High Priesthood Theory of Science
Mark Shea chimes in on holwling din of those who hold to materialistic Darwinism and who really, really want you to too:
This ringing endorsement of the High Priesthood Theory of Scientific Enlightenment is all well and good, but it’s a bit hard to square with the commonly heard complaint that what the scientifically ignorant American Joe Sixpak needs to do is stop believing Authority and learn to think for himself by learning about science. In effect, this is a demand that ordinary people just shut up and accept what their more enlightened betters tell them about The Way Things Are, and if some Intelligent Design guy makes a case that makes more sense to them, then the ID guys are to be treated as publicans and tax collectors because the High Priest has so willed it. We are to walk by faith in the Priesthood, not by sight. It is not the task of the High Priest to show clearly *why* his account of The Way Things Are makes hash of ID. It is, rather, the duty of Joe Sixpak to henceforth stay away from his “nice friends at the Discovery Institute” as well as anyone else vehemently suspect of heresy.
And so, people like me, who are scratching their heads, trying to figure out what is so terrible in saying that Creation sure looks a lot like the product of a Creator get the sense that volume and splenetic fury are substituting for argument here and a sort of catechetical faith in a High Priesthood is, by a curious jiggery pokery, substituting for science education.
Over reacting you say? Check this out:
Chris Mooney and Matthew C. Nisbet, argue that American journalists must stop acting as if there is any kind of scientific argument left to cover related to Darwinism. Thus, “fairness” does not apply, since there are no critics of Darwinian orthodoxy worthy of being treated fairly. Thus, all the critics are religious nuts and there is no need to take their claims seriously or present their arguments accurately.