How to spot a hidden religious agenda

The latest article (at the time of writing) on the NewScientist site deals with all the ID/creationism items pretending to be science. An interesting read.

Amanda Gefter is an editor for the Opinion section of New Scientist.

AS A book reviews editor at New Scientist, I often come across so-called science books which after a few pages reveal themselves to be harbouring ulterior motives. I have learned to recognise clues that the author is pushing a religious agenda. As creationists in the US continue to lose court battles over attempts to have intelligent design taught as science in federally funded schools, their strategy has been forced to... well, evolve. That means ensuring that references to pseudoscientific concepts like ID are more heavily veiled. So I thought I'd share a few tips for spotting what may be religion in science's clothing.

How to spot a hidden religious agenda

She talks about a handful of themes, terms and ideas to look out for in items claiming to be scientific when in reality they have a religious agenda.

"If an author wishes for 'academic freedom', it is usually code for 'the acceptance of creationism'"

[edit on 26-3-2009 by Skyfloating]

STORY TEMPORARILY NOT AVAILABLE

The article is no longer available. I saw that on wikileaks, wanted to make a thread about this case of internet censorship by organized religion. Some religious-nutcase probably threatened New Scientist with a legal pursuit. The article is still available from wikileaks.
http://__._/wiki/Censored_New_Scientist_article:_How_to_spot_a_hidden_religious_agenda%2C_28_Feb_2009

''New Scientist has received a legal complaint about the contents of this story. At the advice of our lawyer it has temporarily been removed while we investigate. Apologies for any inconvenience.''



Salute

[edit on 25-3-2009 by grandnic]

reply to post by Welfhard


What does Academic Freedom have to do with religion? So if a scientist is asking for academic freedom he is real disguising his belief in ID? Yeah ok.

What if the ID'ers DO come up with a theory that fits into the Scientific Method? Which is absolutely possible. What then?

Do you want to defend the academic freedom of teachers and students to study all of the relevant scientific information relating to evolution?

In many states teachers, students, and even college professors have faced intimidation and retaliation when they attempt to discuss scientific criticisms pertaining to evolution. This assault on academic freedom is antithetical to our traditions as a free society and to the progress of science itself, which depends on robust debate and critical inquiry. It is entirely appropriate for the government to ensure that teachers and students have the right to freely discuss the scientific debates over evolution in an appropriate manner.

Here is a sample academic freedom bill that would protect the rights of teachers and students to study the full range of scientific views on Darwinian evolution.

If you have questions please e-mail Casey Luskin, [email protected], program officer for public policy and legal affairs at Discovery Institute.

www.academicfreedompetition.com...

And here's the fate so far of the bills sourced from this current round of creo defecation:

Mississippi - dead in committee
Oklahoma - dead in committee
Iowa - dead in committee
New Mexico - dead in committee
Alabama - in committee
Missouri - in committee
Florida - in committee
Texas - in committee

Just another Trojan horse for creationism. However, we know that some of these morons have no real respect for academic freedom, they just think it's something useful to push freedom fries and pickled jebus.

This is pretty obvious by all the furore over Dawkins in Okie, which has led to possible investigations of the funding by the Uni and all its correspondence after much stomping and bellowing from the creobot hordes prior to the talk. Amazingly, Dawkins apparently took no fee, but Ben Stein agreed his time and hot-air was worth $60,000 a few months previous at Okie state, lol.

No investigation, though. I assume the same Okie boneheads agreed an hour or so of his droning was worth every cent, lol

reply to post by melatonin


What if they do come up with an acceptable scientific theory that can be applied to ID? Will they try to stop it in court then, in spite of the scientific method being applied? Of course they will, because the real argument isn't about science is it?

Also, if you think most ID'rs want schools teaching religion or beliefs in God, you're way off base. That's a private matter best for the home. The same as teaching Atheism should be a private matter best for the home.


[edit on 25-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by Welfhard

 

What does Academic Freedom have to do with religion? So if a scientist is asking for academic freedom he is real disguising his belief in ID? Yeah ok.

What if the ID'ers DO come up with a theory that fits into the Scientific Method? Which is absolutely possible. What then?

