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]

No that was never the point of thread, the OP makes no mention of the AAAS, that's something you brought up by sharing an open letter from the AAAS and I later challenged something I read in their letter.

Right, the OP was about you not liking how some scientists make it seem as if religion and science are incompatible. As I noted then, that message is also broadcast by creationist organizations.

Since then you've largely been complaining about the AAAS's definition of science, which you believe to be a part of a larger atheistic agenda.

Is that it?

Yes, you can stop posting now of you like.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why would you find that amazing?

Because I don't think they appreciate what that means for all of their religious experiences, history, characters, leaders, and beliefs. If we can never know anything or tell if anything is even real, that applies to all of that as well.

IOW, given a question like "Which is correct, Islam or Christianity", an honest Christian would have to answer "There's absolutely no way to tell"...we can't even tell if either actually exist". Yet when you go to church there's no indication at all that that's their view. They only invoke solipsism when they have nothing else.

The data support the opposite of what they want, so there are only so many directions they can go:

1. Misrepresent the data we do have.
2. Argue a non sequitur.
3. Play word games.

Any apologetic argument I've seen that invokes historical method or epistemology has been number 3. If a methodology discussion were being made in good faith, it would try to define a robust methodology in which excluding bad data is at least as important as including good. Instead, apologetic arguments invariably involve a claim that since we're including bad data anyway, it's unfair to exclude bad Christian data.

Well said. As I keep saying, that's the nature of denialism. They'll do whatever is needed to maintain their denial, with little to no consideration about maintaining a consistent position or even making coherent arguments. Just reflexively deny everything as needed and let the chips fall where they may.

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

[Jose Fly]

Right, the OP was about you not liking how some scientists make it seem as if religion and science are incompatible. As I noted then, that message is also broadcast by creationist organizations.

Since then you've largely been complaining about the AAAS's definition of science, which you believe to be a part of a larger atheistic agenda.

Is that it?

Yes

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

[Jose Fly]

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

Yes, and we are discussing creationists' denial of science.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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

Yes, and we are discussing creationists' denial of science.

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

[Sherlock Holmes]

Right, the OP was about you not liking how some scientists make it seem as if religion and science are incompatible. As I noted then, that message is also broadcast by creationist organizations.

Since then you've largely been complaining about the AAAS's definition of science, which you believe to be a part of a larger atheistic agenda.

Is that it?

Yes

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

Yes.

[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).

[Jose Fly]

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?

[Difflugia]

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.

[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.