Motive Mongering: Does It Belong in Science?

CEH ^ | February 26, 2009

[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.”...

[AndrewC]

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.

[tacticalogic]

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.

[AndrewC]

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.

[tacticalogic]

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?

[tacticalogic]

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.

[AndrewC]

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.

[DevNet]

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.

[metmom]

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.......