Scientific Bias — Another Instance

SEE HERE It's odd really how fully invested some scientists get in their theories. Darwinism is a good example. There is a lot of evidence that Darwin was onto something with natural selection, however the evidence that his theory was adequate to explain the variety and complexity of all life was decidedly weak and continues to be so. Oddly the discovery of DNA encoding has made the task of making Darwinism work much more difficult. The concept of "junk DNA" was helpful since it implied that there was a lot of, well junk, evidence to show that random mutations accounted for change and of course lots of them produced, well junk, stuff that wasn't helpful. The problem gets a whole lot worse if the reality is that almost all the DNA encodes sophisticated and complex functions.

I really don't have a horse in this race. I'm not a biologist. I don't really give a rip about Darwinism one way or another. I do care about scientific procedure and the kind of response that reflects agenda driven thinking is abhorrent to me and I consider it a sign that a scientist that adopts it is really not being an honest scientist. Scientists should always follow the data. Falling so in love with your theory that you actually deplore discoveries that don't agree with it isn't science at all. One should celebrate discoveries and new understandings, not deplore the fact that they don't agree with your preconceptions.