Scientific Ignorance or Integrity?
Dr Larry Krauss of Arizona State is a theoretical physicist with an interesting take on the Big Bang. Basically, he asserts that, because the universe is expanding, our ability to detect those phenomena that support the Big Bang theory (Hubble expansion, cosmic microwave background, and the origin of light elements) is decreasing and will eventually come to an end. Therefore, “we may be living in the only epoch in the history of the universe when scientists can achieve an accurate understanding of the true nature of the universe.” Dr. Krauss points out that until 1908 the scientific consensus was that the universe is static and claims that it is entirely possible that scientists will return to this position in the future–simply because they will be unable to detect anything else. In other words, scientific consensus does not equal unchanging truth.
Well, what about when the scientific consensus supports the “fact” of evolution? Then, it seems, Dr. Krauss’ attitude changes. In an article published in the New Scientist, he comments on the Gaskell case. You may remember that the University of Kentucky settled out of court with astrophysicist Dr. Martin Gaskell after the university was accused of religious discrimination. Dr. Krauss quite rightly points out that the religious viewpoints of potential faculty members should be irrelevant to whether they are appointed. However, he and AITSE both understand that the potential faculty member’s scientific ability and understanding are very relevant and important.
Dr. Krauss then makes the astounding claim that, because Gaskell said that evolutionary theory has “significant scientific problems” and “includes unwarranted atheistic assumptions and extrapolations,” he is obviously ignorant of the science. Note that Gaskell has a PhD in astronomy and physics, numerous publications, and was a “leading candidate for the job”! But, it seems that Krauss believes all good scientists accept, without question, the “fact” of evolution. Sounds suspiciously like enforced consensus to me. In fact, many scientists have questions about aspects of evolutionary theory; this is inevitable because we simply do not know everything yet! Three questions in a book by evolutionary biologist Dr. Lynn Margulis are 1) How did the genetic code originate, 2) How did the protein synthesis system come to be, and 3) How is it possible that life only uses left-handed amino acids but right-handed sugars? And that is only in the cell biology section!
In order to answer these questions, and many more, scientists must be allowed to impartially evaluate all the data and freely follow the evidence where it leads–without risking ad hominem attacks or job loss. We need integrity in science and that is the purpose of AITSE.