Scientists are motivated to support naturalism and reject creationism (Talk.Origins)
Claim CA321: Scientists are motivated to support naturalism and reject nonnaturalistic ideas, such as creationism. Source:
CreationWiki response: (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
1: This claim is easily disproved by the fact that many scientists are strongly religious, having adopted nonnaturalistic ideas in their private lives.
It does no such thing. Most of the major scientific organizations are overtly naturalistic. The NCSE or the National Center for Science Education is known for their hatred of creationism and a conservative world view. They even run their own journal Creation/Evolution, which is known for a anti-creationist bias.
Also, the National Science Foundation, which is a government organization, is known for their views against creationism. They even released a pamphlet denouncing creationism (Science and Creationism: The view from the National Academy of sciences) and they give thousands of dollars a year to secular scientists, but only give one dollar a year to people like Robert Gentry.
Many creationists might lose their job if they are openly creationist in their conclusions. Dr Jerry Bergman has documented not dozens, not hundreds, but THOUSANDS of accounts of genuine scientists' being abused for their belief in scientific creationism/Intelligent design. Some teachers have been fired just for teaching the two model approach. Around 12 percent of those interviewed received death threats.
Furthermore, according to a government report, the Smithsonian demoted a biologist. The demotion was found to be religiously and politically motivated. Surely this is an example of evolutionary dogma?
2: Although motives in any large group are going to differ from person to person, the most common motive that makes people become scientists is curiosity. It has nothing to do with supporting naturalism.
I am sure many people do become scientists because of their curiosity, but there is no doubt that the major "scientific" organizations support naturalism to such a degree that it seems like dogma.
3: Within the practice of science, there is not anything suggesting naturalism as a goal. The main motives are curiosity, professional pride, and material rewards. Pride enters because scientists must make their work available for all to see, so they want it to look good, and in particular they are motivated to do work that can withstand challenges. Material awards come mainly in the form of applying for funding, which means satisfying the funding agencies, which usually means the research must have some promise for practical value.
With the practice of objective science this is true, but not with origins science. One might lose his job because he challenges the current dogma, instead of being greeted with prize money.
4: Although naturalism is not a motive for most scientists, its rejection is an explicit motive for most science pursued by antievolutionists.
The point of the claim was to point out bias, not to disprove evolution. Both sides have this. This is shown to be true when one looks at how creationists and evolution interpret data.
For example, the faculty and students of the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School subscribe to a statement of faith in biblical inerrancy and antievolution (ICR 2000).
So? You have to take vows of humanism if you join The Australian Skeptics. This merely puts creationists and evolutionists on the same level.
Jonathan Wells pursued a biology degree in order to discredit evolution (Wells n.d.). He did so at the urging of Reverend Moon, whom Wells sees as the second coming of Christ (Wells 1991).
Jonathan Wells is not a Biblical creationist and does not reflect that mainstream creationist community, since he is indeed a heretic.
William Dembski also sees religious motivation as paramount (Dembski and Richards 2001). The 'overthrow of materialism' is the motivating basis for the Wedge Strategy, which is the operating principle for the intelligent design movement (CRSC 1998).