Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

An Irony: Will Attempts to Enforce Darwinian Orthodoxy Serve to Diminish Public Trust in Legitimate Science?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This year should be an exciting one for ID. It sounds like Expelled, The Movie will have very wide distribution in major theaters all across the nation in April.

One sad aspect of the Darwinian propaganda machine is that, once it is exposed to the general public for what it is (materialistic philosophy pretending to be science, and even in opposition to the evidence of modern scientific discoveries about the severe limits of the Darwinian mechanism that is presumed to explain everything in biology), the public may lose trust in legitimate science.

This state of affairs is extraordinarily ironic. The claim is that denial of Darwinian orthodoxy will destroy science, but perhaps attempts to defend the indefensible claims of Darwinists will destroy public trust in legitimate science, which follows the evidence wherever it leads.

I like the science in which I work: aerospace research and development. If it flies, the science is good. If it crashes, the science is bad. Storytelling doesn’t cut it for real scientists. Honest scientists follow the evidence — and abandon cherished, long-held convictions — no matter how painful that might be.

Comments
Undesigned You wrote, "People don’t like being told they aren’t special." Reminds me of the Incredibles. The Mom is telling Dash, "everyone's special" to which Dash replish, "Which is another way of saying no one is". I also think many people don't like a) being accountable to anything which is why they pick religions that can be molded into their likeness. My favourite quote from the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is, "He is a good lion, but not a TAME lion". b) not being in control. This is why the arrogance in us hates the idea of grace, that there is nothing we can do to make things right with God. We prefer religions that allow us to be moral, to forgo certain pleasures, to be disciplined in our prayer life, etc, etc so that we can in essence earn our salvation. Of course the greater rebellion is denying that a creator exists at all. I recommend reading C.S. Lewis's "That hideous strength" the third book in his science fiction series. The book can be read on its own however.Cable
January 12, 2008
January
01
Jan
12
12
2008
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
"Dishonest?" What, exactly, are the dishonest scientists after? Evoloution and Climatology are rife with politics because folks do not accept the claims made by the people doing the research. Simply put, those two disciplines suggest that Humanity is not the pinnacle of Creation and that our actions affect this world because we live not as part of it, but as unthinking destoyers. There is even Biblical support for taking care of the planet, but with Jesus coming back "any minute now" there is no reason to plan for a future that won't be happening. People don't like being told they aren't special. Of course it would be opposed and false controversy generated. That's human nature.Undesigned
January 12, 2008
January
01
Jan
12
12
2008
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
Rick Good points. But I think the trust issue isn't about the science but rather about scientists, especially those in academia. Increasingly it seems as if they're willing to sacrifice objectivity and truthful reporting of the facts in order to acheive political goals. The science underlying flight and laser eye surgery doesn't really have any partisan politics connected with it. Evolution and global warming on the other hand are rife with politics, deceit, and corruption of science towards political ends. Let's hope the stink of it doesn't spill over to the innocent, honest scientists who quietly and competently do their jobs without letting politics influence their work. I'm sure they are in the majority but the dishonest are a vocal minority while the rest are a silent majority. DaveScot
January 12, 2008
January
01
Jan
12
12
2008
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PDT
"...the public may lose trust in legitimate science."
Hmmmm.... I would tend to doubt it. It's been pointed out that most people don't entirely accept the mainstream science version of origins anyway--yet that doesn't seem to evince a distrust of science generally: people routinely demonstrate trust in the sciences that have made flight possible, or that use lasers to correct myopia, or that enable them to see and hear events that are happening around the world. It seems that most people have the good sense to recognize when something is worthy of confidence and when it isn't--when it is demonstrated to work, versus when we are asked to take something on authority, in the absence of good evidence and contrary to basic common sense.RickToews
January 11, 2008
January
01
Jan
11
11
2008
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT
April?? So is it not coming out Feb 12 anymore?13atman
January 11, 2008
January
01
Jan
11
11
2008
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT
Hope this is not off-topic, but I just read a pretty good SF book entitled "The Lure", by Bill Napier. It's the first SF book I've read that deals with the "fine tuning" of the universe argument, and presents a balanced view of the subject. Also, check out the latest edition of MAD magazine, there's a parody titled "Darwin Day at the Creation Museum". It shows Charles Darwin running through the museum screaming while pulling his hair out! Pretty funny stuff.gleaner63
January 11, 2008
January
01
Jan
11
11
2008
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply