We like to think of science as a neutral enterprise with
scientists just following where the evidence leads. The presuppositions of scientists are often
unspoken and rarely even considered.
Thomas Kuhn wrote an influential book in 1963 titled “The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. Kuhn pointed out that scientists do their work
within a specific paradigm. During those
rate times of rapid scientific change, the paradigm also changes. During “normal” (i.e. slow, progressive
change) scientists work entirely with the given paradigm. Kuhn writes “When scientists share a paradigm
they do not just agree on certain scientific propositions, the agree also on
how future scientific research in their field should proceed, on which problems
are the pertinent one to tackle, on what the appropriate methods for solving
those problems are, on what acceptable solution of the problems would look like
and so on. “ In the book Philosophy
of Science, A Very Short Introduction the author S. Okasha writes “Above
all, Kuhn stressed that normal scientists are not trying to test the
paradigm. On the contrary, they accept
the paradigm unquestioningly and conduct their research within the limits it
sets.” Mr. Okasha writes “The paradigm
itself is non-negotiable”. Evidence for
this is in the emerging field of Intelligent Design (ID). Today’s mainstream scientific paradigm is
macro evolution and anything outside of that is dismissed without a second
glance. This is despite the fact a growing
minority of scientists have serious doubts about Darwinian evolution and
that at least 50 peer-review articles
have already been published that support Intelligent Design. In my previous blogs I have given a quick
overview with references pointing to evidence of ID. Yet with all this accumulating evidence most
academic biologists irrationally resort to anger and name calling. They call the research ID religious
creationism even though ID uses empirical evidence only and does not refer to
any religious tradition or text. Those
researchers who do not have tenure at Universities support ID only at their
peril of being fired from their position.
See the podcast Evolution’s
Glass Ceiling to learn more about this. Thomas Kuhn’s theory of how science works is
being played out before our very eyes.
Scientists do not necessarily follow to where the evidence leads if it
leads out of the current scientific paradigm.
This creates a degree of frustration for ID researchers but should not
come as a surprise. To repeat, “The
paradigm itself is non-negotiable”.
To learn more about Intelligent Design, here are some web
links
No comments:
Post a Comment