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.