Almost everyone has heard the children's story by Hans Christian Andersen entitled, "The Emperor's New Clothes". When the Emperor parades around in clothes that are invisible no one says anything because everybody thinks that if they cannot see the clothes that they are stupid, ignorant, or insane. The theory of evolution has become so popular and so pervasive that it is difficult for anyone to question it without being branded as, "ignorant, stupid, or insane." Some might suggest that I am too biased by my upbringing or religious background to see the truth of the theory of evolution. " This paper deals specifically with the theory of evolution and the hold that this theory has taken upon the scientific community as well as the popular imagination. The farce continues until a child exclaims, "The Emperor has no clothes!Certainly it is true that I am human, prone to bias.But, at least I am aware of this and really do desire to know the truth - wherever it may lead.
When a theory or interpretation can no longer be questioned, it leaves the realm of science and moves into the realm of holy, untouchable, religious dogma.Often the thought crosses my mind that scientists are just as fervent and religious in their thinking as any other church-going community. I'm not saying that a little religious zeal is a bad thing - even for scientists.Many truths are very important and should be defended.However, human ideas of "truth" are not or at least should not be above all question.In fact, truth is made all the more clear when it is challenged.Why then does it seem like many scientists defend their ideas of naturalism and the theory of evolution as if their lives and very souls depended on it?The dedication of the scientific community at large to these ideas is generally no less dogmatic and passionate than the religious fervor of the most hardened sectarian fundamentalist.And yet, the scientific method really does not support the use of any "" assumptions when evaluating the potential truthfulness of any hypothesis or theory.The position that the mindless non-deliberate processes of nature are the only types of potentially "natural" forces that can possibly be considered when it comes to explaining the origin and diversity of life on this planet is not a requirement of the scientific method, but is rather a philosophical position.It all boils down to what scientists define as "natural" verses "supernatural".The funny thing is, scientists do theorize the involvement of intelligent minds all the time when it comes to forensic investigations or searches for extraterrestrial intelligence - since these intelligences would be "natural". Upon what basis are all considerations of the workings of an intelligent mind excluded, without any consideration whatsoever, when it comes to determining the origin and diversity of life on this planet?