on command whnever a whistle is blown.
See also: Mob with Pitchforks Forms as Science Journal PLOS ONE Acknowledges “Proper Design by the Creator”
This was a particularly unjust instance of a retraction if there was no written rule that one must not use such terminology. And yes, it was prejudice, of the classic type where all the inpeople know the rules, but we don’t publish them. That way we can easily identify and exclude outsiders.
It’s becoming a serious problem. These days, just about any hornswoggle about space aliens is “science” but references to the fine-tuning of the universe, however massive the evidence, exist only to be repudiated in favor of unfalsifiable claims about a multiverse.
Evidence is getting less important all the time. Obedient mediocrities will benefit, taxpayers will pay, and science will slowly settle into the sort of oblivion (which has often happened before) when ideology replaces evidence, sometimes for centuries.
Note: News will be light today as O’Leary for News is currently working at her other alternative night job.
Follow UD News at Twitter!