Culture Intelligent Design News Science

Study documents the rise of authoritarianism in science

Spread the love

Darwin Day in America From the updated edition of John West’s Darwin Day in America (with Afterword),

Our culture is witnessing the rise of what could be called totalitarian science—science so totalistic in its outlook that its defenders claim the right to remake every sphere of human life, from public policy and education to ethics and religion. The evidence for the rise of this kind of scientific authoritarianism is not just anecdotal. A study published in 2010 confirmed that in recent years there has been a dramatic increase in what some have called the “authoritarian tone” of science, exemplified by the growing use in science journalism of phrases such as “science requires,” “science dictates,” and “science tells us we should.”

The study to which he refers is discussed here:

In the past, scientists were generally neutral on questions of what to do. Instead, they just told people what they found, such as “we have discovered that smoking vastly increases your risk of lung cancer” or “we have discovered that some people will have adverse health effects from consuming high levels of salt.” Or “we have found that obesity increases your risk of coronary heart disease.” Those were simply neutral observations that people could find empowering, useful, interesting, etc., but did not place demands on them. In fact, this kind of objectivity was the entire basis for trusting scientific claims.

But along the way, an assortment of publicity-seeking, and often socially activist, scientists stopped saying, “Here are our findings. Read it and believe.” Instead, activist scientists such as NASA’s James Hansen, heads of quasi-scientific governmental organizations such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, editors of major scientific journals, and heads of the various national scientific academies are more inclined to say, “Here are our findings, and those findings say that you must change your life in this way, that way, or the other way.”

News here has noticed the trend, and also the growing impatience with the traditional rules of science that constrain their fantasies.

See also: John West has updated Darwin Day in America (read free excerpt!)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

47 Replies to “Study documents the rise of authoritarianism in science

  1. 1
    Zachriel says:

    News: science so totalistic in its outlook that its defenders claim the right to remake every sphere of human life, from public policy and education to ethics and religion

    Too late!

    Turns out that science has already remade every sphere of human life, from the time your alarm clock wakes you, to when you turn on the lights, to when you bathe yourself in artificially heated water, to the time you cloth yourself in machine-made garments, to when you check your social media, to when you press the synthetic pedal that makes your automobile go, to when you while yourself to sleep watching cat videos delivered through a wireless digital connection to your electronic tablet. Didn’t require any authoritarianism either.

  2. 2
    Axel says:

    Authoritarian libertarianism. You WILL be promiscuous in every way. Materialism prohibits any consideration of any kind of moral restraint; the sole exception being the immorality of opposing its own nihilistic canon. Secularism is indeed, the most jealous of gods.

  3. 3
    Zachriel says:

    Axel: Authoritarian libertarianism. You WILL be promiscuous in every way.

    Authoritarian and libertarianism are antonyms. Perhaps you mean authoritarian libertinism.

    Axel: Materialism prohibits any consideration of any kind of moral restraint

    Have no idea where you got that idea. Some, but certainly not all, materialists are moralizing prigs.

  4. 4
    Axel says:

    Thank you Zack. I believe you are right: ‘libertinism’; not that a conceptual discordance is not the essence of the point.

    ‘Have no idea where you got that idea. Some, but certainly not all, materialists are moralizing prigs.’

    It amounts to no more than infantile burbling of a very young baby, being precluded by the (il)logic of their formal creed.

    The appropriate response of an adult would probably be to strum one’s lips, and see if it elicits a beaming smile – and more animated burbling; perhaps a squeal, even.

  5. 5
    Zachriel says:

    Axel: It amounts to no more than infantile burbling of a very young baby, being precluded by the (il)logic of their formal creed.

    If a materialist sees moralizing as, at base, an emotion (love, hate, righteousness, envy, etc.), then there’s no illogic about it.

  6. 6
    Axel says:

    Strums lips…

  7. 7
    Zachriel says:

    Axel: Strums lips…

    If you see love, hate, attachment, awe, fondness, righteousness, commitment, as ‘lip strumming’, then sure.

  8. 8
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Z

    If a materialist sees moralizing as, at base, an emotion …righteousness … then there’s no illogic about it.

    I think the term I selected there does show the illogic.
    Righteousness is not an emotion. But beyond that, there are no good or bad emotions, they just are what they are.

  9. 9
    Zachriel says:

    Silver Asiatic: Righteousness is not an emotion.

    righteous: arising from an outraged sense of justice or morality

    Silver Asiatic: But beyond that, there are no good or bad emotions, they just are what they are. p

    Well, not sure about you, but for humans, they have many emotions, some good, some bad. Generally, humans prefer what they call pleasure to pain.

