How to spot a hidden religious agenda

[DainBramaged]

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.

Red flag number one: the term "scientific materialism". "Materialism" is most often used in contrast to something else - something non-material, or supernatural. Proponents of ID frequently lament the scientific claim that humans are the product of purely material forces. At the same time, they never define how non-material forces might work. I have yet to find a definition that characterises non-materialism by what it is, rather than by what it is not.

The invocation of Cartesian dualism - where the brain and mind are viewed as two distinct entities, one material and the other immaterial - is also a red flag. And if an author describes the mind, or any biological system for that matter, as "irreducibly complex", let the alarm bells ring.

Misguided interpretations of quantum physics are a classic hallmark of pseudoscience, usually of the New Age variety, but some religious groups are now appealing to aspects of quantum weirdness to account for free will. Beware: this is nonsense.

When you come across the terms "Darwinism" or "Darwinists", take heed. True scientists rarely use these terms, and instead opt for "evolution" and "biologists", respectively. When evolution is described as a "blind, random, undirected process", be warned. While genetic mutations may be random, natural selection is not. When cells are described as "astonishingly complex molecular machines", it is generally by breathless supporters of ID who take the metaphor literally and assume that such a "machine" requires an "engineer". If an author wishes for "academic freedom", it is usually ID code for "the acceptance of creationism".

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126975.800-how-to-spot-a-hidden-religious-agenda.html

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. k & r

Important to know this stuff.

[sam sarrha]

2. on a very well done documentary on Evolution i saw on th History Channel, some scientists laughed at

the Theory terminology.. they said it was a Fact.. they even covered the Creationism fundies, when a scientist was asked about it she said that when someone brings faith into the conversation, the scientific conversation is over and they are talking about religion.

:kick: recomended

[Ohio Joe]

3. K&R - nt

[omega minimo]

4. Points well taken and I have a question:

[DainBramaged]

10. I see your hand but nothing is emitting from your keyboard....

[omega minimo]

13. I will reapply

for your consideration:

"Red flag number one: the term "scientific materialism". "Materialism" is most often used in contrast to something else - something non-material, or supernatural. Proponents of ID frequently lament the scientific claim that humans are the product of purely material forces. At the same time, they never define how non-material forces might work. I have yet to find a definition that characterises non-materialism by what it is, rather than by what it is not."


"When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve." -- Jello Biafra

Where does science look at the individual in evolution having an other-than-mechanistic role in the process? Is a mutation of the next generation considered a result of the previous rendition's unmet biological needs or does the need/intention of the individual come into play as a mechanism for change?

I wonder how/where the organism drives its own evolution and how science -- or if science -- looks at that.


















http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5158295&mesg_id=5158295

[starroute]

5. The idea of non-material forces acting on material objects ...

...is a major problem not just with creationism but with all forms of vitalism.

A hundred years ago, when serious biologists were still trying to hang onto the idea of a spiritual element in nature, it was fashionable to invoke non-material forces as underlying both evolution and individual development. But the trouble with that is that it really plays hob with such basic scientific concepts as the conservation of energy and Newton's laws of motion.

Either you have a universe in which all material effects have material causes or you don't. There's no middle ground -- and the moment you say there can be material effects without material causes, you've thrown science out the window. It's like the old saying about how you can't be just a little bit pregnant -- the universe can't be just a little bit non-material. You can't specify an outside non-material force that's limited to fiddling around with a few DNA molecules here or there while otherwise discretely refraining from pulling miracles.

That is the real problem with intelligent design. Not only is it not science in itself, but it actively sabotages all science -- not just biology, but chemistry and physics as well. This is why it has no place in science classes or science textbooks. It's a trojan, whose only purpose is to take over the operating system, and it can't be negotiated with.

[northofdenali]

6. And you can always listen to my governor -

who insists she saw a human footprint inside that of a dinosaur.

But, then again, that's Sarah.

[BlooInBloo]

7. (shrug) Like it's *hard* or something?

[SalmonChantedEvening]

8. K&R- A very useful resource.

Thankee DB :hug:

[The River]

9. Ah Yes

Let's keep science's monological gaze fixed firmly
on the "exteriors" of only those "things" out there which
can be observed, measured, classified or otherwise "known"
with the "scientific method".
Let's ignore the other 75% of what evolution entails.

This is exactly why religion has become so alienated
from science; it's been reduce to a flat-land of exteriors.
(social sciences excluded (somewhat))

The "intelligent design" people are onto something but
they have missed the larger picture by framing it
within a very limited concept of "god",
and for that matter, intelligence.

[Mrs. Overall]

11. I'm bookmarking this. Thanks!!

[struggle4progress]

12. It's important to distinguish here between science and philosophy.

Science is by definition an ongoing attempt to provide naturalistic and materialistic accounts of naturalistic and materialistic phenomena

Anyone is free to question how complete an account of human experience can be given, from a naturalistic and materialistic point of view -- but such questions by definition are not scientific questions: they are philosophical questions

There are numerous philosophical problems regarding the relation between mind and body, and some of these questions may actually be important: it is entirely reasonable, for example, to wonder how we could simultaneously believe that (1) we actually make choices and (2) our minds and bodies are physical phenomena, governed by naturalistic and materialistic laws -- but this is a philosophical conundrum, and any scientific study of "mind-body interactions" must by definition begin from the assumption minds and bodies are physical phenomena, governed by naturalistic and materialistic laws

Anyone who ever studies a subject, studies it with the hope of making some progress: whether or not the human organism is "too irreducibly complex to understand, anyone who studies the human organism must believe that some improved understanding is possible -- because otherwise there is no point to the study: nobody deliberately wastes time thinking about something if they believe they cannot make any progress on the subject

The sort of crank publications, about which the editor complains, result from a failure to distinguish between adjectives having different meanings: rational, real, factual, true, &c &c

[eridani]

14. Non-material things are emergent properties of material things n/t

[mike_c]

15. interestingly, I use phrases similar to "astonishingly complex molecular machines..."

...all the time in biology courses-- and I'm the antithesis of a creationist. Not that I don't get the broader point of the article, and I don't use phrases like that in manuscripts destined for a professional readership-- rather, they're good metaphors to make a point about the mechanistic quality of living systems for students.