This list of reasons is not standardized in any way by any organization. They are reasons given from various sources including scientists, educators, the media and other individuals who have put their faith in evolution. This is not an exhaustive list.
For questions or comments about this web page e-mail Brett Miller..
Science cannot determine if a transcendent designer exists.
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound. The answer depends on how you define sound. If sound is the vibrations made by the tree moving through the surrounding air and ground then, no one is required to hear it for it to be sound. If sound requires an intelligent receptor, then sound only exists when it is heard. In either case, the vibrations are still present. Science is incapable of examining anything that does not exist in the present material universe; it cannot examine a sound unless there is an intelligent receptor to hear it. Science cannot examine intelligence until it manifests itself in the material world. For example, science cannot examine an "idea", until the idea produces an action, i.e. speech, writing, movement, creativity. An "idea" must be communicated for science to examine it. That does not mean that ideas cannot exist until science can prove they are there, or that they are irrelevant until they manifest themselves in some way. So the fact that science cannot determine if a transcendent designer exists cannot be a reason for rejecting intelligent design. It also should raise the question of how successful a belief system will be when it is based only on what science can discover.
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound. The answer depends on how you define sound. If sound is the vibrations made by the tree moving through the surrounding air and ground then, no one is required to hear it for it to be sound. If sound requires an intelligent receptor, then sound only exists when it is heard. In either case, the vibrations are still present. Science is incapable of examining anything that does not exist in the present material universe; it cannot examine a sound unless there is an intelligent receptor to hear it. Science cannot examine intelligence until it manifests itself in the material world. For example, science cannot examine an "idea", until the idea produces an action, i.e. speech, writing, movement, creativity. An "idea" must be communicated for science to examine it. That does not mean that ideas cannot exist until science can prove they are there, or that they are irrelevant until they manifest themselves in some way. So the fact that science cannot determine if a transcendent designer exists cannot be a reason for rejecting intelligent design. It also should raise the question of how successful a belief system will be when it is based only on what science can discover.
Intelligent design is just an argument against evolution, i.e. a reaction by religion against evolution.
The "Intelligent Design" movement is relatively new, but the idea that life was intelligent design is not a new idea at all, therefore it is not a reaction to evolutionary theory. Darwinian evolution is actually the reaction to and a rejection of the Biblical view of origins. If you go back a few hundred years to the turn of the 18th century you will find the birth of modern day evolution, but it was not born in a vacuum of ideas. Most people at the time believed that life had a "designer" or creator and that science supported those ideas.
One of the goals of the materialists of that time was to show that everything occurred by natural processes, without the intervention of a creator. Evolution was immediately accepted by many on very scanty and circumstantial evidence because it filled a logical hole in materialistic philosophy. One of the objectives of materialists was to destroy the power of the church by proving the Bible was wrong. So if we go back far enough we see that the 18th century idea of evolution was rooted in the desire to find arguments against intelligent design, more specifically, Biblical creation. The modern Intelligent Design movement is one that began inside secular science, by scientists who could no longer reconcile the facts of biology with the theory of evolution and maintain the dogma that evolution is an established fact.
The "Intelligent Design" movement is relatively new, but the idea that life was intelligent design is not a new idea at all, therefore it is not a reaction to evolutionary theory. Darwinian evolution is actually the reaction to and a rejection of the Biblical view of origins. If you go back a few hundred years to the turn of the 18th century you will find the birth of modern day evolution, but it was not born in a vacuum of ideas. Most people at the time believed that life had a "designer" or creator and that science supported those ideas.
One of the goals of the materialists of that time was to show that everything occurred by natural processes, without the intervention of a creator. Evolution was immediately accepted by many on very scanty and circumstantial evidence because it filled a logical hole in materialistic philosophy. One of the objectives of materialists was to destroy the power of the church by proving the Bible was wrong. So if we go back far enough we see that the 18th century idea of evolution was rooted in the desire to find arguments against intelligent design, more specifically, Biblical creation. The modern Intelligent Design movement is one that began inside secular science, by scientists who could no longer reconcile the facts of biology with the theory of evolution and maintain the dogma that evolution is an established fact.
Belief in molecules to man evolution is required for biology.
