Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheists control science
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


(1)
Message 1 of 5 (670815)
08-19-2012 7:27 PM


From the I am not an atheist! thread;
Tangle writes:
marc9000 writes:
....and atheists control science. (there is evidence for it)
I'm calling you on this one. Would you like to start a new thread to defend your assertion?
Hence, this thread.
Tangle writes:
But I recommend you do some research on what your terms mean before you start...
My terms are that "science" is the scientific community, and that "control" means decisions that are made regarding publicly funded/government sponsored methods of exploration in science. This thread is mainly about the U.S. scientific community.
Wikipedia has a webpage that gives some detail of just what the "scientific community" is. A relevant paragraph from that page;
quote:
Unlike in previous centuries when the community of scholars were all members of learned societies and similar institutions, there are no singular bodies or individuals which can be said today to speak for all of science. This is partly due to the specialized training most scientists receive in very few fields. As a result, many would lack expertise in all the other fields of the sciences. However, there are still multiple societies and academies in many countries which help consolidate some opinions and research to help guide public discussions on matters of policy and research. In the United States, for example, the National Academy of Science sometimes acts as a surrogate when the opinions of the scientific community need to be ascertained by policy makers or the national government, but the statements of the National Academy are not binding on scientists nor do they necessarily reflect the opinions of every scientist in the community.
The National Academy of Sciences, publications like the Scientific American, and university administrators and others who are involved in hiring practices in academia, are all very influential when it comes to control. The leaders don't necessarily have to be "binding" or "reflect the opinions" of every scientist to politically control science as a whole.
I'll start with evidence for discrimination in hiring practices.
Series of Costly Case Settlements Warns Darwin’s Bullies: Stop Censoring Intellectual Freedom | Evolution News
quote:
This month, the state-run California Science Center (CSC) paid $110,000 to avoid a public trial and settle a lawsuit by American Freedom Alliance (AFA). The suit was filed because CSC violated AFA's First Amendment right to discuss intelligent design (ID).
and
quote:
This case reflects the ongoing trend of discrimination against intelligent design. In January, the University of Kentucky paid $125,000 to settle a lawsuit by astronomer Martin Gaskell who was wrongfully denied employment because he was perceived to be skeptical towards Darwinian evolution.
Just two examples - the link shows a few more. They get caught every once in a while, but considering the shouting down of the examples of discrimination the movie "Expelled" exposed, it's probably safe to say that penalties for discrimination by the scientific community are about as rare as a speed limit violating driver receiving a ticket for every time he speeds.
Next, we'll note evidence in the form of "The Scientific American" articles. This one is a training course for using science, not just anti-religion, to promote atheism.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rational...
[QUOTE]2. Positive assertions are necessary. Champion science and reason, as Charles Darwin suggested: “It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science.” [/QUOTE]
"Gradual illumination of men's minds", or children's minds? Darwin's philosophy is promoted and extended today as much as ever. That Scientific American article is largely indistinguishable from one of militant atheist Sam Harris' many essays;
Science Must Destroy Religion | HuffPost Latest News
quote:
I am hopeful that the necessary transformation in our thinking will come about as our scientific understanding of ourselves matures. When we find reliable ways to make human beings more loving, less fearful, and genuinely enraptured by the fact of our appearance in the cosmos, we will have no need for divisive religious myths.
The Scientific American has a "skeptic" section, with many articles by Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptics Society, which currently has over 55,000 members. Shermer has little, if any scientific credentials, yet he writes for the Scientific American.
Finally, the National Academy of Science. It's a non-profit U.S. government organization, begun in 1863.
National Academy of Sciences - Wikipedia
quote:
Members serve pro bono as "advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine". As a national academy, new members of the organization are elected annually by current members, based on their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research.
In other words, it does what it wants, with no input from the taxpayers who support it.
Human Events has some (documented) things to say about the National Academy of Sciences;
http://www.humanevents.com/...d-national-academy-of-sciences
quote:
In 2008, NAS published Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a book sent to every public school board member and science teacher in America. The book's message: Darwinian evolution is the only acceptable explanation for human origins. The book treats the intelligent-design hypothesis as invalid without presenting a shred of empirical evidence to contradict it.
There is also not a shred of evidence that ANYONE but atheists, with the complete approval of their "religious" allies (theistic evolutionists, Deists, etc.) make all decisions concerning publicly funded/government sponsored methods of exploration in science. Why is that a problem? Here's why, because a pew research center poll from July 2009 showed that only around 6 percent of U.S. scientists are Republicans, while 55 percent are Democrats, 32 percent are independent, and the rest don't know, or won't commit. We probably see far less than 6 percent of evolution proponents on these forums who would ever vote for a Republican. Yet other survey data shows that the scientific community enjoys the trust of 90 percent of the U.S. population, more than the Supreme Court or the military! I'm part of the other 10 percent, and I wonder how long it will be before at least some of the 90 percent wakes up and realizes that the scientific community is probably the biggest ally the Democrats have in obtaining political power and money, and that the Democrats are probably the biggest ally the scientific community has in obtaining political power and money.
Can anyone really claim, and justify, that science is free from political partisanship?
Edited by marc9000, : Cleaned up punctuation
Edited by marc9000, : Clarified as asked in message 2.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPD, posted 08-20-2012 8:18 AM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 08-20-2012 8:31 AM marc9000 has replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 5 (670841)
08-20-2012 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
08-19-2012 7:27 PM


Needs Cleanup
It is nice to quote small relevant portions of the articles you linked to that you feel supports your position. Not whole articles or huge chunks. Just so readers know where to look.
Also on the quote below, you need to clean it up. Your quotation marks aren't consistent. It is hard to tell if you are quoting a source or not.
Finally, the National Academy of Science. It's a non-profit U.S. government organization, begun in 1863. "Members serve pro bono as "advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine". As a national academy, new members of the organization are elected annually by current members, based on their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research."
Please make it clearer.
Thanks
AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 08-19-2012 7:27 PM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 3 of 5 (670843)
08-20-2012 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
08-19-2012 7:27 PM


Hi Marc,
If your main theme is that atheists control science, your concluding couple paragraphs shouldn't be about political partisanship. This topic will be promoted to one of the science forums, and we'd like to keep political discussions confined to the Coffee House forum.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by marc9000, posted 08-19-2012 7:27 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by marc9000, posted 08-21-2012 7:48 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 4 of 5 (671043)
08-21-2012 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Admin
08-20-2012 8:31 AM


The control I'm referring to IS political. To restrict it to exclude politics would keep me from making relevant points, and nothing would be accomplished. It's not important to me what forum it's in, so I guess the coffee house would be where I'd hope you'll promote it. 6% v 55% - isn't that worth some exploration? If it can't be freely/completely discussed as I've proposed it, then we'll just have to forget it, and Tangle, Coyote, Razd, Dr Adaquate, and others can all heave collective sighs of relief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 08-20-2012 8:31 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 5 of 5 (671051)
08-21-2012 8:58 PM


Thread Copied to Is It Science? Forum
Thread copied to the Atheists control science thread in the Is It Science? forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024