I have noticed that scientists who are the most stubbornly intolerant of the opinions of others within their field also tend to be intolerant of those outside of their field as well. Some who are dry-minded, and apparently sober in their contemplations, tend to make the following dismissive arguments for why scientists are superior to “religious” folk:
- Scientists defer to facts and evidence.
- Scientists defer to logic and reason.
- Scientists enjoy being proven wrong.
That is, until you question their guiding paradigm. Then strait-laced and calculating scientists become the most fact–allergic people on the planet, they close their minds to new arguments, and they judge ideas based on prior theoretical expectations, rather than data and evidence.
In reality, fact-allergic scientists are not much different than fact-allergic politicians, fact-allergic racial bigots, or anyone else who is stubbornly intolerant of others whose evidence-based point of view might differ from their own. What makes bigoted scientists special is that they are educated in today’s STEM-exalting world to believe that they are supremely righteous in their doctrines and beliefs. They are quick to align on particular topics, and repeat simple messages that promote their worldview.
Compared to openly religious people, however, prudish scientists often claim to be open minded and happy to be proven wrong, while behaving exactly the opposite. Religious people, on the other hand, are often happy to accept a distinction between their own “personal truth” and “objective truth.”
Unfortunately, many scientists today, especially evolutionists, cannot distinguish their own personal truth from objective truth. Instead, they are often conditioned to accept certain doctrines, which they jealously safeguard through rites of passage and rituals, like Ph. D. exams and peer review. They often never question what they learned, until it is questioned by someone else—at which point they become defensive.
Luckily, both science and religion have a way to deal with bigotry. According to a new rendition of an ancient Norse religion (Fig. 1), if you live a life devoted to enlightenment and fighting bigotry, you may be led by valkyries back to Valhalla after you die. There, you will loosen your mind with beer and prosseco, and await the events of Ragnarok, which involve an epic Beer Bike that leads to the death of gods Odin and Thor, and repopulation of a decimated world by the most creative types. In contrast, if you live a life devoted to bigotry, you will never see Valhalla again!
Fig. 1. Within Vallhalla, ideological diversity is celebrated, and new ideas are carefully nursed with prosecco and beer, in anticipation of the events of Ragnarok, when the most creative types will rise again. In this mythical realm of an ancient Rice University tradition, all of the proceeds of an underground Valhalla bar go to open-minded symposia and Ragnarok events. (A) Valhalla. (B) Events of Ragnarok.
Although religions have various ways to deal with bigotry, including denying access to Valhalla, within science, bigotry is dealt with by new students—the saviors of science. New students are the saviors of science because they have the potential to take up speculative new frameworks as the basis for hypothetico-deductive research, and enjoy the long-term fruits of their new investigations.
Evolutionists today often take Professor Squandermind’s deal, and forego even a basic education in philosophy and history to advance their careers as quickly as possible. How can those who do not even know Valhalla exists open their minds? One way is to buzz adjacent realms with probing questions. Consider the following questions.
Creationists often ask:
“Do you believe in God?”
While evolutionists often ask,
“Do you believe in Evolution?”
The Valhalla-denying qualities of both questions can be seen by considering alternatives:
“Do you believe in the particular god that I believe in (e.g., Jesus), or some other god(s) (e.g. Odin or Thor), or are you agnostic, and why?”
or,
“Do you believe in the particular theory of evolution that I believe in (e.g., that assumes natural selection is the only deterministic force), or some other theory of evolution, or are you agnostic, and why?”
The former questions assume the person asking it already knows the answer. The latter questions indicate the person actually wants to know somebody else’s perspective.
Likewise, an evolutionist might title his book,
“Why evolution is true (Coyne 2010).”
With a succinct summary,
“Allows the reader to understand all the evidence, drawn from diverse areas of modern science, which supports Darwinian evolution…(and) dispels common misunderstandings about what evolution is: whether it is a fact or ‘only’ a theory and what its implications are for human culture and for our sense of purpose and meaning.”
While a more accurate title might be,
“Why microevolution is the whole truth.”
And a succinct summary would be,
“The consequences of extrapolating from microevolution to macroevolution, even though microevolutionary processes do not explain any major progressive or advancing trends of evolution, and the history of life shows such trends; and the consequences of deriving purpose and meaning from extrapolating a half-truth.”
The latter title and the concise summary statement are more humble because they demonstrate the assumptions and limitations of the current theory of evolution, and they do not confuse a theory with a fact.
Bigotry is the enemy of discovery and enlightenment in both science and religion. So I say: fight bigotry, return to Valhalla, liberate your mind, and await the events of Ragnarok!
References
Coyne, J. 2010. Why evolution is true. Oxford: Oxford University Press.