There are many scientists who reject evolution, for scientific reasons. Statements like "Scientists agree that evolution is a fact" are one of the culprits behind the idea that evolution is indeed scientific "hard" fact. What is actually happening is that scientists who disagree aren't counted. This creates the illusion that evolution has consensus in science for those who either don't want to investigate or don't want to accept the truth. There are cases where evolutionary thought has actually hindered medical and biological science, such as claiming tonsils and the appendix as being useless, and calling portions of DNA "junk". Science has always been disconnected from evolution. Evolution was claimed to be fact before the data to support it was available. Every biological discovery is uncritically defined by evolutionists within the scope of evolution. Challenges to the theory are discouraged. This means critical thought is hindered, analysis is directed away from other possibilities and assumptions of evolution are put in place of scientific data. It seems that evolution is a hindrance to science, rather than a requirement for it.
There are many scientists who reject evolution, for scientific reasons. Statements like "Scientists agree that evolution is a fact" are one of the culprits behind the idea that evolution is indeed scientific "hard" fact. What is actually happening is that scientists who disagree aren't counted. This creates the illusion that evolution has consensus in science for those who either don't want to investigate or don't want to accept the truth. There are cases where evolutionary thought has actually hindered medical and biological science, such as claiming tonsils and the appendix as being useless, and calling portions of DNA "junk". Science has always been disconnected from evolution. Evolution was claimed to be fact before the data to support it was available. Every biological discovery is uncritically defined by evolutionists within the scope of evolution. Challenges to the theory are discouraged. This means critical thought is hindered, analysis is directed away from other possibilities and assumptions of evolution are put in place of scientific data. It seems that evolution is a hindrance to science, rather than a requirement for it.
Intelligent design is an argument from ignorance.
If the origin of something can't be explained through science does it mean that it must be intelligently designed? When science doesn't have an answer do we automatically insert God? This is known as the "God of the gaps" argument. Yet science has yet to discover how even one functional system in a living cell could form through unguided natural processes. Evolution is assumed. The argument from ignorance would state that "Since we don't understand how it happened, it must be God." In essence however the counter argument presented by evolutionists is also an argument from ignorance, "Since we didn't see God do it, it must have a natural cause." So when evolution comes up against a biological system that is oozing design they are baffled because they have already concluded these things only happen naturally. It's self imposed ignorance. The fact is that the story of evolution is filled with gaps, and the gaps can be filled with anything an evolutionist can imagine and most often are.
But that's not science. It also takes advantage of the fact that challenges to imaginary events can't be countered with scientific data. The question is, at what point do you decide that nature is not capable of creating life and that an intelligent cause has to be the answer? This point must exist, even for a materialist. The issue is actually faith. Evolutionists who are ignorant of how something happened are, by faith, consoled by the idea that science will someday provide answers. An argument from ignorance.
On the other hand those who believe in a creator recognize that the universe and life look designed and that they look that way because they were designed. Essentially both sides, evolution and creation are ignorant of the exact process that would allow for the chemical and biological evolution of life.
If the origin of something can't be explained through science does it mean that it must be intelligently designed? When science doesn't have an answer do we automatically insert God? This is known as the "God of the gaps" argument. Yet science has yet to discover how even one functional system in a living cell could form through unguided natural processes. Evolution is assumed. The argument from ignorance would state that "Since we don't understand how it happened, it must be God." In essence however the counter argument presented by evolutionists is also an argument from ignorance, "Since we didn't see God do it, it must have a natural cause." So when evolution comes up against a biological system that is oozing design they are baffled because they have already concluded these things only happen naturally. It's self imposed ignorance. The fact is that the story of evolution is filled with gaps, and the gaps can be filled with anything an evolutionist can imagine and most often are.
But that's not science. It also takes advantage of the fact that challenges to imaginary events can't be countered with scientific data. The question is, at what point do you decide that nature is not capable of creating life and that an intelligent cause has to be the answer? This point must exist, even for a materialist. The issue is actually faith. Evolutionists who are ignorant of how something happened are, by faith, consoled by the idea that science will someday provide answers. An argument from ignorance.
On the other hand those who believe in a creator recognize that the universe and life look designed and that they look that way because they were designed. Essentially both sides, evolution and creation are ignorant of the exact process that would allow for the chemical and biological evolution of life.
Evolutionists, by faith, believe that science will answer this question affirmatively at some future point. That is the argument from ignorance. Those who accept intelligent design believe that enough scientific evidence already exists to confirm that molecule to man evolution does not and could not have taken place. That is an argument from what we know, not from ignorance.
Arguments for Intelligent Design just point out weaknesses in evolution; there are no real evidences for Intelligent Design.
The ideas on this page do not have physical form, they are communicated however through a physical medium. It is easier to examine what is written than to try to probe the mind for these same thoughts. So in order to show the need for intelligence at times it is easier to demonstrate by showing the limitations of a natural alternative. We don't know of any natural alternative that can produce ideas, but we do know that intelligence can produce ideas. Intelligence can however be the cause of anything we examine. Intelligence can randomly arrange rocks that might look exactly the same as those produced by natural forces. If I were to set down a grain of sand on a specific spot on a beach, how would you tell the one that was placed there from the others that were washed in by the waves? So essentially intelligence can be responsible for many things that we may attribute to natural causes. We can't tell how many grains of sand once belonged to a sand castle. At the same time, when we come across a sand castle, we recognize that sand does not take that form naturally. For the last 50 years scientists have attempted to reproduce natural conditions that would create molecules that could be used by life. They have failed. Conversely, in a hundred years would a scientist be able to tell that a scientist had genetically altered DNA without referring to the written records?
The problem is not as simple as recognizing patterns we are familiar with. It's obvious a sand castle is intelligently designed, because we build sand castles. Complex arrangements that we are either unfamiliar with or that we do not design ourselves are not as easily recognized as being designed. A mound of dirt can turn out to be an ant hill. And in that case, the mound has an intelligent cause.
How do you tell the difference between DNA that's been designed or has happened by a multitude of accidents? We can mistake a mound of dirt for an accident, but not a sand castle. Does DNA compare better with a mound of dirt or a sand castle?
The fact is there is nothing unusual or incorrect about using weaknesses in an argument as evidence. That is, if the two ideas cannot both be true, if one is true then the other must be false. If natural processes are capable of changing molecules to man then a creator is unnecessary. However, if natural processes cannot change molecules to man a creator must be necessary.
The problem is that in order to completely get rid of the idea of a creator using science every step of evolution would have to be fully explained and provable before a creator could not be invoked by someone. And yet, if there is a creator, a fully natural explanation will never be found no matter how much we learn or how long we search. So you get a similar result in either case. When do you decide that natural forces are not capable? If you're committed to a natural explanation, the answer is, never.
So, in essence the final evidence for an intelligent designer would have to come from the designer, since science cannot take that road. Science has already shown that natural processes are incapable of producing or evolving life i.e. molecules to man. It's purely faith based to believe that this is not evidence for intelligent design.
The ideas on this page do not have physical form, they are communicated however through a physical medium. It is easier to examine what is written than to try to probe the mind for these same thoughts. So in order to show the need for intelligence at times it is easier to demonstrate by showing the limitations of a natural alternative. We don't know of any natural alternative that can produce ideas, but we do know that intelligence can produce ideas. Intelligence can however be the cause of anything we examine. Intelligence can randomly arrange rocks that might look exactly the same as those produced by natural forces. If I were to set down a grain of sand on a specific spot on a beach, how would you tell the one that was placed there from the others that were washed in by the waves? So essentially intelligence can be responsible for many things that we may attribute to natural causes. We can't tell how many grains of sand once belonged to a sand castle. At the same time, when we come across a sand castle, we recognize that sand does not take that form naturally. For the last 50 years scientists have attempted to reproduce natural conditions that would create molecules that could be used by life. They have failed. Conversely, in a hundred years would a scientist be able to tell that a scientist had genetically altered DNA without referring to the written records?
The problem is not as simple as recognizing patterns we are familiar with. It's obvious a sand castle is intelligently designed, because we build sand castles. Complex arrangements that we are either unfamiliar with or that we do not design ourselves are not as easily recognized as being designed. A mound of dirt can turn out to be an ant hill. And in that case, the mound has an intelligent cause.
How do you tell the difference between DNA that's been designed or has happened by a multitude of accidents? We can mistake a mound of dirt for an accident, but not a sand castle. Does DNA compare better with a mound of dirt or a sand castle?
The fact is there is nothing unusual or incorrect about using weaknesses in an argument as evidence. That is, if the two ideas cannot both be true, if one is true then the other must be false. If natural processes are capable of changing molecules to man then a creator is unnecessary. However, if natural processes cannot change molecules to man a creator must be necessary.
