Creationist accusations of bias against scientists

[micatala]

Those who follow the creationism versus evolution debate have undoubtedly seen claims on the part of those who support creationism that evolutionary biologists or those who accept evolution are biased. Various specific accusation are made:

1. Evolutionary scientists have so bought into their scientific paradigm that they cannot or will not consider evidence or arguments to the contrary.

2. Evolutionary scientists are specifically biased against religion, or at least particular religious beliefs.

3. Related to 2, it is often suggested that the main reason or motivation for the development of evolutionary theory is specifically to discredit religion or the Bible.

4. The bias is such that it consitutes religions discrimination, particularly with respect to what is taught in the public schools. This accusation is sometimes accompanied by the declaration that 'evolution is a religion.'

The general question for debate is whether there is anything to these accusations.

More specifically, we can debate the following questions independently I think.

1. Are evolutionary biologists biased against considering other paradigms or theories?

2. Are creationist teachers and others who have allegedly lost their jobs or suffered some other harm the victims of either viewpoint bias or religious discrimination?

3. Assuming there is documented bias against creationists or creationism, is this justified?

I'm adding question 3 since, even though we often think of discrimination as 'bad', we may find that the weight of the evidence actually justifies some instances of discrimination. Certainly the Bush administration has tried to make the case, for example, that discriminating with respect to young male Arabs in designing security policies and processes is justified.

The Catholic Church practices discrimination against women and gays with respect to appointing clergy. Many churches and faith-based organizations are likely to have a bias against hiring or appointing non-theists to certain positions, or even allowing them as members.

This question came up recently in the Hen's Teeth thread.

This link was offered as evidence for such bias, and I offer it here as exhibit A to get the discussion started.

[rigadoon]

There's certainly no evidence that Forrest Mims is not interested in the pursuit of truth.

Notice, though, I said "scientific truth" which means that I'm referring to the "truth" that science produces about the world.

Truth is truth. And the discussion thread "Is science true?" agreed that science is not pursuing truth.

[micatala]

harvey1 wrote:

rigadoon wrote:
There's certainly no evidence that Forrest Mims is not interested in the pursuit of truth.

Notice, though, I said "scientific truth" which means that I'm referring to the "truth" that science produces about the world.

Truth is truth. And the discussion thread "Is science true?" agreed that science is not pursuing truth.

Although I haven't followed the 'Is Science True?' thread much, I would agree with the conclusion, and think we would have the same understanding at least to some extent.

In my view, science does not provide 'absolute truth' in the sense that scientific statements can be taken as 100% true for all time, except for basic statements of fact like "no evidence has yet been found of dinosaur and human fossils occurring in the same undisturbed sedimentary layer" and similar statements.

However, the same is really true in all areas of knowledge. Certainly the history of religious statements shows, I believe, that no religious statement that people have made can be taken as undeniably true. I think this is true even if you accept that the Bible is not the work of men, but the work of God.

Now, I am not saying I do not believe there is an absolute truth in either case, only that as finite human beings, we will never be able to obtain complete and infallible truth. We can only do our best to get to what I might call the best approximation of the truth.

However, if we constantly split hairs in our statements and qualified every statement with "we currently understand X to be the best approximation of the truth we have" and try to put some confidence level on it, we would get bogged down. WHen I say "evolution is true" what I mean is that most of the aspects of this theory are so well-supported and so unlikely to be false, that we can say we have a very close approximation of the truth we a very high degree of confidence.

Now, can and should people be free tosuggest and discuss alternative explanations for evolution or any other scientific theory?

Of course. When this happens, we can consider the evidence and see if either explanation can be shown to be false, or perhaps just very unlikely, or if it can be shown to at least be consistent with all the evidence we have.

Now, when a group of people like those I would call 'professional creationists' (e.g. Duane Gish, Kent Hovind, etc.) put forward an explanation that can be shown to be inconsistent with a vast amount of data, and professional scientists critique these explanations and then dismiss them by analyzing the arguments and weighing them against the evidence, I don't see that it is fair to accuse the scientists of bias.

In the present circumstance, we have a group that has continued to put forward the same or very similar explanations to those that have been discredited time and time again. Now, science does not depend on credibility, but it is fair to say that Gish and his ilk have been so obstinate in putting forward discredited explanations and statements that they have lost all credibility. Given this track record, how is it unreasonable for scientists to ignore statements from this group, or at least be very suspicious of statements from such groups or those affiliated with them?

Now, Mims does not seem to me to be a 'professional creationist', but by holding views similar to those of professional creationists, he is associating himself in some sense with those who could be legitimately considered 'anti-science.' Would it be wise for a publication like Scientific American to hire such a person?

It would be analgous to an Evangelical Christian magazine like Charisma hiring someone who had written quality articles on theology or spirituality or Christianity, but who professed to be an atheist or an agnostic. His or her articles, standing on their own merits, might show good scholarship and insight, or be perceived as inspirational, and be informative to the readers of Charisma. However, Charisma would surely face a firestorm of criticism and a loss of circulation were this person's religious views to become public. Would we accuse Charisma of 'bias' or ' unfair discrimination' in such a circumstance?

