An article appearing on a science news site portrayed Christian megachurches as a drug. What if the tables were turned?
The article on PhysOrg analyzed the Christian megachurch phenomenon in terms of its psychological and sociological influence. Without commenting on the validity of its claims, is this a proper subject for science? What if theologians analyzed the scientific consensus on Darwinism in similar terms? It might look like the following.
Darwin as a Drug: The Rise of Scientific Consensus on Evolution
Pro-Darwin scientific societies use policy statements, emotional rhetoric, charismatic leadership and a domineering, unchallenged vision of evolution to provide their members with a powerful emotional pseudoscientific experience that discourages dissent, according to research from the Department of Sociology of Science at G. K. Chesterton Seminary.
“Membership in scientific societies is one of the leading ways evolutionists maintain unanimity these days, so, therefore, these societies should be understood,” said James Weller, associate professor of sociology of science at Chesterton. “Our study shows that — contrary to public opinion that tends to pass off the Darwin movement as harmless atheist dogma — scientific societies are doing a pretty effective job quelling dissent and influencing education, politics and the courts. In fact, society members speak proudly of their lack of dissent.”
Pro-Darwin scientific conferences have grown in number, size, and influence in recent years, coming to virtually dominate the scientific consensus on origins. More than half of all research scientists now attend the largest pro-Darwin conferences….
Continue Reading on crev.info