  10. 10
    Diogenes says:

    O’Leary’s tweet for this post falsely states “study documents rise of authoritarianism in science” but the study in question did no such thing. O’Leary and John West present no evidence to back up their accusations. As usual.

    Moreover, the ID movement is itself an attempt to hijack the authority of science in pursuit of a political, authoritarian goal. They’re down with authoritarianism as long as it’s Christian right wing authoritarianism.

  11. 11
    Andre says:

    Really Diogenes? There are many in the ID camp who are not Christians and there are many Christians that oppose ID. In my mother’s tongue;

    Jy praat nou stront.

  12. 12
    JWTruthInLove says:

    @Diogenes:

    Moreover, the ID movement is itself an attempt to hijack the authority of science in pursuit of a political, authoritarian goal. They’re down with authoritarianism as long as it’s Christian right wing authoritarianism.

    That would be bad publicity, since most id supporters think of trinitarianism as a false religion.

  13. 13
    Axel says:

    righteous’: arising from an outraged sense of justice or morality’

    No, Zac. Righteous is the adjective qualifying the emotion of ‘indignation’.

    ‘Righteous’ means the state or condition of ‘righteousness’, of ‘being in the right’ (not an emotion), used adjectivally to qualify ‘the outraged sense of justice or morality'(the emotion), you cite .

  14. 14
    Mapou says:

    I suspect that over 90% of scientific knowledge did not come from atheists but theists. The atheists are just latter day science usurpers with a religious agenda.

    Authoritarianism comes when one religious group (such as atheists) begins to promote the idea that science belongs to them and them alone. Their pompous reign is allowed to flourish for a while and they go into orgies of mutual adoration and butt kissing. Of course, as will all such groups in the past, they eventually run right smack into the brick wall of reality. A paradigm shift pops out of nowhere and hits them hard between the eyes with a two-by-four. That’s when it finally dawns on them that they are really just a bunch of self-righteous, know-nothings. They never had a clue, just like everybody else.

  15. 15
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Axel @13

    That’s it. You could have ‘unjust indignation’. So, righteousness requires some kind of moral judgement.

  16. 16
    Zachriel says:

    Axel: ‘Righteous’ means the state or condition of ‘righteousness’, of ‘being in the right’ (not an emotion), used adjectivally to qualify ‘the outraged sense of justice or morality’(the emotion), you cite .

    Note the word “sense” in the definition.

    It might be that you are unfamiliar with the species, but among humans, it is common when seeing a small human child being injured to have a feeling of empathy, and if the injury is being inflicted unnecessarily to experience a sense of ‘righteous indignation’, a sensation which often compels action. This doesn’t require any particular philosophy or rationalization, but seems to be a characteristic of humans generally. It’s similar to how they form attachments to one another. There’s no rational basis for it. It’s just one of their peculiar behaviors.

  17. 17
    HD says:

    See, it’s not science that has become authoritarian, it’s the people – along with their values – behind the constant political push. Correct me if I am wrong, but scientist tend to be more left of center. If this is the case, they will inevitably do what leftist often do which is to get government involved. If you are so sure of the purity of your crusade, you will seldom allow any other opinion to get equal footing.

    So today, the latest crisis that Liberals are fighting to stop (Liberals always tend to have some new crisis) is climate change. I am not going to argue for or against it. I am simply don’t have all the know-how. But, what I will say is that if this is the latest crisis, and Liberals always tend to need get government involved in some capacity to regulate the public sphere, than the blame ought to lie there and not science.

  18. 18
    humbled says:

    “Jy praat nou stront.” Andre, when it comes to materialists and the terror and destruction they’ve wrought on our world, your mother’s expression is too kind. I can think of a number of great South African expressions that, combined with a Cape accent, would be more appropriate in dealing with / describing this lot 😉

  19. 19
    Axel says:

    But Zack, this destroys atheists’ supposedly-chosen paradigm of materialism, which is causing such an obstruction to science. They should go with their instinct in this connection, at least. Materialism is, after all, the emperor with no clothes.

    Leave the metaphysics to the theists (notably, the Christians) and the deists. I see that Max Planck’s page on Wikipedia has been copiously corrected by a Christian, the last section being long quotes concerning the distinct compatibility of religion and science, where the earlier author had tried to cast him as an agnostic/atheist.

