The Acton Institute’s Powerblog points to interview with University of Georgia communication professor Thomas Lessl, who notes that:
…scientific culture has responded to the pressures of patronage by trying to construct a priestly ethos — by suggesting that it is the singular mediator of knowledge, or at least of whatever knowledge has real value, and should therefore enjoy a commensurate authority. If it could get the public to believe this, its power would vastly increase.”
I think most would agree that science is a means for acquiring knowledge. If you’re bound by a naturalistic view of the world, it quickly becomes the only arbiter of knowledge.
As the sole means of knowledge, the scientist takes on a priestly role, which would fit well with Le Sabot Post-Moderne’s assertion that the treatment of the Inteligent Design movement by many evolutionists is akin to branding them heretics.
Perhaps I’ll revisit this in my promised upcoming post on knowledge…