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.

[Difflugia]

Same as above, how is adding "seeking only natural explanations" an attack?

Because then creationism can't be called science. It's kind of like how the AMA is an attack on "put some dirt on it and walk it off, ya baby." I mean it is, but that's sort of the point.

[Jose Fly]

Right, so where did you get the idea that God was "tricking" anyone? I certainly did not say it. If one misconstrues something, misinterprets information, that is not the same as "trickery". Everyone who did infer the earth was 6,000 years old will not have been "tricked", why is that do you think?

What verb would you prefer we use to refer to a god creating something one way but manipulating things to make it appear as if it came about differently?

Also, what sort of separation of truth from fiction in science do you expect to come about as a result of your posts here?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Same as above, how is adding "seeking only natural explanations" an attack?

Because then creationism can't be called science. It's kind of like how the AMA is an attack on "put some dirt on it and walk it off, ya baby." I mean it is, but that's sort of the point.

More importantly it also encourages the ignorant to refer to creationists as "pseudoscientists" if they propose a supernatural cause for something.

All of these creationists contributed to the scientific revolution and are not considered pseudoscientists, historically, creationists actually have a track record of being excellent scientists.

Consider this, regarding Faraday for example: (emphasis mine)

Faraday's scientific achievements, among the greatest in history, sprang from his religious faith. As a lifelong member of a sect called the Sandemanians, he believed that nature substantiates the existence of its Creator.

Because one God created the world, all of nature must be interconnected as a single whole, he believed. Therefore, electricity and magnetism must be interlinked. This view of nature was the very view emphasized by the Sandemanians. Key to Faraday's thought was the idea that objective reality must judge every theory, no matter how elegant and sophisticated...

https://web.archive.org/web/20051119141 ... raday.html

[Sherlock Holmes]

Right, so where did you get the idea that God was "tricking" anyone? I certainly did not say it. If one misconstrues something, misinterprets information, that is not the same as "trickery". Everyone who did infer the earth was 6,000 years old will not have been "tricked", why is that do you think?

What verb would you prefer we use to refer to a god creating something one way but manipulating things to make it appear as if it came about differently?

But young earth creationists perceive it as obvious, they make no complaints about deception or manipulation, just because you adopt an interpretation that might be wrong does not prove deception Jose, that's a pretty weird argument.

Their interpretation is as obvious and as meaningful to them as yours seems to be to you.

As I explained already there is no absolute "make it appear" its all a matter of "choose how to interpret", once you understand that you might understand me better.

There are different ways to interpret information, God has not forced anyone to adopt any particular view, he did not "make it appear"! you freely chose how to interpret what your senses reveal.

Also, what sort of separation of truth from fiction in science do you expect to come about as a result of your posts here?

That's for the reader to decide, different people following this thread will learn different things from it.

[Jose Fly]

Right, so where did you get the idea that God was "tricking" anyone? I certainly did not say it. If one misconstrues something, misinterprets information, that is not the same as "trickery". Everyone who did infer the earth was 6,000 years old will not have been "tricked", why is that do you think?

What verb would you prefer we use to refer to a god creating something one way but manipulating things to make it appear as if it came about differently?

But young earth creationists perceive it as obvious, they make no complaints about deception or manipulation, just because you adopt an interpretation that might be wrong does not prove deception Jose, that's a pretty weird argument.

Their interpretation is as obvious and as meaningful to them as yours seems to be to you.

As I explained already there is no absolute "make it appear" its all a matter of "choose how to interpret", once you understand that you might understand me better.

There are different ways to interpret information, God has not forced anyone to adopt any particular view, he did not "make it appear"! you freely chose how to interpret what your senses reveal.

Also, what sort of separation of truth from fiction in science do you expect to come about as a result of your posts here?

That's for the reader to decide, different people following this thread will learn different things from it.

This schtick has worn thin. Like most creationists I've encountered in message boards, this is just the latest example of a creationist making a bold claim, and then squirming, evading, dodging, etc. every attempt to get them to specify and/or back up the claim.

If you ever get to the point where you want to discuss some actual specific science, I'll be glad to engage. In the meantime, this stereotypical creationist behavior isn't something I'm interested in.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Right, so where did you get the idea that God was "tricking" anyone? I certainly did not say it. If one misconstrues something, misinterprets information, that is not the same as "trickery". Everyone who did infer the earth was 6,000 years old will not have been "tricked", why is that do you think?

What verb would you prefer we use to refer to a god creating something one way but manipulating things to make it appear as if it came about differently?

But young earth creationists perceive it as obvious, they make no complaints about deception or manipulation, just because you adopt an interpretation that might be wrong does not prove deception Jose, that's a pretty weird argument.

Their interpretation is as obvious and as meaningful to them as yours seems to be to you.

As I explained already there is no absolute "make it appear" its all a matter of "choose how to interpret", once you understand that you might understand me better.

