Thought Police (aka "scientists")

"Science", if you can refer to such a broad concept as a single entity, has become an ideological bulwark. The establishment today has so long ago lost its roots that it has become what it once fought against: dogmatic metaphysical indoctrination.

Science, as a term, is simply the quest for knowledge and understanding. Technically, it isn't even the study of "truth"; rather it merely collects and arranges data. It is supposed to be very much like a trial judge: an impartial force with no investment in or desire for a certain conclusion. Just as a trial judge is not supposed to care which side wins or loses, science is not supposed to care what conclusions the data supports. In the words of Carl Sagan:

"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science."

Why, then, do we find ourselves in a very different situation? "Science", the establishment, has made it clear that any conclusions supporting creationism, christianity, teology, and many other concepts are not allowed. Wait a minute. That is not an impartial force with no investment in or desire for a certain conclusion. Therefore, I must conclude that these are not the words of science but rather the words of a dogmatic metaphysical system of thought. If the data at hand somehow did indicate that creationism was the best explanation for biological life, why is that not allowed? Where is the quest for knowledge if certain conclusions are ruled out a priori? The discrepancy is so blatant that I just summed it up in a single paragraph. What happened to science?

What if the data at hand indicated that humans have souls, that God does exist, that miracles have occurred, and that this world and universe were intelligently designed? Why should science care? It isn't supposed to prejudge. It doesn't work to simply say that science is the study of only physical things becuase that automatically assumes that nonphysical things can neither be studied nor can be the conclusion from physical study. Where is there evidence for such a conclusion? Science isn't supposed to care.

Take this quote from David Berlinski (not a creationist, by the way) in response to one of his critics:

"Paul R. Gross is anxious lest in criticizing Darwinian theory I give comfort to creationists. It is a common concern among biologists, but one, I must confess, to which I am indifferent. I do not believe biologists should be in the business of protecting the rest of us from intellectual danger."

How poignant a statement! When did science become our thought police? Why should science care what we believe or what we doubt?

It can only be concluded that the behavior of "science", the establishment, indicates an overarching worldview that they seek to enforce. Otherwise they honestly shouldn't care what the data indicates. I say this is a serious problem and gross waste of our society's time and money. Why does science care what we believe? That isn't its business.

Why should "science", the establishment, care if a certain school board wants to teach Intelligent Design? [Adam was waiting for my statement on this]. It isn't science's domain to tell us what to believe, only to present us with its findings. Why does science care if the data can be interpreted to support teleology? It isn't supposed to care if it really is impartialy seeking the truth, no matter what that truth might be. In fact, from this school board reaction, I can tell that science didn't even do its homework (not that it should have been involved in the first place). Even reading a single book on Intelligent Design shows that it strongly supports evolution. In fact, Intelligent Design theorists are primarily staunch evolutionists but not Darwinists; they see design and teleology as inherent properties of the natural world. Again, why should science care?

It really is time to grow up. I don't need thought police, do you?