Islamic Biology or Red-State Biology?

In class we discussed the differences between paradigms in the international relations sense and in the scientific sense. Do paradigms operate differently in the two fields? Does it make a difference that one field is a social science and the other field is, as Kuhn calls it, “normal science”?
Thomas S. Kuhn elaborates on scientific paradigms in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions as models provided by “some accepted examples of actual scientific practice… from which spring particular coherent traditions of scientific research” (10). After having accepted a paradigm, the scientists come to view the world in an entirely different way, evaluating everyday life in light of that paradigm. Because of the nature of science, scientific progress depends on the acceptance of a paradigm; it is like the foundation which higher levels of science build upon. But, there is the need in science for one paradigm to dominate the scientific world, for with multiple scientific perspectives there is no mutual foundation.
In international relations, however, there exist several paradigms. International relations, as a valid field, started with the paradigm of realism but expanded to include more paradigms, such as liberalism, constructivism, structuralism, and neoliberalism. Unlike in science, multiple paradigms exist at one time and continue to influence scholars within the discipline. And in international relations it seems that scholars can pursue higher-level debates using any one of the many current paradigms.
Why can multiple paradigms exist in international relations, but only one in science? I believe that multiple paradigms can exist in science as well, but as we discussed in class, people fear this idea. People view science as a solid discipline based on facts, not on intangible theories. The thought of theories that fit Islamic states or developing countries makes perfect sense in international relations, but seems oddly out of place in science. As Professor Jackson said, the concept of Islamic biology or red-state biology seems ridiculous. But, look at the current debates plaguing the nation today (ahem, because of certain crazy red-states) concerning the teaching of the origins of life. Many states contest the teaching of evolution, instead asserting that it is a theory and not fact, and want to teach creationism as a theory as well. Just as politics play a role in international relations, politics play a role in science as well. Look at scientific history for evidence. When Galileo tried to introduce his ideas, he was crushed by the politics of the time, specifically the dominant political power of the Catholic Church. What is considered fact or not, the dominant paradigm, is determined by politics. In The Planet of the Apes, Dr. Zaius, the political and scientific head, determines the dominant paradigm. While it is determined by politics, the rest of the apes, with the exception of a few human-loving apes, continue to believe in the version of history espoused by Dr. Zaius as scientific fact.
As a social science, international relations has multiple paradigms. But “normal science” has multiple paradigms as well, though scientists may claim it does not. Politics affect the dominance of one paradigm or another in science, just as it does in international relations. As Kuhn argues, the dominant paradigm in science is not necessarily a fact, it is theory.