Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Over the past thirty, perhaps even forty years, it's become increasingly clear to me how what is sometimes presented as "god vs science" or "creationism vs science" and so on, is actually the root of many of the perceived problems with these two areas of human thought. Because these are presented as contrasting, as alternative ways of interpreting the world, many people just assume that there is an underlying incompatibility.

But there is no incompatibility at all, there never was and the false implication that there is arose quite recently in fact. The vast majority of those who contributed to what we today call the scientific revolution and later the enlightenment, were not atheists - this might surprise some but it is true and should be carefully noted.

The growth of militant atheism (recently spearheaded by the likes of Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens) has seen increasing effort placed on attacking "religion" and discrediting those who might regard "god" and "creation" as intellectually legitimate ideas, by implying that the layman must choose one or the other, you're either an atheist (for science) or a theist (a science "denier").

It is my position that there is no conflict whatsoever, for example God (an intelligent agency not subject to laws) gave rise to the universe (a sophisticated amalgam of material and laws) and we - also intelligent agencies - are gifted by being able to explore, unravel and utilize that creation.

There is nothing that can disprove this view, there is no reason to imply that those who adopt it are deluded, incompetent, poorly educated or any of that, that attitude is a lie and its reinforced at every opportunity in this and many other forums.

[Jose Fly]

Here's an excerpt from statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, the folks who publish the journal Science).

The sponsors of many of these state and local proposals seem to believe that evolution and religion are in conflict. This is unfortunate. They need not be incompatible. Science and religion ask fundamentally different questions about the world. Many religious leaders have affirmed that they see no conflict between evolution and religion. We and the overwhelming majority of scientists share this view.

https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/file ... tement.pdf

[Difflugia]

Over the past thirty, perhaps even forty years, it's become increasingly clear to me how what is sometimes presented as "god vs science" or "creationism vs science" and so on, is actually the root of many of the perceived problems with these two areas of human thought. Because these are presented as contrasting, as alternative ways of interpreting the world, many people just assume that there is an underlying incompatibility.

But there is no incompatibility at all, there never was and the false implication that there is arose quite recently in fact. The vast majority of those who contributed to what we today call the scientific revolution and later the enlightenment, were not atheists - this might surprise some but it is true and should be carefully noted.

You've got a subtle equivocation going on here. Christianity is in conflict with science, but that doesn't keep Christians from being able to to do science. The conclusions drawn using the methods of Christianity aren't based on experimental evidence, so those conclusions are incompatible with science. If Christian methods routinely got the same answers as scientific ones, then that might even itself pose an interesting scientific question, but they don't.

On the other hand, Christians aren't required to use Christian methods of investigation for everything and when they can use scientific methods instead, they can be scientists. Just because someone is wrong about one thing or even many things, they don't have to be wrong about everything.

The growth of militant atheism (recently spearheaded by the likes of Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens) has seen increasing effort placed on attacking "religion" and discrediting those who might regard "god" and "creation" as intellectually legitimate ideas, by implying that the layman must choose one or the other, you're either an atheist (for science) or a theist (a science "denier").

This is a false dichotomy. Just because one denies some science, one doesn't necessarily deny all science. There's certainly the angle that if a person can't or won't properly evaluate evidence in one area, it renders suspect the idea that they can or will in others, but the literally dozens of Christian scientists demonstrate that it's at least possible to cognitively divide the world into at least two arenas, one that relies on experimental evidence and one that doesn't.

It is my position that there is no conflict whatsoever, for example God (an intelligent agency not subject to laws) gave rise to the universe (a sophisticated amalgam of material and laws) and we - also intelligent agencies - are gifted by being able to explore, unravel and utilize that creation.

And it's still possible for you to use the scientific method to answer other questions about reality. I agree.

There is nothing that can disprove this view, there is no reason to imply that those who adopt it are deluded, incompetent, poorly educated or any of that, that attitude is a lie and its reinforced at every opportunity in this and many other forums.

Except for science-deniers like creationists and antivaxers always getting the wrong answers, but insisting that they're right, anyway. That's one reason right there.

[Jose Fly]

Here's an excerpt from the US National Academy of Sciences' statement on evolution and society.

Science and religion are different ways of understanding. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of both to contribute to a better future.

https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolu ... nd-society

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here's an excerpt from statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, the folks who publish the journal Science).

The sponsors of many of these state and local proposals seem to believe that evolution and religion are in conflict. This is unfortunate. They need not be incompatible. Science and religion ask fundamentally different questions about the world. Many religious leaders have affirmed that they see no conflict between evolution and religion. We and the overwhelming majority of scientists share this view.

https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/file ... tement.pdf

Many thanks.