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    podcast – Darwinian Economics: Capitalism or Marxism?
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....8_12-08_00
    David Klinghoffer explores the deep Darwinian roots of Communism, arguing that, while Marx had already begun sketching the outlines of his ideas before Darwin published the Origin of Species, he is fairly called a Darwinist, and the men who translated Marxism into practical political terms in the form of Soviet terror were evolutionary thinkers, just as they themselves claimed to be.

  21. 21
    rvb8 says:

    John West says there is authoritarianism in science!

    Does he note in his egregious 2007 book ‘Darwin Day in America’ that at the time of his Eugenics conspiracy ideas that there was an equal partisan attack on teaching evolution? I think not.

    In 1995 West gave a speech entitled, ‘The Death of Materialism and the Renewal of Culture’. Really? Exchange the word ‘culture’ for fairy tales, wish fulfillment, crackpottery, ID, religion, fairies and other things I really like, anything else without a shread of varifiable evidence, and you have West & Co described perfectly.

    Again, pulling this clunker of a brain fart out really doesn’t bode well for future ID efforts.

    Is there any science forthcoming?

  22. 22
    Mung says:

    Zachriel: If you see love, hate, attachment, awe, fondness, righteousness, commitment, as ‘lip strumming’, then sure.

    We’re still waiting for the models. In particular, the models that exhibit the absence of design.

  23. 23
    rvb8 says:

    Really Mung? Still waiting are you? That’s the spirit! You keep waiting, it seems to be an ID speciality. Evolution as science will roll on filling gaps (you now, where you plunk Jesus), developing new fields of study, solving puzzles, enlightening the benighted, baring fruit etc.

    Enjoy your thumb twiddling.

  24. 24
    Mapou says:

    rvb8 is a rabid jihadist on a mission to rid the world of all those evil religions except, of course, his own little religion which he, of course, denies having. Just trust your scientists (the priests of the religion) but don’t trust those who deny evolution and abiogenesis because they are not true scientists. They are all evil spies, uneducated peasants and medieval-minded pretenders.

    ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha…

  25. 25
    Mung says:

    What truly amuses me is fools making fools of themselves.

    And still no model of unguided evolution.

  26. 26
    rvb8 says:

    Perhaps a guest post by the late William Dembsky, or the never present Berlinsky, Luskin or other ‘fellows’ might get the juices flowing so some science could be accomplished.

    Endless philosophical utterances get you, well, where you are today.

    Just a thought.

    Mapou, I am not a ‘rabid jihadist’, I find all violence reprehensible. I am however a staunch atheist, quite ready and able to stand up to sectarian bullies. Having spent 2000 years being loathed it’s very nice to see other rational people sharing my tiny insignificant planet.

    If you wish to unleash yourself from the prisons of religion, merely follow the evidence.

    Bye by.

  27. 27
    Mapou says:

    rvb8:

    Mapou, I am not a ‘rabid jihadist’

    Sure you are. You have all the symptoms and you make all the familiar sounds.

    I am however a staunch atheist, quite ready and able to stand up to sectarian bullies.

    This is funny seeing that the ID side accuses you people of being the bullies when you use the taxpayer’s money to ram your religion down their children’s throats both in schools and in mass media.

    ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha…

  28. 28
    Andre says:

    RVB8

    My son is being taught in school that birds descended from dinosaurs. He keeps getting in trouble for asking his teacher to present proof. Nothing yet. Do you actually approve of teaching children just so stories?

  29. 29
    Box says:

    Zachriel: Turns out that science has already remade every sphere of human life, from the time your alarm clock wakes you, to when you turn on the lights, to when you bathe yourself in artificially heated water, to the time you cloth yourself in machine-made garments, to when you check your social media, to when you press the synthetic pedal that makes your automobile go, to when you while yourself to sleep watching cat videos delivered through a wireless digital connection to your electronic tablet.

    Funny how “science” claims all the inventions ever made. My intuition informs me that there is a vast divide between science and the creativity of inventors. Take for instance the Wright brothers, were they “scientists”? Wiki:

    Education: Orville 3 years high school; Wilbur 4 years

    But I guess that won’t stop the fan boys of science to annex aviation.

  30. 30
    Zachriel says:

    Axel: this destroys atheists’ supposedly-chosen paradigm of materialism, which is causing such an obstruction to science.

    Why should having emotions or attachments or other instincts destroy the “paradigm of materialism”?

    Andre: My son is being taught in school that birds descended from dinosaurs.

