One thing I’ve noticed reading the work of creationists and other religious apologists is that they’re quite fond of Richard Lewontin’s review of Carl Sagan’s _The Demon Haunted World_. Sagan’s book, for those who haven’t read it, is a poetic introduction to critical thinking and the value of science in combating superstition. Lewontin gets quoted for his apparent rejection of the idea of science as a rational enterprise:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

I say “apparent” because, after having read Lewontin’s article I doubt he really believes what he says, but first the problems with his claims:

(1) “…the patent absurdity of some of its contructs…” What Lewontin appears to mean by this is that some of science’s discoveries are counter-intuitive, but this is no argument that those discoveries are false, or we don’t know whether they are true. Obviously, things that can initially seem false can in fact be true, and we can discover these things. No real criticism of science here.

(2) “…in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life…” Exhibit A here is that the medical benefits of genetic research haven’t been as great as some people expect. But so what? The course of scientific advance is hard to predict, and includes both disappointed hopes and pleasnt surprises. Read the science fiction of 50+ years ago, and it seeems both over and under optimistic: robots with human-like intelligence, but no internet. This doesn’t make the achievements of science any less real, or the achievements of religion any less nonexistent.

(3) “…in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories…” Whether this is accurate depends on what you mean by “tolerate”: scientists are imperfect, but the irrational beliefs of scientists are regularly criticized by other scientists, in fact this is the whole basis for Lewontin’s claims about the irrationality of scientists. In this part of the argument, we get a nice example of using jargon to make it look like the author has said more than he has: Stephen J. Gould is supposed to have shown us the “social construction of scientific knowledge,” but this just means that Gould criticized the ideologically-driven mistakes of previous scienists.

(4) Though it’s not in the favorite quote above, Lewontin also complains about alleged dependence of science on authority. We get a nicely confused example about how in law courts, scientists are certified as experts and then their word is taken for granted to be reliable–which is supposedly a problem, but no different than trusting material witnesses once it’s been established that they’re in a position to know what they claim. The use of Lewontin by creationists makes him into a nice example of the difference between intelligent use of experts and blind appeals to authority: experts can generally reach a consensus when the truth is really clear, non-experts can figure out whether the expert is really in a position to know what he claims, and non-experts can check some of the expert’s reasoning if they invest the time.

In Lewontin’s case, his views are bizarre within the scientific comunity, he has no special expertise on the nature of science, and a quick read though his review reveals what he’s saying makes little sense.

I doubt that Lewontin really believes his conclusions, because he is a scientist reported to have made real accomplishments, yet if we take what he says seriously we would have to conlcude that we have idea whatever whether the apparent discoveries of science are really true. Lewontin sneers at Laplace for saying (on the relevance of God to understanding the solar system) “Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis.” Lewontin: “One can almost hear a stress on the “I.” The implied message is that the correctness of astrophysics is a subjective matter, but Lewontin would never say so so clearly. Similarly, there’s a discussion of creationism in terms of class warfare, suggesting that’s all it is, again which I doubt Lewontin really believes.

The clearest example of Lewtonin’s anti-science stance is the final paragraph:

Conscientious and wholly admirable popularizers of science like Carl Sagan use both rhetoric and expertise to form the mind of masses because they believe, like the Evangelist John, that the truth shall make you free. But they are wrong. It is not the truth that makes you free. It is your possession of the power to discover the truth. Our dilemma is that we do not know how to provide that power.

Obviously, we know how to provide sound scientific training, what this then amounts to is that sound scientific training gives no ability to discover the truth. Again, Lewontin doesn’t believe this.

Finally, there’s an interesting little slip, where Lewontin has to admit that _a priori_ materialism can’t account for why Sagan would reject the claim that extraterrestrials have visited earth, and Lewontin has to admit that on that one, Sagan is just following the evidence.

Out of context, Lewontin’s reason-bashing looks inexplicable, but there’s an easy explanation: Lewontin is a Marxist who treats the advance of science as a threat to his ideological commitments. Not so surprising in that context, though it’s unfortunate someone like that is in a position to get touted as an authority on the nature of science.