Can Scientists be Trusted to Tell the Truth? Part I

Today is our 1000th post since our beginning on January 18, 2010, just over three years ago

Continuing with the last post, the question remains, can scientists—archaeologists, anthropologists—those who dig in the ground and evaluate the social development of pre-historical events and people—be trusted in their evaluation and pronouncements? The answer lies in the scientists themselves, and what they think, believe, and want to promote. Scientists mainly like to think of themselves as having a worldview, one that is above the supernatural, unprovable, and illogical. They think of themselves as dealing strictly in the reality of the provable, the known, the measurable. 

As support for their anti-supernatural, atheistic worldviews, these scientists need mechanisms for the origin of life, especially humans—thus, atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a creator. If one starts with Darwinism, certainly it is an easy way for them to escape from any obligation to God. The problem lies in those opposed to their reasoning are branded by them as obscurantists who are trying to intrude religion into science—the point being in shutting up any opposition!

Yet, one wonders why, with all the evidence, the Godless theory of evolution still persists. A recent Gallup poll showed that only 15% of Americans believe that the human species evolved from a lower form of life, and 78% believe that God formed man; and 46% believe that man was formed in the last 10,000 years. It is also revealing that in this survey, the 15% who did not accept God and felt man evolved over millions of years of less advanced forms of life seldom, if ever, went to church and that they attended post-graduate schools. Gallup, who conducts this poll about religion frequently, concluded the report stating: “Despite the many changes that have taken place in American society and culture over the past 30 years, including new discoveries in biological and social science, there has been virtually no sustained change in Americans' views of the origin of the human species since 1982.”

One major reason why this Godless part of science hangs on is that many scientists have a vested interest in this theory— career achievements would become meaningless, jobs would be forfeit, a huge loss of face would result, text books would need to be eliminated or revised, and numerous other problems would occur.

As one scientist put it: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the 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 scientists to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that they are forced by their a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated—and that materialism is an absolute, for “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

It might be said, as did Prospero to Miranda in Shakespeare's The Tempest: "What seest thou else in the dark backward and abysm of time?" To the scientist, rightly or wrongly, it can only be answered one way, the evolution of all things.

An interesting example of this is shown in an article entitled “The Biologist,” that ran February 17, 2000, in the Lynchburg, Virginia, Ledger, written by Columnist George Caylor. In the conversation printed between Caylor and a Biologist he interviewed, the following was said in the course of the interview about the complexity of human code:

George: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

Biologist: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

George: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"

Biologist: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living."

George: "I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest."

Biologist: "The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room."

George: "What elephant?"

Biologist: "Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!"

A very large number of scientists, if not most, know this and find themselves working within its parameters in order to practice their profession, which requires funding, contracts, computer time, and tenure. So despite the nature of scientists to present their material in an agenda-based manner, the reality of life, of investigation, of pre-history itself gives us an entirely different picture. Experience after experience has been printed, discovery after discovery has been made, knowledge upon knowledge has been gained, all showing contrary evidence to such things as the Geologic Column, the evolutionary time scale, and biologic evolution—many were listed in the last post, and many more are available.

In addition, despite the impression science textbooks give, brilliant new ideas are not always welcomed or even given fair consideration. Politics intervene as often as logic. Scientists are humans first, scientists second. In one way or another, bias and presuppositions affect every scientist's theories, priorities, research, methods, decisions and interpretations. Whether it be molecules, test results, or rocks, evidence cannot evaluate, prioritize, or interpret itself. The scientist suggests meanings for evidence. The scientist interprets the information, based on his or her beliefs, and then builds theories upon it.

To clarify this, the fossil of any ancient extinct animal can be used as an example. A fossil is a material fact having dimensions, texture, weight and shape. However, that is all it is, just a particular hard object with shape. Detailed illustrations and colorful descriptions of long-extinct animals and their origins, which are based merely on fossils are not ultimate truth. They are only the fallible, biased interpretations of human beings working with limited knowledge and no direct experience with the living animal.

(Image D – Fossils come with no label detailing its true significance and meaning. There are no attached photographs of the living animal showing its actual appearance, color, habits, environment or ancestors 
Rocks and fossils are obviously facts. But labels such as “Cambrian,” “Cretaceous,” and the like are interpretations. There are no “time machines” to transport scientists into the past. Thus, in many ways, science is very limited in what it can know with certainty about the ancient past. In all descriptions of origins, one must be very careful to discern between fact and fiction and between reality and philosophical belief.
Thus, it is not a matter of trust toward the scientist that is the issue, it is strictly the data being presented and the scientist’s (hidden) agenda in presenting the information in that manner or with that interpretation. If the scientist has an atheist worldview, then the information being presented is suspect for it will reflect an atheist approach and understanding of the data. If the scientist is being driven by a hidden agenda of altering the data to conform to the atheist worldview, then it is just as suspect.
The answer to all of this is simply one’s own research and understanding of the science behind the scientist’s interpretation of the data being presented. In that sense, then, the information cannot be trusted anymore than the scientist presenting it.