I also think that one reason why evolutionists are so close minded and not very contemplative is because perhaps somewhere along the way, during their sequestered education, they were perhaps subtly brain-washed by a modern scientific community that is less about seeking truth and more about getting their funding, and fostering their atheistic cultism.
Well, I am one that started off as a young earth creationist. My education was in no way sequestered in the secular world. Yet I came to accept the theory of evolution as basically correct and the best description of the history of life on earth. You can hardly say I was "brainwashed" into believing in evolution.
And, in fact, I know of several other people who were initially creationists, well versed in their religious tenets, who ended up accepting the theory of evolution. On the other hand, I know no one (and only heard vague rumors of a single person) who started off as evolutionists and became young earth creationists as a result of examining the data closely. All the people that I know of who became creationists did so after having a religious experience that either resulted in their converting to a literalist faith or deepening their faith in the literalist tradition.
To put a finer point on it, people who accept evolution, especially scientists, come from many, many different religious traditions and even retain their religious beliefs, including evangelical Christians. The come from many different social and cultural backgrounds as well. On the other hand, creationists tend to be members of religious sects that insist on a literal reading of their religious texts. To me, that suggests that the evidence itself is pretty persuasive and that the brainwashing, if there is any, is on the other side.
Finally, I want to point out that the scientific "establishment" is actually a pretty anarchic community. Each university is largely responsible for its own hiring of faculty, each journal sets its own standards for publication, each agency decides which researchers are eligible for its funding. It seems to me to be pretty unlikely that such a large, diverse community without a "central committee" to decide its dogma could for so long establish and maintain a single coherent picture of the history of the universe, the earth, and life on earth if the data were inconclusive or, worse, really indicative of an intelligent creator. It seems to me that different fields and different countries would have established wildly different versions of this history with a significant number accepting a version of the creationists' history.
To count as an atheist, one needn't claim to have proof that there are no gods. One only needs to believe that the evidence on the god question is in a similar state to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy
™ Version 4.2
