Two examples of the term science being prefixed with another term come immediately to mind.
One is Christian Science, which is a religious denomination/sect/cult (feel free to use whatever suffix is appropriate) which uses the prefix to add legitimacy to the movement.
The second is Jewish Science as contrasted with Aryan Science, which was used as a derogatory term by Nazis concerning any form of intellectual achivement in the sciences that was first propounded by Jews. Under this prefix the Nazis exiled under threat of death the German or Austrian Einstein, Freud, Franck, Haber, Willstaetter, Warburg, Jaspers, Gumbel, Litt, Barth, Ebbinghaus, and Lessing (the last of which was murdered in Czechoslovakia). Such persecution helped insure their eventual military defeat.
I believe the term Creation Science seeks to do both. Add a false legitimacy by including the term science and to attack conventional science by contrasting it with the "holy" (or is it pure?) creation science.
Did the Naziz actually actively preclude themselves from using Jewish science or did they just ignore it to their detriment?
A paragraph from Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich may help answer this question:
quote: As for the German atom bomb project, which had given London and Washington much worry, it had made little progress due to Hitler's lack of interest in it and Himmler's practice of arresting the atom scientists for disloyalty or pulling them off to work on some of his pet nonsensical "scientific" experiments which he deemed more important. Before the end of 1944 the American and British governments had learned, to their great relief, that the Germans would not have an atom bomb in this war.
The Manhatten Project was full of refugees from Germany and Eastern Europe. Many were Jews for obvious reasons, some were not, for pretty good, if not equivalent, reasons.
By ignoring, or even actively persecuting the proponents of the theory of relativity, the Nazis essentially delayed any hope of creating nuclear weapons despite the best efforts of remaining scientists such as Heisenberg.
So we have had forms of fascist/aryan science and socialist science as well as christian/creation science.
We haven't even touched upon Mao. Even during the height of the Cultural Revolution where scientists, doctors, and teachers were persecuted, the nuclear and petroleum industries were off-limits.
Such hipocrisy achieved its most blatant form in this instance but is also is a part of current hipocrisy against science. One need only think of the gasoline that came from the ground by using geologic principles used to fuel the YEC preacher's Cadillac.
I was wondering what you, and anybody else, might think 'atheist science' might be like.
Atheism alone lacks a reason to attack science so far as I know. Therefore athiest science would be indistinguishable from actual science.
Don't get me wrong I am no IDist. There is no evidence for any such thing but I do think thre is an issue in principle. If we are actually conducting 'atheist science' when undertaking scientific investigation then, as wrong headed as they are in many other ways, I might have some sympathy with the creationists complaints of exclusion from mainstream science.........
Yes, you are right. To approach science with any prior conclusions is not science. If the evidence leads to the involvement of a divinity or an intelligent designer then that is the conclusion according to science.
I was viewing the question in the narrow light of athiesm not presuming a deity or ID rather than insisting upon no deity or ID. I stand corrected.