Well there clearly is some degree of controversy underway else there'd be no motivation to write such a letter.

I was also rather shocked to notice this little phrase "Science is a process of seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena" which is a blatant falsehood, that is not the definition of science at all as any cursory search will soon verify, this is another subtle example of the very thing I speak of - misrepresentation.

Never in all my years have I seen the inclusion of the condition "natural explanations" this is a sneaky tactic akin to the attempt to redefine "atheism", and this is the AAAS, it is frankly absurd and yet another example of how this insanity is unfolding and doing true intellectual damage. What this amounts to is a restriction on the kinds of reasoning and conclusions and inferences one is allowed to make (by the thought police).

Science has always been defined as a means of acquiring knowledge or understanding:

knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation.

None of these impose the restriction that we must seek only "natural explanations".

[Sherlock Holmes]

Over the past thirty, perhaps even forty years, it's become increasingly clear to me how what is sometimes presented as "god vs science" or "creationism vs science" and so on, is actually the root of many of the perceived problems with these two areas of human thought. Because these are presented as contrasting, as alternative ways of interpreting the world, many people just assume that there is an underlying incompatibility.

But there is no incompatibility at all, there never was and the false implication that there is arose quite recently in fact. The vast majority of those who contributed to what we today call the scientific revolution and later the enlightenment, were not atheists - this might surprise some but it is true and should be carefully noted.

You've got a subtle equivocation going on here. Christianity is in conflict with science, but that doesn't keep Christians from being able to to do science. The conclusions drawn using the methods of Christianity aren't based on experimental evidence, so those conclusions are incompatible with science. If Christian methods routinely got the same answers as scientific ones, then that might even itself pose an interesting scientific question, but they don't.

On the other hand, Christians aren't required to use Christian methods of investigation for everything and when they can use scientific methods instead, they can be scientists. Just because someone is wrong about one thing or even many things, they don't have to be wrong about everything.

The growth of militant atheism (recently spearheaded by the likes of Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens) has seen increasing effort placed on attacking "religion" and discrediting those who might regard "god" and "creation" as intellectually legitimate ideas, by implying that the layman must choose one or the other, you're either an atheist (for science) or a theist (a science "denier").

This is a false dichotomy. Just because one denies some science, one doesn't necessarily deny all science. There's certainly the angle that if a person can't or won't properly evaluate evidence in one area, it renders suspect the idea that they can or will in others, but the literally dozens of Christian scientists demonstrate that it's at least possible to cognitively divide the world into at least two arenas, one that relies on experimental evidence and one that doesn't.

It is my position that there is no conflict whatsoever, for example God (an intelligent agency not subject to laws) gave rise to the universe (a sophisticated amalgam of material and laws) and we - also intelligent agencies - are gifted by being able to explore, unravel and utilize that creation.

And it's still possible for you to use the scientific method to answer other questions about reality. I agree.

There is nothing that can disprove this view, there is no reason to imply that those who adopt it are deluded, incompetent, poorly educated or any of that, that attitude is a lie and its reinforced at every opportunity in this and many other forums.

Except for science-deniers like creationists and antivaxers always getting the wrong answers, but insisting that they're right, anyway. That's one reason right there.

Since your post ends in an insult I won't spend much time replying other than to say that advocating that the universe was created by an intelligence is not to deny science and implying that because I may hold such a view that I am "therefore" opposed to Covid vaccination is a personal insult that I find particularly inexcusable in that I am an asthmatic and my wife has a genetically based rare disease called Bronchiectasis that has some genetic similarity to Cystic Fibrosis and is a chronic condition that appeared unexpectedly (as this disease seem to do) in her mid 50s.

You have no f*****g idea how many Republican anti vaccination fanatics I've had to argue with these past two years.

You wanted to insult rather than politely disagree, to simply disagree with me was it seems asking too much of you, well we're done, I want nothing to do with you.

[Jose Fly]

Many thanks.

No problem.

Well there clearly is some degree of controversy underway else there'd be no motivation to write such a letter.

As you can see from the statement, the controversy was creationists' attempts to get intelligent design creationism into science classes.

I was also rather shocked to notice this little phrase "Science is a process of seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena" which is a blatant falsehood, that is not the definition of science at all as any cursory search will soon verify, this is another subtle example of the very thing I speak of - misrepresentation.

Never in all my years have I seen the inclusion of the condition "natural explanations" this is a sneaky tactic akin to the attempt to redefine "atheism", and this is the AAAS, it is frankly absurd and yet another example of how this insanity is unfolding and doing true intellectual damage. What this amounts to is a restriction on the kinds of reasoning and conclusions and inferences one is allowed to make (by the thought police).

