How to spot hidden religious agendas in Science textbooks

[SkinWalker]

It appears that New Scientist has caved to legal threats by some unknown entity that was ostensibly upset that they ran an article on how to spot hidden religious agendas in science text books.

The article by Amanda Geftner was at this URL, but the message there says "New Scientist has received a legal complaint about the contents of this story. At the advice of our lawyer it has temporarily been removed while we investigate."

The question on the blogosphere among science bloggers is who would threaten such legal action? Obvious culprits are the wackos at Discovery Institute and Denyse O'Leary, a Canadian writer and blogger who defended Intelligent Design in her 2004 book By Design or Chance. O'Leary is a nutjob extraordinaire and goes on many anti-science, pro-superstition tirades on various science and pseudoscience blogs alike. Mostly the latter.

So what was in the article that was so controversial? Take a look for yourself. The internet, and skeptics blogs in particular, make such censorship and restriction of free speech near impossible.

This is clearly an example of conservative-religious extremists making every effort to oppress free speech where it is critical of their superstitions or daring to question their irrational claims. Ironically, these people are not above lying to scientists to get interviews for films like Expelled, where evolution is grossly mischaracterized as the cause of the Holocaust and where the claim is made that academic freedom is being oppressed.

So how do you spot religious agenda in science textbooks. If you didn't click the link to the article copy (and you should copy it to your hard drive for future reference), here's an excerpt:

When you come across the terms "Darwinism" or "Darwinists", take heed. True scientists rarely use these terms, and instead opt for "evolution" and "biologists", respectively. When evolution is described as a "blind, random, undirected process", be warned. While genetic mutations may be random, natural selection is not. When cells are described as "astonishingly complex molecular machines", it is generally by breathless supporters of ID who take the metaphor literally and assume that such a "machine" requires an "engineer". If an author wishes for "academic freedom", it is usually ID code for "the acceptance of creationism".

Clearly, what is objected to by the miscreant(s) that threatened legal action is the fact that someone is educating the public. Hopefully, New Scientist will have the article back online soon. If not, the internet will pick up the slack. In fact, I'll probably repost it on my blog.

[GarfieldJL]

Ever consider they caved to being potentially sued for liable and the fact that the people sueing them had a pretty strong case?

[SW01]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Ever consider they caved to being potentially sued for liable and the fact that the people sueing them had a pretty strong case?

But wait! What of freedom of speech?!?

I would say that, yes, the threat will be a suit of libel - but rather than the claimant (whomever it may be) having a strong case, it is more likely that the journal is attempting to limit any possibility of vicarious liability by publishing or endorsing it.

I can't really see how a person could sustain their cause here...and if it is utterly unfounded, I do not see why it cannot simply be rebutted with an article penned by an opposing scientist rather than resorting of legal action. If it is unfounded enough to warrant libel proceedings, it is unfounded enough for an educated scientist to rebut.

[SkinWalker]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Ever consider they caved to being potentially sued for liable and the fact that the people sueing them had a pretty strong case?

I did consider that, actually. I just don't think its as likely as the alternative given the players involved and their previous track record of amoral and unethical behavior.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

I did consider that, actually. I just don't think its as likely as the alternative given the players involved and their previous track record of amoral and unethical behavior.

In your opinion, seriously I would accuse atheists of immoral behavior and academic misconduct in an attempt to justify their discrimination of religious people.

[SkinWalker]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

In your opinion, seriously I would accuse atheists of immoral behavior and academic misconduct in an attempt to justify their discrimination of religious people.

This isn't an "atheist vs. superstitious" issue. Its a science vs. pseudoscience issue. The key players, "Expelled" (the movie), O'Leary, et al are pseudoscientific in their approach. This isn't just my opinion but the opinion of many, many more who are actively working in science. And its the opinion of anyone who is educated in science to even a modest degree. The position of the pseudoscience proponent is one that is amoral and unethical.

Note also that I used the word "amoral" and not "immoral" as you do in your failed riposte. By amoral, I'm stating that they act without moral standards or principles in their anti-science efforts. Morality is a relative construct that varies depending upon the culture one is considered a member of. To be immoral within Denise O'Leary's culture, for instance, might not be the same as being immoral in your own. Apparently lying, cheating, and the like fit with her culture's morals which is why I used the more broadly appropriate term amoral since society at large frowns upon this sort of behavior.

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

This isn't an "atheist vs. superstitious" issue. Its a science vs. pseudoscience issue. The key players, "Expelled" (the movie), O'Leary, et al are pseudoscientific in their approach. This isn't just my opinion but the opinion of many, many more who are actively working in science. And its the opinion of anyone who is educated in science to even a modest degree. The position of the pseudoscience proponent is one that is amoral and unethical.

Cut the bigotry SkinWalker, if atheism is a religion, I'd be calling it religious bigotry.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Note also that I used the word "amoral" and not "immoral" as you do in your failed riposte. By amoral, I'm stating that they act without moral standards or principles in their anti-science efforts. Morality is a relative construct that varies depending upon the culture one is considered a member of. To be immoral within Denise O'Leary's culture, for instance, might not be the same as being immoral in your own. Apparently lying, cheating, and the like fit with her culture's morals which is why I used the more broadly appropriate term amoral since society at large frowns upon this sort of behavior.

So being against murder is unethical for instance? Seriously, your constant defaming people whom are religious is bigotry plain and simple. There are some things that atheists cannot use their views to explain anything, like how life began for instance.

And having had a death in the family recently, I find I would much prefer the religious view, than the atheist one.

[Samuel Dravis]

I was homeschooled and many of my textbooks were from religious organizations. The ones that had agendas were usually the biology books, although even one chemistry book I had felt it necessary to contain something about how evolution wasn't true. The agendas in these books weren't hidden, though. If I remember correctly, one biology book even had an entire chapter for debunking evolution, which I thought was odd at the time.

Personally, I don't see how the article was particularly offensive. The only people who would have an interest in removing it are those mentioned (The Expelled movie, James Le Fanu, Denyse O'Leary), and perhaps that one other movie, "What the bleep do we know?", since the article seems to take an obvious jab at it.

[LordJhredmo]

Very well states, Skinwalker. Your rhetoric is to be applauded. I wholeheartedly agree with your eloquent and graceful text here. While I'm not as educated than you (obviously), I have this insisting urge to discuss and learn from you. If you have any sorts of newsletters that you have on your studies, I'd love to be tossed a link (simply PM me).

I, myself, am agnostic, in a way, since I'm rather indifferent to whoever caused creation, but I revere and respect them for their marvelous work and genius in what has come from it all. Some good, some bad, but in the end life is just a recycling system that ingests, digests, excretes and ingests again.

Anyway, I'd rather not waste more space in your topic. Keep up the good work, sir. I immensely enjoyed your articles and responses to this enigmatically disappointing Garfield.

Good day to you, sir.

[EnderWiggin]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

You just did it again...

Oh stop complaining. Nothing he did is defaming (or whatnot) to Christians.

Originally Posted by Garfy

Then tell me scientifically how life began on this planet and we evolved so quickly considering the allowable time frame for life to have taken shape on this planet, because evolution breaks down when we talk about how life began.

As one Christian to another, let me let you in on a little secret: no it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Garfy

It's basic Chemistry.

Explains how we know all about the origins of life then.... oh wait, we don't.

Perhaps you've forgotten that the atmospheric conditions of the earth at the time life began are not known? And how the theories of those conditions have changed drastically in recent years?

Originally Posted by Garfy

No, you're the one claiming there is no higher power, and I'm going to say flat out: "Prove it."

Burden of Proof is on You.

Originally Posted by Garfy

Fact is antimatter was considered to not exist at one time, and it exists.

I can do that too: Fact is a flat earth was considered to exist at one time, and it does not exist.

_EW_

[GarfieldJL]

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin

Oh stop complaining. Nothing he did is defaming (or whatnot) to Christians.

Except for the fact that it's using studies with the same level of scientific standards as experiments conducted by the Nazis...

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin

As one Christian to another, let me let you in on a little secret: no it doesn't.

That's news to me, I thought you were an atheist.

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin

Explains how we know all about the origins of life then.... oh wait, we don't.

Perhaps you've forgotten that the atmospheric conditions of the earth at the time life began are not known? And how the theories of those conditions have changed drastically in recent years?

They actually do have a pretty good idea of the atmospheric conditions, they can determine that information from sedimentary rock from that period.

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin

Burden of Proof is on You.

You can't disprove a positive.

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin

I can do that too: Fact is a flat earth was considered to exist at one time, and it does not exist.

It was disproven that's the key, they disproved something, but you can't disprove the Earth is round now can you?

[kipperthefrog]

What, may I ask, would count as evedence of a deity and biblical stories true?

[EnderWiggin]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

That's news to me, I thought you were an atheist.

That's because you don't ****ing pay any attention. I said just last week (or so) in that other thread re: atheists being descriminated against that I was Christian, and that was after you called me an atheist over there! Also, I've repeatedly said that I'm a Christian who believes that God used Evolution as his tool, and that I'm a Protestant.

_EW_

Proof for ya:
http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost....8&postcount=29
http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost....5&postcount=42

and countless others, but they were the ones from the last 2 weeks.

[Q]

Ender just isn't a dogmatic Christian. I do remember that he has said elsewhere that he believes that everything that Jesus said was and is divine.

[jonathan7]

I love my brother Ender

Originally Posted by Qliveur

dogmatic Christian.

Dogmatic Christians tend to remind me of Pharisees - people Jesus had interesting things to say about.

I also think Jesus may well have interesting things to say about people who lie in science books. (Exodus 20:16 (New International Version - "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.)

In otherwords I don't think Jesus would of been too impressed with people attempting to make something which isn't science, or has no basis in science appear to be science.

[Darth InSidious]

Originally Posted by Qliveur

dogmatic Christian.

Originally Posted by j7

Dogmatic Christians tend to remind me of Pharisees - people Jesus had interesting things to say about.

O hai.

Extra ecclesia nulla salus, et ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia.

kthxbai.

But seriously, since when did 'dogmatic' come to mean 'creationist'?

[jonathan7]

I wasn't linking dogmatic Christianity down to creationism TBH, more a comment on absolutes which seem to lack love.

Originally Posted by Darth InSidious

But seriously, since when did 'dogmatic' come to mean 'creationist'?

It doesn't, I think the big bang true, and God created that, so I would still say I'm a creationist of sorts

[Q]

The Church as a whole lacks love, IMO.

It has become too much of the world, instead of being in the world, but not of it. As such, it is now just another political animal in a sea of political animals and therefore it is a dismal failure.

I may have (woefully inadequate, I'll admit) faith in God, but I have no faith in the Church because I have no faith in man.