Pride and Prejudice and Scientific Honesty

A number of more modern scientists strive to maintain the integrity of their profession in the face of much dishonesty on the part of committed Secular Humanists. University of California Professor of Psychology Stanley Sue believed that it was essential to avoid the common secularist redefining of the word “theory” into “fact,” as Richard Dawkins frequently does when speaking of Evolution. Sue instead demanded that the bias so evident in secularist dogma be avoided.
“Scientific skepticism is considered good. … Under this principle, one must question, doubt, or suspend judgment until sufficient information is available. Skeptics demand that evidence and proof be offered before conclusions can be drawn. […] One must thoughtfully gather evidence and be persuaded by the evidence rather than by prejudice, bias, or uncritical thinking.”
Richard Feynman, 20th century physicist, apparently had no use for skewed data and the common practice of simply burying contradictions to theories being researched. He cautioned scientists to be thoroughly honest in their work by including supporting and contrary evidence and anything discovered along the way that might advance knowledge.
“If you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; … You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. … Those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; …The idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.”
When scientists ignore this commitment to honesty, they fall into the same trap that Isaac Asimov did. Claiming to speak as a scientist, he rightly invoked the word “inspired” to express his baseless but religiously held beliefs. “We can make inspired guesses, but we don’t know for certain what physical and chemical properties of the planet’s crust, its ocean, and its atmosphere made it so conducive to such a sudden appearance of life…” Although he appears to be humbly admitting science’s limitations, Asimov is in fact dishonestly claiming that when a scientist guesses, it is like ordinary people stating facts. Notice that instead of allowing for the possibility of a creative act by God, he assures us that all that happened was a “sudden appearance” of life made possible by natural conditions.
In the novel Pride and Prejudice, an unscrupulous man plays on social prejudices to advance his own position just as many secularists advance their “scientific” theories. He pretends humility while providing supposed evidence for theories people already hold. Jane Austin said, “Nothing is more deceitful … than the appearance of humility. It is often only carelessness of opinion, and sometimes an indirect boast.” Those who misuse science frequently advance the “scientist’s” own reputation without presenting sound science or true knowledge. “Carelessness of opinion” is almost a watchword for those who feel free to advance any belief and call it science, and frequently they receive applause when they should be greeted with healthy skepticism.
Today the observations and measurements of the physical world must support the established religion of Secular Humanism. “Carelessness of opinion” expressed by their celebrity pseudo-scientists along with their “inspired guesses” must be given as much weight as facts. Its adherents of course, deny this. They loudly denounce the corruption of the Church-State union and insist they are pure of such entanglements.
John W. Draper, 19th century American physician and photochemist, claimed that “Science has never sought to ally herself with civil power. She has never subjected anyone to mental torment, physical torment, least of all death, for the purpose of promoting her ideas.” While asserting that theists are invariably corrupt and violent, he deflects attention from the hand-in-glove relationship of secularists with the courts resulting in the bombarding of schools and government institutions with lawsuits demanding removal of any hint of religious mention in the name of “separation of church and state.”