I have indeed seen a complete disconnect between the stated aim of science to entertain all doubts, vs. the reality of tribalism that works to destroy the careers of dissenters on favored issues. It is absolutely clear that if you express doubts about any key aspect of Darwinism, your career will be over (young scientists: I strongly recommend that if you do have doubts, that you keep these to yourself until after you have tenure, or be open to changing careers– which maybe more people should be open to.)

I have also seen similar things with less high stakes in other areas, such as the “selling” of artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and nanoscience as the next big thing.

The common thread seems to me to be this: scientists and academics typically feel that that public is too dumb to deal with evidence for and against a position, and so feel that the public must be spoon fed only evidence for it. Thus, a scientist might be convinced that a position is correct (e.g. global warming) on the basis that, say, 70% of the evidence supports it, while 30% seems to disagree. But they feel that to say that there is any evidence against would confuse the poor public, and so they feel they must publicly say that no one disagrees and all the data are consistent. This always backfires. The public learns about the opposite side, and instead of having a good lesson in balancing different types of evidence, the public instead gets a lesson in how scientists are not to be trusted.

Many scientists say that we must not allow any questioning of Darwinism, or global warming, because to do so would encourage “anti-science” elements and undermine respect for science in society. It seems to me the opposite is true. By conveying that all scientists think alike and any who dissent will be torpedoed, the public gets the impression that science is entirely political and not truth-based at all. This recent scandal regarding global warming has done more to destroy the image of science in society than anything I can think of in recent memory. Conservative talk radio is awash with talk about how scientists are all just inventing things for their own political ends. Previous famous examples of Darwinist manipulation of data have given the same impression.

The bottom line for me is that as scientists we should respect the public more, and assume that they are in fact able to deal with weighing evidence. If you know there is evidence against your position, be up front about it, and allow that some people may not be as convinced as you are. The same is true in apologetics. I would rather tell people about the various arguments against the Bible, e.g. higher criticism, competing texts, etc. than to try to convey that there is not one possible doubt about the Scriptures. On the whole, these competing claims do not dissuade me from being a Christian, but I need to allow people to decide for themselves.