There are different ways to interpret information, God has not forced anyone to adopt any particular view, he did not "make it appear"! you freely chose how to interpret what your senses reveal.

Also, what sort of separation of truth from fiction in science do you expect to come about as a result of your posts here?

That's for the reader to decide, different people following this thread will learn different things from it.

This schtick has worn thin. Like most creationists I've encountered in message boards, this is just the latest example of a creationist making a bold claim, and then squirming, evading, dodging, etc. every attempt to get them to specify and/or back up the claim.

If you ever get to the point where you want to discuss some actual specific science, I'll be glad to engage. In the meantime, this stereotypical creationist behavior isn't something I'm interested in.

A fine well argued rebuttal if I ever saw one!

[Jose Fly]

Right, so where did you get the idea that God was "tricking" anyone? I certainly did not say it. If one misconstrues something, misinterprets information, that is not the same as "trickery". Everyone who did infer the earth was 6,000 years old will not have been "tricked", why is that do you think?

What verb would you prefer we use to refer to a god creating something one way but manipulating things to make it appear as if it came about differently?

But young earth creationists perceive it as obvious, they make no complaints about deception or manipulation, just because you adopt an interpretation that might be wrong does not prove deception Jose, that's a pretty weird argument.

Their interpretation is as obvious and as meaningful to them as yours seems to be to you.

As I explained already there is no absolute "make it appear" its all a matter of "choose how to interpret", once you understand that you might understand me better.

There are different ways to interpret information, God has not forced anyone to adopt any particular view, he did not "make it appear"! you freely chose how to interpret what your senses reveal.

Also, what sort of separation of truth from fiction in science do you expect to come about as a result of your posts here?

That's for the reader to decide, different people following this thread will learn different things from it.

This schtick has worn thin. Like most creationists I've encountered in message boards, this is just the latest example of a creationist making a bold claim, and then squirming, evading, dodging, etc. every attempt to get them to specify and/or back up the claim.

If you ever get to the point where you want to discuss some actual specific science, I'll be glad to engage. In the meantime, this stereotypical creationist behavior isn't something I'm interested in.

A fine well argued rebuttal if I ever saw one!

I'll repeat.....grow up. Please.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Right, so where did you get the idea that God was "tricking" anyone? I certainly did not say it. If one misconstrues something, misinterprets information, that is not the same as "trickery". Everyone who did infer the earth was 6,000 years old will not have been "tricked", why is that do you think?

What verb would you prefer we use to refer to a god creating something one way but manipulating things to make it appear as if it came about differently?

But young earth creationists perceive it as obvious, they make no complaints about deception or manipulation, just because you adopt an interpretation that might be wrong does not prove deception Jose, that's a pretty weird argument.

Their interpretation is as obvious and as meaningful to them as yours seems to be to you.

As I explained already there is no absolute "make it appear" its all a matter of "choose how to interpret", once you understand that you might understand me better.

There are different ways to interpret information, God has not forced anyone to adopt any particular view, he did not "make it appear"! you freely chose how to interpret what your senses reveal.

Also, what sort of separation of truth from fiction in science do you expect to come about as a result of your posts here?

That's for the reader to decide, different people following this thread will learn different things from it.

This schtick has worn thin. Like most creationists I've encountered in message boards, this is just the latest example of a creationist making a bold claim, and then squirming, evading, dodging, etc. every attempt to get them to specify and/or back up the claim.

If you ever get to the point where you want to discuss some actual specific science, I'll be glad to engage. In the meantime, this stereotypical creationist behavior isn't something I'm interested in.

A fine well argued rebuttal if I ever saw one!

I'll repeat.....grow up. Please.

Do not grow old, no matter how long you live. Never cease to stand like curious children before the Great Mystery into which we were born.

We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library, whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different languages. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend but only dimly suspects.

[Difflugia]

More importantly it also encourages the ignorant to refer to creationists as "pseudoscientists" if they propose a supernatural cause for something.

Since the rest of us knew that already, it can only help.

If Stephen Meyer needs to redefine "science" in order to squeeze creationism underneath the umbrella, then I'd say that the "pseudo" part of the assessment is pretty accurate. At least by definition.

A fine well argued rebuttal if I ever saw one!

I'll repeat.....grow up. Please.

Whether it was intended that way or not, the comment is just fine when read without irony.

[Jose Fly]

Whether it was intended that way or not, the comment is just fine when read without irony.

That's certainly one "interpretation".

It's the same basic thing I talked about when I first joined this forum......these interactions with creationists tend to follow the same pattern, where the creationist makes rather bold claims, but then the rest of the thread is mostly other people chasing them around and around, trying to get them to answer basic questions and/or back up their claims, and the creationist doing everything they can to dodge and evade all of it.

It's not any sort of "debate" for sure, but it is fascinating to observe from a human behavior standpoint.