Is science atheism?

On the face of it the question is absurd. There are many theistic scientists even now - and not just Christians. Many Christian denominations have little problem with science. And yet Marc tries to argue otherwise: Message 92

So let’s look at his arguments.

quote:

---

The proof was the scientific community's kneejerk meltdown in 1996 over the "Darwin's Black Box" book. It got plenty of attention in the coming years, not for any interest in the science, but to shout it down and discredit it

---

In reality the book was praised for it’s descriptions of biochemistry (Behe’s speciality) and criticised for it’s argument against evolution (which is not). That hardly proves atheism. Criticising bad arguments is what scientists do. And it was bad. Behe tried to save it by changing the definition of “irreducible complexity” but seems to have abandoned it since.

Kenneth Miller is not an atheist but his review followed that pattern. So did the review written by Peter Atkins who is.

quote:

---

It got plenty of attention in the coming years, not for any interest in the science, but to shout it down and discredit it. The scientific community was completely unified in its anger. Any religious biologist who dared do anything but toe the line knew he'd lose his job if he didn't.

---

I will repeat the point that criticism is a very important part of science, so hardly proof of anything. Behe, by the way was not sacked from his position at Lehigh.

quote:

---

That book was not a threat to AMY religion, only to pure atheism

---

Since nobody has alleged that it was a “threat to AMY [sic] religion” that’s just a bizarre non-sequitur. Although his endorsement of an old Earth and a large degree of common descent seem to be things that you take as threats to your religion.

quote:

---

Their first, and most effective reaction was tie it to the "Wedge Document", as if that document was the sole purpose of Behe's work.

---

That is not even possibly true since the Wedge Document wasn’t even written when Behe published. Although after the document was leaked, it would not be inappropriate to link the two given Behe’s (lucrative) relationship with the Discovery Institute. And his involvement with Of Pandas and People or his endorsement of Wells’ Icons of Evolution (both books targeting school education).

quote:

---

When questioned about books like The God Delusion", or the many articles about atheism we see in "The Scientific American" website and magazine, or the love of "science" at the American Atheists website, the constant THINLY DISGUISED ATHEISM in what the scientific community wants to teach in public schools, we always hear "oh that's just those atheist's personal opinions - has nothing to do with the science".

---

More accurately we point out that they are not equivalent to the Wedge Document since they are not produced by any major scientific organisation and do not lay out objectives and strategies for any such organisation. The Wedge Document was produced for the Discovery Institute - the heart of the ID movement - and does those things.

quote:

---

Strange how the Wedge Document writers weren't allowed to have personal opinions apparently. The double standards really are glaring.

---

Of course nobody says that the authors of the Wedge Document aren’t allowed opinions. That doesn’t change the fact that the Wedge Document was intended as an official publication of the Discover Institute, nor that it sets out aims and strategy for that organisation. There simply isn’t any double standard in rejecting a false equivalence. Because it is false, and clearly so.

quote:

---

Again, proven by Behe's demonization.

---

We have yet to see any evidence of demonisation. And coming from someone who claims that the “first response” to Behe’s book was to link it to a document which hadn’t even been written it’s not something to be believed.

quote:

---

Many people who pay taxes to support science don't believe that all of reality can be jam-packed into re-arrangement processes, the only scientific thing that humans can actually study.

---

The fact that some people don’t like the conclusions science reaches is hardly a valid criticism. Nor is it a reason to equate science with atheism.

Thread copied here from the Is science atheism? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

PaulK writes: Behe, by the way was not sacked from his position at Lehigh.

He's got tenure. His views have been repudiated by both his fellow colleagues and by his university. Presumably he kept his creationist views secret until after he obtained tenure, for he said this as described at The Case of Behe vs. Darwin:

quote:

---

“Students and aspiring teachers who are intrigued by my work often ask me for advice, how they can help me out,” he said. “And I tell them: ‘Until you have tenure, until you’re protected, keep your mouth shut and your head down.’ ”

---

--Percy

Creationism has never been about reality, but only profit. There's money in them Fundy golden pockets.

Sure, but the idea that all biologists were terrified of speaking out is undercut by that fact - Behe is hardly the only biologist with tenure. We might also note that Dembski and Bruce Gordon - while not biologists were given positions at Baylor for their support of Intelligent Design.

