Estimated reading time: 2 minute(s)
We received a complimentary copy of the latest edition of Creation magazine (the Answers in Genesis folks) and I have been perusing it the past couple days. I really enjoy the subject matter they cover, and I believe that my worldview is similar enough to theirs that I can mostly relate to what they are presenting, so it’s generally a good read.
What makes me sad is that as I read it, I sense the same (or greater?) arrogance that I would get from any staunch “Darwinist” in their writings. Their conclusions—really just most of the words they choose to use—drip with arrogance. Their angle seems mostly to tear down the “prevailing” scientific thought of the day, which seems to begin with the parameter that there is no God (or supernatural) and so all of life happened on its own.
As I said, the arrogance permeates all of science, no matter which fundamental worldview you happen to hold to. Whether you feel the evidence points to evolution and all of those conclusions, or a creator and his creation and all of those conclusions (or somewhere in between I suppose?) why the need for such definitive certainty? In most cases, we just can’t know everything. We know what we know now, and usually that’s only a part anyway.
So I was just thinking, wouldn’t it be cool if there was some organization for humble scientists? Scientists who pledged no allegiance to a theory or a doctrine or, even worse, a financial underwriter or a political party? How great would that be to just have intellectually honest investigation of the facts, based on current theories, and then a neutral (although, can never be completely neutral) presentation of the current conclusions from the current studies? What could be wrong with that?
If I was a scientist, in the scientist community… that’s what I would do.
http://www.ucsusa.org/
-heent
Heent… that's cool. I like how they are independent of government funding and all, and I don't mind that they have an agenda (which they say on their site a bunch) … but that's not exactly what I was talking about. I did like the one line about letting their findings guide their conclusions. That's more what I'm talking about. Just more of a mindset … where the researchers know (1) they don't and can't know everything, and (2) what they do know can always change, depending on further study/research/findings.
What if scientists used the words "we think" and "what we know for now" or even, "it's possible that" 🙂 (Because in reality, that's all we can say)
You in MT yet?