Alan Boyle writes in his column, “An analysis of 36 years’ worth of polling data indicates that confidence in science as an institution has steadily declined among Americans who consider themselves conservatives, while confidence levels have been at steadier levels for other ideological groups.”
For one thing, the Darwinian paradigm is harmful concerning the practice of the scientific method. Look at these particular studies which say, “confidence in science” has been falling among conservatives what they really mean is confidence in “evolution” has been falling. I don’t think confidence in such things as computer science, or adult stem cell research, or cancer research or space exploration, or learning about designs in nature is falling among conservatives because it’s independent of evolution.
In fact, Dr. Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School said this…
“…over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
Journal, BioEssays also commented on this…
“The subject of evolution occupies a special, and paradoxical, place within biology as a whole. While the great majority [of] biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. ‘Evolution’ would appear to be the indispensible unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”
Professor G.A. Kerkut, an evolutionist and physiologist of Southampton University, challenged students to try to come up with various arguments against evolution but most could not. Then Kerkut told his students that was a deficiency, because if you “really understand an argument you will be able to indicate to me not only the points in favour of the argument but also the most telling points against it.” Conversely, a student who “repeats parrot fashion the views of the current Archbishop of Evolution” is really “behaving like certain of those religious students he affects to despise.”
Would you say, Kerkut was in favor of following scientific consensus like some people following a cult? I would say he had more of a balanced view on how evolution should be taught than what we see today. There is no evidence that dead chemicals can turn into a living cell outside the body. There is no evidence that apes can turn into man, there is no evidence a Fruit Fly can mutate into another species! Most evolutionary scientists would fight Kerkut’s method of teaching evolution because they fear that the weaknesses in the Darwinian paradigm would cause students to reject it or loose faith in it.
In 2010 Global Atheist Convention will be held in Melbourne, Australia, Dawkins refused to debate a creationist, claiming it was a sworn oath of his. Generally, they use straw man versions of creation some of which are outdated, rather than address arguments presented by informed creation scientists or other creationists.
So the question remains, are people loosing their faith in science? The answer is of course, no! There is a lot of science to be confident in. However, they are loosing more faith in evolution because there is more confirmation in science about creationism than ever before!