How Does Amoral Atheism Account for Scientific 'Sins'? | The Institute for Creation Research

How Does Amoral Atheism Account for Scientific 'Sins'?

Science is often portrayed as a pure pursuit of knowledge, with well-trained individuals who are dedicated to the highest standards of intellectual and professional achievement.

But scientists are human beings, capable of making mistakes and subject to wrong impulses. When a scientist commits scientific fraud, how do his peers who are atheists address the moral implications of such behavior?

As vice provost at the California Institute of Technology, David Goodstein is responsible for investigating instances of scientific misconduct. He recently put out a book on the topic, which was discussed by leading atheist, evolutionary psychologist, and Skeptic magazine publisher Michael Shermer in a July Scientific American article appropriately titled "When Scientists Sin."

In his review of On Fact and Fraud: Cautionary Tales from the Front Lines of Science, Shermer summarized Goodstein's assessment that "scientists are highly motivated by status and rewards, that they are no more objective than professionals in other fields, that they can dogmatically defend an idea no less vehemently than ideologues and that they can fall sway to the pull of authority."1

According to Scientific American, Goodstein wrote that "injecting falsehoods into the body of science is rarely, if ever, the purpose of those who perpetrate fraud."1 But just because a scientist does not purposely commit fraud for the sake of ruining scientific knowledge does not mean that a different motive is any more pure--or less harmful.

The Scientific American article listed four clear cases of scientific fraud, but a general news search showed more. In 2004, a Texas Tech medical researcher lost his job and served time due to a fraud conviction.2 And the "Himalayan hoax" was perpetrated by a paleontologist from India who tried to pass off already-published fossil images as his own.3 More cases have been discovered, and they represent just the scientists not clever enough to avoid getting caught.

Shermer concluded, "So some scientists sin, it's true….The general environment of openness and honesty, though mythic in its idealized form, nonetheless exists."1 Here, he makes it clear that he considers both sin and honesty to actually exist. These are certainly part of the fabric of human experience, and have their historical precedents in Genesis. But since they are not part of the fabric of atheism, the concepts must be borrowed from the theistic worldview, which holds that a Creator exists outside of the natural realm and is in fact the reason there even is a natural realm.

In 2009, Shermer debated Gregory Koukl, Christian apologist and co-author of Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Midair, on Hugh Hewitt's nationally aired radio show. Koukl said of Shermer's 2004 book, The Science of Good and Evil:

I've read most of it, and it's well written, and it's very compelling. But it's a description about how the illusion of ethics has taken place…you can't then talk about morality as if it's objective when your explanations are subjective.4

Shermer "defended" his contention that moral standards can exist outside of a God-based system by assertively denying that moral laws need an objective source. But no matter what "sin" is committed, if moral laws are subjective inventions, then any given person's opinion might be that such an act is not sin at all. That would make the act wrong only for some, yet Shermer assumes the theistic position that right is still right and wrong is wrong for all.

Scientists will continue to commit fraud, because scientists are people with flaws like the rest of humanity. And all people, whether they deny or embrace the real Lawgiver, will continue to correctly recognize that fraud is actually wrong, because people were "wired" for morality when they were created in the image of God.5

References

  1. Shermer, M. 2010. When Scientists Sin. Scientific American. 303 (1): 34.
  2. Enserink, M. and D. Malakoff. 2003. The Trials of Thomas Butler. Science. 302 (5653): 2054-2063.
  3. Stevens, W. K. Scientist Accused of Faking Findings. The New York Times. Published April 23, 1989, accessed on nytimes.com June 28, 2010.
  4. Greg Koukl and Michael Shermer at the End of the Decade of the New Atheists. Hugh Hewitt radio show transcript. Posted on hughhewitt.com December 31, 2009, accessed June 28, 2010.
  5. Thomas, B. Baby Morality Defies Evolution. ICR News. Posted on icr.org May 26, 2010, accessed July 7, 2010.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on July 9, 2010.

The Latest
NEWS
Liberty and the Word of God
“And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts” (Psalm 119:45). July 4th is called Independence Day here in our country because on...

NEWS
July 2025 ICR Wallpaper
"These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome...

NEWS
Valued Longtime ICR Employee Mary Smith Retires
Mary Morris Smith, an employee of the Institute for Creation Research for many years, has retired. The second daughter of ICR founder Dr. Henry M. Morris...

NEWS
Man of Science, Man of God: George Washington Carver
Who:  George Washington Carver What: Father of Modern Agriculture When: 1864 or 1865 – January 5, 1943 Where: Diamond Grove,...

ACTS & FACTS
The Scopes Monkey Trial: A Battle of Worldviews
Rhea County Courthouse in Dayton, Tennessee, and its statue of William Jennings Bryan Image credit: M. Mueller The Scopes Monkey...

ACTS & FACTS
Long Non-Coding RNAs: The Unsung Heroes of the Genome
Evolutionary theory holds that all living things came about through random, natural processes. So conventional scientists believe the genome has developed...

ACTS & FACTS
Yosemite National Park, Part 1: Tiny Clues of a Grand Picture
Yosemite National Park in California is a sure source of stunning scenery. It’s no wonder that American naturalist John Muir persuaded President...

ACTS & FACTS
From Inference to Theory: A Common Design Case Study
Without a doubt, humans, chimpanzees, and other organisms share similar features. An early explanation was that these features reflect similar designs...

ACTS & FACTS
Creation Kids: T. rex
by Michael Stamp and Susan Windsor* You're never too young to be a creation scientist and explore our Creator's world. Kids, discover...

ACTS & FACTS
Entering By The Door
Recently, I hosted a visiting pastor from a large church at ICR’s Discovery Center. As I guided him through our Dallas museum, one conversation...