B5006-1 Reasoning: Scientific Facts

Scientific Facts: It may be pure speculation on my part to suppose that progress in science, generally, is hampered by the psychology of remembered “facts.” In particular, a rigidly held belief in some particular aspect of science, e.g., Darwinian evolution, may prevent a scientist from looking at his scientific inquiries with the necessary objectivity to determine the actual truth. His elaborately constructed world view may not be capable of the requisite deconstruction needed to accommodate a newer, more descriptive, conceptualization of science. Even when confronted with the overwhelming statistical logic of a William Dembski, for example, or the compelling biochemical evidence compiled by a Michael Behe, the dyed-in-the-wool Darwinian, such as Richard Dawkins, cannot admit that his concept of evolution is fatally - and ineluctably - flawed: “Dawkins...asserts that ‘biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.’ He refers to living beings as ‘designoid’ objects. ‘Designoid objects look designed,’ Dawkins contends, ‘so much so that some people - probably, alas, most people - think they are designed. These people are wrong.’ ” (Dan Peterson. “The Little Engine That Could Undo Darwinism,” The American Spectator, June 2005, p. 37.) It is difficult for me personally to imagine a more arrogant statement than Dawkins’s statement that “these people are wrong.” On what objective basis can he make such a statement? That he believes in materialism with such blind and obstinate conviction that absolutely no non-materialistic explanation has even the possibility of being true? Good Heavens! Where does this person get off?