Scientific Theory For Dummies

Hi Taz - looks like your thread needs to be 'livened up' a little. I can be an okay 'livening upper' at times. There are other reasons for confusion. When confusion is an issue, the blame for it doesn’t always lie with the confused. In this case, there is plenty of fault with those who DO the confusing. And whose fault is that? Is it really the fault of the one who asked the question? The reason long, monstrous posts happen is because the definition of science varies according to the claims or questions about what science can DO. In some applications science can do biological research to create vaccines to combat disease, and other scientists apply it to show that God does not exist. It depends on what the scientific claim is, who is making the claim, what their reasons are, who they’re trying to convince, etc. etc. In completely different contexts, it only makes sense that claims of what scientific theory, or inquiry is, will vary from scientist to scientist. The people listening to these scientists are not to blame for the confusion. In many cases it is, because so many scientists use it that way to try to discredit religion. It's interesting that you use Dawkins as an example of someone trying to educate the public.Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to imply that confusion about what scientific theory is, is a 100% to 0% ratio, all the fault of the uneducated, and not at all the fault of the educated. That’s simply not true.

The denial of the close relationship between today’s science and atheism never ceases to amaze me. Maybe this thread will be enlightening — either about that relationship, or about the extent of the denial. But the opening poster didn’t have anything bad to say about him, did he? He claimed that Dawkins was trying to educate. Do you think Dawkins is part of the solution, or part of the problem? (that was described in the OP) But when selling atheism to teens and twenty-somethings, top scientists think about it a lot then, don’t they? Yes, I've been told many times. All devout Christian scientists can't stand creationists, and agree with Dawkins about everything!

That’s fine, but your opening post didn’t really indicate that, combined with the thread title. You didn’t say anything about Shermer and Dawkins passion to use science to sell atheism. That’s exactly right — far fewer people know what an allele frequency is than have read at least one of these four NY Times best sellers; Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation , Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell, Christopher Hitchens's God Is Not Great , and Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion. In looking at reviews for those books, it’s not hard to imagine that they reference the relationship evolution has with George Bush’s beliefs far more than they reference anything about allele frequencies. Try Victor Stengers; God — The Failed Hypothesis — How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. You said you read a lot - get yourself a copy and you’ll be closer than you’ve ever been to a top source of your frustration and confusion and headaches. (I have a copy of it, just in case you'd like to discuss any of it) He’s an degreed biologist! How are his listeners supposed to know when he’s talking about science, or atheism? He’s a master at blending them! You shouldn’t refer to people as dummies who are duped by him. So the title of Victor Stengers book is a LIE? Why would a publisher accept a book with a LIE in the title? Because they know it will sell well anyway? Or maybe because they know that one small special interest (scientists) don’t get to define words — that words are defined by how they are referred to and used by people in a society at large? Then an interesting question would be; What’s the one most important thing that could be done to alleviate the problems most people have with an understanding of science? In your opening post, you said;

quote:

---

I've noticed that most people out there don't have a first clue what scientific theory is. Most seem to think it's comparable to religious doctrine.

---

Could that be because top scientists associate it with religious doctrine in their NY Times best sellers?I have a suggestion, it would be for the scientific community to strongly suggest that its most prominent members (Shermer and Dawkins, Stenger, Dennett, countless others) get OUT of the atheist promotion business! Do you have a better idea than that one?