Atheists control science

Rather than mob Marc, I think we should nominate the authors of the three highest-rated messages in this thread as sole participants. Three versus one is still a bit unfair but Marc has demonstrated at least an interest in responding to as many participants, if not more, in the past.In that spirit, I'd ask Marc to hold off on any reply for perhaps a few days or so, and then respond only to those messages which have been most highly rated. Or, any additional messages that he may choose, with the understanding that doing so constitutes his invitation for that author to participate.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

What you have shown is that pseudoscientists are using political pressure to force people to hire them, or pay out when they refuse to hire a pseudoscientist. I really don't see anything wrong with not hiring or firing a scientist who refuses to use science. That is the way it should be. When your beliefs compromise your science then you are no longer a scientist. Yes it is, just like the National Institutes of Health which fund grants in the biological sciences. I have more experience with the NIH, so I will speak to that.How does this granting agency work? First, Congress decides how much money they are going to give to these granting agencies. They also decide who is going to run the agency (currently, it is the outspoken evangelical Dr. Francis Collins who previously ran the NIH Human Genome Project). This is the input that taxpayers have. They decide, through their representatives, how much money is going to go into the system and the leadership within the NIH.Once that money is received by the NIH they will decide which areas of research they would like to focus on most, and then advertise for Letters of Intent. If the scientist meets the requirements for NIH funding as judged by the LoI, then they are allowed to submit a research grant. In the grant they will describe the work they have already done, the hypotheses they will test, and the experiments they will use to test the hypotheses. They will also submit a budget. These grants will be judged by a group of peers who are not chosen based on their religious views, but rather as their reputation as scientists. Right now, about 5-10% of these grants will be funded.Nowhere on these grants do you list your religious affiliation. I really, really doubt you could ever determine a scientist's religious beliefs by reading a grant. To prove this, I give you this challenge. I have picked a paper at random which can be found here:Prevention of cardiomyopathy in mouse models lacking the smooth muscle sarcoglycan-sarcospan complex - PMCI haven't even read it, and I do not know the authors. Your challenge is to read the paper and determine the religious beliefs of the authors. If you fail to do so, then your claims about discrimination are moot. There is simply no way to determine a person's religious belief by their science, at least for those who are actually doing science.Your second challenge is to describe what types of experiments would be in a grant for research in intelligent design. What types of experiments would be done? Mind you, this grant can not deal with evolution. It must deal with intelligent design. If you are going to claim discrimination, then you need to show that there is actual research to discriminate against.Are you up to either challenge?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

A process of variation filtered through selection . . . hmmm, I think I like the sound of that. May the fittest arguments survive!!!!

Oh, you evil atheist, you I do agree with the proposal of Marc just responding to a few people, anyway.I'll stay out of it.As living in a country, far, far away...I was just interested in the gorgeous Princess. So I read about the NAS on the interwebs.Edited by Pressie, : Edited all of itEdited by Pressie, : Capitilised the word Princess.

Then it should be noted that the government is composed mostly of religious people, not atheists. You'll have to support your contention that the people responsible for this discrimination were atheists. Your first example is about withdrawing use of their movie theatre for showing a film, even if it was done by atheists - which is not shown - that isn't about hiring practices.The second example might show some control over hiring practices regarding ID supporters. It should be clearly noted, however, that settlement of a civil claim does not necessarily mean actual admission. Furthermore, no evidence is presented that it was atheists that were responsible. Finally, if we assume it was a legitimate case, it seems not to be about worrying about the reputation hiring a religious scientist, but about hiring one who espouses an idea which is largely anti-scientific.If you could find cases of a religious scientists being denied employment because of his religion, by an atheist, you'd be able to start building a case. You call it 'shouting down', I call it explaining that Expelled is a classic piece of propaganda. Take their version of the Sternberg incident. From this piece, Expelled made the claim that Sternberg's life was ruined by his role in getting an ID related paper published. But he didn't lose his office, access to specimens or his unpaid editorship. What terrible things happened? The only thing the evidence seems to show is that some people talked unkindly about him in private emails. That's an open letter to Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens. What's the problem with a science magazine publishing such letters? He said 'men' so I'm guessing he meant that. This is nothing to do with atheistic control of science. That just points us to the fact that Darwin's ideas, and the work that followed, is popular. It's not an article, its an open letter. Sounds fine to me. Science is a tool that skeptics employ. I think someone with a degree in biology and psychology, who started doing a degree in theology, went on to get a PhD in Science History and edits their own relatively popular skeptics magazine, is perfectly qualified to write for a magazine that is about science in their skeptic section. It's not a science journal, its a popular science magazine. John Rennie merely has a BSc Biology. Martin Gardner had a bachelor's in Philosophy I believe. Having 'scientific credentials' whatever you are thinking of, are not essential to being a competent science writer, though the more you have the more it helps I should think.And Scientific American is just a magazine. It reports on science, not directs it in any way. What input should they take from taxpayers, and how should that be done?

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.

