Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Motive Mongering: Does It Belong in Science?
CEH ^ | February 26, 2009

Posted on 02/26/2009 8:22:42 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

Motive Mongering: Does It Belong in Science?

Feb 26, 2009 — Amanda Gefter, a book reviewer and science editor, felt the need to warn the world about the creationists. She wrote a blog entry at New Scientist called “How to spot a hidden religious agenda.”

In addition, Gefter listed concepts and emphases that she felt betray a hidden agenda: an emphasis on complex molecular machines, the reference to quantum physics in support of free will, and calls for “academic freedom” (which she says can be translated as “the acceptance of creationism”). Lastly, she disclaimed any connection between the truth of a scientific theory (like evolution) with its social consequences (like the Holocaust), as explored in the movie Expelled.

Bottom line: “It is crucial to the public’s intellectual health to know when science really is science. Those with a religious agenda will continue to disguise their true views in their effort to win supporters, so please read between the lines.”...

(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: amandagefter; catholic; christian; complexity; corruption; creation; darwinism; evolution; goodgodimnutz; hiddenagenda; intelligentdesign; irreducible; moralabsolutes; prolife; religiousagenda; science; scientific; spam; spamspamspamspam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-88 last
To: kc8ukw
...and calls for “academic freedom” (which she says can be translated as “the acceptance of creationism”).

So she's opposed to academic freedom, too, I see.

The thought police are so easy to pick out.

51 posted on 02/26/2009 4:51:01 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dmz; HerrBlucher

HerrBlucher: “Where did I say anything about sex? Morality goes far beyond that. It is telling though that you think morality necessarily means sexual morality.”
______

dmz: “Where did I suggest that you did? It is telling that you seem unable to read for comprehension.”

Back to post 10, your post....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2194585/posts?page=10#10

HerrBlucher, only said morality. You brought up the sex.


52 posted on 02/26/2009 4:58:41 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; betty boop; Alamo-Girl
Prov 16:33 The dice are cast into the lap, but every result is from the Lord.

With that being said, why do you suppose Creationists have such a bugaboo about chance? Most assume that if there is any element of chance involved that means that God is not in control, which is not scriptural, and truth be told, quite idiotic.

That's simply because the evos keep using chance as an argument as evidence against the existence of God. They aren't the ones who started ir then, if they believe the Bible.

So then, can we presume that since chance doesn't mean that God is not in control, that disorder and randomness are not evidences against God, like the evos like to put forth?

So all evidence, both order and complexity, and chance, are no evidence against God at all. There's no precedent in that case for undirected evolution or the possibility of any of the universe or life arising without an intelligent cause.

53 posted on 02/26/2009 5:12:28 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Motive Mongering: Does It Belong in Science?

What's her motive I wonder?

She's all bent out of shape about worrying about other's motives, but doesn't seem to consider that she's got her own.

Amanda Gefter, a book reviewer and science editor, felt the need to warn the world about the creationists. She wrote a blog entry at New Scientist called “How to spot a hidden religious agenda.”

What's her agenda in warning people about creationists?

54 posted on 02/26/2009 5:17:31 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Chance in nature is certainly not an argument against God, it is tantamount to saying that God has no power over random events and the Bible says otherwise.

So if one believes in God and the Bible then chance in nature is certainly not the same as saying it doesn't turn out the way God intended.

Chance is used in nature all the time, when making reproductive cells we mix up our parents DNA in such a random fashion that distances between genes in pre sequencing days were calculated in the % chance that there would be a chromosome switching event (grandma's DNA for grandpa's DNA) between the two genes, called CentiMorgans.

55 posted on 02/26/2009 5:43:31 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: metmom
What's her motive I wonder?

Would it be appropriate to wonder what yours is for asking?

56 posted on 02/26/2009 6:24:50 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear sister in Christ!
57 posted on 02/26/2009 8:39:08 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: metmom; HerrBlucher
“HerrBlucher, only said morality. You brought up the sex.” [excerpt]
Hmm, yeah, dmz is a DCer.
58 posted on 02/26/2009 8:42:30 PM PST by Fichori (If YOU Evolved, YOUR Unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are VOID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

A prolific one at that. They come here like locusts, trolling for their perverted causes.


59 posted on 02/27/2009 4:13:53 AM PST by ToGodBeTheGlory ("Darwinism" is Satanism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; metmom
Would it be appropriate to wonder what yours is for asking?

And ditto to your motive(not whether it is appropriate). We could go infinite regress on this subject, but the answer is a simple one, the thread is based upon an article calling into question motives. So it would seem very appropriate for metmom to turn the question on the author. The answer to your question as to whether it would be appropriate to wonder about metmom's motive for asking would seem to lie within yourself(since wondering is a process of a mind) and therefore cannot be answered by anyone else.

