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.

[brunumb]

This is why I object to the insertion of "seeking natural explanations" it attributes a kind of certainty and truth to science that really is not there, it masks the fact that scientific knowledge always rests upon the unknown, it tries to pass scientific claims off as truths. Why lie to young minds? why pretend science is something that it is not?

This is really just nonsense. Science makes no claims of absolute truths. It offers the best explanations for phenomena based on the knowledge currently available. There is no attached certainty. That is an attribute that comes from theists as a kind of straw man that they can attack.

When we consider religion, on the other hand, there is very much an implied certainty involved. It passes off beliefs as truth. Faith dispenses with the need for supporting evidence for religious claims. Are young minds being lied to when they are told about Adam and Eve, the fall and sin being the reason they will someday die, that Jesus loves them and died so that they could live for eternity? These are passed off as truths to minds that are in their formative stages and unable to critically evaluate them. Is this all not the greater pretense?

[brunumb]

Science is many things but truth is not one of them. Models are not truth, theories are not truth.

What are you proposing as an alternative that will more reliably lead to the truth?

Do you consider biblical genealogies as a reliable means of determining the age of the earth?

[Bust Nak]

Well I don't attend churches, I don't invite anyone to talk about anything either.

As for denouncing organizations I'm willing to speak frankly about any organization, I'm also willing to challenge anyone in this forum I disagree with them whatever their label might be.

Presumably you have theistic peers? Encourage them to disown creationists too.

As for "trying to push creationism in science class" I don't really know what specifically you mean, why? when? what exactly did they ask for?

Here is a (the most?) famous example. Here is a more recent high profile case.

Well it can't disprove or prove - there's the dilemma...

So I don't define irrational as meaning clashes with existing beliefs, it might clash and often does, but that fact alone does not make it irrational if are existing beliefs might be wrong in some way.

You can say the same for literally any claim, "A & !A" clashes with the existing belief on non-contradiction, but that fact alone does not make it irrational if non-contradiction might be wrong. That doesn't tell me anything about where you draw the line between rational and irrational.

Well in an intellectually free society any claim should be able to be challenged by anyone; if their case has merits then it should be able to stand critical scrutiny, I don't think we can declare certain claims to be unquestionable, absolute truths, this is what the Catholic church did to society at the time of Galileo, we don't need that kind of draconian setup where we are put on trial for questioning official truths.

That's fine, but my point was when creationists challenge stuff like evolution and geology, they willingly enter within the scientific epistemological limits. The goalpost is set, you don't then get to dip in and out of that limit; you don't then get to turn around and say, "hey, science doesn't provide absolute truths." Challenge science with more science.

Well the "natural" in "natural philosophy" pertains to nature, it is nature that's being studied. No researcher in science (for many centuries) really had any need for things like "seeking natural explanations" it was unimportant, unhelpful. Science has progressed absolutely fine without this kind of fretting about the nature of knowledge. It's a huge amount of fussing over nothing, I doubt any cosmologist or physicist or mathematician gives two hoots about whether they are "seeking natural explanations" we must go wherever the evidence leads us, we cannot impose philosophical materialism on society just because a bunch of fanatical evolutionists have had their feathers ruffled!

Okay? It sounds to me like you accept that science is about finding natural explanations, so it doesn't need to be explicitly stated, or even counter-productive to have it explicitly stated? Am I reading that right?

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is why I object to the insertion of "seeking natural explanations" it attributes a kind of certainty and truth to science that really is not there, it masks the fact that scientific knowledge always rests upon the unknown, it tries to pass scientific claims off as truths. Why lie to young minds? why pretend science is something that it is not?

This is really just nonsense. Science makes no claims of absolute truths. It offers the best explanations for phenomena based on the knowledge currently available. There is no attached certainty. That is an attribute that comes from theists as a kind of straw man that they can attack.

Something not understood can often be mistaken for nonsense.

You say "There is no attached certainty" when that is the very thing I've been saying to DrNoGods, there is no certainty, we cannot be certain the earth really is not 6,000 years old with an appearance of age - your are AGREEING with me!

Now as for "seeking natural explanations" that has never been included historically over the centuries in scientific and philosophical literature as the goal of science, that's my evidence based argument. As to whether it has always been implicit or not is something can discuss and even politely disagree on, but you need to understand my case is that the clause has simply never been used in definitions of science, that is my thesis.

You are conflating two distinct points:

1. Has the phrase "seeking natural explanations" historically been included as the goal of science in the many different eras and sources where we find definitions of science?
2. Do the established definitions that we do have imply that "seeking natural explanations" is the goal of science?

So please be clear which of these two points are you arguing about?

When we consider religion, on the other hand, there is very much an implied certainty involved. It passes off beliefs as truth.

So you now want to stop discussing science and start giving us your opinions in "religion"? why? this thread is not about religion, go and read the OP!

Faith dispenses with the need for supporting evidence for religious claims.

That's not true and again this is a discussion about science and how it is (IMHO) often misrepresented.

Are young minds being lied to when they are told about Adam and Eve, the fall and sin being the reason they will someday die, that Jesus loves them and died so that they could live for eternity? These are passed off as truths to minds that are in their formative stages and unable to critically evaluate them. Is this all not the greater pretense?

This looks like a strawman argument in the making, I want to discuss science and have been and you want to attack "religion" all of a sudden.

This is a fine example of what I said in my OP:

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"

That's what I wrote and this is exactly what you are now doing - case closed! I try to discuss science, some of what I say rattles some cages and the reaction is to attack religion, so so so predictable.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well I don't attend churches, I don't invite anyone to talk about anything either.

As for denouncing organizations I'm willing to speak frankly about any organization, I'm also willing to challenge anyone in this forum I disagree with them whatever their label might be.

Presumably you have theistic peers? Encourage them to disown creationists too.

So you are interested in some kind of political activism?

Why should I suggest anyone "disowns" someone simply because they regard the universe as evidence for God?

As for "trying to push creationism in science class" I don't really know what specifically you mean, why? when? what exactly did they ask for?

Here is a (the most?) famous example. Here is a more recent high profile case.

But that's nothing to do with science, that is a social reality, people in societies often disagree on what society should or should not do, this goes on all the time year in year out with respect to thousands of disputes.

Well it can't disprove or prove - there's the dilemma...

So I don't define irrational as meaning clashes with existing beliefs, it might clash and often does, but that fact alone does not make it irrational if are existing beliefs might be wrong in some way.

Well I hope you're not confusing "rational" with "logical" some here do, I often see this in these discussions. The "term" rational is more subjective, it is about having some reasonable justification for some opinion or belief, that's all it means. The term "irrational" refers to the opposite when there seems to be an absence of any reasonable grounds for some belief.

This is a great example:



Now that right there is a superlative science educator, first class IMHO. People will learn far more about what science is really about by watching this than by watching much of the stuff from Bill Nye or Neil Tyson or Richard Dawkins.

Note what he says at 2:26

yes 'us' the end product of centuries of change, that thinks its the best there is. Just like all the others did, every group, nation, tribe, cult, ideology; each one certain of its version of the truth. Prepared if necessary to defend that version to the death, to keep it alive.

You can say the same for literally any claim, "A & !A" clashes with the existing belief on non-contradiction, but that fact alone does not make it irrational if non-contradiction might be wrong. That doesn't tell me anything about where you draw the line between rational and irrational.

Yes you can, I'm sure many unfortunate people in mental hospitals struggle with these things too.

Well in an intellectually free society any claim should be able to be challenged by anyone; if their case has merits then it should be able to stand critical scrutiny, I don't think we can declare certain claims to be unquestionable, absolute truths, this is what the Catholic church did to society at the time of Galileo, we don't need that kind of draconian setup where we are put on trial for questioning official truths.

That's fine, but my point was when creationists challenge stuff like evolution and geology, they willingly enter within the scientific epistemological limits.

I've challenged some claims made by others in the name of evolution, thousands do, so what? Some want laws banning any teaching that undermines evolution, do you advocate for laws that ban it even being questioned too?

The goalpost is set, you don't then get to dip in and out of that limit; you don't then get to turn around and say, "hey, science doesn't provide absolute truths." Challenge science with more science.

This thread is not about challenging evolution, I did that already in another thread that you can look at here.

Well the "natural" in "natural philosophy" pertains to nature, it is nature that's being studied. No researcher in science (for many centuries) really had any need for things like "seeking natural explanations" it was unimportant, unhelpful. Science has progressed absolutely fine without this kind of fretting about the nature of knowledge. It's a huge amount of fussing over nothing, I doubt any cosmologist or physicist or mathematician gives two hoots about whether they are "seeking natural explanations" we must go wherever the evidence leads us, we cannot impose philosophical materialism on society just because a bunch of fanatical evolutionists have had their feathers ruffled!

Okay? It sounds to me like you accept that science is about finding natural explanations, so it doesn't need to be explicitly stated, or even counter-productive to have it explicitly stated? Am I reading that right?

Well I don't accept that phrase at all, the first I saw of it was a few days ago when Jose shared an open letter from the AAAS.

It inserts an explicit epistemological restriction that has simply never been included before, not in any of the established historic definitions going back centuries.

I studied science for many years, I was a vocal, pretty harsh atheist until my mid twenties, I used to crush "creationists" with ease, I have complete self confidence when it comes to discussing science with anyone, really anyone.

I do not accept or personally consent to such an addition, if the AAAS choose to do so, that's fine but that body do not have authority to tell everyone else in the entire world what science is "really about".

Logically it excludes "non natural explanations" which means - literally means - that if some natural observation really, really, really did have a non natural explanation, you'd have to stop and pretend it did not, it is trying to define reality to be only what the AAAS say it can be, that is not an open minded pursuit about knowledge of the natural world, science should let us go wherever the evidence goes, not place limits on us, the universe itself imposes the only limits that are important, the petty rules made up by men in white coats are not important, only the universe itself.

[Bust Nak]

So you are interested in some kind of political activism?

Kinda, I guess. Promoting science shouldn't be seen as political, but yet here we are...

Why should I suggest anyone "disowns" someone simply because they regard the universe as evidence for God?

You should do that because from what I can tell, it's your goal to reverse the perception of "religion vs science." This is the way to achieve that goal.

But that's nothing to do with science, that is a social reality, people in societies often disagree on what society should or should not do, this goes on all the time year in year out with respect to thousands of disputes.

Teaching of science in school has nothing to do with science? Meh, you and I have different ideas of what constitute a link. Suffice to say, stuff like this is the one major cause of the perception of "religion vs science."

Well I hope you're not confusing "rational" with "logical" some here do, I often see this in these discussions. The "term" rational is more subjective, it is about having some reasonable justification for some opinion or belief, that's all it means. The term "irrational" refers to the opposite when there seems to be an absence of any reasonable grounds for some belief.

That's fine. It's not logical to like ice-cream, but it's rational.

Now that right there is a superlative science educator, first class IMHO. People will learn far more about what science is really about than by watching stuff like Bill Nye or Neil Tyson or Richard Dawkins.

Bill Nye's target audience wouldn't be as entertained by James Burke's show, what science is really about is beyond the scope of his shows. Tyson and Dawkins are quite educational when they are not in the combative anti-anti-intellectualism mode.

Yes you can, I'm sure many unfortunate people in mental hospitals struggle with these things too.

Okay, but you still haven't told me where you draw the line between rational and irrational. Particularly why you think a 6000 year old universe with a fake history is rational.

I've challenged some claims made by others in the name of evolution, thousands do, so what? Some want laws banning any teaching that undermines evolution, do you advocate for laws that ban it even being questioned too?

Question in what specific way is the deciding factor. After all, those two cases I brought up could arguably be "questioning evolution."

This thread is not about challenging evolution, I did that already in another thread that you can look at here.

While you are not challenging evolution here, I brought it up because creationism is the single most significant cause for "religion vs science."

Well I don't accept that phrase at all, the first I saw of it was a few days ago when Jose shared an open letter from the AAAS... that body do not have authority to tell everyone else in the entire world what science is "really about".

Why is this such a big deal to insert an explicit restriction, when scientist have always stayed within said epistemological restriction on their own volition?

Logically it excludes "non natural explanations" which means - literally means - that if some natural observation really, really, really did have a non natural explanation, you'd have to stop and pretend it did not, it is trying to define reality to be only what the AAAS say it can be...

How can you say that when you know science has epistemological limits? It's not trying to define reality at all, science can't do that since it's beyond that limit. All we are trying to do is exclude this hypothetical really, really non-natural explanation as unscientific. That's it. You don't have to stop and pretend the real non natural explanation as if it doesn't exist; instead you just carry on without pretence, because the non natural explanation is, unapologetically, not scientific.