[harvey1]

Truth is truth. And the discussion thread "Is science true?" agreed that science is not pursuing truth.

Sorry, I didn't follow that thread. However, in my opinion, scientific truth is a label that should at least evoke the notion that we aren't talking fiction. However, it ought not evoke all particular notions of truth either (e.g., mathematical truth). The notion it evokes should be specific to the successes and limitations of science--i.e., utilizing the methodologies of science.

[harvey1]

It would be analgous to an Evangelical Christian magazine like Charisma hiring someone who had written quality articles on theology or spirituality or Christianity, but who professed to be an atheist or an agnostic. His or her articles, standing on their own merits, might show good scholarship and insight, or be perceived as inspirational, and be informative to the readers of Charisma. However, Charisma would surely face a firestorm of criticism and a loss of circulation were this person's religious views to become public. Would we accuse Charisma of 'bias' or ' unfair discrimination' in such a circumstance?

I would agree to some extent, however how would your opinion change if the issue was the hiring on an academic position in a biology department at an esteemed public university receiving government funding? Do you think that a person's position on evolutionary theory (e.g., an anti-position because it is against their religion) as reason not to hire them? Keep in mind they will use the name of that university to show that their creationist views are becoming mainstream science.

[micatala]

What are the relevant differences in your view between the Charisma example and the esteemed biology department?

I don't see that the government funding necessarily makes a difference. If the person's views make it such that they could not participate in the research of the department, or teach biology according to the agreed upon mission of the department, then I think the department has legitimate grounds not to hire the person. It is only if they discriminated against the person because of religious views which could easily seen to be irrelevant to their job that I think there would be a problem.

I teach at a private university. We do not have any 'litmus tests' but we do have a sense of what we call 'institutional fit,' part of which includes at least the openness to discuss faith issues in an academic setting. We have hired atheists and do have non-theists on the faculty, but a person who was openly hostile to religious belief to such an extent that they were not amenable to having a reasonable discussion on faith issues would very likely not be hired.

[author@ptgbook.org]

More specifically, we can debate the following questions independently I think.

1. Are evolutionary biologists biased against considering other paradigms or theories?

Since biologists are schooled in the scientific method, and since the scientific method forbids consideration of any supernatural influence or cause in the explanation of any physical process, I don't see how evolutionary biologists can avoid being biased against the idea of creation.

Science is more than an area of knowledge. It is a culture, a community, and a way of thinking, and it is based on the scientific method. The scientific method is the basis for all reasoning that scientists are expected to employ in their work as scientists. Reasoning outside of the scientific method is not allowed by the scientific community.

I don't have a sample text handy that explains the scientific method, so I am going by memory as to what I was taught about it in school. There are a number of principles included in it, but one of them is that no supernatural explanation is to be considered in trying to understand the cause of a physical process or event.

If I am missing something, please tell me, but doesn't this mean that a biologist, in the course of his scientific work, in following the scientific method, cannot even consider the possibility that life in general and species and specific life forms in particular came into existence through a supernatural act of a creator God? And wouldn't that make the biologist biased against the concept of creation in his reasoning?

And wouldn't this tend to force scientists to accept evolution and try to fit every piece of evidence into the framework of evolution because in their minds there is no alternative? If you can't consider supernatural causes because the scientific method forbids it, what else can a scientist believe except evolution?

I think the scientific method works well in explaining physical laws that operate continuously, but is poorly equipped to explain origins of things. The reason it is not a good method for explaining the origins of life is that it requires acceptance, in advance of looking at evidence, that there is no creator God who created life supernaturally. Since the scientific method forbids consideration of supernatural causes, this is a required premise to be accepted, yet it is an assumption, unproved.

For this reason, I would think that there is an element of faith involved in evolutionary science, faith that there is no God who created life, which is an assumption that cannot be proved logically. This is a built-in bias against the idea of creation, which you cannot get rid of without changing the scientific method, or limiting its use to the study of repeatable processes, not using it to try to explain the origins of life.

[MagusYanam]

If you can't consider supernatural causes because the scientific method forbids it, what else can a scientist believe except evolution?

I think the scientific method works well in explaining physical laws that operate continuously, but is poorly equipped to explain origins of things. The reason it is not a good method for explaining the origins of life is that it requires acceptance, in advance of looking at evidence, that there is no creator God who created life supernaturally. Since the scientific method forbids consideration of supernatural causes, this is a required premise to be accepted, yet it is an assumption, unproved.

For this reason, I would think that there is an element of faith involved in evolutionary science, faith that there is no God who created life, which is an assumption that cannot be proved logically. This is a built-in bias against the idea of creation, which you cannot get rid of without changing the scientific method, or limiting its use to the study of repeatable processes, not using it to try to explain the origins of life.

I think I agree with everything you've just said... except the conclusion. I happen to be, myself, both a believer in God and a believer in the usefulness of the scientific method in exploring and explaining the natural world. However, as you say, there are some domains which science does not and cannot touch.