60 posted on 02/27/2009 1:26:41 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
And ditto to your motive(not whether it is appropriate). We could go infinite regress on this subject, but the answer is a simple one, the thread is based upon an article calling into question motives. So it would seem very appropriate for metmom to turn the question on the author. The answer to your question as to whether it would be appropriate to wonder about metmom's motive for asking would seem to lie within yourself(since wondering is a process of a mind) and therefore cannot be answered by anyone else.

Is there an objective standard that can be applied, or are bias and agendas purely subjective determinations?

61 posted on 02/27/2009 2:12:57 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: SirKit

Physics discussion ping


62 posted on 02/27/2009 2:37:07 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kc8ukw
"...“there is an 80% chance that electron is here, and a 20% chance that it’s over there.” If you looked at 1000 such electrons, you would be puzzled if something other than ~800 were here, and ~200 were over there."

I would only be puzzled by the perfect outcome obtained. It strongly suggests the data was generated w/o the benefit of an experiment.

63 posted on 02/27/2009 2:46:41 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Is there an objective standard that can be applied, or are bias and agendas purely subjective determinations?

Unless there is some objective measurement of motive and a method to read minds, the topic must be subjective. But as you surely must see upon reading the article, the author is definitely expressing subjective things and nothing objective.

64 posted on 02/27/2009 3:04:40 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Unless there is some objective measurement of motive and a method to read minds, the topic must be subjective. But as you surely must see upon reading the article, the author is definitely expressing subjective things and nothing objective.

The any claims of someone having an agenda are purely subjective, and have no basis in verifiable fact?

65 posted on 02/27/2009 3:06:42 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The any claims of someone having an agenda are purely subjective, and have no basis in verifiable fact?

Basis? Well, claims do have a basis in something "factual". Something stimulates a person to make a claim. But a claim is not factual unless it is backed up with a fact. I can claim water boils at 35 degrees Fahrenheit, but until I add the fact that this occurs at low pressure you shouldn't believe me.


66 posted on 02/27/2009 3:42:42 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Basis? Well, claims do have a basis in something "factual". Something stimulates a person to make a claim. But a claim is not factual unless it is backed up with a fact. I can claim water boils at 35 degrees Fahrenheit, but until I add the fact that this occurs at low pressure you shouldn't believe me.

Do you take exception to attribution of motives or pursuit of an agenda, presented as fact and attributed to "evolutionists"?

67 posted on 02/27/2009 3:54:02 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Do you take exception to attribution of motives or pursuit of an agenda, presented as fact and attributed to "evolutionists"?

That seems to ask if I would judge someone's opinion. The only judgement I will make is that it is not my opinion as to motive(mainly because I am not a mind reader), but as in the case of NCSE there is ample evidence of pursuit of an agenda(they trumpet it). An agenda so entrenced that NCSE delves into the business of the Smithsonian.

68 posted on 02/27/2009 4:38:43 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
That seems to ask if I would judge someone's opinion. The only judgement I will make is that it is not my opinion as to motive(mainly because I am not a mind reader), but as in the case of NCSE there is ample evidence of pursuit of an agenda(they trumpet it). An agenda so entrenced that NCSE delves into the business of the Smithsonian.

Is it any less obvious that that the web site organization running it that this article came from has an agenda?

69 posted on 02/27/2009 4:44:20 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The only judgement I will make is that it is not my opinion as to motive(mainly because I am not a mind reader), but as in the case of NCSE there is ample evidence of pursuit of an agenda(they trumpet it).

Do you think it's valid or appropriate to attribute religious beliefs to people without knowing whether they actually hold those beliefs or not, or assume a bias or agenda in scientific matters based on their religious beliefs?

70 posted on 02/27/2009 4:53:26 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

Sorry, #70 should have been addressed to you.


71 posted on 02/27/2009 4:54:16 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: kc8ukw

Has she considered the moral implications of that?

I know I have, but as potentially dismal as it may be, I, unlike some, don’t get to pick and choose what I believe based on feelings and fiction.


72 posted on 02/27/2009 5:11:01 PM PST by ZarathustraSpeaks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Is it any less obvious that that the web site organization running it that this article came from has an agenda?

Well, yes since NCSE clearly states a portion of their agenda, but as their foray into the realm of The Smithsonian demonstrates, some of the agenda is hidden since in that situation their actions were not in the open. That being said, it seems obvious that anyone or anything having a presentation also has an agenda for that presentation.

73 posted on 02/27/2009 5:21:28 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Do you think it's valid or appropriate to attribute religious beliefs to people without knowing whether they actually hold those beliefs or not, or assume a bias or agenda in scientific matters based on their religious beliefs

I don't think it's valid or appropriate because that is my opinion and those religious beliefs would be their opinion. It would be a fruitless discussion, so I don't normally do it(I might use the attribution etc. to reply to such an attack on my beliefs). Though, when I believe that actions and opinions border on a religious belief, I will state so. Many Darwinists(I know Amanda is triggered by the word but Dr. James Shapiro uses it.) act in such a fashion.

74 posted on 02/27/2009 5:33:57 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

read


75 posted on 02/27/2009 5:35:22 PM PST by sauropod (Mean Capitalist Bastard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
I don't think it's valid or appropriate because that is my opinion and those religious beliefs would be their opinion.

