EvoWiki is now a project of the
We are moving all content to RationalWiki.
See the for details! .
Scientists are motivated to support naturalism and reject creationism
- Vardiman, Larry. Scientific Naturalism as Science. Institute for Creation Research.
- Anticreation. CreationWiki. Retrieved on 2008-06-05.
- In a sense, this charge is actually true, but not for the reason that Creationists would have you believe. Scientists want to learn how the Universe works, and naturalistic methods let them do that -- Creationist methods don't.
Creationists start with the proposition that they already Know The Truth, and it is their job to find the evidence that supports the Truth that they already know. It is worth noting that this position presumes the would-be scientist to be infallible, which few human beings actually are. Real scientists believe that the way to deal with human error is to acknowledge the possibility and be open to correction; Creationists, contrariwise, believe that the way to deal with human error is to assume that they cannot be wrong.
- Supernatural ideas cannot be tested. Supernatural cause X can explain anything and cannot be falsified. Science is understanding based on observation of reality. God did it, the devil did, the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it are all equivalent (and equally unscientific) statements.
- "motivated" is a loaded term in that there is the implication of preference, choice, bias, etc. Science is based on the natural world because this can be a subject of study. Science neither affirms or denies what it can not study.
- Yes, scientists are motivated to support that which agrees with fact, and reject that which disagrees with fact. Shame on those unfair scientists. Tomorrow, we vote on the atomic weight of nitrogen, because apparently reality is determined via democracy.
- If one considers non-scientific motivations for accepting or rejecting a theory, Creationists have the strongest possible non-scientific motivation for rejecting evolution: They believe it is a tool of Satan which helps send people to Hell. Can any human be expected to give a thoughtful, dispassionate evaluation of a tool of Satan?
- add more responses
Fallacies contained in this claim
- Circumstantial Ad Hominem (scientist's findings are based on their motivation)
- Wrong Direction of Cause and Effect (rejection of creationism is based on evidence, not the other way around)
- Mark Isaak's page for this claim 
- Isaak, Mark, 2002. A Philosophical Premise of 'Naturalism'? 
- Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture, c. 1998. The Wedge Strategy. 
- Dembski, William A. & Richards, Jay Wesley, 2001. Unapologetic Apologetics, Intervarsity Press,  
- Institute for Creation Research, 2000. ICR Tenets of Creationism. 
- Wells, Jonathan, n.d. Unification Sermons and Talks: Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.  See also: Anonymous, n.d. Dr. Jonathan Wells Returns to UTS. 
- Wells, Jonathan, 1991. Marriage and the Family: the Unification Blessing.  [Wells sees Rev. Moon as the second coming of Christ.]
- Evolutionists interpret evidence based on their preconceptions
- Naturalistic science will miss a supernatural explanation
- Scientists find what they expect to find
- Scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma
- Scientists' conclusions are motivated by money