Atheists control science

Then it should be noted that the government is composed mostly of religious people, not atheists. You'll have to support your contention that the people responsible for this discrimination were atheists. Your first example is about withdrawing use of their movie theatre for showing a film, even if it was done by atheists - which is not shown - that isn't about hiring practices.The second example might show some control over hiring practices regarding ID supporters. It should be clearly noted, however, that settlement of a civil claim does not necessarily mean actual admission. Furthermore, no evidence is presented that it was atheists that were responsible. Finally, if we assume it was a legitimate case, it seems not to be about worrying about the reputation hiring a religious scientist, but about hiring one who espouses an idea which is largely anti-scientific.If you could find cases of a religious scientists being denied employment because of his religion, by an atheist, you'd be able to start building a case. You call it 'shouting down', I call it explaining that Expelled is a classic piece of propaganda. Take their version of the Sternberg incident. From this piece, Expelled made the claim that Sternberg's life was ruined by his role in getting an ID related paper published. But he didn't lose his office, access to specimens or his unpaid editorship. What terrible things happened? The only thing the evidence seems to show is that some people talked unkindly about him in private emails. That's an open letter to Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens. What's the problem with a science magazine publishing such letters? He said 'men' so I'm guessing he meant that. This is nothing to do with atheistic control of science. That just points us to the fact that Darwin's ideas, and the work that followed, is popular. It's not an article, its an open letter. Sounds fine to me. Science is a tool that skeptics employ. I think someone with a degree in biology and psychology, who started doing a degree in theology, went on to get a PhD in Science History and edits their own relatively popular skeptics magazine, is perfectly qualified to write for a magazine that is about science in their skeptic section. It's not a science journal, its a popular science magazine. John Rennie merely has a BSc Biology. Martin Gardner had a bachelor's in Philosophy I believe. Having 'scientific credentials' whatever you are thinking of, are not essential to being a competent science writer, though the more you have the more it helps I should think.And Scientific American is just a magazine. It reports on science, not directs it in any way. What input should they take from taxpayers, and how should that be done?

quote:

---

In 2008, NAS published Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a book sent to every public school board member and science teacher in America. The book's message: Darwinian evolution is the only acceptable explanation for human origins. The book treats the intelligent-design hypothesis as invalid without presenting a shred of empirical evidence to contradict it.

---

Yeah, one doesn't present evidence to falsify the unfalsifiable. That book appears to be mostly focussed on the evidence for evolution, because there isn't any for any other ideas. The ID 'hypothesis' is 'invalid' as science, as Behe basically openly admitted in court (he would have to change what science means so that ID would count as science). Showing that atheists, theists and deists are making the decisions about science funding is not surprising.All you are saying, therefore, is that Creationists and IDists have very little power in deciding where public funding goes. That's not unfair though, as even if we credit ID as being scientific, its a minority view of a subsection of scientific enquiry. Of course they don't have much influence! Yeah, when the Republicans start supporting government funded scientists more regularly, maybe they'll win more scientist's votes. I don't know why the Republican's inability to appeal to scientists is a result of atheists controlling science though. I'll guess: is it the atheists and their allies (who is just about everyone but Creationists and their allies) who are only hiring Liberals? Even if everyone realized that science was the biggest ally of the Democrats, I don't see why that would stop them trusting them. Science has acquired its trust independent of governmental propaganda or religious dogma.And if the Democrats are the biggest ally the scientific community has, its no wonder many of them would vote for the Democrats, their entire livelihood may rely on a sympathetic government. The Republicans are free to gain allies with scientists. They just have to fund more science, and use sound science in their policy-making, and other such things.

The word you should be using then, is secularist.Yes, science is a secular activity, controlled by secularists.

That's the meaning I was intending to convey by it. Though I suspect there are a good number of secularists in the government-religion separation sense in the science community too.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

So what role does NAS have in funding decisions, that it does without answering to government? What are you proposing as an alternative? I get that - but what input should NAS take from taxpayers and how? And in what way does 'does not hire someone who promotes ID' give you enough data to work on to apply the 'duck test'? Talk me through it. I'm not sure that 'children' really makes sense in the quote you provided. But let's say it - are you saying there is something wrong about gradually illumination children? The evidence is that ID has a religious origin, and was designed to try and make religious apologetics legal in the classroom. Do you have comparable evidence that Darwin was imploring us to propagandize to children, as you seem to be implying?For further food for thought consider this: What is the average age for a child of Christian parents to be introduced to Christianity? What is the average age for Christian parents to introduce them to evolution? How many schools designed for children are dedicated to teaching them evolution? How many Sunday Schools are there? Why does having a 'much better understanding of the U.S. financial problems' mean they don't tend support scientific research as much as, say, the Democrats?

Well there was the League of Militant Atheists, Communist workers in the Soviet Union.In fairness - militant really just means 'vigorous activist', and its etymological roots, while still apparent, are not part of the modern meaning.The so-called 'New Atheists' are vigorously actvists, moreso than any time previously - presumably due to larger numbers and the aid of the internet. Well no, that's not accurate. Interesting to see it brought up here, given its a movement that's less than two weeks old (it was born August 18, though it already has a website!). One can be a theistic feminist. Atheism+ is meant to refer to a subset of atheists that are not just interested in atheism issues directly - but other issues they feel naturally fall from their philosophical roots that led to their atheism. As dcortesi suggested:

quote:

---

Atheists plus we care about social justice,
Atheists plus we support women’s rights,
Atheists plus we protest racism,
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.

---

It isn't the same as feminism. The people being ostracized, or rather not being included are homophobic, misogynistic etc., atheists. I can see no objection to a movement of people who want to distance themselves from such people in some conditions.I think deriding homophobes is a noble act, not an unnecessary one. Maybe not to the extent marc had in mind - but its certainly true that government funding, tax structures and so on, can influence scientific focus.I can also see marc's point to a certain degree. If the NAS was 90% Protestant - it'd surely raise some eyebrows. The Protestants would no doubt claim that its because smart and educated people accept Christ in the right way. Just as we might argue that the more educated a person is, the more likely they are an atheist (esp. in sciences) - so it stands to reason that some of the most educated people in the country (in sciences) are disproportionally atheist. And while a religious group might want to investigate their idea which cannot secure government funding - there is nothing in the world that prevents them from acquiring private funding. Indeed, IDists tend to have a problem with government interference, so they should relish in performing all that ID research with all those funds they receive. Did the DI donate to those things? Hah!
But yeah, they seem to spend most of their days blogging and making the occasional appearance at court or a school board or something. They haven't got a huge budget, but bioinformatics is becoming a cheaper science by the year as far as I'm aware.

See Message 122 in The war of atheism. The reasoning you present was exactly as I predicted it would be. And I'm sure the hypothetical Protestants would have made much the same argument to explain their data.I have no idea why I only have a point if atheism was some sort of dogma, or was in some sense comparable with religion.