Is Science Objective?

David A. Plaisted

The question arises, why do so many scientists support evolution, if the evidence for it is so weak? There are a number of answers for this. One is that science is so complicated that no one individual can be an expert in everything and so most people rely on the opinions of others and on accepted scientific theory. Another reason is that for one who rejects a belief in God, evolution (or extraterrestrial intervention) is the only possibility. Add to this the fear among scientists that creationists have a political agenda to take over society. Furthermore, a scientist who openly espouses creation may be placing his or her career at risk. Another problem is that it is difficult for one who is not accepted by the establishment to obtain sufficient technical fluency to be able to handle all of the complex issues involved in the discussion, so it is difficult to mount an effective response to evolution. We should not be surprised, therefore, at the naivite of some creationist arguments (such as that the earth expanded, or that a solid ice canopy once surrounded the earth). Finally, one who is not a part of the establishment is less likely to be accepted by the public. Despite all of these problems, many Bible believing Christians do believe in a recent creation of life. The eagerness with which the scientific community and, to some extent, the public accepted early evidences for evolution (such as the Piltdown fraud) does give reason to question whether the scientific community today is completely objective. My interaction with talk.origins and the tremendous hostility to creation shown there has also caused me to question the objectivity of the scientific establishment. It is not that individual scientists are (for the most part) deliberately falsifying the evidence, but the whole system tends to bias its interpretation in favor of evolution.

Back to home page.