The last PSSI post (see The Real Agenda below) indicated that science/academia has redefined the term “science” to exclude alternatives to Darwinian macroevolution (DME). This was done to exclude the growing body of scientific evidence against the prevailing theory. It thereby avoids the embarrassment of admitting what has been taught as fact for years is not supported by the scientific evidence but is actually under girded by a worldview (see the Dennett quote in the last posting). We see the results of this slight of hand in the well-know statement by Francis Crick in the November 1988 issue of Natural History: “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”
Why the artificial constraint by Crick and others? Because the science community artificially attempts to constrain the researcher to consider only natural causes for phenomena. This is particularly interesting in the United States, where through the year 2005 such a constraining (naturalism only) definition was contrary to the science standards set forth by each of the 50 states. The genesis (no pun intended) of this constraining definition of science occurred in 1982 at the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education trial, where Darwinist philosopher of science Michael Ruse testified, among other things, that science had to be explanatory by reference to natural law. His definition was incorporated into the judge’s decision, to the consternation of many scientists, including Darwinists. In Ruse’s own edited volume, But Is It Science (Prometheus Books, 1988, pg. 355), philosopher of science Larry Ludan stated: “The victory in the Arkansas case was hollow, for it was achieved only at the expense at perpetuating and canonizing false stereotypes of what science is and how it works.” Even Ruse himself indicated in 1993 in a speech at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that he had gone too far: “I as a philosopher of science am worried about what I think were fairly crude neo-positivistic attitudes that I had about science, even as much as ten years ago, when I was fighting in Arkansas.” But the damage was already done and those with an agenda driven by a secularist humanist worldview are certainly not anxious to right the wrong definition now codified in the legal system.
This constrained definition has been gleefully used in academia to shut down the valid debate about the veracity of Darwinian macroevolution. While that may seem like a strong statement, you certainly haven’t seen any protest from the major science organizations or academia of this bogus definition of science. In fact, you see the opposite, with those in academia daring to question DME often becoming the victims of persecution, including the denial of warranted tenure and/or the termination of employment. This was manifested in the Dover, PA trial in 2005, where this definition was used once again to rule that non-naturalistic explanations for phenomena are not scientific. It acceptance in academia was evident in PSSI’s inaugural event in September 2006 at the University of South Florida, where in the Q&A session one of the questioners stated that the information being presented by the PhD scientists on the podium was interesting, but was outside the definition of science!
Fortunately, artificial constraints on science, while certainly making it difficult to perform pertinent research, will not stop true science from moving forward. Issac Newton faced such constraints on science in the mid-17th century and the same can be said for the “Big Bang” cosmological model in the early 20th century. The unfortunate monolith of the “consensus of scientists” has frequently been a barrier to following the scientific evidence wherever it leads. Fortunately, the facts after a time invariably overcome the intransigence of science and academia. So DME will eventually collapse as its metaphysical supports and “just so stories” are one by one demonstrated to not comport with the evidence.