Science is about following the evidence
...wherever it may lead: Is that true?

by Terry Novich


 

Science is About Following the Evidence ...wherever it may lead: Is that true today?
 

It may not surprise you to learn that in the scientific world of today the evolutionary, naturalistic, materialistic viewpoint is the only permissible viewpoint.


To explain; evolution is about increase of information at a cellular level, over millions of years, so that one cell ultimately became all living things (the biosphere.) Naturalism is a point of view that says the world can be understood in scientific terms only. And, materialism says everything is made of matter and dependent upon matter. Matter is everything around you: It is your chocolate pudding, that computer screen, the air around you, and yes - even you.

However, there are some points about this worldview you should consider. I’ve included here a telling statement from the prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin:

“We take the side of [evolutionary, naturalistic, materialistic] 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 [“a priori” means an assumed belief held prior to], [and that a priori is] to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive...” 1
 
Going by this description, today’s ‘science’ hasn’t anything to do with ‘following the evidence wherever it may lead’. It’s clear that, just like the rest of humanity, the materialistic scientists have their own assumed beliefs, and it is those beliefs (and not the facts) that slant everything towards a materialistic explanation.

Stephen Jay Gould, the late paleontologist, made the following candid observation, “Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.”2

Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University said, “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”3

The scientist must exclude any evidence that leads away from a naturalistic conclusion: To put that another way, they are not to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.

As Dr. Don Batten (CEO, CMI Australia) said "A philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it."4

So, we can conclude that - because of today’s evolutionary, naturalistic, materialistic viewpoint - conventional scientists are all about following the evidence...so long as the evidence can be made to fit within their own worldview!



References:
1.    Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.
2.    Stephen Jay Gould, 1994, Natural History103(2):14.
3.    Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.
4.    Don Batten, ‘It’s not science’, creation.com, Published: 28 February 2002 (GMT+10) Revised 18 September 2014


Why is evolutionary 'just-so' story-telling tolerated?