Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Sherlock Holmes

Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

Post #1

Post by 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.
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Wed Feb 09, 2022 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: Misrepresenting science

Post #2

Post by Jose Fly »

I grew up immersed in Christianity literally from one week old through age 15. We always went to Sunday service, a once per week Bible study, and at least one youth group function per week. In between all of that, my family members talked about Christianity, the Bible, and Jesus incessantly, and viewed almost everything through a Christian framework. Problems were typically dealt with via prayer, Bible reading, and the like. I'm still fairly close with most of my family.

After I turned 15 my folks allowed me to choose whether I wanted to keep going to church. I chose not to and although they didn't like it, they respected my choice. About that time I started focusing on science. I started taking advanced science courses in high school (the ones that were available at the time), I read lots of books, and eventually I went to college and earned my bachelors and masters degrees in the biological sciences. Since then I've worked in the biological sciences for over 30 years.

So I've been around evangelical Christianity and science for much of my life, and you know what's interesting? The only people I've ever heard or seen say anything about having to choose between science and Christianity were the Christians. None of my professors, colleagues, or anyone else in my science world has ever said anything like that at all, whereas I've heard several pastors, Sunday School teachers, youth leaders, and family members say in quite stark terms something like "it's either science or the Bible", "trust God's word over man's works", "you can't serve two masters", etc. Even prominent Christian creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis promote this dichotomy....

Image

Notice how they depict the foundation of the problems as "evolution", "millions of years", and "man deciding truth" with the other side being "creation", "God's word" and "thousands of years". IOW....science versus Christianity.

So at least from my experiences the framing of "science vs Christianity" is coming from Christians, not from scientists.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Misrepresenting science

Post #3

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1]

What is the question for debate?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Misrepresenting science

Post #4

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 12:39 pm I grew up immersed in Christianity literally from one week old through age 15. We always went to Sunday service, a once per week Bible study, and at least one youth group function per week. In between all of that, my family members talked about Christianity, the Bible, and Jesus incessantly, and viewed almost everything through a Christian framework. Problems were typically dealt with via prayer, Bible reading, and the like. I'm still fairly close with most of my family.

After I turned 15 my folks allowed me to choose whether I wanted to keep going to church. I chose not to and although they didn't like it, they respected my choice. About that time I started focusing on science. I started taking advanced science courses in high school (the ones that were available at the time), I read lots of books, and eventually I went to college and earned my bachelors and masters degrees in the biological sciences. Since then I've worked in the biological sciences for over 30 years.

So I've been around evangelical Christianity and science for much of my life, and you know what's interesting? The only people I've ever heard or seen say anything about having to choose between science and Christianity were the Christians. None of my professors, colleagues, or anyone else in my science world has ever said anything like that at all, whereas I've heard several pastors, Sunday School teachers, youth leaders, and family members say in quite stark terms something like "it's either science or the Bible", "trust God's word over man's works", "you can't serve two masters", etc. Even prominent Christian creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis promote this dichotomy....

Image

Notice how they depict the foundation of the problems as "evolution", "millions of years", and "man deciding truth" with the other side being "creation", "God's word" and "thousands of years". IOW....science versus Christianity.

So at least from my experiences the framing of "science vs Christianity" is coming from Christians, not from scientists.
Really? so you're actually unaware of the dogmatic, disparaging remarks and innuendo from "scientists" like Dawkins or Krauss or Atkins?
Dawkins wrote:“I mean it as a compliment when I say that you could almost define a philosopher as someone who won't take common sense for an answer.”
Dawkins wrote:“When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.”
Dawkins wrote:“If you don't understand how something works, never mind: just give up and say God did it.”
Dawkins wrote:“Creationists eagerly seek a gap in present-day knowledge or understanding. If an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that God, by default, must fill it.
Dawkins wrote:“The efforts of apologists to find genuinely distinguished modern scientists who are religious have an air of desperation, generating the unmistakably hollow sound or bottoms of barrels being scraped.”
Dawkins wrote:“If you don’t understand how something works, never mind: just give up and say God did it.”
Dawkins wrote:“the higher one’s intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold “beliefs” of any kind.”
Dawkins wrote:“To suggest that the first cause, the great unknown which is responsible for something existing rather than nothing, is a being capable of designing the universe and of talking to a million people simultaneously, is a total abdication of the responsibility to find an explanation.”
Krauss wrote:The illusion of purpose and design is perhaps the most pervasive illusion about nature that science has to confront on a daily basis.
Atkins wrote:"Humanity should accept that science has eliminated the justification for believing in cosmic purpose, and that any survival of purpose is inspired only by sentiment."
Atkins wrote:Science and religion cannot be reconciled, and humanity should begin to appreciate the power of its child, and to beat off all attempts at compromise.
Atkins wrote:The historicity of Jesus: I mean I know I’m on dangerous ground here because it’s not my subject, but I don’t believe that the Gospels written as they were decades after the event are a true record of what actually happened.
Atkins wrote:Everything that religion claims a god can do can be accounted for by science.
Atkins wrote:a scientist who believes in God is only half a scientist.
You may want to revise what you said above "The only people I've ever heard or seen say anything about having to choose between science and Christianity were the Christians not scientists".
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Wed Feb 09, 2022 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Misrepresenting science

Post #5

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 2:16 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1]

What is the question for debate?
Good point, I edited the title.

