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.
Is science starting to misrepresent itself?
Moderator: Moderators
Is science starting to misrepresent itself?
Post #1
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Wed Feb 09, 2022 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?
Post #261Two things:Jose Fly wrote: ↑Wed Feb 23, 2022 5:50 pmThat would be a relevant point had anyone said anything like "We must always trust what organizations say, without question".Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Feb 23, 2022 5:36 pm I bring up eugenics because it was unfortunately supported to a large degree by the scientifically literate, the educated class, the doctors, the scientists, it received huge support from institutions that were held in high regard by the public like the AAAS.
I make no apologies for pointing out how trust in such institutions carries risks, it did then and does still today.
EDIT: I'll also note how interesting it is to see you say that organizations like AiG are real, genuine scientific entities even though they specifically require their employees to automatically reject any data that conflicts with their reading of the Bible, while at the same time you chastise the AAAS for defining science as being limited to natural explanations, and in doing so you advocate that science should be free of such restrictions.
So how is it that you're just fine with AiG's mandate but are bothered by AAAS' definition? Shouldn't you be at least as bothered by AiG's requirements as you are AAAS' definition?
1. Do you acknowledge that I did not smear the AAAS?
2. Please share the definition of science that you think the AiG have asserted and I'll be happy to comment on it.
- 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: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?
Post #262Honestly, I've lost interest. After a couple of months I've grown rather bored with seeing someone (i.e. you) who doesn't even know that bacteria are a Domain think himself such an expert in evolutionary biology that he can unilaterally declare "evolution is falsified". I've seen you ignore an incredible amount of information, and do so repeatedly and deliberately. And I've grown bored with the same ol' pattern of a creationist making bold assertions and the rest of the "debate" (lol) being mostly other people chasing you around trying to get you to answer basic questions and back up your assertions, and you doing everything you can to avoid doing so.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Feb 24, 2022 10:46 amTwo things:Jose Fly wrote: ↑Wed Feb 23, 2022 5:50 pmThat would be a relevant point had anyone said anything like "We must always trust what organizations say, without question".Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Feb 23, 2022 5:36 pm I bring up eugenics because it was unfortunately supported to a large degree by the scientifically literate, the educated class, the doctors, the scientists, it received huge support from institutions that were held in high regard by the public like the AAAS.
I make no apologies for pointing out how trust in such institutions carries risks, it did then and does still today.
EDIT: I'll also note how interesting it is to see you say that organizations like AiG are real, genuine scientific entities even though they specifically require their employees to automatically reject any data that conflicts with their reading of the Bible, while at the same time you chastise the AAAS for defining science as being limited to natural explanations, and in doing so you advocate that science should be free of such restrictions.
So how is it that you're just fine with AiG's mandate but are bothered by AAAS' definition? Shouldn't you be at least as bothered by AiG's requirements as you are AAAS' definition?
1. Do you acknowledge that I did not smear the AAAS?
2. Please share the definition of science that you think the AiG have asserted and I'll be happy to comment on it.
Then, to top it all off I see an old creationist foe show up here that I debated a decade ago. So not only does this involve following the same old script that's beyond boring and tedious....it's even the same people!
So unless I see anything new that's worth discussing, I'm simply not interested.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?
Post #263Very well, until next time.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 12:55 pmHonestly, I've lost interest. After a couple of months I've grown rather bored with seeing someone (i.e. you) who doesn't even know that bacteria are a Domain think himself such an expert in evolutionary biology that he can unilaterally declare "evolution is falsified". I've seen you ignore an incredible amount of information, and do so repeatedly and deliberately. And I've grown bored with the same ol' pattern of a creationist making bold assertions and the rest of the "debate" (lol) being mostly other people chasing you around trying to get you to answer basic questions and back up your assertions, and you doing everything you can to avoid doing so.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Feb 24, 2022 10:46 amTwo things:Jose Fly wrote: ↑Wed Feb 23, 2022 5:50 pmThat would be a relevant point had anyone said anything like "We must always trust what organizations say, without question".Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Feb 23, 2022 5:36 pm I bring up eugenics because it was unfortunately supported to a large degree by the scientifically literate, the educated class, the doctors, the scientists, it received huge support from institutions that were held in high regard by the public like the AAAS.
I make no apologies for pointing out how trust in such institutions carries risks, it did then and does still today.
EDIT: I'll also note how interesting it is to see you say that organizations like AiG are real, genuine scientific entities even though they specifically require their employees to automatically reject any data that conflicts with their reading of the Bible, while at the same time you chastise the AAAS for defining science as being limited to natural explanations, and in doing so you advocate that science should be free of such restrictions.
So how is it that you're just fine with AiG's mandate but are bothered by AAAS' definition? Shouldn't you be at least as bothered by AiG's requirements as you are AAAS' definition?
1. Do you acknowledge that I did not smear the AAAS?
2. Please share the definition of science that you think the AiG have asserted and I'll be happy to comment on it.
Then, to top it all off I see an old creationist foe show up here that I debated a decade ago. So not only does this involve following the same old script that's beyond boring and tedious....it's even the same people!
So unless I see anything new that's worth discussing, I'm simply not interested.
- The Barbarian
- Sage
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 586 times
Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?
Post #264It should be noted that among the greatest advocates of eugenics in the United States were YE creationists including one co-founder of the Institute for Creation research. Dr. Wm Tinkle enthusiastically endorsed removing "inferior humans" from the gene pool, which Charles Darwin considered to be an "overwhelming evil", even if passively permitted to happen. ( The Descent of Man)
And Darwinists contemporary to Tinkle (e.g. Reginald Punnett) showed that the very basis of eugenics was scientifically unsupportable.
Yet into the 1990s, YE creationist leaders like Henry Morris (director of the ICR) was writing bilge about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people.
This is one of the major differences between science and creationism.
And Darwinists contemporary to Tinkle (e.g. Reginald Punnett) showed that the very basis of eugenics was scientifically unsupportable.
Yet into the 1990s, YE creationist leaders like Henry Morris (director of the ICR) was writing bilge about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people.
This is one of the major differences between science and creationism.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14131
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 910 times
- Been thanked: 1641 times
- Contact:
Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?
Post #265I have been studying this overall idea in more detail recently.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 9:03 pm It should be noted that among the greatest advocates of eugenics in the United States were YE creationists including one co-founder of the Institute for Creation research. Dr. Wm Tinkle enthusiastically endorsed removing "inferior humans" from the gene pool, which Charles Darwin considered to be an "overwhelming evil", even if passively permitted to happen. ( The Descent of Man)
And Darwinists contemporary to Tinkle (e.g. Reginald Punnett) showed that the very basis of eugenics was scientifically unsupportable.
Yet into the 1990s, YE creationist leaders like Henry Morris (director of the ICR) was writing bilge about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people.
This is one of the major differences between science and creationism.
eugenics - the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable. Developed largely by Sir Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, eugenics was increasingly discredited as unscientific and racially biased during the 20th century, especially after the adoption of its doctrines by the Nazis in order to justify their treatment of Jews, disabled people, and other minority groups.
The Hamitic Hypothesis
From what I can gather, it is an explanation as to why Caucasians were so more adept and advanced in the sciences and engineering and how they used the knowledge to conquer the world and enslave what they considered to be the less advanced races of humanity.
The inspiration for such belief does come from Hebrew script - as the Hamitic Hypothesis based its hypothesis
Whatever the cause, it is undeniable that today's world is a consequence of such thinking, even that such thinking is now considered to be unscientific - while it is definitely a stain on the human story - [one of the many from all walks of human life] as insidious in its methods of madness - without it happening, I very much doubt that humans could have gotten into space as they are now, without the historic path that was taken, been taken.The term Hamitic originally referred to the peoples said to be descended from Ham, one of the Sons of Noah according to the Bible. According to the Book of Genesis, after Noah became drunk and Ham dishonored his father, upon awakening Noah pronounced a curse on Ham's youngest son, Canaan, stating that his offspring would be the "servants of servants". Of Ham's four sons, Canaan fathered the Canaanites, while Mizraim fathered the Egyptians, Cush the Cushites, and Phut the Libyans.[10]
During the Middle Ages, Jews and Christians considered Ham to be the ancestor of all Africans. Noah's curse on Canaan as described in Genesis began to be interpreted by some theologians as having caused visible racial characteristics in all of Ham's offspring, notably black skin.