And, of course Behe’s argument was not good, so why should anyone support it anyway ?

I'll reply here to Message 92 by marc9000 in the earlier thread.

The proof was the scientific community's kneejerk meltdown in 1996 over the "Darwin's Black Box" book. It got plenty of attention in the coming years, not for any interest in the science, but to shout it down and discredit it. The scientific community was completely unified in its anger.

I can't say that I saw any meltdown. My own reaction to the book was to borrow it from my school library, and read it. Sorry, but I did not find Behe's argument to be at all persuasive.

I did think the biologists over-reacted to the Sternberg peer review controversy, where a yawn might have been a more appropriate response.

Considering my semi recent convo with AZPaul, this thread topic seems like prime Raphael bait

However I tend to agree with PaulK this time around. I do not agree science in and of itself is atheism. I do think some anti-theist scientists would like it to be . There are plenty of spaces of faith and persons of faith who embrace science and plenty of scientists who embrace faith.

However, I would not classify myself as a "creationist" really, at least not in the classic sense of the word, so perhaps I'm the wrong person to argue marc's point.

Those are my final exam week thoughts

However, I would not classify myself as a "creationist" really, at least not in the classic sense of the word, so perhaps I'm the wrong person to argue marc's point.

You are probably some kind of Old Earth Creationist, which means that you mostly accept the science. Yes, that's very different from the kind of creationism that marc9000 is arguing.

Yes, science is atheist! Practicing science is to be immersed into the darkness of knowledge and evil. A glance at a high school physics text should be enough to enrage the T^Mrue ©hristian and bring her to her knees! Flee before the onslaught of atheist science and seek the sanctity of TheWord^Rx on Facebook, Twitter and on the Holy Spirit’s side of YouTube. Amen.

While we’re at it, politics and government are just like science. Evil. All good godly peoples should avoid legislatures, county courts, school boards, all of it political evil. All atheist. Worse than that, Democrats! Evil politics is full of Democrats. Avoid political meetings or you’ll get poisoned just like that dumb bitch Eve did to righteous Adam with the snake's apple. God didn’t like it then and she won’t like it now.

Christians, do not succumb to the evils that are science and politics. And should you find your evil thoughts trending toward vaccine coverage stats or how to suppress brown votes, then get down from your chair, kneel at the side of your desk and cry, nay, beg, beg forgiveness for your transgression of thought into the dangers of the liberal jungle.

Repent, Oh Believer! Oh, Ye of little intellect. Speak not of any science nor of any politics for they are abomination to you.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Your humor is wry and silly! Everyone knows that science isn't atheism. Nor is the earth young. End of story.

Raphael writes: I do not agree science in and of itself is atheism. I do think some anti-theist scientists would like it to be..

Agreed. There are a few demons operating in these anti-theists. The only reason AZPaul gets off the hook is due to his charming sense of humor and his avoidance of hating us. He just needs a shot of Holy Water every morning and the sickness should clear up. Of course to be fair, science isnt theistic either, so we are awaiting some alternative explanations for alleged supernatural occurrences and healing events. It wont hurt our faith, but it will clear up excessive woo withing the religious community. All are welcome at the table.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Phat writes: There are a few demons operating in these anti-theists.

Another example of Christian Cop-outs.

How pathetic.

Phat writes: Of course to be fair, science isnt theistic either, so we are awaiting some alternative explanations for alleged supernatural occurrences and healing events.

And of course science has already provided the alternative explanation and supported by evidence. The explanation is human imagination.

Phat writes: There are a few demons operating in these anti-theists.

Does it ever occur to you how rude it is to tell people they're demon-possesed?

Does it ever occur to Phat how rude sophomoric it is to tell people they're demon-possesed?

Another example of Christian Cop-outs. How pathetic.

Just because you've never seen it in front of your face gives you no right to pass judgement on another mans experiences.

The explanation is human imagination.

I was imagining nothing. But if course according to you I surely must have been, since there is "no evidence". You conclude without ever having been present. You never think that any other group of people can think except evidence based skeptics...who if found in chuch at all, are never in anything but a dead church full of rituals. (And Priests with funny hats and garments,) You assume based on scientific evidence to begin with. Thats why I can never talk with you about such stuff.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.