The existence and activities of God are two of these. God cannot be disproven by any scientific device put to his existence; therefore, God and his activities are not amenable to scientific methodology. God's realm is that of theology and philosophy - only his creatures are amenable to the scientific method. But it is for this very reason that a scientist can believe in God (as many do), while at the same time employing the scientific method in the confidence that it will work toward whatever may be disproven by it. And for the latter I think that, yes, life and life's history do qualify. One need only to look at the studies of archaeology, medicine and chemistry to realise that the scientific method applies.

[micatala]

Since biologists are schooled in the scientific method, and since the scientific method forbids consideration of any supernatural influence or cause in the explanation of any physical process, I don't see how evolutionary biologists can avoid being biased against the idea of creation.

Science is more than an area of knowledge. It is a culture, a community, and a way of thinking, and it is based on the scientific method. The scientific method is the basis for all reasoning that scientists are expected to employ in their work as scientists. Reasoning outside of the scientific method is not allowed by the scientific community.

I think you make reasonable points. Certainly it is reasonable to think that scientists might have a bias based on the assumptions underlying the scientific enterprise. A good scientist will at least implicitly acknowledge these assumptions, and thus understand that he is only giving the
best natural explanation he or she can for the evidence he or she finds.

However, I would disagree that though there is a tendency for scientists to deny the supernatural, this is not a hard and fast rule. Some scientists would say that the work they do is in the 'natural realm' but allow that there may be supernatural phenomenon and causes that are outside of their power to investigate as scientists. For example, Sir John Houghton recently appeared on Bill Moyers Faith and Reason program. You might find his half-hour segment interesting. He accepts the reality of the resurrection, but also the reality of biological and cosmic evolution.

The real issue is not whether each of us have our own biases, but the extent to which those biases effect our searches for truth. Creationists sometimes claim that since scientists have a 'naturalistic bias,' everything they say about natural phenomenon must be suspect. In particular, since scientists discount supernatural causes, therefore we must also suspect the natural explanations they give of the assumed natural phenomenon they study. Moreover, we should trust the creationist explanation more because it does not make these methodologically naturalistic assumptions.

This is an error, I believe, because it forgets the creationists own biases, and that the quality of work that most 'professional creationists' do is no where near as logical or of as high a quality as the scientists work.

The biases of scientists, whatever the may be, do not mean that they have not provided an accurate and reasonable explanation under the assumptions they are operating under. Now, if one does not want to accept these assumptions, that is fine. One then could investigate the evidence under a different set of assumptions.

However, if one allows super-natural explanations, there are several problems. The first is that finding evidence for supernatural interventions has proven very difficult. Unless one assumes that a particular event had a super-natural cause, I don't believe there is a single event in history that one can point to and unequivocally prove that 'this had a supernatural cause.' As far as we can tell from the evidence we have, anything God has done is essentially indistinguishable from what would have happened under natural causes.

In other words, since the natural explanations are consistent with the evidence, and super-natural explanations can always be simply assumed consistent with any evidence, there is really no way to pick, other than making an assumption.

Anyway, I think I have been pretty wordy here and perhaps not said this very well, but I will leave it at that for now.

[QED]

I think the scientific method works well in explaining physical laws that operate continuously, but is poorly equipped to explain origins of things. The reason it is not a good method for explaining the origins of life is that it requires acceptance, in advance of looking at evidence, that there is no creator God who created life supernaturally.

Not at all in my opinion. The scientific method can apply itself to the investigation of natural principles while suspending the question of a creator God -- seemingly indefinitely. It has yet to require any such acceptance (of there being no God) in all the explanatory work that I have seen. Just to give an example, I am quite convinced that natural logic and the properties of the chemical elements are sufficient to bring about life, but this doesn't say anything about the source of the logic/materials.

[author@ptgbook.org]

I think a scientist can be unbiased in his personal opinions and beliefs, but he would have a problem in his work as a scientist if he tried to publish a paper that sought to explain a piece of evidence in anything other than materialistic processes. Most people who believe in evolution probably believe that there is no physical evidence of special creation or intelligent design, and I am not claiming right now that there is, but suppose, just for the sake of discussion that there was. Suppose a scientist found physical evidence that he believed could only be explained by special creation, not evolution, something he thought disproved evolution. Could he publish? Would any respectable scientific publication accept a paper that proposed a creationist explanation for physical evidence? I don't think so. That kind of view would have to be rejected by the scientific community because of its violation of the scientific method. So the scientist could have any personal beliefs he wants as long as he keeps creationist ideas out of his work.

But that is a problem. You can't find truth and prove something by only looking at one side of an issue. You have to be willing to look impartially at both sides without bias at every stage of the investigation. But science cannot do that with the origin of life.

And when when evolution is taught to students, it is not taught as a scientific view that only considers non-creationist ideas, but it is taught as fact, something that is certain. Yet it has never been proved and cannot be proved in an atmosphere of bias.

As a non-scientist, I have never dug up a fossil or examined strata in the earth. I have never sequenced a segment of DNA. I have never applied carbon dating techniques to date any sample material. If I want to read about the evidence, it is all filtered through scientists who are required by their profession to fit the evidence into the evolutionary framework, whether that framework is proven or not.