[SOURCE]
I think the main problem - perhaps unavoidable - is that the Hamites used their knowledge very unwisely and the world suffered accordingly.
It appears that we have still a long way to go to repair the damage of such blatant misuse of knowledge and twisted thinking...but it is also undeniable that despite the dark side of that process, the progress which has been made is not all dark and dingy...depending on just how much we can learn from those things...and use science and engineering for far better things than how they were used by scientists and engineers back in the day...
- The Barbarian
- Sage
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 586 times
Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?
Post #266Problem is, the immense debt we owe to "Hamites" like the Egyptians, who were far advanced of the Greeks of their time in engineering, math, and other technology. And the mathematical achievement of the Shemites, in astronomy and geometry.William wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 10:44 pm From what I can gather, it is an explanation as to why Caucasians were so more adept and advanced in the sciences and engineering and how they used the knowledge to conquer the world and enslave what they considered to be the less advanced races of humanity...
And later the technology and science of the Chinese, during the European dark ages.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14131
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 910 times
- Been thanked: 1641 times
- Contact:
Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?
Post #267The Barbarian wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 11:38 pmProblem is, the immense debt we owe to "Hamites" like the Egyptians, who were far advanced of the Greeks of their time in engineering, math, and other technology. And the mathematical achievement of the Shemites, in astronomy and geometry.William wrote: ↑Fri Mar 11, 2022 10:44 pm From what I can gather, it is an explanation as to why Caucasians were so more adept and advanced in the sciences and engineering and how they used the knowledge to conquer the world and enslave what they considered to be the less advanced races of humanity...
And later the technology and science of the Chinese, during the European dark ages.
What 'immense debt" do we own any of the terrible uses of science and engineering? If anything, our support in those things seems to be about to bite us all on the collective butt - and worse...
I was specifically focusing on Western society history - but are you suggesting that science and knowledge in these other races was used any differently?
I hear it said that Hitler was the most evil man the world has ever encountered - and think this is more to do with the shock of the "Civilized West" that one of their own could stoop to such public display re the levels the Nazi Party went to...even hereabouts, whenever an example of gross evildoing is required, Hitler is first pick...always...but if it is a case of how many folk were murdered under his watch, there are worse cases for that - not well known in the West...so what is it really that picks Hitler out as the worst offender?
- The Barbarian
- Sage
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 586 times
Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?
Post #268Geometry, for example. Egyptians had it down before the Greeks. The evidence, for example, is that they understood the Pythagorean theorem before Pythagoras.
I'm of the conviction that knowledge is an intrinsically good thing. Knowledge isn't the problem; humans are the problem.I was specifically focusing on Western society history - but are you suggesting that science and knowledge in these other races was used any differently?
He was just the most troublesome one. And appears to have had a number of screws loose. For example, he was a vegetarian because he couldn't bear the thought of animals suffering for his food. Which isn't necessarily crazy, but then combine that with his willingness to horribly murder millions of people including little children for cultural differences, and yes, crazy.I hear it said that Hitler was the most evil man the world has ever encountered -
Stalin almost certainly killed more, in planned famines and other atrocities. Most people aware of the evidence think so. Stalin also had some bizarre ideas and behaviors; power corrupts. And it seems to also corrupt one's sense of reality.and think this is more to do with the shock of the "Civilized West" that one of their own could stoop to such public display re the levels the Nazi Party went to...even hereabouts, whenever an example of gross evildoing is required, Hitler is first pick...always...but if it is a case of how many folk were murdered under his watch, there are worse cases for that - not well known in the West...so what is it really that picks Hitler out as the worst offender?
