How many of those who argue against science actually know anything about science?

[sun rise]

My strong suspicion is that not many could answer questions about such simple topics as the mathematics of the lever, and absolutely none would actually know what the Theory of Evolution actually says.

Someone could now the math of a level but nothing about the scientific method.

Unless we're going to go ahead and call 'psychology' a science, my science education finished at high school.

We used to call it 'rat psychology' since it used experimentation on rats.

Equally, you can be scientifically educated (hey, I'm technically a university science major) and not know the first thing about a certain field.

True.

Doesn't that bring up a very interesting question though? How do we overcome the certainty of somebody who does not, in fact, know what they're talking about?

We don't unless the person is open to not only hearing a different view but also considering it seriously. Very few are.

 

[rational experiences]

This is a question I've wanted to ask forever. We have no end of forum members who spend immense amounts of energy asking what they pretend to be "science questions," generally framed as a strawman arguments.

The question is this: how many who deny science in favour of their religious beliefs actually have any knowledge of science at all? How many could pass an elementary school science test today, or a high school final in science, or earn an B.Sc or M.Sc?

I am voting for under 1% at all grades.

Yet science is taught as science for science to be believed by its human controlled science teachings just as science. Human controlled.

It is the science community who falsify what they claim science means.

Why non scientists don't argue science we don't believe in what you persued. Our destruction.

Which is a natural human condition psyche. Psychic innate is first intelligence aware human aware natural realisation.

First your human self was naturally intelligent.

Then you persued science.

Natural awareness against science was always correct.

As science is a group chosen human practice by humans only.

Yet science began by its superior God terms that placated human egotism above and beyond natural laws.

As machines never owned natural law and you aren't emulating natural law in a reaction.

Destruction a law opposing created the law of form is defined by conversion.

First law created is origin.

Why the destroyer human warning was spiritually stated by humans and not science.

The reason to argue not science against the status of science actually.

 

[MikeF]

This is a question I've wanted to ask forever. We have no end of forum members who spend immense amounts of energy asking what they pretend to be "science questions," generally framed as a strawman arguments.

The question is this: how many who deny science in favour of their religious beliefs actually have any knowledge of science at all? How many could pass an elementary school science test today, or a high school final in science, or earn an B.Sc or M.Sc?

I am voting for under 1% at all grades.

One aspect you are not considering are the education pipelines that allow one to preserve their creationist indoctrination through college. With homeschooling and K-12 Christian schools and Academies, then on to Fundamentalist Christian Colleges and Universities, a safe space for Creationism can be preserved and unchallenged through college and into adulthood.

 

[cladking]

I don't deny science but many think I do.

I deny that science really knows much of anything at all. I took physics in college for a couple years and grew up with a scientific education. I'm a generalist and a metaphysician but a lot of calculations that used to be easy for me and could estimate in my head now require real effort to find and work out. It's mostly from lack of use as it's been 30 years since the last time I reviewed my texts.

People overestimate their knowledge and the knowledge of science. A lot of what people call "science" now days is nothing but inductive reasoning and is simply wrong. This is not how real science works. Real science requires experiment.

 

[rational experiences]

One aspect you are not considering are the education pipelines that allow one to preserve their creationist indoctrination through college. With homeschooling and K-12 Christian schools and Academies, then on to Fundamentalist Christian Colleges and Universities, a safe space for Creationism can be preserved and unchallenged through college and into adulthood.

God was sciences beginning thesis as a present created formed body.

First law for science.

God however came from somewhere else.

Which was discussed as the eternal which is not science.

Energy is a human science gain was to break the law of God stone to convert.

What scientists as humans lied about.

God is not energy God is sealed fused stone.

God is not a particle as radiation UFO mass converted the mass God O to the particle dust that had already been separated from God by influx radiation.

UFO radiation therefore is used for separation only by its mass. How you gain emptied sin holes tombs in the God body.

Relativity of God in human sciences.

Separation removed first law created.

Eternal was not energy. It is a human spiritual forethought about why creation was caused....mother of God space womb caused. Body of mass became gods.

Mother said separation as space was the first law to gain creation as separation of a pre existing body. Cold space actually.

Eternal was therefore before God as hierarchy.

Space holy mother is cold. First caused space. Thinning of eternal whilst gods O were drawn into mass.

Eternal. Was never burning.

Science law of God separation was by space as bursting then hot. Radiation.

Total separation enacted.

Radiation cools to form metals not God stone.

