Objections to Intelligent Design continued from a previous post
ID Violates the Scientific Consensus
Scientific consensus is highly problematic because it has been notoriously unreliable. For example in 1960 geosynclinal theory was the consensus explanation for mountain formation. It was "one of the great unifying principals of geology" according to authors of 'Geological Evolution of North America.' Geosynclinal theory was utterly abandoned after ten years of declaration and replaced with plate tectonics.
Even in a recent conversation it was get_education who poignantly said: "Actually, all scientific theories are "dubious" in the sense that further data might contradict the current theories, and thus we would have to come to different conclusions."
To which Dr. Van der Breggen complemented it with: "I think that we can agree that we should let a scientific investigation of the evidence of the world arbitrate our disagreement and that we should let the investigation do so unfettered by either an atheistic or theistic philosophy which might unfairly force our conclusions one way or the other."
Darwininism, today, is touted so widely as fact. We need to understand though that Darwin's theory at the start of the twentieth century was rejected by most all biologists. In the 1930's Darwinism revived when a handful of scientists merged Darwin's theory with Mendelian genetics, now known as Neo-Darwinism.
We can all agree that Darwinism remains the scientific consensus, but that consensus is shrinking. Dissent from Darwinism continues to grow in the scientific population. More would sign the list if their livelihood and reasearch would not be threatened by challenging Darwinism.
Michael Crichton, Medical Doctor, said it best: "I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. "