My original letter:
Timothy Sandefur's piece in Reflections (Duh NA) laments the degree of scientific illiteracy among Americans and the desire of these to have some say in science education decisions. He criticizes conservatives' "innate dislike for science, with its acidic reason and refusal to appeal to authority" and suggests that science be our guide.
On the idea of letting the "experts" do the decision-making, Hayek said "there could hardly be a more unbearable - and more irrational - world than one in which the most eminent specialists in each field were allowed to proceed unchecked with the realization of their ideals." Without a doubt, he recognized that belief very often poses as science.
In recent years, the Intelligent Design movement has successfully questioned evolutionary "science" by pointing to its many weaknesses and by highlighting the heavy component of belief among its adherents. Of course, there's nothing wrong with belief. Indeed, the scientific enterprise itself rests upon belief in such unprovable axioms as the existence of objective reality and the human ability to comprehend it. We must recognize that belief is unavoidable and proceed with an attitude of full disclosure of premises. No one should object to science, but when the "acid" of atheism (and related rejection of God-given authority) pose as "science," conservatives and others are right to complain.
Further, our western heritage of freedom rests upon our Judeo-Christian tradition (which includes a set of unprovable but essential premises) and any atheistic belief system eventually leads to tyranny.
Steve Sawyer
Intelligent Design vs. Evolution
Timothy Sandefur (Reflections, October) criticizes conservatives' "innate dislike for science, with its acidic reason and refusal to appeal to authority," and suggests that evolutionary science be our guide.
In recent years, the intelligent-design movement has successfully questioned evolutionary "science" by pointing to its many weaknesses and highlighting the heavy component of belief among its adherents. What's wrong with belief? The scientific enterprise itself rests on belief in such axioms as the existence of objective reality and the human ability to comprehend it. We must recognize that belief is unavoidable and proceed with an attitude of full disclosure of premises. No one should object to science, but when the "acid" of atheism (and related rejection of God-given authority) poses as "science," conservatives and others are right to complain.
Steve Sawyer