"For the most part, the working scientists try to share their knowledge, but often the response from the other side is less than kind; religious belief is not open to reasoned argument."
If you want to know the true reason why the lay audience is skeptical of evolutionist claims, see here:
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9711/articles/johnson.html
When scientists acknowledge the fact that they cannot even consider the idea of God working, and then somehow claim that they have found evidence of God not working, it is obvious to those listening that there is an error in judgment.
Any time I write a paper (although I am not in research, I do write technical tutorials for IBM) I try to have someone examine it who is not technical, for the simple reason that I am too close to the subject to see my own biases and distortions. In fact, I usually let my Dad read them, who has not done programming since college, to look over them, precisely because he is not part of the whole rigamorole.
And I think this is what has happened with evolutionary science. They get caught up in this whole way of thinking, and then cannot look back in an objective way and examine what they are doing. They don't see that by excluding an entire method of causality (intelligent causation) they have unnecessarily restricted themselves in what kinds of explanations are allowed.
For example, if I have a stone that is on the floor, and I leave for an hour, and come back, and it's on the table. If I don't acknowledge that an intelligent agent may have moved the stone, I have to come up with some sort of idea of wind gusts that moved the stone from the floor to the table. I will then become _convinced_ about these short-acting, high-velocity, spontaneous winds, simply because I _know_ that the rock moved, and I have a priori decided not to include intelligent causation.
In the words of Behe: "Still, some critics claim that science by definition can't accept design, while others argue that science should keep looking for another explanation in case one is out there. But we can't settle questions about reality with definitions, nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore. Besides, whatever special restrictions scientists adopt for themselves don't bind the public, which polls show, overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed. And so do many scientists who see roles for both the messiness of evolution and the elegance of design."
The question is, can God's action be allowed to be considered by science? If so, then we need to have explanations of why the similarities of organisms are the result of common descent rather than common design. We need to know why the idea of non-interventionistic abiogenesis makes _more_ sense than the nearly global idea that life came from God. We need to have an open dialog as to why happenstance changes make _better_ sense of life than design. In fact, this has happened once in recent history. Of course, the creationists did too well, and since then Dawkins now has a policy of not debating creationists, the AAAS lied about the outcome of the debate, and the Oxford Union "misplaced" all records of the debate. The creationists didn't win, but they made a good showing (115 to 198 I believe -- and this was AT OXFORD).
So why no open debate?
Now, if science has a methodological predisposition saying that it can't consider God, then theologians have a right and responsibility to say that it therefore cannot say anything remotely definitive about what happened in the past. They are flying blind, purposefully ignorant of an entire area of causation, attempting to come up with explanations that simply ignore what theology tells us. It would be the same as trying to construct chemistry without Hydrogen.
This is why the public doesn't trust science in this area. Science is making bold claims resting on unproved presuppositions. Certainly the scientists know more than the public about their area, but the scientists are also claiming to know more about God's actions than the theologians! Why is one alright and not the other?
I also run into the forest/tree thing a lot.
|
In 1984 George Orwell portrays the importance of language in controlling thought. The totalitarian regime depicted in the novel had developed its own language -- Newspeak -- to meet the ideological needs of Oceania. In the novel's appendix on the language, Orwell explains:
|
HMmmm...This sounds WAY too familiar!