---

Yeah, one doesn't present evidence to falsify the unfalsifiable. That book appears to be mostly focussed on the evidence for evolution, because there isn't any for any other ideas. The ID 'hypothesis' is 'invalid' as science, as Behe basically openly admitted in court (he would have to change what science means so that ID would count as science). Showing that atheists, theists and deists are making the decisions about science funding is not surprising.All you are saying, therefore, is that Creationists and IDists have very little power in deciding where public funding goes. That's not unfair though, as even if we credit ID as being scientific, its a minority view of a subsection of scientific enquiry. Of course they don't have much influence! Yeah, when the Republicans start supporting government funded scientists more regularly, maybe they'll win more scientist's votes. I don't know why the Republican's inability to appeal to scientists is a result of atheists controlling science though. I'll guess: is it the atheists and their allies (who is just about everyone but Creationists and their allies) who are only hiring Liberals? Even if everyone realized that science was the biggest ally of the Democrats, I don't see why that would stop them trusting them. Science has acquired its trust independent of governmental propaganda or religious dogma.And if the Democrats are the biggest ally the scientific community has, its no wonder many of them would vote for the Democrats, their entire livelihood may rely on a sympathetic government. The Republicans are free to gain allies with scientists. They just have to fund more science, and use sound science in their policy-making, and other such things.

http://www.humanevents.com/...d-national-academy-of-sciencesquote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I just picked up on this part of the OP, having read Modulus' post above. I actually am a school board member and have been since 2004. I never received my copy of this book. Wonder if it got stuck in the mail? I'd love to read it.Edited by Admin, : Fix link.

It's available as a PDF: Science, Evolution, and Creationism |The National Academies PressI read it a few years ago. About the blurb you posted from the Human Events website: 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

If you need an explanation I will supply one, but I think this speaks for itself:

Well I'm not Marc, but I'm pretty sure they're Mouseketeers.

I sincerely appreciate it, but I don't mind - I don't want anything held back. I can ignore what I think is unrelated or unimportant, and I like to try to answer multiple, yet similar points with one answer when I can. I just need time, I'm working long hours and can't be shorting myself on sleep. I'll just get to the one question tonight - "what definition of atheism am I using", and I'll try to cover everything else, (including what my next message inspires) by Sunday evening.

A legitimate question - the definition of an atheist is one that everyone knows - a lack of belief in a god or gods. When I refer to an atheist that has a measure of political control over science however, I define that person differently than I do a normal atheist citizen that works/worked in the private sector, and lives a normal life of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness like anyone else, as guaranteed him/her by the country's founding and intended by its framers.But an atheist that has enough political influence to try to get a measure of atheist establishment in place (in violation of the first amendment) then I can go to a dictionary and find a more suitable definition of him/her;Atheism Definition & Meaning - Merriam-WebsterYou'll find two words under ~number 1~ definitions of atheism; "ungodliness" and "WICKEDNESS". So "wickedness" is my dictionary definition of how I define atheism specifically for this discussion.Atheists are a diverse group, as are Christians. You, and maybe others here may want to define some events/people in Christianity with the term wickedness. If you can't show it as a dictionary definition, (which you can't) then please don't do it here! If you do, then I'm afraid I'll have little choice but to report you to forum administration!I'll be back by Sunday to address some of the other messages here, if the thread is still open. Edited by marc9000, : To conform to requirements of message 28.

Okay, fair enough.Then you are saying that any true American, who loves and upholds the constitution is an atheist. The only people who are not atheists are those traitors who seek to destroy the nation by undermining its constitution.That seems like a rather broad definition.

Hi Marc,I'm going to disallow your definition of atheist. Use the standard dictionary definition or I'll close your thread.

I have been an atheist for very nearly half a century, yet according to your "definition" I am not an atheist. Nor, I am quite sure, would most atheists in the USA qualify as such by your "definition". However, a very large segment of the fundamentalist Christian community, in particular the Christian Reconstructionists (CR) and those fundamentalists who have adopted the CR political agenda (beginning with the Radical Religious Right in the 1980's), would qualify as "atheists" by your "definition".Your "definition" is obviously faulty; it doesn't work. Not in the least bit traditional! Although the practice started during the Civil War (which is to say four score and seven years after the fact) and continued sporadically thereafter, it became required on all our money in 1955, which is well within my own lifetime. It wasn't due to traditional religious practice, but rather due to the mid-50's Red Scare, as were two other violations traditional religious practice in the US.Starting in 1776, the National Motto was "E Pluribus Unum" ("Out of many, one") a statement of national unity. In 1956, Congress scrapped the National Motto and replaced it with the current "In God We Trust". Similarly, in 1954 Congress split another statement of national unity, "one nation indivisible" in the Pledge of Allegiance, with a religious statement. As I understand it, those violations of traditional US religious practice were committed by a Republican-dominated Congress under a Republican president.Being a reactionary, I call for the restoration of the National Motto and of the Pledge of Allegiance! A publicity stunt to promote Cecil B. DeMille's movie in the early part of the 20th century. Not in the least bit a "traditional religious practice." A document with Deistic wording written by a Deist, Thomas Jefferson. Or to put it in your terms, an atheistic document written by an atheist. Indeed, the wording of the Declaration strongly matches wording used by another famous Deist, Thomas Paine, who's constantly decried by the Religious Right as an atheist.

Forum Guidelines Rule #2This is not the Humor Thread.Stick to the topic and provide substance to which participants can respond concerning the topic.Thanks
AdminPDDo not respond to this post.