Lol, well sure but that's just the thing, only after they have an actual scientific theory with evidence, the whole thing, then and only then will it be something to look at.

The trouble is that you aren't supposed to start with a conclusion in science - the "Design"part of Intelligent Design. With reality, when something occurs, it leaves evidence. Follow the evidence and come up with hypotheses to explain it and find more evidence to make the hypotheses more accurate.

Point is that the ToE started, and has been continually refined for 150 years. If there is "Intelligent" design, the evidence will reflect this and the ToE will follow suit.

ID sucks because it's based on hope and favoured belief rather than impartial fair assessment of uncovered evidence.

What if they do come up with an acceptable scientific theory that can be applied to ID? Will they try to stop it in court then, in spite of the scientific method being applied? Of course they will, because the real argument isn't about science is it?

Bwahahaha! Thanks I needed that.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Welfhard

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by Welfhard

 

What does Academic Freedom have to do with religion? So if a scientist is asking for academic freedom he is real disguising his belief in ID? Yeah ok.

What if the ID'ers DO come up with a theory that fits into the Scientific Method? Which is absolutely possible. What then?

Lol, well sure but that's just the thing, only after they have an actual scientific theory with evidence, the whole thing, then and only then will it be something to look at.

The trouble is that you aren't supposed to start with a conclusion in science - the "Design"part of Intelligent Design. With reality, when something occurs, it leaves evidence. Follow the evidence and come up with hypotheses to explain it and find more evidence to make the hypotheses more accurate.

Point is that the ToE started, and has been continually refined for 150 years. If there is "Intelligent" design, the evidence will reflect this and the ToE will follow suit.

ID sucks because it's based on hope and favoured belief rather than impartial fair assessment of uncovered evidence.

What if they do come up with an acceptable scientific theory that can be applied to ID? Will they try to stop it in court then, in spite of the scientific method being applied? Of course they will, because the real argument isn't about science is it?

[edit on 25-3-2009 by Welfhard]

Who said anything about starting with a conclusion? That wouldn't qualify for a Scientific Theory would it? Unless I'm missing something....

I look at the evidence of DNA and RNA and molecular biology and I see Intelligent Design, the conclusion is formed by the evidence.

Evolutionary Theorists don't start with a conclusion? Who are you kidding...

Bwahahaha! Thanks I needed that.

Needed what? A reality check? It's the truth.

I've never seen the scientific method being applied to ID (creationism). They start out with the answer of "god dunnit" and (like trying to force wrong pieces into a jigsaw puzzle) they work their way back picking and choosing evidence that could potentially, if spun in just the right way, be construed as supporting their (ahem) theory

..and thats "theory" in THEIR definition not "scientific theory". They like to try discredit TOE by saying "but evolution is only a THEORY!" but if they actually knew their stuff they would know that scientfic theory and regular theory are two different things. Only people who are scientifically ignorant would fall for such a lame argument.

oh and the theory of gravity? well I'm having trouble typing as I seem to be floating towards the ceiling because gravity is only a theory..

[edit on 25-3-2009 by riley]

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I look at the evidence of DNA and RNA and molecular biology and I see Intelligent Design, the conclusion is formed by the evidence.

Nein, you choose see ID because it appeals to your favoured perceptions. You know that DNA, RNA and molecular is by and large explained by Natural Selection. Rule of thumb: Functional beats non-functional every time, so everything ends up being something functional. It looks like it was designed simply because it is not random- it was all made by a blind watchmaker.

Evolutionary Theorists don't start with a conclusion? Who are you kidding...

Evolutionary scientists don't start with a conclusion at all at least not when they are doing an investigation- just the scientific method and a hypothesis.

Bwahahaha! Thanks I needed that.

Needed what? A reality check? It's the truth.

Paranoid and irrational delusions are not truth. If ID were scientific and were a theory, then it would be accepted but it's not so it won't.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard


Humans are biased. Period. Wouldn't it be great if we weren't? You're biased against a hypothetical theory that hasn't even been created yet...

Paranoid? On ATS? No way...

[edit on 26-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

reply to post by grandnic


Apparently article is not available at the link you provided as well...

