Science + Religion: Marriage Made in Heaven?

[PoliticalChic]

Many on the Right object to the communist-Marxist dogma advanced by professors....The objection is largely because history and experience has proven....proven....the abysmal failure of this philosophy.


In science, post high school science is laced with theory...hypothesis...guess, disguised with fancy mathematical formulae....as mathematician David Berlinski writes, "As is true of so many ideas of quantum mechanics, such as the wave function of the universe, it cannot be seen, measured, assessed, or tested. Physicists have found it remarkably easy to pass from speculation to the conviction that said theories actually is."

But what if a physics professor fills in the missing elements.....with religion?



This group is really, really upset:

1. "There has been considerable discussion on science blogs recently about a professor at Ball State, a public university in Muncie, Indiana, who is teaching a course called "The Boundaries of Science." Although not required, the course can be applied for science credit on the core curriculum and is available only to honors students. The professor, Eric Hedin, is in the physics and astronomy department. His course is advertised as a study of the relationships of the sciences to human concerns and society.

2. The course includes scientific-sounding but highly dubious arguments for the existence of God and promotes intelligent design, miracles, and spirituality. The authors on the book list are almost all Christian apologists without a single dissenting view represented.... Coyne wrote to Hedin's chair and the university administration protesting that this was an inappropriate course for a public university, but he was rebuffed by both. Coyne then suggested legal action.

3. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is a church-state watchdog group operating out of Madison, Wisconsin (I am a member). The legal staff of FFRF has had remarkable success in convincing many institutions such as school boards and town councils that they are breaking constitutional law when they sponsor sectarian activities such as prayers on public property." Victor Stenger: Does Academic Freedom Give Professors the Right to Teach Whatever They Want?





4. Course listing:
HONRS 296 - Inquiries in the Physical Sciences.

Study of introductory principles within the physical sciences, emphasizing the relationships of the sciences to human concerns and society. Study of social and ethical consequences of scientific discoveries and their applications to critical issues confronting contemporary society. Open only to Honors College students. https://www.bsu.edu/webapps2/directory/courses/detail.asp?disc_code=HONRS&course_num=296



This group is in favor of Hedin:

5. "According to the class syllabus, the seminar explores evidence of intelligent design in nature as well as questions of faith and science and the limits of scientific knowledge. Prof. Hedin's bibliography for the course includes books and essays by a long list of distinguished scholars, including Oxford University mathematician John Lennox, Harvard University astronomer Owen Gingerich, Oxford mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose, and physicist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne....[The course readings include] ( biologist Francis Collins and physicist Karl Giberson) are staunch critics of intelligent design and defenders of Darwinian evolution. In addition, the authors in the bibliography hold a wide diversity of religious views. Some are Christians. Lee Spetner and Gerard Schroeder are Jewish. Roger Penrose is an atheist. Antony Flew was a former-atheist-turned-deist. Paul Davies is perhaps best described as some form of pantheist.... the inquisitors at the militantly atheist Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) from launching a witch-hunt and demanding that Ball State University investigate, censor, and punish Hedin...." Sign the Petition Now: Defend the Academic Freedom of Ball State University Professor Eric Hedin - Evolution News & Views




6. I learned about this listening to a debate between an official of FFRF, and a person from the Evolutionary News group. Both sides had interesting points. But, it addresses the question of exactly what academic freedom is.....is one only free to attack religion? Should a professor bring his personal views into the classroom?....

And, if one strongly believes his view to be correct, why fear the other side's arguments?

 

[mamooth]

It's the ID side that wants to prohibit criticism of their views, so clearly they fear the other side's arguments.

That is, they want a mandate to present their religion as science, but any discussion as to why it's awful science would be prohibited. Teachers would have to simply chant each side's position as equally valid and leave it at that, or risk the consequences of going beyond the conservative-approved lesson plan.

Now, the side of reason would be overjoyed to discuss the scientific method in the classroom, and how that relates to evolution and ID. Truth is not political, and a stupid belief should be revealed as such, even if it does offend the right-wing fringe. Many extremist conservatives, however, tend to prefer that PC thing where all beliefs are considered to be equally valid, no matter how dumb they are.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's the ID side that wants to prohibit criticism of their views, so clearly they fear the other side's arguments.

That is, they want a mandate to present their religion as science, but any discussion as to why it's awful science would be prohibited. Teachers would have to simply chant each side's position as equally valid and leave it at that, or risk the consequences of going beyond the conservative-approved lesson plan.

Now, the side of reason would be overjoyed to discuss the scientific method in the classroom, and how that relates to evolution and ID. Truth is not political, and a stupid belief should be revealed as such, even if it does offend the right-wing fringe. Many extremist conservatives, however, tend to prefer that PC thing where all beliefs are considered to be equally valid, no matter how dumb they are.

1. "It's the ID side that wants to prohibit criticism of their views,...."


Strange that you should say that, when the OP documents that that is exactly the opposite of what has happened.



2. ".... they want a mandate to present their religion as science..."

Also the reverse of the case...
a. But, today, there are scientists who shout from the rooftops, ‘Scientific and religious belief are in conflict. They cannot both be right. Let us get rid of the one that is wrong!’ And, not just tolerated, today they are admired. It is a veritable orgy of competitive skepticism- but a skepticism supposedly built of science. Physicist Victor Stengler and Taner Edis have both published books championing atheism. Both men exhibit the salient characteristic of physicists endeavoring to draw general lessons about the cosmos from mathematical physics: They are willing to believe anything.
Berlinski


b. Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”


3. "....the scientific method in the classroom, and how that relates to evolution..."
There is no scientific method when it comes to the theory of evolution.

a. There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

b. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)



Perhaps you should rethink your position...and, certainly, your post.