Scientific dogma hinders diversity of thought

I have noticed a distressing trend among Rice students discussing the origins of life. They believe evolution is a completed scientific theory without any problems or questionable aspects. Their attitude expresses a rank dislike for anyone foolish enough to doubt the evolutionary hypothesis.

Many such students seem to believe that those who oppose the evolution of taxa higher than the species level (macroevolution) stubbornly refuse to acknowledge other related scientific theories such as speciation (microevolution). This uneducated view of dissenting opinions falsely portrays opponents of macroevolution as ignorant, as if, for example, non-evolutionists would refuse to accept the proven and readily apparent microevolution of a bacteria strain’s resistance to medication.

Any reasonable individual should realize that a physician who believes in intelligent design can diagnose a disease as adequately as someone who believes in an evolutionary development of the immune system. To claim otherwise would be equivalent to saying that an English major who believes Shakespeare wrote all his works cannot quote Much Ado About Nothing as well as one who believes they were penned by Christopher Marlowe. Yet this is exactly how some evolutionists react to dissenters, as if someone who disagrees with the established scientific community must be self-deceived or lacking in intelligence or both.

This ad hominem argument is frighteningly rampant. I watched an episode of Penn and Teller’s Bullshit! last semester with my friends, in which the hosts purported to show the ignorance of Middle Americans lobbying for the teaching of intelligent design along with evolutionary theory in their respective school districts. I was disappointed that absolutely no arguments refuting intelligent design theory were presented in the show; the TV personalities simply resorted to derisive laughter and sarcastic comments about the ignoramuses who believe in intelligent design. I am treated with the same attitude when I discuss the topic with my friends. They can’t imagine how any thinking individual could disagree with a “proven fact.”

I find it ironic when these evolutionists reference historical interference with scientific discovery, citing the example of Galileo and the Catholic Church. Doing so ignores scientists such as Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton, whose belief in a divinely-ordered universe gave them the inspiration and tenacity to pursue and develop some of the most incredible scientific discoveries of all time. It is not religion but established dogma that inhibits scientific inquiry.

And when it comes to regression to blind dogma, it now seems to be the evolutionists, rather than the religionists, who are culpable. Evolutionists should welcome challenges to the established evolutionary preconceptions, because such challenges contribute to knowledge and progress. Instead, scientists, mathematicians and experts in evidence theory who have expressed concerns about evolutionary theory are vilified and marginalized, or their reservations are otherwise ignored.

In light of all the respectable scientists with reservations about evolutionary theory, perhaps the 20.8 percent of Rice’s evolutionary dissenters are not an embarrassment but rather a tribute to Rice’s genuine tolerance, in opposition to a blind, unchallenged conformity to mainstream indoctrination. Instead of crying evolutionary heresy at every objector, Rice students should promote an atmosphere of tolerance for questioning and challenging scientific convention.

Only after we applaud our diversity and then thoughtfully address these issues will we break from the stifling influence of dogma and raise ourselves to a platform of true intellectualism and science. And, who knows, maybe some prospective student will choose Rice over some other top-tier institution because of it. I know I would.

Jared Blakely is a Baker College senior.

Back to top