    Birds are theropods. Take a close look at their skeletons. Not sure why you want to cause your children or their teacher trouble for teaching what is considered mainstream science.

    Box: Take for instance the Wright brothers, were they “scientists”?

    No. They would be considered engineers, people who apply scientific and practical knowledge to solve a given problem, in this case, powered flight. There is a close synergy between science and engineering.

  31. 31
    Box says:

    Zach,
    the attempts of the fan boys of “science” are akin to some followers of the, so called, “religion of peace” who also try to annex all inventions.

  32. 32
    Zachriel says:

    Box: the attempts of the fan boys of “science” are akin to some followers of the, so called, “religion of peace” who also try to annex all inventions.

    We didn’t study the entire site, but they point to the many inventions made by Muslim civilization, especially during its Golden Age, and seem careful to point out where Muslims had adapted or learned from their predecessors, such as the Greeks and Indians. European scholars were highly influenced by Muslim scholarship; consequently, manuscripts in Arabic were in high demand during the Late Medieval and the Renaissance. Islamic scientists made major advances from which the modern world has greatly benefited, including the experimental method.

    You seem to be arguing that scientific advances haven’t remade human society.

  33. 33
    Axel says:

    ‘Why should having emotions or attachments or other instincts destroy the “paradigm of materialism”?’

    Because so-called,’emergentism’ is bunkum, Zack. Dualism, my man, dualism. That is the reality of the mind’s contradistinctive relationship with matter.

    But why do you ask? You must know this, whether you interpret it as the truth or as an accusation.

  34. 34
    Zachriel says:

    Axel: Because so-called,’emergentism’ is bunkum

    Handwaving. Did you have an actual argument? Why should having emotions or attachments or other instincts destroy the “paradigm of materialism”?

  35. 35
    Axel says:

    What’s to argue about, Zack? There’s no point in disputing gratuitous fantasies. Argumentation doesn’t come into it. When something is so palpably false, there is only the one option.

    State your case and leave your interlocutor to find some other sap who will allow himself to be led by the nose in ever-decreasing circles, again and again, your argument and its cogency being completely ignored.

    Some people like to use such occasions as a kind of remedial-teaching exercise. Not me. Indeed, what I can’t see is far more real to me than what I can. We are part spiritual beings and part physical beings.

    The more important, the uniquely important component, to the Christian believer is his spiritual component: his soul – the memory, will and understanding – and his spirit.

    Although in heaven we shall have glorified bodies similar to Christ’s risen body, the matter that we are familiar with is just as transient as God wills it to be.

    Empirical science, least of all that of the naive realist, is simply not apt for analyzing the spiritual foundations of our nature or of anything else.

  36. 36
    JimFit says:

    We didn’t study the entire site, but they point to the many inventions made by Muslim civilization, especially during its Golden Age, and seem careful to point out where Muslims had adapted or learned from their predecessors, such as the Greeks and Indians. European scholars were highly influenced by Muslim scholarship; consequently, manuscripts in Arabic were in high demand during the Late Medieval and the Renaissance. Islamic scientists made major advances from which the modern world has greatly benefited, including the experimental method.

    The Muslims didn’t offered anything new to science, most of their “discoveries” can be found on Greek Byzantium which never stopped to do science, after the fall of Constantinople lots of the original texts were burned from the Crusaders, they were uneducated soldiers that didn’t understand how valuable these texts were, thankfully the Arabs made copies from these texts all these centuries and saved the 1000 years knowledge of Byzantium.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.....k_Classics

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_science

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....tantinople

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.....tantinople

  37. 37
  38. 38
    Zachriel says:

    Axel: When something is so palpably false, there is only the one option.

    Well, there are at least two options. Providing evidence, or waving your hands furiously and hope no one notices. You have chosen the latter course.

    Axel: The more important, the uniquely important component, to the Christian believer is his spiritual component: his soul – the memory, will and understanding – and his spirit.

    Sure, we appreciate that; but that doesn’t constitute an answer to the question. Nor does it constitute a defense of your statement concerning “bunkum” or falsity. If you merely said that science is irrelevant to your salvation, then we could readily accept that you don’t find the topic of interest. However, you volunteered opinions that you now refuse to defend. That’s up to you, but it tends to indicate you didn’t think out your position and don’t have a defense for your own statements.

    JimFit: The Muslims didn’t offered anything new to science

    Of course they did. The experimental method alone had a profound influence on the future course of scholarship.