I initially entered this thread in response to someone who submitted as a matter of fact that the author was an atheist, and that was thier motivation for the claims about the agenda of creationists.

It turns out there is nothing in the article indicating the author holds those beliefs. The lack of evidence was dismissed as irrelevant, and the discussion continued on as if it was indeed established the she was and atheist and that she was pursuing an agenda based on those beliefs.

76 posted on 02/27/2009 6:21:03 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

And what’s your motive for asking about my motive for asking about her motive?


77 posted on 02/27/2009 7:04:35 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; metmom
I initially entered this thread in response to someone who submitted as a matter of fact that the author was an atheist, and that was thier motivation for the claims about the agenda of creationists.

Maybe so, but I answered your rhetorical question as to appropriateness about wondering. I essentially stated that in that case the appropriateness was up to you, but I also pointed out that metmom's turning of the question on the author of the referenced article was definitely appropriate. The referenced article may not mention the authors belief, but the article itself certainly addresses hidden motives. In fact, the conclusion aimed at in the case of Dr. James Shapiro would be to assume hidden motives since he uses the word "Darwinists" which according to Amanda Gefter is suspect...When you come across the terms "Darwinism" or "Darwinists", take heed. True scientists rarely use these terms,

78 posted on 02/28/2009 1:09:33 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
The referenced article may not mention the authors belief, but the article itself certainly addresses hidden motives. In fact, the conclusion aimed at in the case of Dr. James Shapiro would be to assume hidden motives since he uses the word "Darwinists" which according to Amanda Gefter is suspect...When you come across the terms "Darwinism" or "Darwinists", take heed. True scientists rarely use these terms,

If you don't differentiate between saying something is possible or probable based on circumstantial evidence, and saying that it is established fact based on that same evidence, then there is no difference.

79 posted on 02/28/2009 1:17:59 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
I essentially stated that in that case the appropriateness was up to you, but I also pointed out that metmom's turning of the question on the author of the referenced article was definitely appropriate.

Yes you did. If, in your opinion, it is entirely up to me why are you still belaboring the point?

80 posted on 02/28/2009 1:33:50 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; metmom
If you don't differentiate between saying something is possible or probable based on circumstantial evidence, and saying that it is established fact based on that same evidence, then there is no difference.

Well, then talk to those who don't differentiate. Again, my statement was that metmom was appropriately turning the question on Gefter. And the only one who could answer the appropriateness of wondering about metmom's motives was you.

81 posted on 02/28/2009 1:41:07 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: metmom
And what’s your motive for asking about my motive for asking about her motive?

Sorry, I missed that response earlier. Your earlier comments seemed to indicate an agreement with the author that hidden agendas don't have any place in science. It seemed ironic to question the author's motives for saying so.

82 posted on 02/28/2009 1:42:24 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
If, in your opinion, it is entirely up to me why are you still belaboring the point?

Well, you seemed to have some question about that.

83 posted on 02/28/2009 1:43:49 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Well, then talk to those who don't differentiate. Again, my statement was that metmom was appropriately turning the question on Gefter. And the only one who could answer the appropriateness of wondering about metmom's motives was you.

Okay. What's your motive for challenging me on that question, and overlooking what appears to be unsupported claims about the author's religious beliefs?

84 posted on 02/28/2009 1:47:10 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Well, you seemed to have some question about that.

I have questions about what gets challenged and what gets accepted without question, and what criteria those decisions are based on.

85 posted on 02/28/2009 1:48:50 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Okay. What's your motive for challenging me on that question, and overlooking what appears to be unsupported claims about the author's religious beliefs?

I saw it as a senseless question. And I stated so, in so many words. I mentioned infinite regress. That possibility seems to have been validated by posts 77, 82 and 84. As to overlooking, I haven't read the post to which you refer. I haven't read each individual post in detail. But I did comment on such a position in my post 74. So you are absolutely mistaken on me overlooking that.

To your post 85 ---- Okay.

86 posted on 02/28/2009 3:41:10 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Some of us rather enjoying having the strongest military in the know history of the planet. Such a military is only possible due to scientific research and I - for one - am unwilling to give up the advanced biotech defenses that are being developed simply because genetics and evolutionarily theory are used in there creation.

I have aloso rather become accustomed to the GPS system which by its mere existence disproves a rapidly varying speed of light which - you know - is a major portion of modern young earth creationism.


87 posted on 02/28/2009 4:15:11 PM PST by DevNet (What's past is prologue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: DevNet
Such a military is only possible due to scientific research and I - for one - am unwilling to give up the advanced biotech defenses that are being developed simply because genetics and evolutionarily theory are used in there creation.

BWAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

I have aloso rather become accustomed to the GPS system which by its mere existence disproves a rapidly varying speed of light which - you know - is a major portion of modern young earth creationism.

Whatever.......

88 posted on 02/28/2009 5:27:19 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-88 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson