Evidence for a Conspiracy of Scientists?

You have a good point.
Your challenge is to get them to step forward and "engage with science".
A dismissive attitude will be alienating.However, it is a difficult challenge, because so many creationists seem unwilling to play by the rules of science, let alone engage it. Most don't exact the requirement for some sort of physical evidence before believing in something in the first place.If they believe in a God and creation without any physical supporting evidence, why shouldn't they believe in a conspiracy theory against them without any evidence?You'll note that you haven't had any of them step up to the plate yet on this thread, but I'll have to check back later in case any do

I'm fairly sure that the evolutionary model is subject to ridicule, hate, bigotry and inolerance as well as anger from Creationists. Creationists fear science because they think it displaces their faith. Creationists fear that if science is right about origins, then there is no heaven and no salvation.Scientists fear that if ID or Creationism is thought of as scientific then standards of science would degrade considerably. We would also have to accept that the moon landing might have been a hoax, the holocaust didn't happen and that the British royal family are reptiles. Scientists spend years upon years studying their field, and are rightly miffed when someone who has studied an entirely different field (such as engineering) comes along and criticizes their work. They fear that pseudo-science will be taught as science which will be a travesty for science. Scientists don't want travesties to happen to their field.

quote:

---

In a debate, the side which displays the most bigotry, hate, intolerance, ridicule, and anger is usually the loosing side. The side with something to hide (from the general public)

​

Everywhere I look I see anti-ID hate. Hate is a reaction to fear. Why are they afraid?

---

Look, instead of railing agoinst what you consider to be hate which stems from fear, why not just reply to my very clam, substanitve message #51?Here, I'll repost it for you:

quote:

---

It seems that in some circles, saying a positive word about ID would be like claiming to be pro-Bush at a New York Times editorial staff meeting. For many, the very term ?intelligent design? evokes disdain, disgust, and borders on contempt. For some, it actually crosses over into contempt.

---

Well, sure.It's exactly like if a bunch of Flat-Earthers wanted to get their idea taught in public school classrooms as and "alternative" to the mainstream "spherical Earth" theory.ID is nothing more, at this point, than a molecular-bsed "God of the Gaps" fallacy.There isn't any positive evidence at all to support it. None.So, tell me again why it should be taught as science in the schools?

quote:

---

If only the scientific community would do a better job of explaining to the public at large how science works, and the limitations of the scientific method, the alleged antagonism between science and religion would dissipate.

---

I agree with this, but only to a point.When we are hindered from teaching science in public schools by religious anti-science school boards and national textbook selection comittees which are also made up of very conservative Christians, and state science standards are being changed to not require students to understand the underpinning Theory of Biology, it's no wonder people do not understand anything about the Theory of Evolution once they reach adulthood.

quote:

---

The problem is not public ignorance, but public alienation.

---

The mauin problem IS public ignorance, and this leads to the alienation, because people are alienated from and fearful of what they do not understand.Quick, explain to me what the Theory of Evolution is, what it's main mechanisms are believed to be in a few sentences.Better yet, explain in a few sentences how scientists use the word "theory" and how it differs from the layman's use of the term.I'll bet you can't without looking it up, and I'm VERY sure that most of the US public couldn't.

quote:

---

The reason for this alienation is the reluctance of most scientists to be as objective about themselves, their values, their goals, and their intellectual methods as they claim to be about interpreting specific data.

---

That's bull. The reason for the alienation is that people see science and technology as something that has an increasing influence on their lives, that they are increasingly dependent upon, but that they are less and less able to understand.If you think that's true about scientists, it's time to put up some evidence for that claim.More importantly, even if it was true about individual scientists, you need to show that the products of science, the scientific findings, are invalid because of it. IOW, you need to show that the entire scientific method and peer review system is hopelessly flawed.

quote:

---

For a variety of reasons...a litany of grievances that is so commonplace it need not be repeated here

---

No, I think you do need to list the grievances.Along with this list, you should provide evidence which shows these grievances to be valid and based in fact.

quote:

---

...a significant part of the general public has become distrustful of those goals, values and methods.

---

Again, I'd like some evidence for this assertion. Got any reliable stats?

quote:

---

If they are valid today, they need new validation and not simply reassertion. If they are superstitions, i.e., obsolete assumptions, left over from the recent past of science, they need rejection or revision. And the discussion of all this must be public, else it will carry no conviction to the people who provide the support for science.

---

Great, you can start listing them here, along with the evidence you have found which supports your view.

quote:

---

Scientists fear that if ID or Creationism is thought of as scientific then standards of science would degrade considerably.

---

The vast majority of scientific advances throughout history have been made under the belief that there is a God. Your point is moot.What they REALLY fear is that if there is ANY validity to the belief in a creator, they will have to change their sinful lifestyle, recognize an authority, and abandon their god-less worldview.This is the real reason they oppose ID.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-02-2005 12:26 PM

And there I was thinking that ID didn't actually specify that God was the designer.
Shows how much I know eh? This message has been edited by PurpleYouko, 05-02-2005 12:38 PM

It doesn't matter. The vast majority of scientific advances throughout history have been made under methodological naturalism, which means that one's personal beliefs in God don't interfere with one's scientific study. As long as we are rigourously naturalistic in our scientific methodology, we can do sound science whether we believe in God, we are Satanists, or we believe that our hypotheses are provided to us in our dreams by angels.

Sorry, but not only is that statement unsupported assertion, it's laughable.The TOE says nothing about the existence or non-existence of any creator.Science says nothing about the existence or non-existence of any creator.Scientists come in Theologic and Atheist and Agnostic forms.You have not yet provided any evidence to even suggest, much less support, a conspiricy of scientists.It's time that you began providing support for your assertions or simply admit that you're blowing smoke. The big reason that none of your posts have been taken seriously is that they have been absurd. You provide no evidence, you make woefully uninformed statemnts like the above quote, and when challenged to support your assertions you retreat into innuendo.

It's time to step up and finally provide some evidence.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

And there I was thinking that ID didn't actually specify that God was the designer.
Shows how much I know eh?

---

It doesn't. But lets face it, when a secular scientist hears about ID what they think they hear is modern creationism. Creationism = God.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-02-2005 02:10 PM

quote:

---

The big reason that none of your posts have been taken seriously is that they have been absurd. You provide no evidence, you make woefully uninformed statemnts like the above quote, and when challenged to support your assertions you retreat into innuendo.

---

I really couldnt care less if your type takes my posts seriously. I dont expect you to...your mind is too closed. I say what I come to say, and thats that. You think I have time to personally address each and every point that all of you bring up? There is only one of me. Go and do your own damn research, determine for yourself if what I say is true. Its not my job to hold your hand.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-02-2005 02:08 PM

We have. What you say is not true.I really feel your Christian love here ...

Sorry double post.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-02-2005 02:36 PM

quote:

---

We have. What you say is not true.

​

I really feel your Christian love here ...

---

Oh really? You all have? lol. Where is your evidence? Lets see it.And you really feel my Christian love eh? Do you feel my Christian anger too? Because its ok for good to be angry at evil, ya'know. Its called righteous anger. Its ok to be angry at closed-minded, rude, lying, hypocritical bigots.Its funny how you non-Christians always want OTHER people to live up to moral codes (like Christianity) that you yourself don't observe.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-02-2005 02:42 PM

Many of us ARE Christians. Again, many of us ARE Christians.You have been formally asked to support your assertions. One of the conditions when you joined here was to support assertions when requested. You agreed to do so.Now it's time to support some of your assertions. Either do so or retract them. It's up to you.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

ID=Creationism=Bullshit.