    Your second link says “Byzantine science played an important role in the transmission of classical knowledge to the Islamic world and to Renaissance Italy, and also in the transmission of Arabic science to Renaissance Italy.”

  39. 39
    Timaeus says:

    rvb8:

    I wonder why you cannot take the time to examine and spell the names “Dembski” and “Berlinski” correctly.

    I would guess that if you have not taken the care to note how their names are spelled, you have not taken the time to read any of their books.

    How can you assess their writings unless you have read their writings?

    But then, you assessed Suzan Mazur’s writings without having read them, didn’t you?

    That is the great thing about being in the anti-ID camp. You can dismiss entire books, even the entire work of an author, based on rumor, hearsay, and Wikipedia. No scholarship necessary. No knowledge of the relevant natural sciences necessary, either.

  40. 40
    Upright BiPed says:

    I would love to be a fly on the wall if rv met Mazur face-to-face and had a chance to actually speak to her, and her to him.

    There are times when one simply cannot hide what they are and the things they’ve said. All of rv’s unhinged attack on Mazur would be laid for all to see.

  41. 41
    rvb8 says:

    Timaeus,

    I haven’t read the Bible either (at least not all the way), I haven’t read C.S.Lewis (at least 25 pages into ‘Mere…’ and its utter shallow absurdity left me gob smacked), I have not read Luskin, Dembski, News, or any other of the luminaries you choose to proffer as the nobility of your deceased cause.

    Why?

    Well, I’m a primate with limited time on this planet and I must use that limited time to the best of my ability. This evolved drive means I have to be selective in my leisure, as do you of course. I choose to read the authors regarded by the respective experts (who are experts because they do expert stuff) in their fields, as the most edifying. Dembski, News, Luskin, Berlinski, Mazur, and co are so far away from being in any way respected (for good productive, useful reasons), that I choose, logically, to ignore them. I let the scientists tear their tissues to shreds and enjoy immensely their tattered insignificant shame; as I enjoy your tedious yelping at the corners.

    I’ve read, Darwin ( and can say his ‘The Voyage of the Beagle’ is worth reading purely on literary merit), and he writes in the way you would expect a man who is destroying a myth to write; with dignity and restraint. The same cannot be said for you and yours; sorry about my spelling, I’m lazy.

  42. 42
    Andre says:

    So RVB8 is actually saying…..

    I choose beliefs not because I find them true but because I find them helpful……. RVB8 does not know what life is about……

  43. 43
    rvb8 says:

    Err, living? The best and longest lives are the goals. By ‘best’ I mean humane, by ‘longest’ I mean no longer than 80, but I wouldn’t object to a 90 year old’s longevity, I myself am quite happy with no longer than 80; don’t pray, takes up valuable reading time.

  44. 44
    Andre says:

    RVB8

    The best and longest lives are the goals. By ‘best’ I mean humane, by ‘longest’ I mean no longer than 80

    You know survival of the fittest is bollocks right? Many a great and fit man has laid down their life for others….

    I myself am quite happy with no longer than 80; don’t pray, takes up valuable reading time.

    You don’t know what life is about……..

  45. 45
    JimFit says:

    Of course they did. The experimental method alone had a profound influence on the future course of scholarship.

    The experimental method existed in Classical Greece, Muslims just copied the observations of the Byzantines and translated them. Yes Muslims developed new equations and observations but it was nothing in front of the Byzantines since Muslims had restrictions from their religion, us the Orthodoxs were motivated by our religion to understand the physical world, John Philoponus almost 1000 years before Galileo proposed what Galileo said (and Galileo even quotes him) and it was accepted by everyone.

  46. 46
    Zachriel says:

    JimFit: The experimental method existed in Classical Greece

    The Greeks made steps towards empirical science, but did not develop the experimental method; specifically, hypothetico-deduction. In any case, we referred to your own citation which discussed the influence of Arabic science. Every great civilization has advanced knowledge.

  47. 47
    Timaeus says:

    rvb8:

    Thank you for admitting that you are lazy. It is evident in your spelling, and also in your thinking and writing; but most of all it’s evident in your lack of intellectual energy to read the full range of opinions on a subject. I can tell you are not an academic, or even someone with much academic training, because you act as if reading lots of books is a big waste of your precious time on this planet.

