Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 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: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheists control science
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(11)
Message 15 of 124 (671080)
08-22-2012 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
08-19-2012 7:27 PM


Hi Marc,
Just a few things. About this:
marc9000 writes:
Shermer has little, if any scientific credentials, yet he writes for the Scientific American.
According to Wikipedia, Shermer has a master's in experimental psychology, a PhD in the history of science, and is the author of a number of lay-level science books.
About the definition of atheist, I wasn't originally concerned about the way you're defining atheist, but several people have raised the issue. If you aren't using the traditional definition then you should say so.
About the desirability of removing religious superstition from our understanding of the world in which we live, that's just good science, not atheism.
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.
You haven't provided any evidence of atheists actually doing anything. You don't know which scientists are atheists and which aren't. You don't know which scientists are making the decisions. So far all you've done is described your position. Can we assume some evidence will be forthcoming?
What bothers you about science isn't that it's controlled by atheists, because it isn't. What bothers you about science is that it isn't controlled by religious fundamentalists.
--Percy

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 48 by marc9000, posted 08-26-2012 7:22 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 22 of 124 (671146)
08-22-2012 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Aware Wolf
08-22-2012 3:27 PM


It's available as a PDF: Science, Evolution, and Creationism |The National Academies Press
I read it a few years ago. About the blurb you posted from the Human Events website:
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.
Just to clarify for the creationists in the audience, the reason the book treats the intelligent design hypothesis as invalid without presenting any evidence is because the intelligent design hypothesis was introduced without presenting any evidence. The quality the NAS is looking for, and that any scientist would look for in a serious scientific hypothesis, is supporting evidence. There's no mechanism for carrying out the designs of this supposed intelligence, and no evidence of the intelligence itself, not to mention that if life is so complex that it requires a designer then the intelligence itself requires a designer, and where did *that* designer come from?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Aware Wolf, posted 08-22-2012 3:27 PM Aware Wolf has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(3)
Message 56 of 124 (671523)
08-26-2012 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by marc9000
08-26-2012 7:22 PM


Hi Marc,
Dr Adequate already explained your misunderstanding about Shermer, but just to be perfectly clear, it was incorrect to state that Shermer has "little, if any, scientific credentials," and it was incorrect to conclude that having scientific credentials is the same as being a practicing scientist. Shermer is not, as far as I know, currently engaged in active scientific research. He's currently a promoter and popularizer of science.
marc9000 writes:
It used to be that those in the scientific community recognized science for what it was, only a part, often a small part, of a complete understanding of the world in which we live. It used to know its limits — it used to know that science had nothing to say about the never ending questions of life, death, love, and meaning. The scientific community used to know that religious traditions of mankind have significant things to say about things that science does not. That was a time when there was no real conflict between religion and science.
Science is engaged in understanding the natural part of our world. Anything supernatural is the realm of religion and mysticism. Your problem is that you want your religious opinion about the natural world given as much respect as the understanding provided by scientific research. But when it comes to theory and technology it became obvious a long time ago that advances come from science, not religion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by marc9000, posted 08-26-2012 7:22 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 95 of 124 (671771)
08-30-2012 10:50 AM


Back to the Topic
Marc's approach, inventing definitions to yield his preferred conclusions, is so obviously invalid that it doesn't merit further rebuttal.
Concerning the actual topic, most of us here understand that atheists no more control science than the Pope controls Christianity, but Marc believes science is unfriendly to creationism and/or ID because of its atheistic elements and not because the practitioners of creationism and ID aren't doing science. That could actually be a very interesting discussion if Marc would just stop distracting attention with his stilted definitions.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Minor clarification.

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 11:03 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 97 by Taq, posted 08-30-2012 12:08 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 107 by NoNukes, posted 08-30-2012 3:27 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024