An Analysis of J Michael Bishops Enemies Of Promise
In the summer of 1995, the periodical Wilson Quarterly published "Enemies of Promise," an essay by J. Michael Bishop, a Nobel Prize-winning professor of microbiology from the University of California, San Francisco. The essay addressed the renewed criticism the scientific community has received in recent years by an ignorant and unduly critical public. The overall effect this single work has had on the world may be nominal, but the points Professor Bishop raises are significant, and provide ammunition against the ignorants who maintain this "intellectual war," centuries after it was sparked.
One of the most visible critics of science today, and the progenitor of the anti-science sentiment is the religious community, specifically the conservative Christians. One can hardly read the newspaper without reading of one religious figurehead or another preaching on the "fallacy of science," pushing their own brand of "truth" on whoever would hear them. As Bishop writes "It is discouraging to think than more than a century after the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species (1859), and seventy years after the Scopes trial dramatized the issue, the same battles must still be fought."(256) And the loudest rallying cries to these battles can be heard issuing from the throats of the ranks of zealots and their hordes of followers.
Other, more surreptitious opponents of science abound as well. Ironically, one such antagonist originates from within academia itself: the postmodernists. Of this group, Bishop writes: "According to these "postmodernists," the supposedly objective truths of science are in reality all "socially constructed fictions," no more than "useful myths,...
... middle of paper ...
...om society. Although Bishop makes no excuses for the shortcomings of science and academia, he delivers an ominous message to those who would attack the scientific community: Science is the future. Learn to embrace it or be left behind.
Anderson, Kirby. "Truth Telling to a Truth-denying Generation" Dallas/Ft. Worth Heritage, The (11-09-99).
Bishop, J. Michael. "Enemies Of Promise" The Presence Of Others Ed. Andrea A. Lunsford, John J. Ruszkiewicz New York: St. Martin's, 1997 255-263.
Truth About Creation, The Christian Coalition, The Religious information pamphlet.
New York: Christian's, 1996.
"Cloning Of Extinct Hiua Bird Approved" CNN.com July 20, 1999
(11-09-99).
Hisamatsu, Shinichi "Hisamatsu Shinichi on postmodernism" April 18, 1999
(11-09-99).
(title unknown) New York Times, The c.October, 1999.
The Scopes trial, writes Edward Larson, to most Americans embodies “the timeless debate over science and religion.” (265) Written by historians, judges, and playwrights, the history of the Scopes trial has caused Americans to perceive “the relationship between science and religion in . . . simple terms: either Darwin or the Bible was true.” (265) The road to the trial began when Tennessee passed the Butler Act in 1925 banning the teaching of evolution in secondary schools. It was only a matter of time before a young biology teacher, John T. Scopes, prompted by the ACLU tested the law. Spectators and newspapermen came from allover to witness whether science or religion would win the day. Yet below all the hype, the trial had a deeper meaning. In Summer for the Gods, Edward Larson argues that a more significant battle was waged between individual liberty and majoritarian democracy. Even though the rural fundamentalist majority legally banned teaching evolution in 1925, the rise of modernism, started long before the trial, raised a critical question for rural Americans: should they publicly impose their religious beliefs upon individuals who believed more and more in science.
Opportunistic scientists, the most hypocritical deviants of the modern age, revolve around the scientific method, or at least they used to. The scientific method once involved formulating a hypothesis from a problem posed, experimenting, and forming a conclusion that best explained the data collected. Yet today, those who are willing to critique the work of their peers are themselves performing the scientific method out of sequence. I propose that scientists, or the "treasure hunters" of that field, are no longer interested in permanent solutions, achieved through proper use of the scientific method, and rather are more interested in solutions that guarantee fame and fortune.
A nobel prize winning, architect of the atomic bomb, and well-known theoretical physicist, Professor Richard P. Feynman, at the 1955 autumn meeting of the National Academy of science, addresses the importance of science and its impact on society. Feynman contends, although some people may think that scientists don't take social problems into their consideration, every now and then they think about them. However he concedes that, because social problems are more difficult than the scientific ones, scientist don’t spend too much time resolving them (1). Furthermore he states that scientist must be held responsible for the decisions they make today to protect the future generation; also they have to do their best, to learn as much as possible,
One of the first controversial scientists was Roger Bacon. He was one of the first scientists to believe that scientific ideas needed to be tested. The general acceptance of the time was to believe what the church told the people, whether or not the ideas had been tested. Bacon was often controversial not because he simply believed that ideas needed to be tested but because he took joy in telling others that they were wrong, often in not the nicest of ways. “Phrases like “damned fools,” “ignorant asses,” “inept buffoons,” and “miserable idiots” pepper
Bishop, Michael J. "Enemies of Promise" The Presence of Others. C Comp. Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruskiewicz. New York: St. Martins, 1997 255-263.
The history of opposition between science and religion has been steady for about half of a century. As early as the 1500's, science and religion have been antagonistic forces working against each other. Science was originally founded by Christians to prove that humans lived in a orderly universe (Helweg, 1997). This would help to prove that the universe was created by a orderly God who could be known. Once this was done, science was considered by the church to be useless. When people began to further investigate the realm of science, the church considered them to be heretics; working for the devil. According to Easterbrook (1...
Schlager, Neil, and Josh Lauer. Science and Its Times: Understanding the Social Significance of Scientific Discovery. Detroit: Gale Group, 2000. Print.
“Science cannot reveal the ultimate reality.” Emerging from Huxley’s keen awareness of the socio-political dimensions of science, his story rings a warning bell about knowledge as power that is especially relevant now that the predicted genetic revolution has arrived. Even though genetics may not be in the hands of despots, the “monks of science” still ought to set down their test tubes once in a while and make it their business to engage in public dialogue about how their research will be put to use in society.
Collins, H. M. (1983). The sociology of scientific knowledge: Studies of contemporary science. Annual Review of Sociology, 265-285.
Bishop, J. Michael. "Enemies of Promise." The Presence of Others:Voices that Call for Response. 2nd ed. Ed Andrea A. Lunsford and John J.Ruszkiewics. New York:St Martin's Press, 1997. 255-263.
... 1959; Nagel, 1971). Some are able to bear the burden of absurdity. Others still feel “that nostalgia for unity, that appetite for the absolute illustrates the essential impulse of the human drama” (Camus, 1955). If scientific discovery can be used as a barometer for the zeitgeist of any particular moment, then the struggle between science and creationism is an indicator of a shifting paradigm. Science is alienating those who need a greater purpose and meaning in life. The threat is a personal one. To teach creationism is not only an infringement on religious freedom, it is also the promotion of intolerance and an advocacy for being afraid of existence. Religion is always there for those who need it. Science is there for those dedicated to truth and knowledge and are comfortable with facing the painful, anxiety-producing endeavor of exploring the unknown.
Monastersky, Richard. (2004). Society Disowns Paper Attacking Darwinism. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 51, Iss. 5, A.16.
Edin, Kathryn and Kefalas, Maria. 2005. Promises I Can Keep. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
...fact that the easiest person to fool is our self. Scientific research is now a lucrative business; companies and business groups are looking to develop the next technology that will generate billions in profits. Any research that does not have direct and marketable applications is considered futile and is rarely funded. Having your work published in scientific magazine, receiving awards confer notoriety and status to scientists and provide them with additional findings. All these factors sometimes pressure scientists in denying their personal convictions and forsaking their intellectual honesty and self-integrity. A true scientist even when he is working to improve the condition of mankind should isolate himself from the materialistic considerations and the passions of our societies, it is only at that price that he will able to practice science and not cult cargo.