Comments on: When Are Scientists Not True Scientists?

By: Adrian Hayter

Adrian Hayter — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:35:25 +0000

Intelligent Design people are not legitimate scientists though. Their hypothesis isn't falsifiable, and it doesn't explain the evidence for Evolution (which it must do to replace the theory). Furthermore, ID doesn't have any evidence that cannot be explained through Evolutionary theory.

By: Adrian Hayter

Adrian Hayter — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:33:30 +0000

Issac Newton was also a supporter of alchemy, but I don't see you using that particular piece of information, perhaps because it shows that any person can be wrong about things. Likewise, Einstein opposed a non-static universe, going so far to invent the "cosmological constant" which he later admitted to be the "biggest blunder of [his] career".

What people say doesn't automatically make it true, even if they are scientists. If you build a case against atheism purely on the quotes of scientists (long dead) then you are making a logical fallacy known as the "appeal to authority".

By: EvidencevsFaith

EvidencevsFaith — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 06:54:32 +0000

The problem I perhaps have is…if a theistic scientist instead of believing in one of the usual religions, – genuinely believed in Zeus or even The FSM or the IPU?
I somehow don't think they'd be taken as seriously then….
Why not?
I think that logically, either Zeus, FSM and IPU believers etc should all be treated equally to Christians and other theistic believing scientists… – or they should be laughed at or simply not given any time like a Zeus, FSM or IPU believer would. Or a believer in – fill in the blank . Some crazy supernatural entity…that's also very rare and CONSIDERED very unusual to believe in.
Even though normal Gods are absurd too.
And of course if your more usual theist scientists were to be discredited. I do NOT mean all at once! I Mean over time….
But personally….should they really be considered scientists? Or rather, if they are. An Zeus FSM, IPU believer etc should be considered scientists too….
But hopefully in the end all the theistic and FSM etc believers will either lose some of their more deluded ideas and even become deists. OR even become atheists….Over time…..
Just wondering.
Evf

By: ChallengeGodOpenly

ChallengeGodOpenly — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:16:03 +0000

Its hard to not believe in something…wonder why that is? We're born with to many traits, feelings and desires that couldn't have evolved from an explosion or an original cell, that has no logic to it at all! The biggest argument for a God is LOVE. Why do we naturally draw to another? Why do we care for each other? Why do we choose to be with one person for the rest of our lives? Some say we are cultured that way, but who put that thought in the original guys head? Love can't be created from basic matter of cells and evolution. Disprove that and you will disprove God.

By: Adrian Hayter

Adrian Hayter — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 11:23:29 +0000

Thanks for pointing that out. I've changed his references to Guillermo Gonzalez (the astronomer in the Expelled movie).

By: Danny

Danny — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:51:14 +0000

Stephen Meyer's a philosopher, not a scientist.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:26:03 +0000

I agree that theists can be scientists. To me however, on some level, their work is suspect because of their rationality.

By: Ian Andreas Miller

Ian Andreas Miller — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 06:10:48 +0000

"My friend couldn’t see how scientists can be so rational at work and so irrational in their own time, but I guess you’d have to ask a theistic scientist that."

I can see how: Compartmentalization.

Look at this:

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/compartmentalizatio...

It is also helpful to keep in mind that the idea that there is an inherent conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis) between science and religion is just one historiographical interpretation of the relationship between the two. Many religious people think that science and religion can not only exist together in harmony, but science can even be helpful to religious faith and theology by performing its traditional role as handmaiden or servant (this was the view of Augustine and Aquinas). Ken Miller is apparently one who thinks this way: science may actually complement religious belief. According to this approach, the Galileo affair was not an example of a clash between science and religion, but a fight between two different ideas of how Science ought to be serving her mistress.

By: Luis Dias

Luis Dias — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 02:27:47 +0000

There's that guy, I think his name is Collins, who was the lead scientist in the genome project. He's completely theistic, he believes in the virgin mary and all that nonsense, and yet, I don't think there's anyone insane enough to say he isn't one of the most competent and brilliant bio-medical scientists out there.

To be atheist, ok, to be religiously and blindly atheist, another altogether. Nice try though, Adrian.

By: mc52

mc52 — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 01:11:30 +0000

I understand your friends view very well. I work for a BioTech company and I have an extremely hard time understanding how individuals with degrees in biology and the various offshoots can still have very strong, almost fundamentalist, viewpoints about their religion. We have here Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus and how they can have a strong understanding of evolution and still believe in ID (or whatever their religious equivalent) is, to me, living an intellectual lie.