Creationism Culture Darwinism Intellectual freedom News

An argument for banning “fake science”

Spread the love

An excerpt from argument for banning “fake science,” spurred, apparently, by the creation conference at  Michigan State (which went off last Saturday, apparently):

At Pacific Standard:

The University of Kentucky was even less fortunate. In 2007, astronomer Martin Gaskell had applied for the directorship of a new observatory at the university. His application was turned down, and the position was given to someone with less training and experience, in part because Gaskell had given public lectures endorsing intelligent design and claiming that there was little or no evidence for evolution. Though the job was in astronomy and not biology, the hiring committee was justifiably wary of hiring someone who rejected major elements of modern science. As one biology professor told his astronomy colleagues, “even though a person might be adequate in biology, if they basically believe that the sun revolves around the Earth, we wouldn’t hire them.”

But Gaskell sued for religious discrimination. The University of Kentucky settled, agreeing to pay Gaskell $125,000.

The article is interesting, and characteristic of our times. In reality, the Gaskell case was a disgrace for the University of Kentucky, and they should be glad they could get off with paying compensation.

In the real, non-progressive world, both science paths that have proven fruitful and those that have not would at one time have seemed “fake science.”

Galileo’s defense of Copernicus surely seemed that way back when, in the actual circumstances, no one could know for sure whose thesis was correct. And the Earth-centred solar system had the massive weight of scholarly and public opinion, plus anyone’s common sense observation, on its side.

Pasteur’s insistence that spontaneous generation did not occur in nature went against what experts knew about microbial life forms, that they just “appeared.”

Today, Pasteur might not have been allowed to demonstrate his thesis before a science academy.

Shades of Mark Armitage! I remember a science writer informing me years ago that it would be impossible to find dinosaur soft tissue today.

Not so much impossible, it turns out, as that the guy who found it got fired for his religious beliefs.

Yet Isaac Newton was never fired for his off-the-wall religious beliefs.

Sorry, it’s no secret: You can have conformity or creativity; not both.

Note: The importance of Pasteur’s discovery is sometimes missed. It means that sterile procedure in medical and other science has a sound basis. If pathogens can really come into existence ex nihilo, why bother with sterile procedure? Indeed, when people were sure that was so, they didn’t bother with it. Today, it is simply assumed that a pathogen discovered in an operating theatre or on the ward was introduced. Possible sources are examined. No one holds that it just came to be, from nothing. Just think what a difference that makes to medicine…

Think what a difference self-satisfied smugness makes to the life of the mind. And then, please, someone, open a window…

Follow UD News at Twitter!

14 Replies to “An argument for banning “fake science”

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Hmmm fake science? What could that possibly be? Such fake science as evolutionary claims that can’t be observed, tested, or falsified? Multiverse/Many World claims that predict everything and therefore nothing at all? Materialistic presuppositions that are completely incompatible with Quantum Mechanics?

    Fake scientists of today, such as Tyson and Dawkins, who have stolen the good name of science as the name for their preferred religion of atheistic materialism, make the alchemists of yesteryear look like towering giants of scientific genius.

  2. 2

    Which is design and which is evolution?

    Further to this issue of fake science, I offer this layman’s view on the matter, and a few examples of design which seem appropriate for the discussion.

    * * * * *

    Continuing an exploration into the controversy in the scientific community over Evolution/Intelligent Design/Creationism, I continually come across interesting articles and information concerning design in nature – in particular, design in living things … and in this article I highlight a few that have caught my attention recently.

    I invite readers to read the rest of my essay at:
    https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2014/11/03/which-is-design-and-which-is-evolution/

  3. 3
    Joe says:

    Wasn’t the conference at Michigan State U and not at UM?

  4. 4
    News says:

    Yes, Joe, fixed, thanks.

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    AYP: Great to see you popping up, old destroyer salt. You might enjoy this FTR. KF

  6. 6
    kairosfocus says:

    AYP, at first I thought your ship was a multilevel motherboard. KF

  7. 7
    jstanley01 says:

    Setting aside the question of which best facilitates scientific discovery, the insurmountable advantage that conformity has over creativity can be summarized in one word: Funding.

  8. 8
    Robert Byers says:

    Its about controlling what are the true conclusions. its a conclusion empire.
    If the other way around they would cry SCIENCE OPPRESSION and make Fox programs about it.
    Either one has freedom of conscience and freedom of scientific investigation or one does not.
    I’m sure this spirit and the thus the acts of firing/not promoting/not test scoring creationists of any stamp is common or very common.
    they want war then give them war.
    The bible is the true conclusions and my crowd is already getting along with error.

  9. 9
    Goldman Stackz says:

    This is part of a broader trend in the west, as people are now being sent to jail for offensive comments posted on social media, street preachers for proclaiming the bible etc. A political candidate in England was recently arrested for quoting Churchill in public, and in Scandinavian countries laws are being passed to make criticism of immigration or politicians who advocate it illegal. Freedom of speech is being erased.

  10. 10
    Edward says:

    Newton kept his off-the-wall religious beliefs well hidden, until his death.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    Newton’s religious beliefs were the driving force of his scientific discoveries. In Principia itself, we find these words:

    This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler;,,, The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,, from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present:
    Sir Isaac Newton – Quoted from what many consider the greatest science masterpiece of all time, his book “Principia”
    http://gravitee.tripod.com/genschol.htm

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    NEWTON’S REJECTION OF THE “NEWTONIAN WORLD VIEW”: THE ROLE OF DIVINE WILL IN NEWTON’S NATURAL PHILOSOPHY
    Abstract: The significance of Isaac Newton for the history of Christianity and science is undeniable: his professional work culminated the Scientific Revolution that saw the birth of modern science, while his private writings evidence a lifelong interest in the relationship between God and the world. Yet the typical picture of Newton as a paragon of Enlightenment deism, endorsing the idea of a remote divine clockmaker and the separation of science from religion, is badly mistaken. In fact Newton rejected both the clockwork metaphor itself and the cold mechanical universe upon which it is based. His conception of the world reflects rather a deep commitment to the constant activity of the divine will, unencumbered by the “rational” restrictions that Descartes and Leibniz placed on God, the very sorts of restrictions that later appealed to the deists of the 18th century.
    http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/newton.htm

  13. 13
    rwz46 says:

    Robert Byers is right on target, It’s all about who gets to define reality and the atheists have been at that for the last 150 years. Prediction: They are going to fail.

  14. 14
    Barb says:

    Ironic that this occurred at the University of Kentucky, which is located in the same state as the Creation Museum.

Leave a Reply