Once upon a time scientists were supposed to be skeptical. Scientific theories, we were taught, were to be questioned. Yes scientists were to formulate theories, but they were also to search for evidence against theories, even their own. And while such a noble action as searching for problems with one's own theory might be too much to ask, certainly scientists were never to protect a theory against contradictory evidence or mislead the public. That would be the ultimate scientific sell out. Scientists were to be objective, and to follow the evidence where ever it may lead.
Those days are gone -- long gone. Misleading the public, covering up evidence, protecting theories -- that is all standard fare today. We have now arrived at the sad state where evidence that is contrary to evolution -- any contrary evidence -- is not allowed. Consider this recent exchange between Yudhijit Bhattacharjee of Science magazine and evolution crusader Eugenie Scott:
Science magazine: How has this battle changed in the past 20 years?
Eugenie Scott: The enemy has become more diverse. When I started, it was just creation science. Now we have creation science, intelligent design [ID], and straight-up antievolution in the form of "evidence against evolution."
Evidence against evolution? Is there something wrong with that? Yes, there is for evolutionists. Science, in the hands of evolutionists, is something to be manipulated. Scientists who want to examine the evidence are ridiculed and marginalized. If you doubt evolution you are considered to be the enemy. Motives are assigned to you, and you are stereotyped. This is pure dogma. Religion drives science, and it matters.
Editor's Note: This is crossposted at Cornelius Hunter's blog, Darwin's God.