The problem is that in order to completely get rid of the idea of a creator using science every step of evolution would have to be fully explained and provable before a creator could not be invoked by someone. And yet, if there is a creator, a fully natural explanation will never be found no matter how much we learn or how long we search. So you get a similar result in either case. When do you decide that natural forces are not capable? If you're committed to a natural explanation, the answer is, never.
So, in essence the final evidence for an intelligent designer would have to come from the designer, since science cannot take that road. Science has already shown that natural processes are incapable of producing or evolving life i.e. molecules to man. It's purely faith based to believe that this is not evidence for intelligent design.
Evolution is science, Intelligent Design is religious
This is no more than attempting to draw the discussion away from the real issues. People are religious, not facts. Whether something is intelligently designed or not is not changed by the beliefs of the people observing it. The question is, if nature can't do it then who, not what did. If there is a designer then what becomes of science? Does it operate the same as it did before? Of course it does. Science will probably not be able to discover the creator, but it can continue to discover the creation. Yet, the need for a designer certainly has been revealed by science. So if you want to discover the designer what do you do? Examining a jar of peanut butter is not going to tell you anything about the person or persons who designed it. At best you can infer a few things like they are probably not allergic to peanuts. But in the end, if you want to know the designers, you are going have to take your Peanut Butter research papers and go to see them.
To be sure, what you believe is at the heart of what evidence you are willing to accept by faith. It is clearly astounding how much faith carries the "fact" of evolution. Evolution (molecules to man) cannot be "science" unless the faith is removed, and that is currently not possible. The "fact" of evolution is confirmed by faith in future discoveries. On the other hand, Intelligent Design does have a strong basis in what science is demonstrating now, therefore science confirms the faith that there is a designer, rather than faith confirming the facts as in evolution. And we can pick up our research papers and go and find the designer, in his Word, and through prayer. That's in addition to, not a replacement of, science.
If religion means anything where God or a god is acknowledged, then Intelligent Design has a foundation in both science and religion. Evolution however is not pure science, but a mixture of science, stories and a mystical blind faith that the future will prove that God isn't needed. Call it what you may, but that sounds like religion to me.
This is no more than attempting to draw the discussion away from the real issues. People are religious, not facts. Whether something is intelligently designed or not is not changed by the beliefs of the people observing it. The question is, if nature can't do it then who, not what did. If there is a designer then what becomes of science? Does it operate the same as it did before? Of course it does. Science will probably not be able to discover the creator, but it can continue to discover the creation. Yet, the need for a designer certainly has been revealed by science. So if you want to discover the designer what do you do? Examining a jar of peanut butter is not going to tell you anything about the person or persons who designed it. At best you can infer a few things like they are probably not allergic to peanuts. But in the end, if you want to know the designers, you are going have to take your Peanut Butter research papers and go to see them.
To be sure, what you believe is at the heart of what evidence you are willing to accept by faith. It is clearly astounding how much faith carries the "fact" of evolution. Evolution (molecules to man) cannot be "science" unless the faith is removed, and that is currently not possible. The "fact" of evolution is confirmed by faith in future discoveries. On the other hand, Intelligent Design does have a strong basis in what science is demonstrating now, therefore science confirms the faith that there is a designer, rather than faith confirming the facts as in evolution. And we can pick up our research papers and go and find the designer, in his Word, and through prayer. That's in addition to, not a replacement of, science.
If religion means anything where God or a god is acknowledged, then Intelligent Design has a foundation in both science and religion. Evolution however is not pure science, but a mixture of science, stories and a mystical blind faith that the future will prove that God isn't needed. Call it what you may, but that sounds like religion to me.
Believing in an Intelligent Designer is just a leap of blind faith
Which is the greater leap of faith? To believe there is a creator or to believe that all the information and intelligence that resulted in life on earth and that of human civilization, culture, art and thought could have come from simple unguided chemical combinations. But that's not the question. Is it blind faith to believe in a creator? I would have to say, yes, if there were no evidence. But there is evidence. There is prophecy, history, science and personal experience. So it's not blind faith to believe in a creator, there is too much evidence to rationally deny it. The only thing you can do is choose to believe that all the evidence is contrived or misinterpreted. But you can't deny its there.
