Most scientists are highly intellectually aggressive. Evolutionists are no exception. You would have us believe that they put some supposed nefarious ideological cabal above their own critical instincts and their personal interests in career advancement and prestige. This is silly.
|
It's a human malady, and keen intellects are poor predictors of an absence of pride.
True enough. At the same time the social structure of science mitigates very strongly against the kind of mewling conformism my correspondent was attributing to "evolutionists". Indeed it arguably does so as much or more than any other human intellectual institution. Whatever the individual failings of scientists, which certainly will be broadly the same as found among any comparable group of humans, science is highly competitive, and it does lavishly reward rigorous dissent.
You can confirm this for yourself, and not just by reading journals. There are many scientific conferences that you can attend as a layman, and even as a non-member of the relevant organization. (For instance the annual AAAS conventions.) Go and listen to a few papers being read. You'll note that time set aside for Q&A is invariable as long as that for the presentation, and often longer, and that the questions are predominantly critical and sometimes almost rudely aggressive.
(BTW, although I've only attended one creationism conference, it was exactly the opposite: 45 minutes for presentation and 15 minutes for questions. There was only one creationist at the conference -- Kurt Wise who was hosting at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee -- that I heard to ask critical questions of the presenters.)