...that is not an open minded pursuit about knowledge of the natural world, science should let us go wherever the evidence goes, not place limits on us, the universe itself imposes the only limits that are important, the petty rules made up by men in white coats are not important, only the universe itself.

Regardless of where you think science should let us go, it is bounded by the epistemological limit you spoke of earlier. You are free to go beyond natural explanations, but science cannot come with you. The petty rules are not important to those ready to move beyond science, but they are paramount to scientists. I find the following quote most inspiring:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Professor Richard Lewontin. May he rest in peace.

[Sherlock Holmes]

So you are interested in some kind of political activism?

Kinda, I guess. Promoting science shouldn't be seen as political, but yet here we are...

Why should I suggest anyone "disowns" someone simply because they regard the universe as evidence for God?

You should do that because from what I can tell, it's your goal to reverse the perception of "religion vs science." This is the way to achieve that goal.

I think you're referring to a particular kind of theological belief that I would not label as "creationism" or "religion". These terms are much broader than how many here use it, "fundamentalism" is a much better term, but the atheists and evolutionists want to always discredit anyone who dares to disagree with their dogma. So they imply that all creationists are poorly educated, factually vacant fundamentalists, its used as rhetoric. I'm a creationist and am just as inclined to argue against that kind of fanatical fundamentalism as any evolutionist.

But that's nothing to do with science, that is a social reality, people in societies often disagree on what society should or should not do, this goes on all the time year in year out with respect to thousands of disputes.

Teaching of science in school has nothing to do with science? Meh, you and I have different ideas of what constitute a link. Suffice to say, stuff like this is the one major cause of the perception of "religion vs science."

No, the argument that one should not be able freely question the claims made in the name of evolution. That is not science, any intelligent person that's been educated to think critically doesn't need to be told what they should or should not believe. As the ID proponents have said "teach the controversy", the entire situation has a degree of fanaticism on both sides.

Well I hope you're not confusing "rational" with "logical" some here do, I often see this in these discussions. The "term" rational is more subjective, it is about having some reasonable justification for some opinion or belief, that's all it means. The term "irrational" refers to the opposite when there seems to be an absence of any reasonable grounds for some belief.

That's fine. It's not logical to like ice-cream, but it's rational.

Now that right there is a superlative science educator, first class IMHO. People will learn far more about what science is really about than by watching stuff like Bill Nye or Neil Tyson or Richard Dawkins.

Bill Nye's target audience wouldn't be as entertained by James Burke's show, what science is really about is beyond the scope of his shows. Tyson and Dawkins are quite educational when they are not in the combative anti-anti-intellectualism mode.

Yes you can, I'm sure many unfortunate people in mental hospitals struggle with these things too.

Okay, but you still haven't told me where you draw the line between rational and irrational. Particularly why you think a 6000 year old universe with a fake history is rational.

Look at Burke's opening remarks that may help you see my point. Is there, could there be, by any kind of analysis, grounds for believing the earth was created 6,000 years ago with an inbuilt appearance of great antiquity?

Some do argue there is, some regard Biblical chronology as indicating the earth was created 6,000 years ago, some regard the earth and life and human consciousness as compelling evidence of something deeply profound, an intelligent creator of some form. The only way to reconcile that with other scientific discoveries is to postulate that the earth is young and the way we interpret what we observe is flawed, apparent indications of age are not real indications of age, and so on. This is a reasoned argument, it is rational for that reason. That it espouses views that we might not share doesn't make it irrational, since we we know also there is no scientific basis for arguing it is wrong, it could, really could be true, shocking? yes, but if we can't come up with a good demonstration that it's false we should at least respect the fact that it is rational, could even be true.

I've challenged some claims made by others in the name of evolution, thousands do, so what? Some want laws banning any teaching that undermines evolution, do you advocate for laws that ban it even being questioned too?

Question in what specific way is the deciding factor. After all, those two cases I brought up could arguably be "questioning evolution."

Well the freedom to question and disagree is - IMHO - more important than some groups obsession that their way is the only way. This was one of the things that led me to distance myself from atheism and evolution, the self assuredness and arrogance that "this is a fact" and the intolerance of dissent, like suggesting that evolution might not be the full explanation for what we observe is met with a ferocity and drama that frankly astonishes me, that's not science, good science, truly justifiable conclusions has no need of such thought police.