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14131
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 910 times
- Been thanked: 1641 times
- Contact:
Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?
Post #269[Replying to The Barbarian in post #268]
Search - Why is geometry useful?
10 Shocking Reasons Why Geometry is Important in your Life
Or are you suggesting that crazy is the same thing as evil?
Search - What is meant by crazy?
mad, especially as manifested in wild or aggressive behaviour.
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely'
The proverbial saying 'power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely' conveys the opinion that, as a person's power increases, their moral sense diminishes.
Surely this would have to do with the underlying models of the systems which govern human society, where power can be used for corrupt purposes.
The models themselves, must be corrupt.
If the models are corrupt, then there is simply no way in which to hope they will ensure human beings act without corruption, because the models are taught to human beings from the moment they are able to learn - effectively meaning that human beings are taught to be corrupt - are corrupted - by the very models which govern human societies - models which were created by ancient humans and the corruption has been passed down through the ages - and modified with the latest knowledge, and that addition corrupts the knowledge.
What 'immense debt" do we own any of the terrible uses of science and engineering?
Yes - but how does that answer my question re this supposed "immense debt"?Geometry, for example. Egyptians had it down before the Greeks. The evidence, for example, is that they understood the Pythagorean theorem before Pythagoras.
Search - Why is geometry useful?
10 Shocking Reasons Why Geometry is Important in your Life
I was specifically focusing on Western society history - but are you suggesting that science and knowledge in these other races was used any differently?
Yes - knowledge is useful. But why categorize it as "an intrinsically good thing"?I'm of the conviction that knowledge is an intrinsically good thing.
Why are humans the problem?Knowledge isn't the problem; humans are the problem.
I hear it said that Hitler was the most evil man the world has ever encountered -
Troublesome in what way, and how is troublesome evil, in real terms?He was just the most troublesome one.
Yes - but why is that an evil thing?And appears to have had a number of screws loose.
So "Crazy-evil" rather than "crazy-good"?For example, he was a vegetarian because he couldn't bear the thought of animals suffering for his food. Which isn't necessarily crazy, but then combine that with his willingness to horribly murder millions of people including little children for cultural differences, and yes, crazy.
Or are you suggesting that crazy is the same thing as evil?
Search - What is meant by crazy?
mad, especially as manifested in wild or aggressive behaviour.
and think this is more to do with the shock of the "Civilized West" that one of their own could stoop to such public display re the levels the Nazi Party went to...even hereabouts, whenever an example of gross evildoing is required, Hitler is first pick...always...but if it is a case of how many folk were murdered under his watch, there are worse cases for that - not well known in the West...so what is it really that picks Hitler out as the worst offender?
I have heard that power corrupts, but wonder if it is true. As the saying goes;Stalin almost certainly killed more, in planned famines and other atrocities. Most people aware of the evidence think so. Stalin also had some bizarre ideas and behaviors; power corrupts. And it seems to also corrupt one's sense of reality.
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely'
The proverbial saying 'power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely' conveys the opinion that, as a person's power increases, their moral sense diminishes.
Surely this would have to do with the underlying models of the systems which govern human society, where power can be used for corrupt purposes.
The models themselves, must be corrupt.
If the models are corrupt, then there is simply no way in which to hope they will ensure human beings act without corruption, because the models are taught to human beings from the moment they are able to learn - effectively meaning that human beings are taught to be corrupt - are corrupted - by the very models which govern human societies - models which were created by ancient humans and the corruption has been passed down through the ages - and modified with the latest knowledge, and that addition corrupts the knowledge.
- The Barbarian
- Sage
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 586 times
Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?
Post #270William wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 11:23 am Search - Why is geometry useful?
