Science Conspiracy

[Meeka]

I have noticed on many fundamental blogs and articles that they seem to have this idea that all scientists have a conspiracy to only accept certain ideas. One of those theories that scientists are supposedly not allowed to question is evolution.

It shows that fundies have no ties or know anything about the scientific community if they actually believe that scientist will not contradict each other. It has been my experience that the scientific research world is a fairly cut-throat world and they love to contradict as well as disprove theories that their collegues are promoting. In research it is all about getting research published and following a party line just does not cut it.

I always wondered if the fundies think that this iss the way that the scientific community works but cutting off thoughts because that is what their own thinking does.

Thoughts?

[Arete]

They have no understanding of the Scientific Method. The ones that went to public school forgot it, the homeschool fundies are never exposed. They have no concept of collecting and reporting data whether it backs up the original theory or not. There is no understanding that if your data does not back up your hypothesis or theory, you change or update the theory. You don't ignore the data.

Fundies have truth statements they are taught can never be modified regardless of new data. They suppress the data rather than update. There is no understanding that in science there is no shame in changing based on new evidence. They have doctrine, and assume scientific knowledge is doctrinal and fixed rather than cumulative and changing.

[salex]

They have no understanding of the Scientific Method. The ones that went to public school forgot it, the homeschool fundies are never exposed. They have no concept of collecting and reporting data whether it backs up the original theory or not. There is no understanding that if your data does not back up your hypothesis or theory, you change or update the theory. You don't ignore the data.

Fundies have truth statements they are taught can never be modified regardless of new data. They suppress the data rather than update. There is no understanding that in science there is no shame in changing based on new evidence. They have doctrine, and assume scientific knowledge is doctrinal and fixed rather than cumulative and changing.

They also seem not to understand the difference between a scientific theory and hearing some guy at starbucks say "I have a theory about . . . ." Hence the occasional argument "It is just a theory."

[GeoBQn]

The idea of scientists having a conspiracy is reminding me of the TV movie V . . .

In conclusion, my theory is that fundies are space lizards.

[Jane_Goth]

They also get told utter lies about the scientific method by the likes of Kevin Swanson. He uses the authority of his pulpit and his 'education' to claim that scientists are doing it wrong because they work to the presupposition that the bible is wrong, when in fact they should accept that the bible is right and should not accept any evidence that doesn't agree with the biblical account.

To back up this weapons grade shite, he claimed that he should know as he was a scientist. :pink-shock: Which is balls as A. he's never been a scientist his first degree is in engineering and B. As any decently educated engineer knows, presuppositions have no place in science or engineering, and as he went to a decent secular university to get his engineering degree he must know that he's lying through his evil teeth about how science is done.

Unfortunately the I can't find the post he wrote about this as he scrubbed most of his blog posts when he got into podcasts. But I remembered it as it annoyed me so much.

His linkedIn profile has his education details

www .linkedin.com/pub/kevin-swanson/1b/a48/b19

Edited to break the link, I doubt Linkedin would care but I don't know if users can see where the hits come from.

[Sailing on Europa]

Biologist here. I think the main problem is that the media (especially sources that fundies watch/read) make it seem like there are debates within the scientific community where there are none. They act as though evolution is still being debated and that scientists are split 50/50 on the issue. While it's true that some of the specifics are debated, the theory of evolution, in general, is a done deal. There IS no debate. Same thing with climate change. Out of 1000 peer-reviewed papers by climate researchers, 1 or 2 might deny human-caused climate change. But certain media sources portray the issue as though scientists are still divided, when they AREN'T.

[docmom]

Biologist here. I think the main problem is that the media (especially sources that fundies watch/read) make it seem like there are debates within the scientific community where there are none. They act as though evolution is still being debated and that scientists are split 50/50 on the issue. While it's true that some of the specifics are debated, the theory of evolution, in general, is a done deal. There IS no debate. Same thing with climate change. Out of 1000 peer-reviewed papers by climate researchers, 1 or 2 might deny human-caused climate change. But certain media sources portray the issue as though scientists are still divided, when they AREN'T.

I completely agree with this. It drives me crazy when in the interests of "fair and balanced" reporting even quite mainstream media reports drag out the one dissenter and present his/her views as widely accepted. There is no debate about evolution, there is no debate about whether HIV causes AIDS and there is no debate about climate change. There are a few wackos out there, but that does not a debate make.

[Cannelle]

Biologist here. I think the main problem is that the media (especially sources that fundies watch/read) make it seem like there are debates within the scientific community where there are none. They act as though evolution is still being debated and that scientists are split 50/50 on the issue. While it's true that some of the specifics are debated, the theory of evolution, in general, is a done deal. There IS no debate. Same thing with climate change. Out of 1000 peer-reviewed papers by climate researchers, 1 or 2 might deny human-caused climate change. But certain media sources portray the issue as though scientists are still divided, when they AREN'T.

Exactly. I's the "we have to report both sides of the issue" bullshit. There aren't two sides. There's what the current science backs, and then there's opinion. An opinion isn't the same thing as a fact and shouldn't be treated as such.

[Trynn]

It's because these people believe that scientists are denying evolution because they don't want to acknowledge there is a god, because then they would have to give up their wicked ways and follow him.

No seriously, I only just discovered 2 years ago at he age of 23 hat his was not the case, and by 23, I'd been integrated into the secular world for a while. It's a pretty insidious lie.

[doggie]

The silliest part is how much they use the very science they say is not true. That is the most pathetic part. If you don't believe in science live in a cave or in 3 ed world country.