Scientific dogma

[[File:Scientists do not coddle ideas.jpg|thumb|right|Boom.]]
{{scinav}}
'''Scientific dogma''' is used in two ways: one to refer to very, very well-established theories in science (which is a pretty decent usage, albeit [[dogma|different from the traditional religious use]]) and one to negatively refer to scientific theories that the speaker doesn't like, with the implication that science is unchanging and suppressive of minority views (like [[religion|religious]] dogmas). This second usage is unfounded.

==Creationism==
[[Creationists]] often argue that scientists are [[Big science|pressured]] not to challenge the established dogma of [[evolution]] and [[radiometric dating]].<ref>Anon, 1985. ''[[Life--How Did It Get Here?]]'' [[Watchtower Bible and Tract Society]] of New York, Inc., p. 182.</ref>

There are several issues with this claim:

#This is not historically true. When [[Albert Einstein]] proposed his [[Theory of Relativity]], it caused a massive upheaval in the scientific community. The same also occurred with [[quantum theory]], atomic theory, and most other major scientific discoveries &mdash; even the theory of evolution, for that matter. If scientists are pressured to never challenge "established dogma," astronomers, for example, would still be using [[Ptolemy]]'s theory of epicycles to explain planetary retrograde motion.<ref name=Wells />
#This is not presently true.
##Scientists are, in fact, pressured to ''challenge'' dogma. Proving that science is doing it wrong is just as, if not more, likely to bring a scientist fame and funding. Einstein is noted (at least in part) because he questioned classical mechanics.
##Scientists conduct experiments that may or may not prove current theories to be true. If this claim were true, scientists would ''never'' conduct ''any'' experiments on ''anything'' &mdash; out of fear that they might challenge an aspect of the system.<ref name=Wells>[[Jonathan Wells|Wells, Jonathan]], n.d. ''Unification Sermons and Talks: Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.'' [http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/darwin.htm] See also: Anonymous, n.d. ''Dr. Jonathan Wells Returns to UTS''. [http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/publications/cornerst/cs970506/cst%5Fdr%2Djonathan.html]</ref>
#This claim directly contradicts another creationist claim, "[[science was wrong before]]". It is very bizarre to think that scientists uphold "established dogma" with constantly changing data.<ref name=Wells />
#[[Hypocritically]], creationists, themselves, are pressured not to challenge their own established [[dogma]], given as how so many creationist organizations, including [[ICR]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and even [[CreationWiki]], require that their members [[Statement of faith|swear to reject all evidence]] that would potentially contradict a [[Biblical literalism|literal interpretation of the Bible]].<ref name=Wells />
#This argument functions in part as an [[appeal to pity]] by arguing that creationists have to fight against peer pressure.
#"Dogma" is [[loaded language]] and suggests a closed-minded religious attitude. Its use in science, as noted above, is vastly different.
#This argument relies on the [[conspiracy theory]] that [[evolution conspiracy|some scientists knowingly are withholding the truth]].

==External links==
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA320.html Mark Isaak's page for this claim]
*[https://archive.is/t0G46 ''Conspiracy'' by Mark Hoofnagle, 30 April 2007]
*[https://brightline.typepad.com/law_evolution_science_and/science/index.html ''Preacher Mike's Conspiracy'', Law Evolution Science and Junk Science, 13 March 2005]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:EvoWiki ports]]

Categories: EvoWiki ports