Warning Against the Fundamentalists of Scientism

I have long warned that some are attempting to turn science from a method of obtaining and applying knowledge, into a belief system known as scientism. I am not the only one who has noticed. From a column about debate tactics employed before a recent vote in the House of Commons to permit human/animal cloned hybrids and designer children, "Beware Scientists Who Think They Know Everything," published in the UK's Daily Mail:

Huge issues are being debated, deep emotions are involved and firmly rooted beliefs are lined up on either side. Indeed, seldom has more tolerance and understanding of contrary views been required.

But instead of tolerance, the debates have been marked by bigotry, zealotry and a refusal to accept that contrary views can have any validity at all. What's more, this gross intolerance has not come from the ranks of politicians, who make a profession of denigrating their opponents, or the religious, who have a rich history of persecuting dissenters.

Shamefully, the worst offenders have been the scientists and their supporters, the very people who make the loudest claims to rationality and of being swayed by facts not fundamentalism.

It's absolutely true. And many of these same propagandists are the most willing to play fast and loose with the facts--as we've often discussed here at SHS.

This is an important issue that needs more attention. Some of the very people who castigate religion are busy creating their own, complete with high priests whose word cannot be gainsaid.

Jail Politicians Who "Ignore Science"

The shamans of scientisim are growing increasingly strident. Yesterday, we discussed advocacy for creating a world authoritarianism to impose scientific consensus policies about global warming. Apparently, Dr. David Suzuki, the Canadian geneticist turned television star, has opined that politicians be jailed for violating the scientific consensus on global warming. From the story:

He urged today's youth to speak out against politicians complicit in climate change, even suggesting they look for a legal way to throw our current political leaders in jail for ignoring science--drawing rounds of cheering and applause. Suzuki said that politicians, who never see beyond the next election, are committing a criminal act by ignoring science.

If people decide to pursue draconian environmental policies through democratic means, that is one thing. But imposing the "scientific consensus" through authoritarianism or jailing politicians who don't follow "the scientists" in lockstep is quite another. I repeat: Those who wish to create a scientocracy--which increasingly seems akin to theocracy--can go jump in the lake.

The Corruption of Science by "The Scientists"

The embryonic stem cell/human cloning debates are not about science. They are about ethics and morality and the proper parameters, if any, to place around the incredibly powerful biotechnological sector. Some of us have long contended that the science intelligentsia want a blank check--both ethically and financially--to pursue these agendas unconstrained by checks and balances or ethical limits.

The response by some who want to do human cloning has been diatribe, that not only pooh-poohs serious ethical concerns, but also corrupts science by mutating it into a postmodern enterprise where facts don't matter--narratives do. And it results in some real whoppers denying basic biological truths.

A case in point is dissected in today's First Things blog in a piece written by Ryan T. Anderson, a Christian bioethicist, and Maureen Condic, a scientist with the University of Utah. Their target is Princeton University biologist Lee Silver--and boy do they give it to him good. They quote Silver as stating that there is no essential biological difference between a skin cell and an embryo, and asserting that those who refuse to see that are merely religious ignoramuses.

Silver's assertion is junk biology that would cause a high school student to fail if written in a test. Ryan and Condic reply:

The view--held by almost everyone irrespective of their moral opinions--that embryos are fundamentally different from other cells, has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the scientific evidence. To draw any moral conclusions on how embryos should be treated--be it from a religious or a secular ethical standpoint--one first has to answer the question What is an embryo? Only by settling what an embryo is--a question of biological fact, not theological speculation--can one determine an embryo’s moral status and what interest God and society might (or might not) have in protecting it or permitting it to be killed to benefit others. Our disagreement with Silver is over the scientific evidence. It has nothing to do with religion.

To prove their point, they quote an embryology text book:

The chapter on human development in Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud's The Developing Human begins with this sentence: "Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell--a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." Or their definition of embryo: "The developing human during its early stages of development." And consider their definition of the term zygote: "This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm during fertilization. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)”

This is really indisputable. But some scientists have left that enterprise behind as they pursue ideology as subjective as religion, but still call it "science." Such scientism corrupts science, properly understood. Ryan and Condic's article is too long to quote further here. But check it out. They take Silver down several pegs. And he deserves it.