Here is the blog where it's still available:

New Scientist>Amanda Gefter> How to spot a hidden religious agenda

Nice read OP, thanks for sharing it

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Humans are biased. Period.

Yes, which is exactly why we have things like the Scientific Method, the Socratic Method and peer review to minimise bias. Religion = rubbish.

You're biased against a hypothetical theory that hasn't even been created yet

Yes, I'm biased against a non-existent theory somehow, but better be open to it than a well established real theory any day.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by B.A.C.
What if the ID'ers DO come up with a theory that fits into the Scientific Method? Which is absolutely possible. What then?

You think so? Well, then, I have just the thing for you - a thread I started a couple of years ago called Proof of ID the world is looking for. Go take a look. This could be your big chance.

Originally posted by Welfhard
Yes, which is exactly why we have things like the Scientific Method, the Socratic Method and peer review to minimise bias. Religion = rubbish.

You may be able to minimize bias with these methods, but it isn't eliminated. Why do you think Juries in high profile cases can't watch the news, or communicate with anyone outside? Humans are fallible and bias, we will never get away from that.

Calling religion rubbish is only your opinion. Your bias opinion.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by B.A.C.
What if the ID'ers DO come up with a theory that fits into the Scientific Method? Which is absolutely possible. What then?

You think so? Well, then, I have just the thing for you - a thread I started a couple of years ago called Proof of ID the world is looking for. Go take a look. This could be your big chance.

My big chance for what? You think you'll be the one setting the guidelines for science? Let's be serious here.

I like the part in your thread where you say: "eliminate all other explanations for the phenomenon"

Does evolution eliminate ALL other explanations? No. Of course not. There's plenty it can't explain. The whole theory is based on the foundation of "Common Ancestor", which they have no proof for.

reply to post by Welfhard


Since your only contention here is that you say you can spot hidden adgenda.
Particually releigious. Correct?
Can you spot scientific political and acadimic hidden adgenda as well?
I will be glad to tell you why I think it is important to know all you can about all.
If you can tell how you spot them.

Originally posted by Astyanax
This could be your big chance.

lol, I won't hold my breath.

Anyway, more of the hidden agenda. The 'strengths and weaknesses' language has been used by creationists over the last few years to particularly target evolution, this was noted back in 2003 when creationists in Texas were attempting to undermine evolution in the textbook standards:

On Friday, November 7, the Texas State Board of Education (SBoE) voted 11-4 to place all submitted high school and advanced placement (AP) biology books on the “conforming” list, making them eligible for adoption by local districts.

The books' coverage of evolution -- in particular, whether they contained factual errors -- was an issue even on the final decision day. Arguments had been made that textbooks had to include “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution; board member Patricia Hardy commented that the “strengths and weaknesses” language required in the state standards (the “Texas Educational Knowledge and Skills,” or TEKS) applied to any scientific theory and was not intended to apply to all, or any single theory. As she commented, if the textbooks had to apply “strengths and weaknesses” language to every theory, “we’d need a crane to carry the books to the schools.”

ncseweb.org...

Thankfully, the loophole is opefully going to be closed. Now, as usual, it sounds so fair - 'lets, err, talk about da weaknesses', and no theory is perfect. So what sort of weaknesses were members of the Texas School Board thinking about...

Piltdown man (Ken Mercer)

Haeckel’s embryos (Ken Mercer)

Macroevolution not observed (Ken Mercer)

Argument from authority (Terri Leo)

Evolution is only a theory (various)

“Academic freedom” (Ken Mercer)

Evolution is not a fact (witness)

Eminent scientists are rejecting evolution (Cynthia Dunbar) [this was largely waving around the Discovery Institute “Dissent from Darwin” list…no discussion of the statement’s incredible vagueness, the dubious expertise/scientific status/noncreationist status of many on the list, or of how many Steves were on it – Nick]

When does a theory become a law? (Don McLeroy)

Evolution critics are censored (Ken Mercer)

Polystrate fossils/Lompoc whale (Gail Lowe)

Normal case of dragging around the dead zombies. When the US realises that leaving educational standards to ideologically motivated morons is not a good thing, you might even find that yourselves moving towards a top class scientific education:

Clearly, increasing scientific literacy is a long-term challenge. The US pre-collegiate science and math education system is broken. US high-school student performance ranks behind every European and Asian country, according to the 2003 Trends in International Math and Science Study conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics. Given that over half of high-school graduates don't go on to get college degrees, that's something to be concerned about.

linky



[edit on 26-3-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


So there could never be a hidden agenda within politics or science? Please.

