Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
as vigilant in warding off evolutionism as they are in repudiating the theistic
motives they detect in creationism and intelligent design.
Such inconsistencies make sense once we consider the rhetorical
potency of
nomos
-
cosmos
linkages. By supposing that human values can be
read out of nature, evolutionism sustains an ethos that is highly attractive
to scientists. I will call this a “priestly” ethos, not only because it arises from
evolutionism's capacity to depict scientists as mediators of a reality inacces-
sible to all others, but also because of its essential religious properties.
30
Cultures elevate certain individuals as priests because they regard them as
uniquely equipped to receive and interpret sacred signs, messages thought
to emanate from the source of all being and value. For a culture strongly
under the spell of naturalism, in which there is no being that is not identi-
cal with the reality of the natural universe, science is likely to assume this
role simply because it assumes such authority once the natural world has
moved into the position vacated by God. This is not to say that science,
as science, deals in the sacred. We might safely presume that most of its
practitioners are content to be mere plowers and sowers in various fields of
material causality. It is only when evolution transmutates into evolutionism
that science appropriates this priestly identity. When this occurs, scientific
knowledge about the origins and development of life will have transformed
into a narrative about life's meaning, value, and purpose, thus transforming
the scientific role as well.
To hold the office of priest is to garner tangible rewards. Science, by
emulating this social role, is able to siphon off some of the respect tradition-
ally directed at religious authorities, but this is more than merely a shift of
subjective allegiances. My focal concern is with the more concrete benefits
of patronage that accrue to those who occupy such a role. This is particu-
larly worthy of emphasis simply because the problem of patronage is such
an obvious one for the scientific culture. Like others who wish to undertake
intellectual pursuits, scientists depend upon the goodwill of strangers, the
goodwill of various outside interests that might benefit by sharing with sci-
ence some part of their expendable wealth.
Patronage is a problem for science simply because there is never enough
of it. There always seems to be plenty of public enthusiasm for science—just
never enough to keep it fully employed. This is because the return that
science pays on such investments is typically only indirect. Industries will
support scientific research if they perceive that it might contribute to their
profitability or perhaps give a scientific aura to their products, and govern-
ments will do so if they perceive that science has bearing on public policy or