On the other hand, evolution is built on myriads of non-verifiable events. From the initial conditions in which chemical life formed, where the first event happened, when it happened, how the first replicating molecules came about, how they began to code for organelles and cell structures, how the first cells formed, how the first eukaryote formed, the first nerve cells, the first amniotic egg, the first live birth, the first eyes, the first brains, the first legs, the first wings, the first fins etc. How did sonar systems, electrical sensors and chemical signaling come about? What about navigation systems that imprint on stars, or the earth's magnetism? We could go on forever. Most evolutionists reduce the explanation to "natural selection" which in essence explains nothing. Natural selection only maintains the gene pool, it does not create a single DNA sequence. Telling logically consistent stories only bolsters the myth.
So is it greater faith to believe that there is a designer, when external evidence not only suggests he is there, but proves it to many? Or is it greater faith to believe in millions of unseen, unexplainable statistical miracles?
Which is the greater leap of faith? To believe there is a creator or to believe that all the information and intelligence that resulted in life on earth and that of human civilization, culture, art and thought could have come from simple unguided chemical combinations. But that's not the question. Is it blind faith to believe in a creator? I would have to say, yes, if there were no evidence. But there is evidence. There is prophecy, history, science and personal experience. So it's not blind faith to believe in a creator, there is too much evidence to rationally deny it. The only thing you can do is choose to believe that all the evidence is contrived or misinterpreted. But you can't deny its there.
On the other hand, evolution is built on myriads of non-verifiable events. From the initial conditions in which chemical life formed, where the first event happened, when it happened, how the first replicating molecules came about, how they began to code for organelles and cell structures, how the first cells formed, how the first eukaryote formed, the first nerve cells, the first amniotic egg, the first live birth, the first eyes, the first brains, the first legs, the first wings, the first fins etc. How did sonar systems, electrical sensors and chemical signaling come about? What about navigation systems that imprint on stars, or the earth's magnetism? We could go on forever. Most evolutionists reduce the explanation to "natural selection" which in essence explains nothing. Natural selection only maintains the gene pool, it does not create a single DNA sequence. Telling logically consistent stories only bolsters the myth.
So is it greater faith to believe that there is a designer, when external evidence not only suggests he is there, but proves it to many? Or is it greater faith to believe in millions of unseen, unexplainable statistical miracles?
Intelligent design is an intellectual cop-out.
Is saying "God did it" unsatisfying? Only if it's the wrong answer. For instance saying that 2+2=5 is unsatisfying because we know it's the wrong answer. But when evolutionists continue to find the wrong answer at the end of their investigation, they assume the data is the problem. Is there really not enough data yet? You see, evolutionists start with an answer. It doesn't matter if the evidence doesn't add up, they believe that someday it will, because for them God is the wrong answer. One reason a designer is unsatisfactory is because, it makes looking for any further "evolutionary" answers unnecessary. They don't want God to be involved, because their goal is to have evolutionary answers for the whole of history. Not so much to find the truth, but to confirm the truth they already believe. This creates a problem. If two scientists are examining an organism and one is trying to discover how it works, but the other is trying to discover what its ancestors were like 5 million years ago, there will be a conflict. Ultimately how it works now is going to have a far greater impact on science today than guesses about what its ancestors were like 5 million years ago. Something that happened five million years ago cannot be substantiated by anything more than consensus. So, if someone has examined the evidence and comes to the conclusion that intelligence was needed, how is this an intellectual cop out? It's simply going to lead them down a different road of investigation and discovery and discovery and discovery...
Is saying "God did it" unsatisfying? Only if it's the wrong answer. For instance saying that 2+2=5 is unsatisfying because we know it's the wrong answer. But when evolutionists continue to find the wrong answer at the end of their investigation, they assume the data is the problem. Is there really not enough data yet? You see, evolutionists start with an answer. It doesn't matter if the evidence doesn't add up, they believe that someday it will, because for them God is the wrong answer. One reason a designer is unsatisfactory is because, it makes looking for any further "evolutionary" answers unnecessary. They don't want God to be involved, because their goal is to have evolutionary answers for the whole of history. Not so much to find the truth, but to confirm the truth they already believe. This creates a problem. If two scientists are examining an organism and one is trying to discover how it works, but the other is trying to discover what its ancestors were like 5 million years ago, there will be a conflict. Ultimately how it works now is going to have a far greater impact on science today than guesses about what its ancestors were like 5 million years ago. Something that happened five million years ago cannot be substantiated by anything more than consensus. So, if someone has examined the evidence and comes to the conclusion that intelligence was needed, how is this an intellectual cop out? It's simply going to lead them down a different road of investigation and discovery and discovery and discovery...
