Fred Hutchison
The evolution establishment fights with power, not evidence
Fred Hutchison
Thomas Kuhn, historian of science and author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, was interested in the phenomenon of two competing scientific models. When the model best supported by empirical evidence wins the contest, science advances. However, Kuhn warns that sometimes in history, institutional power and politics determines the winner.
When a particular scientific model is in favor with the science establishment for a long time, the men in the centers of power develop vested interests in their favorite model, which Kuhn calls the "prevailing paradigm." The problem with prevailing paradigms which have monopoly power is they are not open to criticism. The powerful, self-interested institutional men gradually become narrowly focused and intellectually ossified from the in-breeding of ideas and institutional group think. Establishment scientists become increasingly ineffectual in dealing with embarrassing anomalies, which are bits of evidence which contradict the prevailing paradigm. When a new model arises which can solve the anomalies that have stumped establishment scientists, an institutional crisis in science is the result. The men academically bred in the rigid old paradigm cannot win the debate with reason and evidence. The old guard becomes accustomed to responding to objections with intimidation, brandishing their proud credentials and questioning the credentials and motives of the upstart scientists.
The evolution establishment has been behaving precisely like Kuhn's description of an aging prevailing paradigm, jealous of their power and prestige but weak in their arguments. In their battle against Intelligent Design science, their tactics are to refuse to answer the criticisms of the evolution model or deal with the anomalies to the prevailing paradigm and to intimidate their critics or impugn the motives the ones who cannot be intimidated. They use their power to keep students of science from hearing what the design scientists are saying.
Consider two examples. According to the Columbus Dispatch (6/9/05), The Ohio State University (OSU) is investigating the dissertation committee of a doctoral candidate, whose thesis involves research into the reaction of students, when they are presented with scientific criticism of the evolution model. The message to OSU science students is that if you want a doctorate or tenure, you had better do a thesis which supports the evolution model. This is the persuasion of power, not the persuasion of reason and evidence.
Another example of the institutional abuse of power is the automatic rejection of papers submitted by design scientists to peer-reviewed journals. This deprives the science community from hearing legitimate scientific criticism of the evolution model. The pesky anomalies to the model are thereby swept under the rug. The disingenuous advocates of evolution are able to tell the public, "These upstart advocates of the Intelligent Design model are not real scientists because their papers are not published in the peer-reviewed journals! We are of science and they are of religion." Arbitrary power which denies a voice to critics while gratuitously questioning their motives is not science. It is hardball power politics.
Listening to informed criticism can only improve the evolution model. Persecuting critics without listening to what they are saying can only hasten the intellectual decay of the entrenched evolution establishment.
Letter to the Editor, The Dispatch, 6/08/05
By
Thomas Kuhn, historian of science and author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, was interested in the phenomenon of two competing scientific models. When the model best supported by empirical evidence wins the contest, science advances. However, Kuhn warns that sometimes in history, institutional power and politics determines the winner.
When a particular scientific model is in favor with the science establishment for a long time, the men in the centers of power develop vested interests in their favorite model, which Kuhn calls the "prevailing paradigm." The problem with prevailing paradigms which have monopoly power is they are not open to criticism. The powerful, self-interested institutional men gradually become narrowly focused and intellectually ossified from the in-breeding of ideas and institutional group think. Establishment scientists become increasingly ineffectual in dealing with embarrassing anomalies, which are bits of evidence which contradict the prevailing paradigm. When a new model arises which can solve the anomalies that have stumped establishment scientists, an institutional crisis in science is the result. The men academically bred in the rigid old paradigm cannot win the debate with reason and evidence. The old guard becomes accustomed to responding to objections with intimidation, brandishing their proud credentials and questioning the credentials and motives of the upstart scientists.
The evolution establishment has been behaving precisely like Kuhn's description of an aging prevailing paradigm, jealous of their power and prestige but weak in their arguments. In their battle against Intelligent Design science, their tactics are to refuse to answer the criticisms of the evolution model or deal with the anomalies to the prevailing paradigm and to intimidate their critics or impugn the motives the ones who cannot be intimidated. They use their power to keep students of science from hearing what the design scientists are saying.
Consider two examples. According to the Columbus Dispatch (6/9/05), The Ohio State University (OSU) is investigating the dissertation committee of a doctoral candidate, whose thesis involves research into the reaction of students, when they are presented with scientific criticism of the evolution model. The message to OSU science students is that if you want a doctorate or tenure, you had better do a thesis which supports the evolution model. This is the persuasion of power, not the persuasion of reason and evidence.
Another example of the institutional abuse of power is the automatic rejection of papers submitted by design scientists to peer-reviewed journals. This deprives the science community from hearing legitimate scientific criticism of the evolution model. The pesky anomalies to the model are thereby swept under the rug. The disingenuous advocates of evolution are able to tell the public, "These upstart advocates of the Intelligent Design model are not real scientists because their papers are not published in the peer-reviewed journals! We are of science and they are of religion." Arbitrary power which denies a voice to critics while gratuitously questioning their motives is not science. It is hardball power politics.
Listening to informed criticism can only improve the evolution model. Persecuting critics without listening to what they are saying can only hasten the intellectual decay of the entrenched evolution establishment.
Letter to the Editor, The Dispatch, 6/08/05
A message from Stephen Stone, President, RenewAmerica
I first became acquainted with Fred Hutchison in December 2003, when he contacted me about an article he was interested in writing for RenewAmerica about Alan Keyes. From that auspicious moment until God took him a little more than six years later, we published over 200 of Fred's incomparable essays — usually on some vital aspect of the modern "culture war," written with wit and disarming logic from Fred's brilliant perspective of history, philosophy, science, and scripture.
It was obvious to me from the beginning that Fred was in a class by himself among American conservative writers, and I was honored to feature his insights at RA.
I greatly miss Fred, who died of a brain tumor on August 10, 2010. What a gentle — yet profoundly powerful — voice of reason and godly truth! I'm delighted to see his remarkable essays on the history of conservatism brought together in a masterfully-edited volume by Julie Klusty. Restoring History is a wonderful tribute to a truly great man.
The book is available at Amazon.com.
© Fred HutchisonI first became acquainted with Fred Hutchison in December 2003, when he contacted me about an article he was interested in writing for RenewAmerica about Alan Keyes. From that auspicious moment until God took him a little more than six years later, we published over 200 of Fred's incomparable essays — usually on some vital aspect of the modern "culture war," written with wit and disarming logic from Fred's brilliant perspective of history, philosophy, science, and scripture.
It was obvious to me from the beginning that Fred was in a class by himself among American conservative writers, and I was honored to feature his insights at RA.
I greatly miss Fred, who died of a brain tumor on August 10, 2010. What a gentle — yet profoundly powerful — voice of reason and godly truth! I'm delighted to see his remarkable essays on the history of conservatism brought together in a masterfully-edited volume by Julie Klusty. Restoring History is a wonderful tribute to a truly great man.
The book is available at Amazon.com.
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)