Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Have conservatives really lost their faith in science?

Probability's Nature and Nature's Probability : A Call to Scientific Integrity

From Donald E. Johnson, author of Probability of Nature and Nature’s Probability on claims about how conservatives supposedly lost their faith in science:

Because of America’s foundational principles, only 33% of Americans agree with Darwinism [2009 Zogby poll], and tend to “turn off” when speculations contrary to core beliefs are promoted as truth. In fact, a journal Science [1/28/11, p404] paper indicated that only 28% of high school biology teachers “consistently implement the major recommendations and conclusions” concerning Darwinism. Their recommendation is for those “who cannot accept evolution as a matter of faith to pursue other careers.”

Why should science be a matter of faith, instead of evidence-based? Why should those not adhering to the Darwinian faith be encouraged to leave science? These questions are extremely important as America attempts to regain scientific leadership. [The paper also notes that following this recommendation “would reduce the supply of teachers who are especially attractive to the most conservative school districts.”

The Darwinian paradigm that is serving as the basis of science as presented today would not be a scientific problem if it were indeed unassailably substantiated. For over 20 years Programming of Life’s author believed, taught, and defended the “truth” of chemical and biological evolution, until confronted by the scientific realities.

Thousands of scientists [pssiinternational.com/list.pdf & dissentfromdarwin.org] acknowledge that Darwinism CAN’T work, as shown in PoL. Presidential Medal of Science winner biologist Lynn Margulis writes, “this Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric…

No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation” [“Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of the Species,” 2003, p29].

Rather than advancing the cause of scientific progress, Darwinism stifles it by forcing scientists to dogmatically ignore known scientific information. Darwinists have repeatedly declared “undeniable proofs” (e.g. 98% of DNA is “junk” and numerous “proven transitional forms”), only to have those “proofs” debunked later by real science. Note that “micro-evolution,” due to genetic changes within a species is accepted as verified fact by all scientists, but such changes have NEVER demonstrated a net increase in functional information that would be required to form a “higher” species. The title of Darwin’s book was “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” Although Darwin didn’t cause racism, his writings provided perceived “scientific justification” (now debunked, thankfully) to believe non-Caucasians are less evolved [search “The Descent of Man,” for “201 gorilla”] (so why is Darwin viewed favorably?).

Philosophical and religious (including both theistic and non-theistic religions, such as Atheism or Secular Humanism) presuppositions should not influence what is taught as science. Presenting only verifiable science (or both sides of controversial issues to promote critical thinking skills), avoiding unverified speculations, should lead to a much better education that many more people would willingly pursue.

Good science reduces philosophical obstacles, leading to improved engineering, more innovation, better products, and more jobs.

Actually, almost no one loses their faith in science when it is evidence-based and useful. Who turns down cancer treatments that work?

Rather, people lose their faith in “anything can be true in our multiverse,” “apes think like humans,” “the aliens have just gotta be out there,” “a giant heat wave is engulfing the planet,” “random sorts can produce highly specialized information,” and “my theory explains the origin of life” because – quite honestly – this stuff is not science.

It’s too bad if only identified “conservatives” doubt all the dubious propositions out there. The rest of the crowd will catch up after a while, though. They can’t afford not to.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Darwin's myth has to do with science because currently it is the theory that explains all of biological life on this planet. It's wrong, of course, but it's also being taught as fact (and has been taught as fact) in schools. Barb
What does darwin's myth have to do with science...aside from trying to pervert it? Blue_Savannah
I wouldn't have used cancer treatment as one of sciences' victories. It's actually a giant failure. Other than maybe childhood leukemia, Big Medicine's success is dismal at fighting cancer. but to answer your question, yes I have lost my faith in science. Most of all scientists could be fired and the nation would go forward just fine. Somehow people back hundreds and thousands of years ago seemed to just fine without climatologists, chemists, physicists, paleontologists, biologists, archeologists, cosmologists, geneticists and the like. Even the astronomers at Nasa have corrupted the science, basically doing nothing more than looking for aliens. Climatologists are just worried about global warming; paleontologists look at dead bones, biologists work on more failed drugs....what good is this group, really? vh
Just over 34 percent of conservatives had confidence in science as an institution in 2010, representing a long-term decline from 48 percent in 1974, according to a paper being published today in American Sociological Review. [...snip...] Less-educated conservatives didn't change their attitudes about science in recent decades. It is better-educated conservatives who have done so, the paper says. [...snip...]

Leave a Reply