Thanks

User avatar
Aetixintro
Site Supporter
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Has thanked: 431 times
Been thanked: 27 times
Contact:

Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

Post #6

Post by Aetixintro »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1]

For real, there is no possibility for science to "misrepresent" itself. These days, there are a number of turnarounds: God proven by radio-astronomy, radiology and fMRI. The soul (ghosts) is proven by radiological scanners or radars, a kind of goggles for the eyes. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is likely to get smashed on grounds of fraudulent science by AI analyses and other.

So, a lot is happening in science that speaks for religion so that we may take the stance of people like Isaac Newton who investigated science as unraveling God's creation to us.

Things can turn around for the Big Bang as it may be false based on AI analysis as well as there are a number of problems with the Big Bang Theory.

Links:
HDM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheti ... tive_model
Scientific method: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The Future is bright. :thanks: :)

Image
I'm cool! :) - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

Post #7

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Aetixintro wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 3:31 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1]

For real, there is no possibility for science to "misrepresent" itself. These days, there are a number of turnarounds: God proven by radio-astronomy, radiology and fMRI. The soul (ghosts) is proven by radiological scanners or radars, a kind of goggles for the eyes. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is likely to get smashed on grounds of fraudulent science by AI analyses and other.

So, a lot is happening in science that speaks for religion so that we may take the stance of people like Isaac Newton who investigated science as unraveling God's creation to us.

Things can turn around for the Big Bang as it may be false based on AI analysis as well as there are a number of problems with the Big Bang Theory.

Links:
HDM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheti ... tive_model
Scientific method: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The Future is bright. :thanks: :)

Image
So what about this as my starting question "are there any questions that cannot be answered by following the scientific method"?

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: Misrepresenting science

Post #8

Post by Jose Fly »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #4]
I'm aware of folks like Dawkins arguing against religion and such, but that wasn't what I was referring to. My post was specifically about people who say you have to choose between religion and science. The only one of quotes you posted that fits that category is the one from Atkins. But honestly....I don't know who he is.

Also, I'll note the difference between one person saying something and an entire organization saying something. Now if you can show where any scientific organization has said something along the lines of "you have to pick between the Bible and science", that'd be significant. OTOH, if I'm remembering correctly, I believe some scientific organizations have issued statements that include the concept that one can be religious and do good science. When I get a chance I'll see what I can find.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Misrepresenting science

Post #9

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 3:46 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #4]
I'm aware of folks like Dawkins arguing against religion and such, but that wasn't what I was referring to. My post was specifically about people who say you have to choose between religion and science. The only one of quotes you posted that fits that category is the one from Atkins. But honestly....I don't know who he is.

Also, I'll note the difference between one person saying something and an entire organization saying something. Now if you can show where any scientific organization has said something along the lines of "you have to pick between the Bible and science", that'd be significant. OTOH, if I'm remembering correctly, I believe some scientific organizations have issued statements that include the concept that one can be religious and do good science. When I get a chance I'll see what I can find.
Well frankly I disagreed with what you said because there are scientists who do say this, showing only one or two is sufficient to counter what you said, but in all fairness you never said there weren't any only that you'd never come across any, now you have.

[Peter] Atkins is a Prof. of Chemistry at Oxford and a well known, prolific writer of books on chemistry and life-science chemistry, he's well known in debating circles and has a reputation of being a rather harsh atheist.

I never said there was a "scientific organization" compelling people to make a choice so I have no intention of defending a claim I never made.

The people I cited (there are many more) are well known, public faces in popular science on the radio and TV so they do for many people, represent science, and their opinions do carry weight with many.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: Misrepresenting science

Post #10

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 3:57 pm Well frankly I disagreed with what you said because there are scientists who do say this, showing only one or two is sufficient to counter what you said, but in all fairness you never said there weren't any only that you'd never come across any, now you have.

[Peter] Atkins is a Prof. of Chemistry at Oxford and a well known, prolific writer of books on chemistry and life-science chemistry, he's well known in debating circles and has a reputation of being a rather harsh atheist.
Fair enough. I'm now aware of one scientist who has said you must choose between religion and science. Obviously I disagree with that, just as I disagree with the creationist organizations who say the same thing. As I noted earlier, I have colleagues who are Christians and fine biologists.....some of them are my good friends too.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Post Reply