10 Shocking Reasons Why Geometry is Important in your Life
There are no biological human races. But there are cultural differences. For example, monumental stonework was, in Egypt used to worship particular humans, whereas, in many places, the Greeks used it as a celebration of democracy in the polis.I was specifically focusing on Western society history - but are you suggesting that science and knowledge in these other races was used any differently?
I'm of the conviction that knowledge is an intrinsically good thing.
Because even with all the crap going down in modern humanity, we are less violent and more inclined to help each other than was true in previous centuries.Yes - knowledge is useful. But why categorize it as "an intrinsically good thing"?
Knowledge isn't the problem; humans are the problem.
Because humans crave power.Why are humans the problem?
He was just the most troublesome one.I hear it said that Hitler was the most evil man the world has ever encountered -
Killed an abused many people, and started a world war.Troublesome in what way,
Generally, very troublesome. But not always. The world has evil, weak, ineffectual people. They might be malignant, but they lack the resources to cause much damage.and how is troublesome evil, in real terms?
And (Hitler) appears to have had a number of screws loose.
Doesn't have to be. Most crazy people aren't a danger to anyone. We just find them scary, sometimes. Wilson von Dusen mentioned that many psychiatrists, back when we had asylums, would begin therapy with people incarcerated there by asking "who did you scare to get locked up in here?" It was a useful beginning, because it acknowledged the patient as a human and there was almost always someone who had been scared.Yes - but why is that an evil thing?
For example, he was a vegetarian because he couldn't bear the thought of animals suffering for his food. Which isn't necessarily crazy, but then combine that with his willingness to horribly murder millions of people including little children for cultural differences, and yes, crazy.Yeah. Two different things.So "Crazy-evil" rather than "crazy-good"?
No. The crazy people I've known were generally pretty good people.Or are you suggesting that crazy is the same thing as evil?
Search - What is meant by crazy?
mad, especially as manifested in wild or aggressive behaviour.
Unsocially sanctioned behavior. It's been noted that a lot of cultures with shaman traditions accept what we'd call crazy and utilize it as a way of healing others. In many of those cultures, one becomes a shaman by exhibiting the sorts of behavior that used to get people locked up in madhouses. Pre-classic Greeks sometimes thought that way. They saw it as a connection to the divine.
Perhaps the clear-eyed efficiency in the process. It was industrialized genocide.and think this is more to do with the shock of the "Civilized West" that one of their own could stoop to such public display re the levels the Nazi Party went to...even hereabouts, whenever an example of gross evildoing is required, Hitler is first pick...always...but if it is a case of how many folk were murdered under his watch, there are worse cases for that - not well known in the West...so what is it really that picks Hitler out as the worst offender?
Stalin almost certainly killed more, in planned famines and other atrocities. Most people aware of the evidence think so. Stalin also had some bizarre ideas and behaviors; power corrupts. And it seems to also corrupt one's sense of reality.
Other than maybe Asoka, who do you know of who had unlimited power or anything close to unlimited power, who responsibly handled it? Maybe Marcus Aurelius. Both of them were philosophers who first struggled to rule themselves and later, their empires.I have heard that power corrupts, but wonder if it is true. As the saying goes;
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely'
The proverbial saying 'power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely' conveys the opinion that, as a person's power increases, their moral sense diminishes.
As Kurt Vonnegut remarked, all they wanted was the freedom to do whatever they liked, and who wouldn't want that? Vonnegut's writings seem to be completely about the nature of human evil.
Yes.Surely this would have to do with the underlying models of the systems which govern human society, where power can be used for corrupt purposes.
Some anthropologists think that farming was a dreadful disaster because it led to surpluses that could be used to support non-working leaders who inevitably became corrupt.The models themselves, must be corrupt.
Maybe so.
If the models are corrupt, then there is simply no way in which to hope they will ensure human beings act without corruption, because the models are taught to human beings from the moment they are able to learn - effectively meaning that human beings are taught to be corrupt - are corrupted - by the very models which govern human societies - models which were created by ancient humans and the corruption has been passed down through the ages - and modified with the latest knowledge, and that addition corrupts the knowledge.