Bad science?

There are different varieties of good and bad. Normally when we speak of good science and bad science we are talking about the quality of the work or the quality of the science. We are not making moral judgments on the work. I don't know if it was you, but I remember having this discussion a while back, and that is perhaps what you alluded to in your OP. Whoever it was said that the science behind nuclear weapons was bad because of the consequences of nuclear weapons. Clearly, the work was of good quality - given the results. The morality of the work of creating more powerful weapons is for another thread We can often doubt the results of scientists who are funded to find a particular outcome, since they have a clear interest in finding it, which results in bias. When bias affects the results, we can probably say that this is 'bad science' in the sense of low quality work. The same happens with pharmaceutical companies, and randman had a thread on it a while back.

And not just that, but bias is a real problem. Fortunately science has developed methods to reduce this problem. Peer review and repeatability. The problem comes when the scientists are employed by private companies, who pay them to find a certain result, don't publish the work (business secrets and all), and don't ask independent labs to confirm the results. This is a major problem in the pharmaceutical industry, as I mentioned earlier. Check it out: most scientific papers are wrong?

No I couldn't unfortunately. There isn't any form of consensus as to what makes a Christian. I normally go with 'believes Christ is God, the saviour' as a general rule. Then you have bad Christians who don't follow the same interpretation of the rules that the community has, in general, developed.That would be the way to look at it if we compare the philosophy of science with the religion of Christianity. X is a disciplined pursuit of truth using a certain methodology. Interpretations vary between groups, but there is consensus on the broad details. Sometimes someone will claim to following the methodology, but they twist/break certain rules where it suits them. Replace X with Science or Christianity and we'd have ourselves a comparison.

Here we have perfect information. We know that he isn't a Christian because he is defined as not being a Christian. Whereas the 'scientist' may or may not actually be a scientist. No matter, they have done 'bad science' since they have not followed the methodology correctly. If the first gentleman truly believed in Christ as God, the saviour, but his greed led him to ignore parts of scripture that contradicted his desires...then the two would be comparable scenarios.