There was a time when science was about pursuing truth. Science pursued truth because it did not know the truth to begin with. This meant that scientific methods needed to be flexible. After all, how can we mandate a particular scientific method if we do not know the right answer yet? Mandating a particular method would limit science and possibly exclude the right answer. This was an argument that members of the Royal Society made in the seventeenth century for empiricism. Let the data, not dogma, do the talking. Unfortunately, the Royal Society today would no longer be recognized by those early members.
There were many in the seventeenth century who believed they did have the right answer to begin with. These included the Cartesians and the Aristotelians who wanted to enforce their own ideas which they felt were obvious universal criteria that science should observe. Both wanted to impose their particular rationalist approach onto science. The data, they argued, must be interpreted according to their universal criteria. Compared to the empiricists, the rationalists had a stronger philosophy of science. They knew what science should be doing, and what it should not be doing. But were they right?
The textbooks say that the empiricists won out and science has been free of dogma ever since. Unfortunately the history of science is not so simple. Science may not come with a "Cartesian Inside" sticker, but rationalism has exerted a seemingly constant pressure on science since the days of the seventeenth century. And while rationalism, in theory, is not necessarily a bad thing, it has in practice resulted in a dogmatic approach within science.
If you disagree with empiricists they'll come at you with data; if you disagree with rationalists they'll come at you with dogma. And with rationalists things can quickly become personal, for you have not disagreed with their interpretation of scientific evidence, but with their beliefs about the world. When leading evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky, in 1973, ascribed doubt about evolution to "emotional blocks or to plain bigotry" he was not raising the stakes of the debate. Nor was he engaging in hyperbole. This simply is how rationalists view the debate. There may be mounds of evidence on your side, but if you disagree with evolutionists you must have personal problems or be up to no good.
Today, the empiricist movement intelligent design routinely is subjected to such criticisms. And three centuries after it defended empiricism, the Royal Society has now switched sides and joined the attack. In an Orwellian statement issued earlier this month, the Royal Society made the erroneous pronouncement that the overwhelming scientific evidence supports evolution, and that claims to the contrary are "deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs." The thought police are on patrol.
David Read, Vice-President of the Royal Society, explained that "We felt that it would be timely to publish a clear statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design as there continues to be controversy about them in the UK and other countries." The statement certainly was clear—dogmatic, but clear. But all is not lost. At least the Royal Society acknowledged that there are other countries in the world outside the UK.
