Contemporary research has today uncovered new facts that are producing a risingconviction that homosexuality — is a healthy, natural and affirming form of humansexuality. (LS p. 71)Science, Spong believes, is a neutral sifter and accumulator of facts which producesconclusions based on observation and is untarnished by prejudice. Belief in a literal Bibleis primitive and produces such ‘mistakes’ as beliefs in Christ’s bodily resurrection andvirginal conception, and the idea that homosexual acts are sinful. But now, thanks toscience, we have the facts. We know that Jesus neither rose from the grave nor was He born of a virgin, and that homosexual acts are just as valid as heterosexual acts.But just how objective and neutral is Spong’s new god Science? The view of science as aneutral accumulator of facts has been debated in several books, such as Thomas Kuhn’sfamous book,
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Kuhn maintains that scientificrevolutions occur through a shift in the framework or paradigm in which facts areinterpreted, and that the shift in framework depends as much upon human and non-scientific factors as on the data themselves. The Marxist evolutionist Stephen Jay Gouldalso admits that any theory colours perception of fact.
Simply put, scientists are notalways neutral.
1.1.1) The Bias of some scientists
Agnostic science writer Richard Milton used to be respected by scientists until he wrote a book which vigorously challenged the dogma of Darwinism.
‘Objective’ scientistRichard Dawkins (and ardent atheist), reviewing the book in
, wrote thatthe book is ‘loony’, ‘stupid’, ‘drivel’, and its author a ‘harmless fruitcake’ who ‘needs psychiatric help’.
Dawkins is now ‘Chair of the Public Understanding of Science’ at the prestigious Oxford University and is responsible for shaping the minds of youngscientists. Yet this is not the objective language supposedly typical of science, but rather that of a religious zealot responding to someone who has blasphemed his faith.Most secular science magazines censor challenges to evolution.
evenrefused to hire Forrest Mims III
columnist, when they foundout that he was a creationist, although they admitted that his work was ‘fabulous’, ‘great’and ‘first rate’.
Ironically, the founding editor of the magazine was a creationist, as werethe founders of most branches of modern science.
Professor DMS Watson, one of the leading biologists and science writers of his day,wrote:evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logicallycoherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearlyincredible.