What's your understanding of what it means to be a scientist?

[LuisDantas]

And it is because of this liberal bias and the research monies controlled by those that promote a humanist philosophy, scientists are pressured into if they want to forward their careers they must support liberal interpretations of data.

That is a popular urban legend in some circles. I've heard it often. It doesn't seem to hold any water beyond that.

Far as I can tell, it is only something that people believe in without any evidence, because it makes them feel a bit protected in their beliefs.

It is like when the universe was first discovered to have a beginning.

It was? When did it happen, and how?

If you are talking about the Big Bang, it is not quite the same as the beginning of the Universe. And if I am not mistaken, it wasn't really discovered as much as proposed as a model, either.

That was fought hard against by scientists because it didn't support their evolutionary naturalistic philosophy.

That would be so odd that I flat out doubt it. You're imagining ghosts.

Or maybe you are simply misrepresenting the questioning that is expected to happen in science, by projecting some sort of god-denying agenda to it.

It supported the creationist philosophy.

Can you be more specific, please?

It took time for science to accept that the universe had a beginning and it will take time for science to accept that there must be a creator. It might take another 200 years before science admits that a creator and design is a valid interpretation of the evidence.

Then again, it may never happen, and most likely never will. Science is simply not equipped to deal with meaningful statements about the existence of a creator god.

 

[Yerda]

What's your understanding of what it means to be a scientist? . .

Scientist (sahy-uhn-tist) noun white-coated mammal, inquisitive with signs of intelligence

 

[Luminous]

And it is because of this liberal bias and the research monies controlled by those that promote a humanist philosophy, scientists are pressured into if they want to forward their careers they must support liberal interpretations of data.

Lies. There are plenty of scientists that get payed to make ignorant statements by conservatives. It is simply more honorable and better for your career if your conclusions have some ground on reality.

It is like when the universe was first discovered to have a beginning. That was fought hard against by some scientists because it didn't support their evolutionary naturalistic philosophy.

Since that was discovered by a scientist, NOT a theologian...I maintain my case, Science is purely Agnostic. The universe has yet to be discovered to have a beginning. It is assumed that our current form of universe sprang from a cingularity. Also, the idea of the universe having a beginning support the "evolutionary narutalistic philosophy" a lot more than the idea that the universe always existed. So i think it's a win for evolutionists(along with atomists, gravitationists, germists, cellists, thermodynamicists etc), again.

It supported the creationist philosophy. It took time for science to accept that the universe had a beginning and it will take time for science to accept that there must be a creator.

No it didn't and it doesn't. The creationist philosophy supports itself, because it is a rule circular logical fallacy. If someone believed that the universe didn't have a beginning it was definately because of personal opinion, not because of observable evidence and experimentation. just like it remains today, what ever you mean by "universe" we have NOT shown that something came out of nothing, meaning no beginning has been shown. And even if we perceive that something comes out of nothing, its probably because our perseptions are so limited.

It might take another 200 years before science admits that a creator and design is a valid interpretation of the evidence.

It might take another 200 years before christianity is ended. Just like the other pagans were ended before them. The idea that there is a creator and a design is an ARTISTIC idea, not a scientific one. The idea that there is NOT a creator or a design is also an ARTISTIC one.

 

[camanintx]

And it is because of this liberal bias and the research monies controlled by those that promote a humanist philosophy, scientists are pressured into if they want to forward their careers they must support liberal interpretations of data.

Like Enstein, Edison, Bell, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus and Archimedes? Sorry, but no scientist ever made a name for themselves by parroting the status quo. If there were anything to Intelligent Design, scientists would be climbing all over each other to be the first to publish.

 

[Luminous]

Like Enstein, Edison, Bell, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus and Archimedes? Sorry, but no scientist ever made a name for themselves by parroting the status quo. If there were anything to Intelligent Design, scientists would be climbing all over each other to be the first to publish.

Yes, I agree...and
Oh François-Marie Arouet, how I so appreciate his contributions!

 

[Autodidact]

What's your understanding of what it means to be a scientist? . .

Science is a method. A scientist is anyone who uses that method to learn about the natural world--any aspect of it.

 

[Autodidact]

Does a scientist study in the field of anthropology?

When they use scientific methods, yes. When not, then no.

 

[Autodidact]

That describes most first graders.

Everybody knows that a real scientist is a scientist that supports evolution, global warming, and all other liberal philosophies.

Because reality has a well-known liberal bias.

 

[Autodidact]

How relevant and important is 'evidence' in relation to science? . .

Crucial. Are you familiar with the scientific method? Do you understand it?

 

[Autodidact]

And it is because of this liberal bias and the research monies controlled by those that promote a humanist philosophy, scientists are pressured into if they want to forward their careers they must support liberal interpretations of data.

It is like when the universe was first discovered to have a beginning. That was fought hard against by some scientists because it didn't support their evolutionary naturalistic philosophy. It supported the creationist philosophy. It took time for science to accept that the universe had a beginning and it will take time for science to accept that there must be a creator. It might take another 200 years before science admits that a creator and design is a valid interpretation of the evidence.

btw, Science has not in any way established that the universe did have a beginning. That's very much not yet known.

If you knew anything about science, you would know that the question of whether God designed everything is:
(1) outside the scope of science
(2) irrelevant to science
(3) entirely compatible with every scientific theory.

 

[Luminous]

btw, Science has not in any way established that the universe did have a beginning. That's very much not yet known.

If you knew anything about science, you would know that the question of whether God designed everything is:
(1) outside the scope of science
(2) irrelevant to science
(3) entirely compatible with every scientific theory.

:yes:: Creationist hypothesis is an ARTISTIC concept... Whether or not something merits its creation by an Intelligence is dependent apon one's ARTISTIC opinions

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And it is because of this liberal bias and the research monies controlled by those that promote a humanist philosophy, scientists are pressured into if they want to forward their careers they must support liberal interpretations of data.

It is like when the universe was first discovered to have a beginning. That was fought hard against by some scientists because it didn't support their evolutionary naturalistic philosophy. It supported the creationist philosophy. It took time for science to accept that the universe had a beginning and it will take time for science to accept that there must be a creator. It might take another 200 years before science admits that a creator and design is a valid interpretation of the evidence.

Word of advice: if your beliefs can only be justified by inventing a massive conspiracy that's been going on for hundred of years, then your beliefs are probably false.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm starting to believe that the way philosophy and imagination has replaced objective scientific evidence.

By "objective scientific evidence" you seem to mean your personal opinions, regardless of any weight of logic or evidence against them. Is that the case?

 

[ninerbuff]

That describes most first graders.

Everybody knows that a real scientist is a scientist that supports evolution, global warming, and all other liberal philosophies.

Please, most first graders believe in Santa and the Easter bunny.

 

[Katzpur]

Everybody knows that a real scientist is a scientist that supports evolution, global warming, and all other liberal philosophies.

So what you're really saying is that you see scientists as the enemy. Would that be an accurate way of putting it?