Anti-science or Anti-naturalism?
A Reuters news article today bemoans the “anti-science” sentiment that is supposedly pervading America. Some poor scientists are having a “crisis of confidence”. Once again, unfortunately, the authorities quoted have it all wrong. There is no overwhelming “anti-science” sentiment. There is, however, a rising anti-naturalism sentiment. America has tolerated this bipartate reality of science and faith for about as long as it can stand. Cornell acting president Hunter Rawlings, in his “state of the university” address last week, made an outstandingly insightful remark:
When ideological division replaces informed exchange, dogma is the result and education suffers.
I doubt, however, he gained much insight from his own statement. It is not the ID community that is shunning informed exchange. The idealogues are the naturalistic Darwinists who refused to allow Darwin’s theory to be questioned. Design theorists do not at all mind discussing Darwinism. They simply want both the strengths and weaknesses on the table for discussion.
The public is aware that a naturalistic explanation of complex organisms has fallen short in many areas. They believe Darwinism oversteps its bounds when it claims to prove more than it does. If scientists wish to gain the support of the public, perhaps they should refrain from such statements as this one made by Richard Dawkins in a 1989 New York Times review:
It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).
Now, most everyone believes in some type of evolution (change over time), but not the naturalistic, chance-driven dogma presented by Darwinists. I must be ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked…or maybe just not willing to grant Darwinism the untouchable status that naturalists believe it deserves.
No, the United States is not becoming hostile to science. They are, however, no longer willing to blindly submit themselves to a group of scientists who view them as ignorant, stupid, or insane when those scientists themselves are not even able to critically evaluate and question their own dogmas, such as the a priori exclusion of intelligent design.