Bio life belongs with God at death as first origin is stone. We leave bones like stone when we die with first origin. God.

We leave a lived living life recorded with father human in heavens as image and voice when we die also.

The natural conscience first known human observations reasoning in natural science.

Wholeness by seeing. Not applying satanism radiation separation in science of occult.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I wonder how many people who argue against religion know anything about religion. True science was created by God so true science and true religion can be in perfect agreement.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I wonder how many people who argue against religion know anything about religion. True science was created by God so true science and true religion can be in perfect agreement.

How many religious folk know about 'religion'?
What they often know about is THEIR religion, although there have been pretty interesting studies about the commonality of heretical beliefs amongst RCC members, for example.

Science and religion are both processes rather than facts, so how you're using the word 'true' here confuses me too.

 

[rational experiences]

I wonder how many people who argue against religion know anything about religion. True science was created by God so true science and true religion can be in perfect agreement.

True science.

God stone origin is first ended sealed. The one O mass as god. The God. One. Stone planet of Multi bodies.

God never created you says religious science. No man is God. God is sealed planet.

Science says evolution on earth places the ape kra he once said ark...kra baboon family is observed before self human.

Human in science is a human first observing.

Said I am one whole body past two pre formed ape lifes.

A human making all observations.

Stated so God in DNA genesis had added onto the ape ark form as kra to knowingly own my human self.

Meaning a lot more cells and bio chemistry.

Notice the human owned the DNA already. To observe. To compare.

It was medical observed stated human science biology. No different from what a human medical biologist says today.

The DNA condition already exists and both bodies separated. Seen. Notified. Stated. Science.

Nothing to argue about as science is human observation.

However the scientist claims separation was by radiation. Claiming I know God.

Yet that is a conversion into destruction by reaction. As radiation owns no form.

Are we less than an ape?

No says science observation.

If a human says by natural observation science that you have to accept. Science observed we live only because we are one whole body greater than an ape.

Science biological. Reason we live as a human. Is because we are a human. Common logic.

Then it was said no man is God as you cannot theory on behalf of God and then claim machine reaction.

Yet you did.

Science is a living human making natural observation as the status science by being a human in their present life form human observing..

Totally ignored by humans.

 

[Spirit of Light]

This is a question I've wanted to ask forever. We have no end of forum members who spend immense amounts of energy asking what they pretend to be "science questions," generally framed as a strawman arguments.

The question is this: how many who deny science in favour of their religious beliefs actually have any knowledge of science at all? How many could pass an elementary school science test today, or a high school final in science, or earn an B.Sc or M.Sc?

I am voting for under 1% at all grades.

This question directly hit me, because of my lack of belief or interest in science.
I agree i do know very little about science, and the reason is "I have no interest in knowing"'

The only answers i am after in this life is the spiritual answer truth the religion/spiritual practice. Personally nothing else matter at this point.
But as i say, If others want to study science and know all about it, that is not a problem for me.

 

[Katzpur]

This is a question I've wanted to ask forever. We have no end of forum members who spend immense amounts of energy asking what they pretend to be "science questions," generally framed as a strawman arguments.

The question is this: how many who deny science in favour of their religious beliefs actually have any knowledge of science at all? How many could pass an elementary school science test today, or a high school final in science, or earn an B.Sc or M.Sc?

I am voting for under 1% at all grades.

You know, I wouldn't even consider arguing against science -- for one very simple reason: science was my worst subject in school. My sister taught junior high school science for about 25 years and I've always told her that anything over about 4th grade science is over my head. I'm not saying I'm stupid, because there were other subjects in which I excelled. But if a scientist says something about a scientific subject, I'm going to automatically believe him. If a scientist tells me that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the Bible tells me it's only 6000 years old, it doesn't matter what I may want to believe. This is a topic which, in my opinion, has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with science, and I'm going to trust the science every time.

 

[74x12]

This is a question I've wanted to ask forever. We have no end of forum members who spend immense amounts of energy asking what they pretend to be "science questions," generally framed as a strawman arguments.

The question is this: how many who deny science in favour of their religious beliefs actually have any knowledge of science at all? How many could pass an elementary school science test today, or a high school final in science, or earn an B.Sc or M.Sc?

I am voting for under 1% at all grades.

If we can't critique science then it's not science anymore.

 

[MikeF]

If we can't critique science then it's not science anymore.

Science is all about reasoned and rational scepticism. I think the OP is addressing irrational scepticism of science.

Religion, from my experience, does not seem to embrace scepticism and continual reevaluation. It does not employ these self-correcting mechanisms in the pursuit of understanding the how and why of the cosmos.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Science is all about reasoned and rational scepticism. I think the OP is addressing irrational scepticism.

Religion, from my experience, does not seem to embrace scepticism and continual reevaluation. It does not embrace these self-correcting mechanisms in the pursuit of understanding the how and why of the cosmos.

Not about the cosmos, but about the inner world within each one of us. To awake from within is a typical religious saying (in some religions anyway) It means took within how to change our own being (speech, acts, and thoughts) to become the way the teaching tell us is needed to enter in to pardise/heaven.
And science can not give that answer, that is why I personally have no interest in science, and know very little about how science works in the physical realm.

 

[Vee]

I am voting for under 1% at all grades.

Can you prove that?

Since there is not just one science, but several, if I start taking tests, I'm sure I'd get different scores depending on the subject. I would likely do well in biology, medium in chemistry, and pretty bad in math and physics, which I love but my brain isn't oriented towards numbers and school didn't help.

 

[Native]

This is a question I've wanted to ask forever. We have no end of forum members who spend immense amounts of energy asking what they pretend to be "science questions," generally framed as a strawman arguments.

The question is this: how many who deny science in favour of their religious beliefs actually have any knowledge of science at all? How many could pass an elementary school science test today, or a high school final in science, or earn an B.Sc or M.Sc?

I am voting for under 1% at all grades.

Modern cosmological science has it that 28% is unknown "dark matter", 68 % is unknown "dark energy" and only 4 % is known gases and particles.

So I´ll give a 4 % for modern cosmology which in many cases cannot be differentiated from religious dogmas.

 

[Heyo]

Doesn't that bring up a very interesting question though? How do we overcome the certainty of somebody who does not, in fact, know what they're talking about?

Argument appears to be pretty useless, from what I've seen on RF. Do we beat them with a club? How about taking them to court? (That's my preference, by the way -- courts seem to be one way to filter out stuff people are sure about, but can't demonstrate.)

Taking them to court is a useful option in those narrow cases where they have actually broken a law. Kitzmiller vs Dover School District is the go-to case for an example.
But it leaves so many doors open. And even in Europe where we have closed some of those, many people don't have a good grasp of science. But at least the trust in science is a bit better.

 

[viole]

This is a question I've wanted to ask forever. We have no end of forum members who spend immense amounts of energy asking what they pretend to be "science questions," generally framed as a strawman arguments.

The question is this: how many who deny science in favour of their religious beliefs actually have any knowledge of science at all? How many could pass an elementary school science test today, or a high school final in science, or earn an B.Sc or M.Sc?

I am voting for under 1% at all grades.

Usually, critics of evolution, Big Bang, etc. suffer from ultracrepidarianism. The limits of which appear, for them, to be very easy to reach.

Ciao

- viole

 

[RestlessSoul]

Modern cosmological science has it that 28% is unknown "dark matter", 68 % is unknown "dark energy" and only 4 % is known gases and particles.

So I´ll give a 4 % for modern cosmology which in many cases cannot be differentiated from religious dogmas.

There’s certainly an overlap between astronomy, cosmology, quantum physics, philosophy and theology. This overlap appears to be uncomfortable ground for some in the scientific community.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

One aspect you are not considering are the education pipelines that allow one to preserve their creationist indoctrination through college. With homeschooling and K-12 Christian schools and Academies, then on to Fundamentalist Christian Colleges and Universities, a safe space for Creationism can be preserved and unchallenged through college and into adulthood.

How sad, all that effort in education, only to preserve ignorance of the truth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is a question I've wanted to ask forever. We have no end of forum members who spend immense amounts of energy asking what they pretend to be "science questions," generally framed as a strawman arguments.

The question is this: how many who deny science in favour of their religious beliefs actually have any knowledge of science at all? How many could pass an elementary school science test today, or a high school final in science, or earn an B.Sc or M.Sc?

I am voting for under 1% at all grades.

I think we get a distorted view about this.

Most creationists won't have advanced degrees in the sciences simply because most people in general don't have advanced degrees in the sciences. We tend to make a big deal out of acceptance of creationism or evolution by, say, university professors, but university professors make up a miniscule proportion of the population. Big differences there don't necessarily translate into big differences overall at a population level.

It's generally a mistake, IMO, to assume that creationists are stupid or uneducated. Compartmentalization is a thing. The differences tend to be more about values than academic knowledge.