Home » Intelligent Design » Why Is Evolution Suppressed by Scientific Community?

Why Is Evolution Suppressed by Scientific Community?

I’m genuinely confused. Can some of the more experienced IDers explain why critcism of evolutionary theory is supressed within the scientific community?

Comment by Kibitz — February 15, 2006 @ 7:19 pm

It’s really simple. 72% of the most influential scientists in the United States, members of the National Academy of Atheist Sciences, are positive atheists according to this well known poll at Stephen Jay Gould’s website. Another 21% are weak atheists (agnostic). Only 7% believe in God. And as Richard Dawkins famously said:

An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: “I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn’t a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.” I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
– Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 6

Now consider that in almost 60 years of presenting the “overwhelming” scientific evidence for Darwinian theory in public science education, in the legally enforced absence of criticism or alternative hypotheses, they have not put a significant dent in the number of people who swallow the story that evolution was unguided (15% or fewer).

Imagine how many people would swallow the story if it were presented in a critical manner and alternatives to unguided, unplanned evolution were presented? Where would the next generation of atheist scientists come from? My God man, atheism might die out entirely! We can’t have that, now can we? ;-)

The theory is suppressed because anyone with a career in science that threatens the metaphysical beliefs of the most senior scientists can kiss his career goodbye. John Davison who comments here frequently, a comparative physiologist with 50 years experience and Emeritus Professor of Biology, published a non-Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis in 1984 and was rewarded with a frozen salary, isolation from students, ostracism in the mainstream journals where he frequently published, eventual coerced retirement, and no more access to a lab. Much more recently, Rick Sternberg, who dared publish an ID sympathetic paper in a biology journal connected to the Smithsonian, was the subject of the establishment’s ire. These are just two cases.

That’s how and why criticism of evolution is suppressed within the scientific community. Any questions?

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

22 Responses to Why Is Evolution Suppressed by Scientific Community?

  1. This goes without saying, its one of the big cases of SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL AND SPEAK NO EVIL.

    *fine print* if you do prepared to be blacklisted.

    Charlie

  2. I am hoping that you and anyone else interested would consider submitting a post to my Darwin is Dead Carnival hosted on my blog, http://radaractive.blogspot.com/
    The submission links are down a bit on my left sidebar. Submission deadline is February 25th.

    I am blog-rolling this site, very happy to notice it on Simon Chapell’s blog.

    “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad.” Aldous Huxley.

    “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” Jesus Christ.

  3. Divide and conquor… The Darwinian fundamentalists strike at ID saying it is not science — the Christian fundamentalists strike at ID saying it is not religion. in the mean time, our children are being indoctrinated into a godless worldview that has no capacity to answer much of anything that occurs in our cosmos — especially important life issues such as love, relationships, the cause of and cure for the ills and evils of our world, and salvation.

  4. [troll]

    “I’m genuinely confused. Can some of the more experienced IDers explain why critcism of evolutionary theory is supressed within the scientific community?”

    The short answer: It’s not. No genuine scientific data/hypothesis is suppressed.

    The allegation of suppression is designed (‘scuse the pun) to instil fear in those who believe that their particular religious beliefs are threatened by science and the ‘Evil Atheist Conspiracy’ in general.

  5. If ID is a scientific hypothesis and not a religious belief then why should it matter whether a large percentage of the members of the NAS are atheists? If the scientific evidence for ID is solid enough then they would be convinced of its validity.

  6. That’s not necessarily so, MikeG. Some people are so terrified of the philosophical implications of the science of ID, that they will deny it until they are blue in the face. Many of them refuse to even hear the evidence in support of ID. It’s a fingers in ears, head-shaking denial.

  7. MikeG: In the original post from which this thread is an extract “ecstatic because…” I attempted to reply to Kibitz’s question which was basically to ask why darwinian evolution is not critically examined within the scientific community. I tried to convey the idea, which is really a philosophical idea but is relevant here, that the behavior of so many scientists in suppressing dissent implies that humans act from a part of their being which, in my opinion, is more profound and primary than intellect or reason. Ideally, this inner core, which might be termed “spirit” or “essence” should align itself with the other, hierarchically inferior functions such as intellect and reason. But it obviously can choose to be in disharmony as well. This is a case in point. The ideal of science as pursuit of truth is just that: an ideal. The real humans who make up that endeavor are subject to the same faults as humans engaged in any activity. It is reasonable to assume that to the extent that the human functions of intellect guided by essence aligned with truth are in order, then progress will be made in any endeavor pursued in this way. Conversely, when these functions are not in harmony, the flow of energy is weakened, errors and rigidity creep in, and inevitably the field of endeavor dries up and dies. This is what we are witnessing, in my opinion, with the neo-Darwinian account of evolution. Its defenders, motivated at their deepest core not by truth but by a restricted capacity to percieve anything non-material, are desperate to avoid the feeling of dissonance which would accompany the intellectual admission of the weakness of their position. Since in a truly fundamental way this particular debate hits at the very core of the “to be or not to be” of the human spirit (is there meaning and purpose, or meaninglessness and death? ) it evokes probably the most intense response of any.

  8. Intelligent Design is not an hypothesis and neither is it a religion. It is a self evident feature of every living thing which serves as a mandatory starting point from which one must begin in order to understand either ontogeny or phylogeny. The source of the ID is of no consequence. To deny ID is unthinkable to the normal mind and that posture can only be doggedly held by homozygous, “prescribed,” atheists like Richard Dawkins and William Provine. There are tens of thousands of these poor souls and as nearly as I am able to ascertain there is absolutely nothing that can be done for them. I am not alone with this conclusion.

    “Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting ARE NOT FREE but are just as causally bound as the stars in their action.”
    Albert Einstein, my emphasis

    Amen

  9. Incidentally, atheists ARE intellectually fulfilled. They were “born that way.”

  10. FYI, FoxNews.com has an article/commentary today on ID.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184953,00.html

  11. I think there are two primary reasons why ID is persecuted. It is persecuted by the elite because it is an attempt to remove the strict barrier of naturalism surrounding science. It is prosecuted by the rank and file because if one is ignorant of ID then it is very easy to see it as “creationism lite.”

    On the first count I am somewhat understanding. While I do make a design inference I am still not convinced of the necessity of supernatural interference in the universe. The simple fact of the matter is that everything we have come to understand about the universe tells us that it is controlled by natural laws. I can understand why scientists, atheists or not, would want to keep science a search for natural causes. I do not however condone the persecution that has taken place by any stretch of the imagination.

    The second charge, while mistaken, is also understandable. The negative reaction to Darwin’s ideas has largely been dominated by religious concerns from the get. The recent episodes of creationism and creation science were blatant attacks on scientific truth. With their defeat came ID, chronologically at least. The fact that ID has sprung from right Christian sources doesn’t help its public image as a scientific inference. Of course that negative reaction ultimately has nothing to do with the validity of ID but is instead an unfortunate reflection of our culture.

  12. Look, it naturalistic evolution isn’t true, their entire belief system crumbles. They dont’ want that.

  13. Sure but I don’t see how you can prove something is not a product of natural forces. I don’t put any stock in IC and CSI is intriguing but as of yet not entirely convincing (to me anyways). At any rate neither can prove naturalistic evolution isn’t true they can only produce an amount of doubt that makes holding onto Darwin an untennable proposition.

  14. Tina Brewer you are profound. Check out David Hawkins, The Eye of the I. I think you might like it.

  15. If you think the I.D. scientists have it bad, look at the poor scientists/doctors who try to challenge germ theory. If you’re a parent who doesn’t buy germ theory, and you resist vaccination shots from your Dr. then your kid can be denied access to public schools. I’ve heard of doctors (ones who deny germ theory) being tried and fined lots and lots of money.
    If your religious beliefs happen to conflict with germ theory, and your child get sick and you deny them germ theory treatment, you can be charged with child abuse.

    Schools won’t even hear of the bioterrain theories or compare pleomorphic germ theory with monomorphic germ theory.

    After all, germ theory is a theory and I don’t see why competing germ theories can’t be allowed to have their equal time.

    The beauty of living in a democracy is competing germ theories CAN be allowed equal time. If you can convince your local school board to include alternatives to germ theory in the curriculum, more power to you! Ain’t democracy great that way? Good luck! -ds

  16. Here is a related Article I found, enjoy!

    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....030811.asp

  17. IF you ID cats are willing to regard yourselves as being persecuted you have already lost the battle. He who regards himself as being persecuted is either a masochist or a damn fool. Attack the swine. Butcher them with undeniable facts. Destroy them wherever you find them and stop whining. It pleases them and makes me irritable.

    “Don’t give your life for your country. Make that other poor bastard give his life for his country.”
    General George S. Patton, with Albert Einstein and myself a convinced predestinationist. One of these decades we will be joined by others.

    “Carry the battle to them. Don’t ever let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and never apologize for anything.”
    Harry S. Truman

    “I never did give them hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.”
    ibid

    As for all the Darwimpian noise:

    “The saying is true ‘The empty vessel makes the greatest sound’.”
    Shakespeare, Henry V

  18. I don’t find Intelligent Design to be a challenge to naturalism at all. (Methodological or philosophical) If we can put together testable theories of design, then we are using the scientific method, aka methodological naturalism. Intelligent Design will never get off the ground so long as it makes itself an enemy of the scientific method.

    I think that ID has gathered some dogmatic opposition because of the philosophical implications. Mostly, they see ID as christian religion dressed up, but I think a few of them realize (those that make argument about poor design) that it couldn’t really be about the christian religion at all. (Ken Miller) Those who argue in favor of intelligent design by the argument of “common design” are also not talking about a being of infinite capeability. Similarity of design via a “common palette” are marks of design by finite beings. No one wants to conclude that, and so we even have religious people opposed to ID.

    But we must follow the evidence where it leads…

    DaveScot, you should probably put your name on the Comment Moderation Policy page, because as it is written, it looks like Bill Dembski wrote it.

  19. MattDean,
    I don’t think we are born atheists. Aren’t all Darwinists atheists, and does not Darwinism lay the “foundation” for any true atheist, e.g. Dawkins? Thus all atheists are Darwinists and vice versa. Thus if we are all born atheists I conclude that we are all born Darwimpians like Dr. Davison calls them. This is of course, if my logical reasoning upholds, wrong. I must disagree.

  20. ID has gained opposition because it was presented as a question subject to debate and, even worse, somethimg that could only be inferred. It is as plain as the nose on ones face and to have offered it up for debate was a strategic error for which its exponents are still paying a price.

  21. There is something decidedly odd about the poll which is quoted.
    2/3 of those polled believe either that evolution occured without the guidance of God, or that humans were created as they are now; and at the same time 2/3 of those polled say that it is possible to believe in evolution and God. Weird.

    They said it was possible to believe both, not that they personally believed both. Poorly worded question. -ds

  22. So it would seem that the majority of those who believe that we were created as we are now, find the idea of God-guided evolution a respectable one. They are thus open in principle to the idea of theistic evolution. Interesting.

    The question is really too poorly worded to conclude much except 66% believe it possible to simultaneously believe in God and evolution. I’m surprised it’s not closer to 100% because I think just about everyone knows there ARE people who believe both. Thus it is proven possible to believe both. The question should have been worded “Is it possible that God and evolution are both true?” I think that’s what they meant to ask. -ds

Leave a Reply