Scientific Fundamentalism

Ten Rules of Scientific Fundamentalism Reprinted with permission of The
Wall Street Journal copyright 1993 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights
reserved.

  1. Science holds the answers to all the questions of life.
  2. Anyone who does not believe Rule 1 is not Scientific.
  3. Any evidence for intelligent design of the universe is not scientific.
  4. Any person who teaches there is evidence for intelligent design of the
     universe is not a scientist.
  5. Scientists know for a fact that matter is all there is.
  6. Anything which is not matter does not matter.
  7. Religion or religious impulse is the result of undesirable mutations
     in biological matter.
  8. Whatever is not science is religion.
  9. Only science may be taught.
 10. Stuff happens, but only by coincidence.

Provine's Rules of Evolution
From "The Faith of an Atheist" by George Liles, MD, March, 1994, pages
59-64.

  1. There are no gods or purposive forces in nature.
  2. There are no inherent moral or ethical laws to guide human society.
  3. Human beings are complex machines that become ethical beings by way of
     heredity and environmental influences, with environment playing a
     larger and hereditary a somewhat smaller role than is commonly
     supposed.
  4. There is no free will in the traditional sense of being able to make
     uncoerced and unpredictable choices.
  5. When we die, we die--finally and completely forever. (The idea we can
     somehow survive death is a myth.)
  6. This is what we are and all there is.

As you read through these 16 rules, what was your reaction? To a great
extent, your reaction is a barometer of the kind of indoctrination that you
have had and the extent to which you have accepted that indoctrination! How
many of the statements did you find yourself agreeing with? How many of the
statements do you feel to be scientific or to be what scientists believe?
The Ten Rules of Scientific Fundamentalism were originally written as a
joke or sarcastic jab at the attitudes frequently reflected by people
antagonistic to religion. Several researchers have turned it into a
questionnaire to see to what extent people actually believe these 10
statements. The levels of acceptance among college students have been
reported to be amazingly high, but no detailed analysis of the data has
been released as yet.

The list identified as William Provine's Rules of Evolution is a copy of
statements made by Dr. William Provine to his undergraduate biology class
at Cornell University. Compare his statements with the list of Rules of
Scientific Fundamentalism. Students in this class are not only pressured to
accept Provine's rules, but are also exposed to a constant stream of abuse
and ridicule of belief in God or the Bible. His belief system is basically
that of Scientific Fundamentalism. The very fact that Provine can push his
belief system off on his students and brag about it in a magazine with
national circulation with no repercussions is an indication of the degree
to which the rights of people who do not accept Scientific Fundamentalism
are being ignored. Provine is not alone in his flagrant abuse of those who
reject his assumptions. A huge percentage of the programs offered on
science on television make it clear that they also essentially embrace the
Rules of Scientific Fundamentalism.

Sit down in front of your television set sometime and watch a science
documentary on the Discovery channel, PBS, or CNN. Watch the program and
see how many times the following demonstrations of acceptance of Scientific
Fundamentalism occur.

  1. How many times does the program state or imply that there might be an
     explanation or answer to the problem that they are addressing that
     lies outside of the field of science? It could be a solution from the
     arts, from literature, from recreation, morality, or philosophy--not
     just religion.
  2. How many times does the program acknowledge the fact that there is
     more to the cosmos than physical matter? Is there any attention paid
     to metaphysics, non-Euclidean mathematics, dimensional forces beyond
     time, morality, or energy that is not mechanical in nature?
  3. Is there any content in the program that portrays another solution to
     the problem being considered other than science? Are solutions from
     the arts, metaphysics, etc., mentioned in any kind of a positive way?
  4. Is blind mechanistic opportunistic chance the only possibility given
     as to how a particular event occurred?
  5. How many times does the program denigrate and ridicule religion in
     selling its solution to whatever problem it is addressing?

The Ten Rules of Scientific Fundamentalism were written to be humorous, but
they are too true to be funny. Viewpoints like Provine's are not just sad
expressions of personal beliefs. They are malicious promoters of poor
self-image, selfish destructive behavior, and depressive suicidal catalysts
in the minds of our young. No wonder our society is collapsing around us as
the whole world disintegrates in mindless immorality.

Science is not the issue in this problem. Facts do not have the power to
promote bad self-image or motivate the exploitation of others. Einstein
used to say, "Religion without science is lame, but science without
religion is blind." College professors and producers of science
documentaries have a charge to bring the facts to our attention. We all
need to know what has been discovered. When you read through Provine's
rules, how many facts do you find? The next time you watch a science
documentary, take a sheet of paper and draw a line down the middle. On the
left side of the line, list the facts presented in the program. On the
right side of the line, list the opinions, assumptions, faith statements,
conclusions and/or biases of the authors which the program presents. On a
recent trip, I sat in a motel and watched five programs on PBS. Eighty two
percent of the statements made fell into the latter category--in other
words, for every 18 facts, there were 82 attempts to indoctrinate the
viewer with the bias of the producers of the program. Just for fun, I did
the same thing on an series of ads for cars by local car dealers and found
that more facts were given by the car salesmen--31 facts verses 69
statements of opinion or judgment.

We urge you to educate your children and their teachers to the importance
of thinking and analyzing claims. The scientific illiteracy of our
population is directly related to this problem, in this writer's view.
People cannot make good judgments themselves when they are indoctrinated
with the professor or producer's views instead of being given factual
information. We are amazed that people would follow the likes of Jim Jones
or David Koresh, but the exact same thing is happening in science today.
Blind religious fundamentalism is a dangerous thing, but scientific
fundamentalism is just as blind and even more destructive.

                            JNC

Back to Contents Does God Exist?, March/April 1996