and yet you claim to not be anti-science? You claim to be scientifically trained?
You are absolutely anti-science, condemned by your own words. You think “scientists” lack credibility. And you think “scientists” say the world was created without God. And yet you claim to have nothing against science and scientists?
Laughably inept.
Since when is it “Anti-Science” to point out FACTS abotu scientists lacking credibility? Seems some on htis htread want to avert the discussion AWAY from the topic of htis thread by FALSELY accusing Creationists with lame petty insults about ‘being anti-science’- Would it be an act of ‘anti-Surgeon” bias to research a surgeon’s past performances and discover they are hacks that are inept and deceitful about hteir past performances? Of course not- but apparently, poin ting out glaring ineptnesses in scientists statements makes one ‘anti-science’? Lol- talk about being ‘laughably inept’ (Quick- hide the fact that sciwentists aren’t being forthcoming and honest by attcking Creationists! Make a lot of noise before someone finds out hte TRUTH of the matter!
Well, we can start with definitions, although that will probably not do much good since they aren’t evo definitions.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study *the science of theology* b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge *have it down to a science*
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientist
1: a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator
Do you think that you can distinguish between the two now? Science is a great and useful tool for finding out about the physical world around us to improve the lot of mankind. It is a methodology which is morally neutral.
A scientist is one who practices science, a person subject to all the normal human foibles the rest of the human race is subject to. Scientists, like all human beings, have moral character.
It isn’t the science that lacks the credibility , but the scientist who twists it and uses it to advance his own personal agenda. Scientists lack credibility when they engage in fraud as too often happens, whether it be for power, money, position, whatever.
It doesn’t help AT ALL when other scientists refuse to acknowledge what is patently obvious to others.
Instead of attacking as *anti-science* people who point out the obvious, the more mature and responsible approach would be to acknowledge the problem exists, condemn said practices, and work towards correcting it. All that denial of the problem does is convince others how out of touch the rest of the scientific community is with reality.
The links I’ve posted are more than clear that science is rife with fraud and manipulation. But the credibility of scientists is never going to be restored if the rest of scientists defend them. All that will do is convince people that all scientists are involved in it.