This thread is not about challenging evolution, I did that already in another thread that you can look at here.

While you are not challenging evolution here, I brought it up because creationism is the single most significant cause for "religion vs science."

Right, which really means that the phrase "religion vs science" is a misnomer, it simply means and only means "doubting evolution", I don't think that narrow dispute in any way amounts to a conflict between religion, theology and the natural sciences.

I just don't ever see this "religion vs science" stuff come up ever with subjects like mathematics, physics, chemistry, electricity, cosmology, astronomy, optics, computing, mechanical engineering and so on, it is always and only when we discuss evolution, to pretend there some huge conflict of minds across all the sciences and all theological views is wrong, it is not about "science" at all.

Well I don't accept that phrase at all, the first I saw of it was a few days ago when Jose shared an open letter from the AAAS... that body do not have authority to tell everyone else in the entire world what science is "really about".

Why is this such a big deal to insert an explicit restriction, when scientist have always stayed within epistemological restriction on their own volition?

Well I don't know what you mean by that, certainly no scientists or universities since the dawn of the scientific revolution ever gave the matter any thought, it was never (until relatively recently) seen as even slightly important, the discipline progressed fine.

Logically it excludes "non natural explanations" which means - literally means - that if some natural observation really, really, really did have a non natural explanation, you'd have to stop and pretend it did not, it is trying to define reality to be only what the AAAS say it can be...

How can you say that when you know science has epistemological limits? It's not trying to define reality at all, science can't do that since it's beyond that limit. All we are trying to do is exclude this hypothetical really, really non-natural explanation as unscientific. That's it. You don't have to stop and pretend the real non natural explanation as if it doesn't exist; instead you just carry on without pretense, because the non natural explanation is unscientific.

Well the AAS are speaking unscientifically IMHO. What if some scientific research did begin to indicate that a non-natural agency accounted for something we observe? Imagine you were a scientific investigator and you reached that point. Well according to the AAAS you should not be listened to, you must be sidelined because you are not "doing science" according to them. As soon as some body like the AAAS says "Ahh but look what he says here, that's not doing science" you are ostracized, dismissed, perhaps even worse, a destroyed career. This is why they inserted the phrase, it serves as a means to discredit anyone who believes or comes to believe in a creator and invalidate what they may have to say.

Being accused of "not doing science" is to be accused of "doing pseudoscience" do you get it now? can you see what I'm getting at now?

...that is not an open minded pursuit about knowledge of the natural world, science should let us go wherever the evidence goes, not place limits on us, the universe itself imposes the only limits that are important, the petty rules made up by men in white coats are not important, only the universe itself.

Regardless of where you think science should let us go, it is bounded by the epistemological limit you spoke of earlier. You are free to go beyond natural explanations, but science cannot come with you. The petty rules are not important to those ready to move beyond science, but they are paramount to scientists.

I don't know what you mean by "science cannot come with you"? The implication that the AAAS bastardization carries, is that there simply cannot actually be a non-natural explanations for natural phenomena, that's why they added it, how can they possibly know that? why do they care?

I find the following quote most inspiring:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Professor Richard Lewontin. May he rest in peace.

Right, and that is a rational opinion IF one is a materialist, but as you'll know science cannot be used to show that materialism is true.

[Jose Fly]

So now that it appears we've moved past the silly "I never said that"..."Here's you saying exactly that" red herring, let's move beyond the philosophical and imaginary, and talk about how science is actually practiced in the real world.

Sherlock, you seem to be of the belief that scientific organizations like the AAAS are "thought police". What exactly does that mean, in real practical terms? Do you think if someone dared to step outside of the organizations' descriptions of science, the organizations would show up and smash their labs, erase their files, etc.?

Remember, the ID creationist organization The Discovery Institute had what they claimed was a "research arm". As far as I could tell, no one did anything to try and stop them from doing whatever they wanted. They had funding, equipment, and a staff, yet they ended up shutting down. Why? Was it because the "thought police" somehow stopped them from doing work?

It seems you believe in some level of conspiracy, where scientific organizations have recently redefined science in order to "appease fanatical evolutionists" and enforce their new rules via the "thought police". Yet when we look around the scientific world all we see are scientists going about their work pretty much as they always have.