Really? Do you have an example of a non-natural scientific explanation for anything?

Science has always been defined as a means of acquiring knowledge or understanding:

knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation.

None of these impose the restriction that we must seek only "natural explanations".

Because those are dictionary definitions. FYI, dictionaries are in no position to set the requirements for what is or isn't science. All they do is define a word.

If you want science to include non-natural explanations for things, it falls on you to give an example of what you're referring to. As I've shown via the statements from large, prominent scientific organizations, scientists themselves define science as being about finding natural explanations for things. We know what we do in our work and how we do it.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Many thanks.

No problem.

Well there clearly is some degree of controversy underway else there'd be no motivation to write such a letter.

As you can see from the statement, the controversy was creationists' attempts to get intelligent design creationism into science classes.

I was also rather shocked to notice this little phrase "Science is a process of seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena" which is a blatant falsehood, that is not the definition of science at all as any cursory search will soon verify, this is another subtle example of the very thing I speak of - misrepresentation.

Never in all my years have I seen the inclusion of the condition "natural explanations" this is a sneaky tactic akin to the attempt to redefine "atheism", and this is the AAAS, it is frankly absurd and yet another example of how this insanity is unfolding and doing true intellectual damage. What this amounts to is a restriction on the kinds of reasoning and conclusions and inferences one is allowed to make (by the thought police).

Really? Do you have an example of a non-natural scientific explanation for anything?

Science has always been defined as a means of acquiring knowledge or understanding:

knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation.

None of these impose the restriction that we must seek only "natural explanations".

Because those are dictionary definitions. FYI, dictionaries are in no position to set the requirements for what is or isn't science. All they do is define a word.

If you want science to include non-natural explanations for things, it falls on you to give an example of what you're referring to. As I've shown via the statements from large, prominent scientific organizations, scientists themselves define science as being about finding natural explanations for things. We know what we do in our work and how we do it.

None of that matters, definitions established over centuries in encyclopedias and dictionaries and so on set a precedent, they - collectively - constitute the definition, the AAAS have simply made up their own definition because they have a political agenda, honesty and truth seeking are not part of that agenda.

[Jose Fly]

None of that matters, definitions established over centuries in encyclopedias and dictionaries and so on set a precedent, they - collectively - constitute the definition, the AAAS have simply made up their own definition because they have a political agenda, honesty and truth seeking are not part of that agenda.

First, I'll take that as a no, you don't have any examples of non-natural explanations you think should be included in science.

Second, if you think a dictionary is more of an authority on what constitutes science than one of the largest organizations of scientists in the world, I guess you're free to hold that belief. But I wouldn't expect very many folks to agree with you on that. Maybe you should go to the next scientific conference near you and give a presentation, where you tell all the scientists in the room that they've been doing their jobs wrong.

[Diagoras]

advocating that the universe was created by an intelligence is not to deny science

But it's not doing science.

God (an intelligent agency not subject to laws) gave rise to the universe

How would you expect a scientist (cosmologist or physicist) to respond to a claim like this?

[Sherlock Holmes]

None of that matters, definitions established over centuries in encyclopedias and dictionaries and so on set a precedent, they - collectively - constitute the definition, the AAAS have simply made up their own definition because they have a political agenda, honesty and truth seeking are not part of that agenda.

First, I'll take that as a no, you don't have any examples of non-natural explanations you think should be included in science.

Whether I do or do not isn't the issue, you may want to make it the issue but it isn't, this isn't about me - remember? must we go over all that again?

Second, if you think a dictionary is more of an authority on what constitutes science than one of the largest organizations of scientists in the world, I guess you're free to hold that belief. But I wouldn't expect very many folks to agree with you on that. Maybe you should go to the next scientific conference near you and give a presentation, where you tell all the scientists in the room that they've been doing their jobs wrong.

I simply do not and have not given my consent for the AAAS to redefine the term "science". The definition is in the public domain, it has been established over centuries in thousands of universities and books printed in hundreds of languages across the world.

Since my childhood I've read science books, the definition and emphasis on knowledge has been an integral theme it has defined science for me and millions of people.

That the AAAS with their fretting about evolution want to make up their own definition matters not, the definition is what it was when I was a child and I do not need the AAAS or you to impose your "modern" definition upon me, thankfully we do not live - yet - in an Orwellian 1984 society.

Again, why must you write "Maybe you should go to the next scientific conference near you and give a presentation"? is that your argument? is that how a trained, intelligent scientist argues his case? I guess it is, personal attack and innuendo is the norm here it seems.