Coming to the 'right' conclusion.

Dallas Willard in an introduction to Phillip Johnson's book Wedge of Truth has some challenging things to say about Western thinking during our current Post Modern period:

Reason is the human ability to determine what is real or not real by thinking. Just as, centuries ago, the honest thinker had to be willing to follow the inquiry even if it led to a godless universe, so today the honest thinker has to be willing to follow the inquiry even if it leads to a God-governed universe. This latter possibility today causes those who think they are in charge of what is only reasonable and right to become impatient and imperious. They cannot afford to be wrong about the godlessness of reality, for now our whole system of education is based on that assumption, just as some while ago it was based on the assumption of God.

And so, as Phillip Johnson so beautifully explains and illustrates, reason is replaced by rationalization. Rationalization is the use of reasoning to make sure that one comes out at the right place. Not long ago the dominant ideal within intellectual circles was to judge the conclusion by the method through which it was derived. If the method was good, you were required to accept the conclusion, at least provisionally. Now sadly, the method is judged by whether it brings you out at the 'right' conclusion, as determined by institutional consensus congealed around glittering personalities. If you don't come to the 'right' conclusion, your method is wrong, and you are probably a bad person. Derisive terminology will be used to describe you.

.....The character of rationalization is hidden beneath the cloak of benign authority. In our case today that authority is science. Science we told says this or that. We has better believe it. Unfortunately science say nothing. It is not the kind of thing that can say anything. Only scientists say things, and scientists can be remarkably unscientific and are often remarkably wrong - as subsequent events frequently show. In addition many who would speak for science are not scientists or have no qualifications in the area of their claims. 

This description of the 'debate' sound oddly familiar in Australia at this point in time doesn't it?