As many here have requested, if you could provide a specific example of how you want scientists to start considering and investigating non-natural causes for things, that would really help folks understand your position. Otherwise we're mostly trying to debate something that's in your head but you refuse to tell anyone what it is, which obviously makes any sort of debate or discussion extremely difficult.

So let's get real here. Is there a specific scientific study, conclusion, etc. that you object to because the scientists didn't consider non-natural causes? If so, what non-natural cause do you want them to consider?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #67]

I just don't ever see this "religion vs science" stuff come up ever with subjects like mathematics, physics, chemistry, electricity, cosmology, astronomy, optics, computing, mechanical engineering and so on, it is always and only when we discuss evolution ...

And the reason for this should be obvious. Evolution directly contradicts the idea that humans are special creatures created by a god being and instead shows that we did indeed evolve from a great ape ancestor. It suggests that consciousness can develop incrementally from a simple awareness to the complex, abstract thought capabilities of humans, rather than being some magical thing that is not simply an emergent property of a working brain.

This is why evolution is so contested by the religious in particular, while mechanical engineering and the others are not. It presents a view of humans in particular that directly contradicts many of their fundamental beliefs and so they have to contest it, and it is the job of scientists to defend it which remains a constant battle. If creationists and the like would stop trying to overthrow evolution on flimsy arguments that have never held up to scrutiny, there would be no need for scientists to keep swatting them down and continuing "religion vs. science" debates.

[Sherlock Holmes]

So now that it appears we've moved past the silly "I never said that"..."Here's you saying exactly that" red herring, let's move beyond the philosophical and imaginary, and talk about how science is actually practiced in the real world.

Sure, but it isn't silly to object to being paraphrased when my exact words are so easily found and copied if one cares to be thorough.

Sherlock, you seem to be of the belief that scientific organizations like the AAAS are "thought police". What exactly does that mean, in real practical terms? Do you think if someone dared to step outside of the organizations' descriptions of science, the organizations would show up and smash their labs, erase their files, etc.?

The AAAS have significant influence, no scientist wants to be publicly humiliated because (according to the AAAS) they are engaged in pseudoscience, that can hurt a career, one had better not break that rule. It is analogous to making something illegal for political motives, so "thought police" is an analogy.

Remember, the ID creationist organization The Discovery Institute had what they claimed was a "research arm". As far as I could tell, no one did anything to try and stop them from doing whatever they wanted. They had funding, equipment, and a staff, yet they ended up shutting down. Why? Was it because the "thought police" somehow stopped them from doing work?

I've never looked into the matter, I have no idea.

It seems you believe in some level of conspiracy, where scientific organizations have recently redefined science in order to "appease fanatical evolutionists" and enforce their new rules via the "thought police". Yet when we look around the scientific world all we see are scientists going about their work pretty much as they always have.

It's not what we see Jose, perhaps its more what we don't see. I never used the term "conspiracy" either - but conspiracies by the way do happen, the word exists for a reason. One thing we certainly see is people who dispute evolution referred to as practitioners of "pseudoscience" something the new AAAS definition makes easier. As I said above this lofty use of the term "science" is misleading too, it is primarily evolution and allied subjects, questioning evolution is misleadingly referred to by the rather highbrow "questioning science" but it no such thing, questioning the claims of one narrow branch of the sciences while not questioning any of the others is not well served by the dramatic phrase "questioning science".

As many here have requested, if you could provide a specific example of how you want scientists to start considering and investigating non-natural causes for things, that would really help folks understand your position. Otherwise we're mostly trying to debate something that's in your head but you refuse to tell anyone what it is, which obviously makes any sort of debate or discussion extremely difficult.

So let's get real here. Is there a specific scientific study, conclusion, etc. that you object to because the scientists didn't consider non-natural causes? If so, what non-natural cause do you want them to consider?

When you say scientific, do you mean AAAS scientific?

Speaking of the AAAS to wouldn't it be better if some of their time was spent on something with true scientific merit? Like for example encouraging use of the metric system and discouraging the use of imperial? It's 2022 and I see inches, ounces, pints (there are several "pints"), fluid ounces and so on with all of the time wasting that generates. That would be a worthy thing to write their next open letter about perhaps.