    What you don’t seem to understand is that misspelling someone’s name is a sign of disrespect. Even if you don’t misspell the name deliberately, but only because you can’t be bothered to memorize or at least look up the spelling, it is still a sign of disrespect. Suppose you introduced yourself as Colin, and someone responded, “Glad to meet you, Carman!” and you then corrected him — “No, my name is COLIN” — but he continued to call you Carman. It would be as if he couldn’t be bothered to even listen to you when you are speaking to him. It would also be the case that he is s plainly insensitive person, since your repeated corrections should clearly communicate to him that you care that your name should be pronounced correctly. The guy who won’t take the time to correct himself on your name is being lazy, but he’s also being gauche. He ought to change his habits of learning people’s names. He’s blameworthy.

    You’re also the kind of person who makes things easier for tyrants and demagogues. You’ve just openly admitted that rather than read both sides of a debate as they are stated by their respective proponents, you will take as authoritative what “the experts” (or people who have gulled you and the public into thinking they are experts) say. You don’t check for yourself what the experts say.

    So if you lived in the Eastern part of North America, where for the last two winters — long after the 2011 date when the experts were *sure* the global warming would resume — millions of square miles of territory have experienced conditions of cold, blizzards, etc. not seen since the 1960s and 1970s, and if the pipes were all freezing and cracking throughout your city, with city crews constantly having to fix them to restore the water supply, and it was taking you an hour every morning to shovel out your driveway to get to work (you do work, don’t you?) whereas in the year 2000 or so your driveway would have been black for most of the winter, and if Bill Dembski said, “I am not convinced by the physical evidence that global warming is happening,” but a panel of Scandinavian experts, writing from their winter research retreat in Bermuda, told you that things were very warm, you would go with the experts rather than with Dembski, merely because the experts are always supposed to be better than any independent thinker who goes only by naive considerations such as the physical facts around him. This makes you the perfect kind of citizen for the regimes described in novels like Brave New World and 1984. You would believe that two plus two equalled five if 9 out of 10 Ivy League professors told you so, or if the United Nations Commission on Global Warming and Elementary Arithmetic told you so. You go along with what state-educated, state-employed, or at least state-subsidized experts say, rather than think for yourself.

    The world is in bad shape if your laziness and deference to experts is the typical attitude of the younger generation. My generation was raised to be more critical, more open to novel and minority views; this is probably because all our parents fought in the Second War against tyrannies whose main method of keeping power in their countries was to shut down on intellectual debate and punish dissenters. For people of your youth, it was probably your grandparents who were in the war, or maybe even great-grandparents. So you weren’t raised as firmly as my generation was in the lessons about the need to resist tyranny — including intellectual tyranny.

    Your remark about Darwin and modern mythbreakers is fatuous. You are quite right about Darwin, but in our day, it is precisely the opposite of what you say. In our day, those who fancy themselves “mythbreakers” (Dawkins, Coyne, Moran, Myers, etc.) write with no “dignity and restraint”; they write like savages out for blood. If you can’t see this, you either have no ability to comprehend what you read, or you don’t read very much even of the writings of the people on your own side.

    What a joke that you say to another commenter that you don’t pray, because it takes up valuable reading time! I evidently read far more than you do every week — based on my superior knowledge of biology, biochemistry, physics, history of science, the details of the ID controversy, theology, philosophy, current American events, etc. — and I still have time to pray. Francis Collins, who ran the human genome project, found time to pray. Raymond Damadian, instrumental in the creation of MRI (but who was denied Nobel recognition, very likely because of the secular humanist prejudice on the Nobel committee against his conservative Christian beliefs, though of course like the Star Chamber they keep their biased deliberations secret), found time to pray. Newton, James Clerk-Maxwell, Townes the inventor of the laser, and many other well-read scientists found time to pray. And you evidently read far less than most of these men. So it isn’t time that is the problem. The problem is that (a) you don’t want to pray — which is your privilege; (b) you don’t want to take the time to read both sides of an issue, because you fear that if you actually read an articulate presentation of the other side, you might waver in your ideological convinctions.

    Of course, it may be that you don’t read ID works simply because you don’t have enough science to follow them. It takes a certain knowledge of chemistry to follow Behe’s arguments, and a certain knowledge of math to follow Dembski’s. You seem to have a very sloppy and inexact mind, so it would not surprise me if you had done very little study of mathematics or the natural sciences. It is perhaps because of your lack of confidence in your own ability to assess evidence that you take the easy way out and side with the majority opinion. Boning up on the science — that would be too much like work. You would rather spend your time writing sarcastic accusations on the internet than reading hard and thoughtful books. What a joke you are!

    But then, what should I expect from someone from a country that has declared a river to be a legal person? Certainly not clear or rational thinking.

Leave a Reply