Rule 1: Do Not Fool Yourself

In his famous 1974-commencement address at Caltech, Richard Feynman provided an inspiring counterexample of how science ought to be practiced. He began by warning against self-deception, the original sin of science, saying, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." To avoid self-deception scientists must bend over backward to report data that cast doubt on their theories. Feynman applied this principle specifically to scientists who talk to the public: 

I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the laymen when you're talking as a scientist. . . I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, [an integrity] that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen. 

That is such a magnificent statement I wish it could be set to music. Richard Feynman's kind of science has the virtue of humility at its core. Honesty and humility. This is what has to be brought into evolutionary science: an understanding of the obligation of science to separate materialist philosophy from scientific investigation, to maintain that separation and be honest about it, and not to mislead the public about what has been demonstrated and what has not. 

When science aspires to establish a ruling philosophy for all aspects of life and to replace God as the basis of rationality and human unity, it has to resort to the methods Paul Feyerabend condemned rather than the humility that Richard Feynman commended. It has to employ the bluster of such as Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, both of whom have been highly honored by the scientific establishments of their respective countries for promoting natural- ism and materialism in the name of science. We need to replace Dawkins-style and Sagan-style science with a science that is humble about what it can do. A science that sticks to its data, that is careful to consider alternative explanations, and that does not allow itself to be ruled by a philosophical or religious agenda of any kind. A science that does not commit the original sin of believing what you want to believe. A science in which the scientists do not fool themselves and therefore do not try to fool the public either. 

Separating empirical science from materialistic philosophy is a big job, and everyone with the right spirit can contribute to it. If you are a scientist, you can follow the path set by Michael Behe and others and bring out the crucial information that is not widely reported because it does not fit materialist preconceptions. If you are a philosopher, you can encourage your colleagues to speak out against other philosophers and scientists, who abuse their authority by using it to promote dubious philosophies as if they had been empirically confirmed. Lawyers also have an important role to play, especially in persuading judges that constitutional principles of freedom of expression apply to criticism of evolutionary naturalism. Too many judges have the idea that criticism of naturalism and materialism constitutes religion and hence is forbidden on public property.

 In some respects parents, schoolteachers and youth workers have the most important role in preparing the next generation of thinkers to understand the difference between real science and materialist philosophy. It is never too early to learn good critical thinking—but sometimes, after years of indoctrination in a biased educational system, it is too late. Some of us are preparing teaching materials to help home-schoolers, private schools and even adventurous public schoolteachers to teach the kids what the textbook writers and curriculum planners do not want them to know. Of course the Darwinists and their lawyers will resist this ferociously. Recently some of them have even taken to saying that "critical thinking" is a code word for creationism and hence for religious oppression. They have cause to worry, because when the young people learn to spot hidden assumptions and know about the evidence the textbooks slide over, they will be very hard to indoctrinate. 

We need people who have enough courage to say this to the scientific materialists: "We're going to challenge the claims you're making that go beyond what you know. You can tell us what you know as biologists, and we want to know and honor that specialized knowledge. But when, as biologists, you tell us that you are believers in materialism as philosophy, we will reply, 'Who cares? You don't know that as biologists, and we're going to call you on your false claims of expertise over philosophical issues.'" We need to have lots of people doing just that.