The Hidden Censorship of Scientism

I do read Uncommon Descent daily. Interesting article last week regarding Professor James Tour is listed as Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University.

Tour has stated his opinion that no scientist alive really understands macroevolution.  His primary concern is with the mechanism of chemical evolution.  He "makes molecules" he says, and he knows how hard it is to get all the pieces to fit together, so the question of how it all happened in nature a long, long time ago leaves him with questions.  But the ugly secret is that behind the scenes he is not alone.  Here is his claim:

"Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it."  More


Of course when one is employed in a field that has a definition of science that says in essence, all natural phenomena must have a natural cause and only a natural cause, then the assumption has to be that the chemical origin of life must be found eventually for chemistry and physics is all that is allowed in the discussion.   The problem of knowing how it works is irrelevant to the certainty that it did.

More specifically Tour explains:

"I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there (in front of the public) and talk about this?”

And there is the problem.  Anyone who questions the creedal belief in naturalism, that nature is the mechanism that created nature, is immediately pegged as a fool and will be bullied and silenced, so the real questions real scientists have are not allowed to see the light of day. 

I recall vaguely reading a quote from a Chinese scientist who dryly noted that in his country one cannot question the government but can question Darwin, while in America one can question the government but not Darwin.  I wonder, with all the legal cases we have endured and with judges making binding pronouncements about the definitions of science and faith in the origins debate, how long before the distinction between questioning Darwin and questioning the government will no longer be discernible.

Which is precisely why C.S. Lewis feared scientism.