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]

I think we should also teach kids how to reason and discover things on their own too, more self reliance in how they decide what they believe.

Do you think that should begin before or after they have received their religious indoctrination?

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

You'd not fare well in a referred one-on-one in person debate with me Jose, constantly retreating into ad-hominem, you'd never get away with it.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think we should also teach kids how to reason and discover things on their own too, more self reliance in how they decide what they believe.

Do you think that should begin before or after they have received their religious indoctrination?

How dare you keep insinuating that I am in favor of religious indoctrination? I am not, please quote what I wrote that gave you that idea? can you?

Often when I confront "atheists" (however this is defined this year) and they realize I have a greater knowledge of science, mathematics, its history and so on, they are left with only one weapon - to keep interjecting "religion" into the discussion.

[brunumb]

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...

Serendipity. Faraday may have been inspired by his religious faith, but he practiced science without reliance on anything supernatural. His discoveries were purely in the realm of the natural. In what way did he validate creationism?

[Sherlock Holmes]

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...

Serendipity. Faraday may have been inspired by his religious faith, but he practiced science without reliance on anything supernatural. His discoveries were purely in the realm of the natural. In what way did he validate creationism?

More strawmen!



Where did I say he "validated creationism"? that's a manufactured strawman. I said he was a creationist and he was, case closed.

[brunumb]

You call yourselves a creationist, you are gonna be lumped in with the likes of Ray Comfort and Kent Hovind.

Here's how Kent Hovind engages in critical argument:

[Sherlock Holmes]

You call yourselves a creationist, you are gonna be lumped in with the likes of Ray Comfort and Kent Hovind.

Here's how Kent Hovind in critical argument:

Why did you post this video? are you making some kind of proposition? are you trying to emphasize some point?

By the way - I am not a young earth creationist, if you think I am its likely because you were not paying attention, if you want to claim I am then the onus is on you to present evidence that I am, so go ahead, you have all my posts in this thread to pick and choose - show me, show us all where I said I was a young earth creationist?

Or is this yet-another strawman attack?

PS - the sentence "Here's how Kent Hovind in critical argument" is grammatically speaking, syntactically invalid, just FYI.

[brunumb]

I think we should also teach kids how to reason and discover things on their own too, more self reliance in how they decide what they believe.

Do you think that should begin before or after they have received their religious indoctrination?

How dare you keep insinuating that I am in favor of religious indoctrination? I am not, please quote what I wrote that gave you that idea? can you?

Often when I confront "atheists" (however this is defined this year) and they realize I have a greater knowledge of science, mathematics, its history and so on, they are left with only one weapon - to keep interjecting "religion" into the discussion.

My question does not imply that you are necessarily in favor of religious indoctrination. People have their ability to "decide what they believe" compromised by having certain beliefs inculcated at a very young age. So, trying to teach them critical thinking after that has happened can be somewhat undermined by what they have already learned. There is no question that the majority of religious beliefs are instilled rather than achieved through rational thought and evaluation. My question stands.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think we should also teach kids how to reason and discover things on their own too, more self reliance in how they decide what they believe.

Do you think that should begin before or after they have received their religious indoctrination?

How dare you keep insinuating that I am in favor of religious indoctrination? I am not, please quote what I wrote that gave you that idea? can you?

Often when I confront "atheists" (however this is defined this year) and they realize I have a greater knowledge of science, mathematics, its history and so on, they are left with only one weapon - to keep interjecting "religion" into the discussion.

My question does not imply that you are necessarily in favor of religious indoctrination. People have their ability to "decide what they believe" compromised by having certain beliefs inculcated at a very young age. So, trying to teach them critical thinking after that has happened can be somewhat undermined by what they have already learned. There is no question that the majority of religious beliefs are instilled rather than achieved through rational thought and evaluation. My questions stands.

My answer - after careful consideration of what you've said here, is: Have you stopped beating your wife?

[brunumb]

Where did I say he "validated creationism"? that's a manufactured strawman. I said he was a creationist and he was, case closed.

What case? I guess the only pertinent response should have been "So What?".