Philip E. Johnson wrote an excellent essay called "How can we tell Science from Religion?"
http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/scirel98.htm
In it, he makes the case that many people with outstanding credentials who call themselves scientists deliberately exclude testable hypotheses due to their a-priori commitment to materialism. That this is the case can be established clearly by quotes from the scientists themselves, including my favorite quote from Richard Lewontin, which is included in Johnson's essay.
Some evolutionists and scientists admit that they take this a-priori stance and defend it with objections to doing otherwise. Based only on the posts I've read, here are the typical objections which seem to appear most often on this board:
1. OBJECTION: To postulate a creator is to postulate the supernatural, which leaves the realm of science and enters the realm of religion. You cannot mix the two because science can only discover, test and confirm natural causes, not supernatural causes.
When the discussion involves evolution, the objection is usually this variation of the previous objection.
2. VARIATION: You cannot refute evolution by arguing that abiogenesis is impossible because abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
The variation (2) simply pretends that what you assume about creation or abiogenesis has nothing to do with how you study evolution. But this is one of the most dangerous attitudes a scientist can adopt. If you dismiss the possibility of the supernatural or arbitrarily separate abiogenesis vs. creation from evolution, you have adoptied a set of a-priori assumptions that is likely to contaminate everything you do thereafter. Everything you have discovered by your so-called "scientific method" has been contaminated by your a-priori assumptions, and many, if not most, of your conclusions may be wrong.
It is not necessary to take this risk. For example, it is not necessary to study the supernatural itself to entertain it as a possible "cause."
Johnson explains this better than I, so here's what he says in the essay (emphasis mine):
How does this actually play out in practice? Johnson explains it in terms of "mind-first" or "matter-first". In other words, it is the difference between intelligent design and accidental design. (Emphasis mine)
Johnson exposes bad science well in his essay, but since I would like to avoid putting evolutionists here on the defensive, here's an excerpt that is probably the least volatile and yet it is still extremely revealing about the problem. It is the last part of Johnson's essay.
http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/scirel98.htm
In it, he makes the case that many people with outstanding credentials who call themselves scientists deliberately exclude testable hypotheses due to their a-priori commitment to materialism. That this is the case can be established clearly by quotes from the scientists themselves, including my favorite quote from Richard Lewontin, which is included in Johnson's essay.
Some evolutionists and scientists admit that they take this a-priori stance and defend it with objections to doing otherwise. Based only on the posts I've read, here are the typical objections which seem to appear most often on this board:
1. OBJECTION: To postulate a creator is to postulate the supernatural, which leaves the realm of science and enters the realm of religion. You cannot mix the two because science can only discover, test and confirm natural causes, not supernatural causes.
When the discussion involves evolution, the objection is usually this variation of the previous objection.
2. VARIATION: You cannot refute evolution by arguing that abiogenesis is impossible because abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
The variation (2) simply pretends that what you assume about creation or abiogenesis has nothing to do with how you study evolution. But this is one of the most dangerous attitudes a scientist can adopt. If you dismiss the possibility of the supernatural or arbitrarily separate abiogenesis vs. creation from evolution, you have adoptied a set of a-priori assumptions that is likely to contaminate everything you do thereafter. Everything you have discovered by your so-called "scientific method" has been contaminated by your a-priori assumptions, and many, if not most, of your conclusions may be wrong.
It is not necessary to take this risk. For example, it is not necessary to study the supernatural itself to entertain it as a possible "cause."
Johnson explains this better than I, so here's what he says in the essay (emphasis mine):
If I say that "the first life form was designed by intelligence," my statement explains something, even if I can say nothing about the identity of the designer or the means by which the design was executed. What it explains (if it is true) is that we are on the wrong road if we are seeking to discover how life can be made without a designing intelligence. Detailed truth builds upon basic truth. If we base our research on counterfactual assumptions we are likely to be heading up a blind alley.
How does this actually play out in practice? Johnson explains it in terms of "mind-first" or "matter-first". In other words, it is the difference between intelligent design and accidental design. (Emphasis mine)
The advantage of starting with mind is that mind has capacities which matter lacks, capacities which may be necessary to explain the world. If there is convincing evidence that mindless matter can produce life, and even mind, then the matter-first position holds the advantage. But if matter lacks those capacities, then it will be more productive of truth to start with mind. It is not scientific to assume that matter has such capabilities merely because that is what scientists would like to believe.
Johnson exposes bad science well in his essay, but since I would like to avoid putting evolutionists here on the defensive, here's an excerpt that is probably the least volatile and yet it is still extremely revealing about the problem. It is the last part of Johnson's essay.
A quote from the late Carl Sagan captures the essential issue. In a book published shortly before his death he said:
At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes -- an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterproductive, and the most ruthless scrutiny of all ideas, old and new... Consider this claim: As I walk along, time -- as measured by my wristwatch or my aging process -- slows down.... Here's another: Matter and antimatter are all the time, throughout the universe, being created from nothing. Here's a third: once in a very great while, your car will spontaneously ooze through the brick wall of your garage and be found the next morning on the street. They're all absurd! But the first is a statement of special relativity, and the other two are consequences of quantum mechanics (vacuum fluctuations and barrier tunneling, they're called). Like it or not, that's the way the world is. If you insist it's ridiculous, you'll be forever closed to some of the major findings on the rules that govern the universe. Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, p. 306 (Random House 1995).
"Like it or not, that's the way the world is." Sagan understood that prejudice of every kind is the ultimate enemy of science, but he could not grasp the possibility that he might be guilty of the fault he ascribed to others. He was incapable of conceiving that his own faction might have so strong a wish that materialism be true that they would be willing to set up an a priori philosophical principle as their God, and exempt it from the ruthless scrutiny that science otherwise requires.. (I know this for a fact, because I tried without success to explain the concept to Sagan in a long dinner conversation at Cornell University hosted by our mutual friend William Provine. Sagan didn't just disagree -- he couldn't grasp the concept.) If Sagan could have removed the plank from his own eye, he would have seen better to remove the splinter from his brother's eye.
True believers in the scientific method, among whom I count myself, do not exempt ourselves from scientific standards. If we prefer to believe in divine creation we recognize that the facts may not support our preference, and if we prefer to believe in materialism we do the same. That insistence on questioning what we might want to believe, and applying the same critical standards to ourselves that we recommend to others, is how I define "science." How do you define it?