I saw this cartoon linked over at the Digg
site a week or so ago. It looks to be a mocking editorial cartoon that was syndicated around the time Stein’s movie, Expelled
, was released. There are a few blunderous errors present with it, the least of which is that most “scientists” don’t wear white lab coats. More importantly, ID, or what was presented in Stein’s documentary, is not creationism and Ben Stein doesn’t adhere to the record of creation as revealed in Genesis, nor would a lot of the ID apologists from Discovery Institute
The most egregious, however, is the false notion that Darwinianism equals science and those Darwinians who are scientists are unbiased and follow the evidence where ever it leads. The idea of “unbiased” scientists is probably the biggest myth in our society today.
Take for instance the first panel. Here you have a scientist asking a student about a pile of bones and what conclusions she can draw from them. If the student, however, were to say, “You know, these bones have extremely complex structures that cannot be explained by the evolutionary model of ‘natural selection and descent with modification over millions of years,’ perhaps there is another explanation,” the prof. would boo and hiss her until his throat was raw and then tell her to get out of his presence. Hence proving the premise of Stein’s film.
What is a bit heart breaking is how conservatives who cry the loudest against liberal censorship, media bias, and the strangle hold leftist philosophy has on the American higher education system that squashes any true academic dissent of the prevailing worldviews, are so willing to dismiss Stein’s film as being a product of a crank. For example “Zombie” (not his or her real name), who normally does a good job of providing entertaining photojournalism from the asylum of what is the San Francisco Bay area, ran into a lone “creationist” protesting outside of U.C. Berkeley who was promoting Stein’s movie
. Zombie succumbed to the same woeful inaccuracies pretty much everyone else does when criticizing the film: “Stein’s a creationist,” “evolutionary biology is established scientific fact,” and “theology should be taught at church and not the science classroom.”
Let’s consider some quotes from these hard facts folks.
At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the text books don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose result he hopes will support his position. (Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works, p. 17-18).
Science is fundamentally a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule: Rule #1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural. (Richard Dickerson, Journal of Molecular Evolution, 34:277, 1992).
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to the understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. (Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” New York Review, Jan. 9, 1997).
Suddenly, we’re imbedded in a frothy quantum foam of unlimited possibilities. It’s a free-for-all where each solemnly presented theory is soon changed or rebutted. In one sense, it’s very cool. Imagination rules! It’s a unique period in cosmology’s history. Throw the math this way, that way, tweak the equations, set fire to the physics building, nothing matters. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Stephen Hawking. Unfortunately, cosmologists are starting to resemble naked emperors parading before the mass media. Hey, we love you, but you have no clue about the universe’s true origin or fate, and little knowledge of its composition. Yet each pronouncement is delivered with pomp and flair. Maybe you need a serious “time out.” (Bob Berman, Astronomy, July 2004)
These are just a smattering of comments from various evolutionists regarding their “unbiased” approach to science. I see a lot of “faith” pre-commitments with these citations, and not a whole lot of hard, scientific facts, and in some cases, blind faith commitments. In my mind, evolutionists are just as guilty of saying, “Here’s our conclusion. How can we handle the facts to support it?”