Your Bias is Showing

“Science is objective. We go where the facts lead us.” Have you ever heard someone make that claim? Isn’t that what most scientists would have us believe? Conversely, creationists are blasted for believing something is true then looking for the evidence of it. So, the claim is that creationists are biased and evolutionistic scientists are objective. Well – that’s baloney!

Boston.com recently reported about a creationist scientist who was fired from his position as a marine biologist at the highly respected Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Rhode Island because he was a creationist. There is a lawsuit pending to determine if this is a case of religious discrimination but there were some interesting quotes I took from the article. These belie another motive besides religious discrimination.

Hahn's lab, according to its website, studies how aquatic animals respond to chemical contaminants by examining ". . . mechanisms from a comparative/evolutionary perspective."

Isn’t that interesting? I actually did a double-take when I read that. So, Hahn’s lab, while they are examining the evidence, are admittedly doing so from an evolutionary perspective. That’s a bias if I ever heard one.

But the article goes on:

Hahn [the senior scientist at Woods Hole] wrote in the letter, which the commission provided to the Globe. "This position is incompatible with the work as proposed to NIH and with my own vision of how it should be carried out and interpreted." [emphasis added]

Wow! So, Mark Hahn already has a vision of how the work should be interpreted. He fired a creationist because he obviously doesn’t want to hear how the evidence might support a divine creation. He only wants the evidence interpreted according to his bias of evolutionism. Indeed, the entire crux of Woods Hole’s case is that a creationist cannot do the job because they only want an evolutionary perspective. I can't wait to hear this argued in court. Scientists will have to swear their bias under oath!

The evidence is what it is. Contrary to that old saying, facts do not speak for themselves - they must be interpreted. If someone assumes evolution is true, then he’ll interpret the facts accordingly. Keep that in mind when people go on and on about all this “evidence” for evolution. What they're telling you is not evidence but their interpretation of the evidence - an interpretation biased toward evolution.

I don’t mind the bias so much; I’ll admit I’m biased. It’s the blatant hypocrisy that annoys me. So don’t hand me any ‘holier than thou’ speech about always being skeptical and true scientific inquiry. Your bias is showing!