The Texas Board looked at roughly 100 peer reviewed articles written about certain weaknesses in Evolutionary Theory (not dead zombies as you claim). The reasons you are claiming have nothing to do with the material they reviewed.

As for the problem with American education, take a look at what's happened since religion was removed from America's schools with the Engel Vs. Vitale case of 1962. SAT scores have dropped from an average of roughly 980 to 900. Why? Because you are censoring thought, ideas, etc. Which according to these statistics makes for less intelligent people.

Apparently censoring discussion doesn't work so well. If the theory is so good, why not discuss it's weaknesses? Like the very foundation of it "Common Ancestor" for one, which isn't testable, observable, falsifiable, or factual.



[edit on 26-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

And one Texan Trojan donkey just failed:

According to Texas Freedom Network’s live blog, the proposal to include “strengths and weaknesses” language to the Texas education standards has failed with a 7-7 vote.

An alternative proposal to include the language “including discussing what is not fully understood so as to encourage critical thinking by the student” was also rejected 7-7. The rejection of this alternative is noteworthy because the creationists on the board and the current culture war strategy of the Discovery Institute have argued that students should learn “more” about evolution to develop critical thinking skills. The alternative language fit directly in that rationalization, but in a scientifically rigorous way.

pandasthumb.org...

I see they didn't like the more specific alternative - not enough room to shove the creobull in, I guess.

ABE:

Apparently by the end of the day the creobot board members had added comments questioning natural selection, common descent, abiogenesis, and the age of the universe. That might well cross the legal line if it passes out tomorrow. Creationism influenced? Nooooo, not at all, lol.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
And one Texan Trojan donkey just failed:

According to Texas Freedom Network’s live blog, the proposal to include “strengths and weaknesses” language to the Texas education standards has failed with a 7-7 vote.

An alternative proposal to include the language “including discussing what is not fully understood so as to encourage critical thinking by the student” was also rejected 7-7. The rejection of this alternative is noteworthy because the creationists on the board and the current culture war strategy of the Discovery Institute have argued that students should learn “more” about evolution to develop critical thinking skills. The alternative language fit directly in that rationalization, but in a scientifically rigorous way.

pandasthumb.org...

I see they didn't like the more specific alternative - not enough room to shove the creobull in, I guess.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by melatonin]

Creationism wasn't even put on the table at these meetings. What are you talking about?

You agree that they should censor discussion about a theory's weaknesses? Maybe that's the problem you're having with Education in America. How could a theory ever be refined and developed without discussing it's weaknesses in an open manner?

You're a proud member of the thought police, mel


Here's something about a hidden agenda:

www.parentcompany.com...
Darwin's Hidden Agenda for Science.

There is no evidence in all of Charles Darwin's published correspondence and writings that he ever embraced biblical Christianity. As we have seen, virtually all the formative influences on his thinking were contrary to Christian faith. He always concealed his rejection of Christianity, but in his 1876 Autobiography he stated his unbelief in very blunt, even crude words. His closest scientific associates were all men who had given up biblical Christian faith, and some of them were committed enemies of the faith. For example, Sir Charles Lyell, the father of modern geology, was determined to discredit the biblical record of earth history, and Charles' "bulldog," anatomist T.H. Huxley, wrote that he was "sharpening [his] claws," ready to "disembowel" any clergymen who criticized Darwin's Origin of Species.

It is clear that Charles Darwin's hidden agenda for science was to drive out of the thinking of all scientists any concept of divine special creation, divine intervention into the world, and divine teleology (purpose, plan or goal) in the natural world. This amounts to redefining science wrongly to make it an automatic weapon against Christian faith. Darwin's theory has often been criticized by secular scientists, but his agenda for science has long enjoyed universal success in the secular establishment.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by B.A.C.]