Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Over the past thirty, perhaps even forty years, it's become increasingly clear to me how what is sometimes presented as "god vs science" or "creationism vs science" and so on, is actually the root of many of the perceived problems with these two areas of human thought. Because these are presented as contrasting, as alternative ways of interpreting the world, many people just assume that there is an underlying incompatibility.

But there is no incompatibility at all, there never was and the false implication that there is arose quite recently in fact. The vast majority of those who contributed to what we today call the scientific revolution and later the enlightenment, were not atheists - this might surprise some but it is true and should be carefully noted.

The growth of militant atheism (recently spearheaded by the likes of Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens) has seen increasing effort placed on attacking "religion" and discrediting those who might regard "god" and "creation" as intellectually legitimate ideas, by implying that the layman must choose one or the other, you're either an atheist (for science) or a theist (a science "denier").

It is my position that there is no conflict whatsoever, for example God (an intelligent agency not subject to laws) gave rise to the universe (a sophisticated amalgam of material and laws) and we - also intelligent agencies - are gifted by being able to explore, unravel and utilize that creation.

There is nothing that can disprove this view, there is no reason to imply that those who adopt it are deluded, incompetent, poorly educated or any of that, that attitude is a lie and its reinforced at every opportunity in this and many other forums.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Do you believe that your views on either will ever have any effects on how science is practiced in the real world?

Yes.

How so?

Private messages from people thanking me for my posts.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Pssst, this thread is about science Jose, just sayin...

And you'll keep sayin' because that's the nature of dog whistles, but that doesn't make it so.

The phrase "states' rights" wasn't about the limits to U.S. Federal power, but about slavery.

"International bankers" isn't about the financial industry, but antisemitism.

"Family values" isn't about parents and children, but homophobia.

And "intelligent design" was never about science, but an attempt to legitimize creationism. You betrayed this yourself:

There is nothing that can disprove this view, there is no reason to imply that those who adopt it are deluded, incompetent, poorly educated or any of that, that attitude is a lie and its reinforced at every opportunity in this and many other forums.

But this thread is defined by the OP not by the prejudices of participating people.

Creationism is already a legitimate way to perceive the universe, all of these scientists for example were creationists.

Intelligent Design is concerned with researching the question "is there a way to tell if some thing we observe in nature required intelligence in order to exist" - which is a legitimate scientific question.

You'll have to do better than this if you're going to go up against me, remember I used to be a vocal and unforgiving atheist, I'm your worst enemy because I know all the tricks played by the atheists and evolutionist!

[Jose Fly]

Only a few creationists go so far as to reject science as a means of acquiring knowledge of the world.

Those who invoke solipsism certainly fall into that category (whether they realize it or not).

That's untrue Jose. Solipsism is the view that we cannot prove the perceived external world exists outside of our mind, it says nothing about how that perceived world is structured or behaves.

In this thread, you've invoked the notion that the age of the earth can't be truly known because there's always the possibility that the gods created it one way, but manipulated things to make it seem like it came about another way, and did so in a way that's undetectable by us.

You do appreciate how once you cross that line, you now must consider it for everything, including everything outside of your own mind, correct?

[Jose Fly]

Private messages from people thanking me for my posts.

How does "people thank me for my posts" translate to "my posts will affect the way science is practiced"?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Only a few creationists go so far as to reject science as a means of acquiring knowledge of the world.

Those who invoke solipsism certainly fall into that category (whether they realize it or not).

That's untrue Jose. Solipsism is the view that we cannot prove the perceived external world exists outside of our mind, it says nothing about how that perceived world is structured or behaves.

In this thread, you've invoked the notion that the age of the earth can't be truly known because there's always the possibility that the gods created it one way, but manipulated things to make it seem like it came about another way, and did so in a way that's undetectable by us.

Yes that fact did come up at one point.

You do appreciate how once you cross that line, you now must consider it for everything, including everything outside of your own mind, correct?

Yes, and I'm not a solipsist, you said I was but as you've now made crystal clear - you were wrong.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Private messages from people thanking me for my posts.

How does "people thank me for my posts" translate to "my posts will affect the way science is practiced"?

Some of those people are scientists.

[Difflugia]

You'll have to do better than this if you're going to go up against me, remember I used to be a vocal and unforgiving atheist,

Yes. And you studied evolution and philosophy for years. I remember.

I'm your worst enemy because I know all the tricks played by the atheists and evolutionist!

"Is that a χ² table? Oh, no! He's on to us!"

[Jose Fly]

Only a few creationists go so far as to reject science as a means of acquiring knowledge of the world.

Those who invoke solipsism certainly fall into that category (whether they realize it or not).

That's untrue Jose. Solipsism is the view that we cannot prove the perceived external world exists outside of our mind, it says nothing about how that perceived world is structured or behaves.

In this thread, you've invoked the notion that the age of the earth can't be truly known because there's always the possibility that the gods created it one way, but manipulated things to make it seem like it came about another way, and did so in a way that's undetectable by us.

Yes that fact did come up at one point.

You do appreciate how once you cross that line, you now must consider it for everything, including everything outside of your own mind, correct?

Yes, and I'm not a solipsist, you said I was but as you've now made crystal clear - you were wrong.

That makes no sense. If "maybe the gods are tricking us" applies to the age of the earth as you claimed, it applies to everything, which obviously means we can't really know anything....IOW, solipsism.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Only a few creationists go so far as to reject science as a means of acquiring knowledge of the world.

Those who invoke solipsism certainly fall into that category (whether they realize it or not).

That's untrue Jose. Solipsism is the view that we cannot prove the perceived external world exists outside of our mind, it says nothing about how that perceived world is structured or behaves.

In this thread, you've invoked the notion that the age of the earth can't be truly known because there's always the possibility that the gods created it one way, but manipulated things to make it seem like it came about another way, and did so in a way that's undetectable by us.

Yes that fact did come up at one point.

You do appreciate how once you cross that line, you now must consider it for everything, including everything outside of your own mind, correct?

Yes, and I'm not a solipsist, you said I was but as you've now made crystal clear - you were wrong.

That makes no sense. If "maybe the gods are tricking us" applies to the age of the earth as you claimed, it applies to everything, which obviously means we can't really know anything....IOW, solipsism.

Here you go again, the wheels are coming off again Jose! - I never ever ever wrote "maybe the gods are tricking us", go back and find out what I actually did write, then we can discuss.

[Jose Fly]

Private messages from people thanking me for my posts.

How does "people thank me for my posts" translate to "my posts will affect the way science is practiced"?

Some of those people are scientists.

And what do you think they will do differently in their work, after having read your posts?