There is not enough material to study intelligent design.
This objection specifically refers to teaching intelligent design in the schools. That is, there are not enough books on intelligent design or educators who are familiar with it. Well then, let's get our education system up to speed. The reason why there may be a scarcity of materials is because the idea of intelligent design has been suppressed if not banned from public education for over half a century. But, as our knowledge of the specified complexity in life grows it is becoming harder and harder to suppress the obvious. Evolutionists have worked hard trying to verify evolutionary claims, but instead have uncovered a complex, integrated coded system that even they agree looks designed. Intelligent design is a challenge they don't welcome.
There are already massive amounts of evidence for intelligent design. Every experiment that shows natural processes can't get from evolutionary point A to evolutionary point B raises the question of an intelligent designer. Imaginary stories of how life got from point A to point B shouldn't be acceptable in science. And they shouldn't be concocted as a failsafe against thinking about a designer. But that is all evolutionary beliefs can offer. The question of intelligence is anathema, not allowed, banned. Banned subjects result in the following: a lack of material, fewer people who are aware of or understand the problem, and more people who blindly adhere to the dogma that is allowed. The education system has been pumping out scientists that cannot think critically about evolution, its time to get realistic materials into the science classroom.
This objection specifically refers to teaching intelligent design in the schools. That is, there are not enough books on intelligent design or educators who are familiar with it. Well then, let's get our education system up to speed. The reason why there may be a scarcity of materials is because the idea of intelligent design has been suppressed if not banned from public education for over half a century. But, as our knowledge of the specified complexity in life grows it is becoming harder and harder to suppress the obvious. Evolutionists have worked hard trying to verify evolutionary claims, but instead have uncovered a complex, integrated coded system that even they agree looks designed. Intelligent design is a challenge they don't welcome.
There are already massive amounts of evidence for intelligent design. Every experiment that shows natural processes can't get from evolutionary point A to evolutionary point B raises the question of an intelligent designer. Imaginary stories of how life got from point A to point B shouldn't be acceptable in science. And they shouldn't be concocted as a failsafe against thinking about a designer. But that is all evolutionary beliefs can offer. The question of intelligence is anathema, not allowed, banned. Banned subjects result in the following: a lack of material, fewer people who are aware of or understand the problem, and more people who blindly adhere to the dogma that is allowed. The education system has been pumping out scientists that cannot think critically about evolution, its time to get realistic materials into the science classroom.
Also, suppressing avenues of thought, especially in the area of science, dampens creativity and increases intellectual lethargy. Answers in science come not from simply knowing the processes and the math, but from being able to creatively and critically think about the data the processes produce.
The materials to study intelligent design and be critical of evolution are not lacking. Our educational system is suffering as a result of not allowing intelligent design as a possibility. It has already taken its toll. Science educators and scientists are told to resist and ignore ideas critical to evolution and trust the authority of the properly sanctioned experts.
Fortunately many scientists and educators are trying to counter the dogma from the "evolution only" crowd to allow critical thinking in the classroom. It may seem odd that the academic freedom that was once a hallmark of our nation is now under attack by the very institutions that once held it high, but as the evidence against the evolutionary paradigm mounts those who have rested their worldview and careers on it will either have to re-evaluate or resist critical thinking and academic freedom.
The materials to study intelligent design and be critical of evolution are not lacking. Our educational system is suffering as a result of not allowing intelligent design as a possibility. It has already taken its toll. Science educators and scientists are told to resist and ignore ideas critical to evolution and trust the authority of the properly sanctioned experts.
Fortunately many scientists and educators are trying to counter the dogma from the "evolution only" crowd to allow critical thinking in the classroom. It may seem odd that the academic freedom that was once a hallmark of our nation is now under attack by the very institutions that once held it high, but as the evidence against the evolutionary paradigm mounts those who have rested their worldview and careers on it will either have to re-evaluate or resist critical thinking and academic freedom.