Published: Saturday, May 3, 2014 at 6:01 a.m. Last Modified: Thursday, May 1, 2014 at 6:33 p.m.

One important aspect of the so-called evolution versus creationism debate is the clear need to keep the likes of Bill Nye and Ken Ham, sincere though they may be, from injecting their belief systems into science classrooms as legitimate science (though their particular "holy war" should be discussed, with neither side winning).

A wider issue is the insidious, destructive effect of the either-or/us-versus-them mindset so prominent in human affairs. As the 19th century humorist known as Josh Billings observed, the trouble with most folks is not that they're ignorant, but that they know so many things that ain't so.

It's hard to overstate the mess created by the distortions of both materialists/naturalists preaching a scientistic ideology (the material universe is "all there is" and is without purpose, consciousness is purely a product of the physical brain ...) and young-Earth creationists preaching a literalist origins account that is astonishingly oblivious to both inconsistencies within the Bible itself and to the findings of legitimate science on the origins of planet Earth and its life forms.

This issue keeps popping up, and The Sun has printed a huge volume of columns and letters as young-Earthism rears its head yet again and Castle Darwin's drawbridge lowers as its defenders clatter across the moat and into the fray. For the most part, readers' letters have been more reasonable and thoughtful than either activists on both sides or the big-shot commentators. A search of past Sun publications will provide enough reading to keep inquiring minds entertained for hours.

But look: Despite naturalistic propaganda, evolution and Darwin's theory are not inseparable. Evolution of life forms over billions of years is a proven scientific fact. Darwin's theory is a very elegant scientific model proposing how evolution proceeds, but one can legitimately question whether it is a full explanation.

To reflexively brand questioners as creationists, as naturalists often do, is uncalled for. Darwin, a careful scientific investigator, would be appalled. True science is doctrinally neutral: it seeks verifiable facts and laws derived from what it can observe and measure, and uses "skeptical" to mean doubting a proposition pending scientific verification.

Such concepts as God and purpose are beyond its competency to rule on because they can't be detected and quantified. When the more issue-obsessed naturalists use "skeptical" to actually mean reflexive dismissal of anything at odds with their ideology, they are being intellectually dishonest.

Most prestigious scientific positions are currently held by philosophical naturalists. Most are not zealots, but that does influence how they hire, fire, promote, give out grant money and peer-review scientific articles.

There tends to be a bias, for instance, against investigation of any area regarded as paranormal. To the good, that has forced researchers risking academic pariah-hood by doing that to be exceptionally scientifically rigorous in their investigations and articles. They have established, to a high degree of scientific proof, aspects of- E.S.P., near-death experiences not dependent on any brain or body function, communication with deceased persons, and projection of human consciousness to distant locations blows struck against that wider false dichotomy, science versus religion/spirituality.

Excerpt from:
Lance Lazonby: Either-or mindset in evolution debate has negative effect