Posted by: Randall Niles | April 4, 2009

The Scientific Bias

Science is fact. Science has no motivation other than universal truth. Scientists share a common bond of unbiased examination and interpretation of the natural laws and factual evidence available to all of us. Science is immune from the philosophies, religions, politics, and presuppositions of those who call science their profession.

Yeah, right… Actually, I’ve found that “science” is no different than any other professional discipline, including my own – law and jurisprudence. Like everything else in this world, science is affected by the doctrines and dogmas of the scientists within the culture of the day.


For example, the conflict between God and Science is not historical. Many great scientists of the past were believers in God (Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Pasteur, Pascal – the list is huge). But what happened? Many practitioners of the 19th and 20th centuries started to view science and technology as their “religion” – Everything was being explained by man and his tools, so God was no longer needed.


But now, many would argue that the trend to exclude God from science is reversing again. Since Einstein, we have established the finite nature of time and space. Scientific evidence for universal fine-tuning, order, and design is expanding rapidly. The purely naturalistic/materialistic theories of cosmic, stellar, planetary, chemical, inorganic, and biological origins are in question at the highest levels of academia. Since the COBE satellite and Hubble telescope observations of the 1990s, atheistic and agnostic scientists like Hawking, Turner and Frenk are reconsidering the existence of God like never before.


So why doesn’t the mainstream press report on all of this? Why doesn’t the public education system address the baseless claims and proven frauds in its textbooks? Hmmmm… It seems to me that when science touches on things of life, origin, purpose, or meaning, scientists (like others) will entrench themselves in bad (yet somehow comfortable) theories.


I’m not pointing to some hidden conspiracy here. But I will point out the entrenched presupposition that science must somehow explain everything through “natural” mechanisms only – even when “science” itself is revealing this shortcoming. Why does science have to be defined as a discipline that cannot include supernatural questions and explanations?


“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

— Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, Jan. 1997, p. 31.


By definition, Science has declared itself biased – because it won’t look at all the possible evidence. Although there are exceptions, Science is not generally a search for truth, as we are taught to believe. Science is a high-stakes game, in which scientists try to find naturalistic causes, even for the origin of the universe and all that’s in it. The popular premise is that Science is unbiased fact with universal motivations for truth. Time and time again, I have discovered otherwise.



  1. Hey Randall! Great post and sooooo true. I always appreciate your insights!

  2. It is not so much the concept of God that annoys me but that we pander to our ego’s by anthropomorphizing the idea. God, energy source, spirit power, force, game designer, the father of Jesus, Mohammed, the Buddah and all other such names we put to our own mystery as conscious beings and the science/cosmology we are witnessing today are just not up to the stupendous grandeur of what we are currently in the midst of and possibly facing with the advent of singularity. We are on the cusp of an exponential explosion that will likely see us destroy our planet or create our wildest transhumanist fantasies possibily to spread intelligence throughout our Milky Way Galaxy. In my view it is either one or the other as we gather our science and our belief systems together as one intelligent whole. It’s either this or face disaster. We have little time left to decide and it’s up to all of us to tilt the scales to benefit the process of our choosing conscious life and evolution or not participating at all. We are, afterall, the awesome force from which quantum plenum we emerged whatever one chooses to name IT. I have no fear that nature and life will prevail either with us or without us! IT is a question of our own making and choice because life both dark and luminous is ubiquitous in the cosmos and too aesthetic and beautiful to leave it to the forces who would destroy our opportunity to continue our evolution: but we must choose IT.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: