Normally I am not one to be interested in the whole creation vs. evolution debate. I find that the most important parts of the creation story are not scientific, but rather philosophical and theological. It is those ideas that I ponder from time to time - not whether or not the earth is "old or "young". Still, one cannot listen to NPR, or read the newspapers today without finding out about the whole "intelligent design" debate going on in schools and universities, and it is those scientific questions that are always discussed. Political questions, such as with the separation of Church and State - are also raised, but they do not concern me here.
Recently I was listening to the Diane Rehm Show on NPR ("Nationalist" Public Radio, as they say), in which she took on this topic. It was quite interesting. She had about about three guests, one of whom was the president of Stanford Medical School. Numerous points were raised during the program. One was that "science is under attack" in America, and that there is a growing "anti-science" movement. Another was that religion does has a place in public life, but that it should not overlap with science. Overall, listening to the guests discuss the issues underscored how there are more important foundational questions and assumptions that are not even part of the debate.
First, scientists (When I say "scientists" in this post I am thinking of those on the DR Show that day in particular) who oppose intelligent design seem to be annoyed that people other than scientists are daring to probe the questions of human origins and to take part in the debate at all, despite their platitudes about religion being a part of public life. What they need to understand is that there are fields other than science that have an interest in human origins, so they should not be surprised that people of faith are trying to see how the two overlap and relate to each other. It would be like a theologian just flatly writing off any insights that science may bring to the table regarding ethics. Most fields of study overlap at some point. To deny that, or severely downplay it, is not very accurate or intellectually honest. These scientists need to seriously acknowledge the insights that people from other fields bring to the table, and not be offended when others outside of their field join in the debate.
Second, these scientists clearly have little to no philosophical training. Yet the debate is to a great extent a philosophical one, at least as much as it is religious and scientific. The scientists are not aware of some very basic philosophical issues at stake, such as the problems of inductive reasoning raised by David Hume, the nature of evidence, and more. Hume undermined the validity of scientific reasoning by stating that there is no reason to suppose that the future will be like the past. So scientific theories are really just that: theories. Thomas Kuhn's book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, brings to light the mercurial nature of scientific progress in general, and how science is not a long, organic development, but "progresses" in radical leaps and bounds, with new theories many times completely eradicating a previously held theory or idea. They also presume that scientists are completely unbiased in their work. But all people are biased. A very basic philosophical principle is that there are no brute facts. All that we experience is filtered through our presuppositions and assumptions. Scientists have been known to fake results of studies, be bought off (e.g. the people at NIH a year or so ago who were being paid by drug companies, and the South Korean cloning fraud recently uncovered), and bring their own personal convictions into their work (e.g. Alfred Kinsey). So their false neutrality, and their complete ignorance of hermeneutics is highly problematic. Also, the scientists presume that because there is supposedly a majority consensus on traditional evolution that it is therefore true. This is known as the "tyranny of the 51%" - something is right or allowable because of more people believe it. How would they like it if we approached their other theories and discoveries that way? Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. I could go on, but you get the point. The debate would be much more productive if they had some people trained in the philosophy of science involved.
If these two items - openness to the insights from other areas of study, and acknowledgment of the philosophical issues at stake - were brought into the debate it would be much more productive, I think. These scientists can whine and complain about a so-called anti-science movement (I really don't see one myself), but they need to realize that science cannot give us all of the answers in life. Everyone else is smart enough to realize that, it seems. Just because one can mix chemicals, has the periodic table memorized, or can remove a spleen doesn't mean that he or she has an olympian knowledge of the world.
