Academic journal article Journal of Information Ethics

Ethics: Thought and Implementation

Academic journal article Journal of Information Ethics

Ethics: Thought and Implementation

Article excerpt

Scientists make a career commitment to objectivity as a sacred value, but nowhere is it more lacking and needed than in the study of human behavior. Although behaviorists profess an ethic of objective analysis of empirical data, as practitioners, they often make a mockery of olde tyme, small town academic values in their commitment to succeed in the postmodern world of spin and PR. Our notions of human evolution have always suffered from the wishful thinking of people who should know better. Wallace and Darwin (1858) offered a natural, causal mechanism that explains "How" not "Why" we developed from earlier living forms. The intellectual challenge this presented to the Western mind itself evolved through the three classic stages of effrontery: 1) It is wrong; 2) It is against the Bible; 3) We all knew it anyway. Although essentially no one in the scientific community knows it, there really is no conflict between Darwin and Jesus, who had no ideas about scientific matters whatsoever. The standard conflict in this case is really between Darwin and St. Paul, who constructed a theology to explain why God let his son be crucified. Thus, the long-standing dispute between science and religion regarding human origins has no real ethical basis nor is it necessary. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.