From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Science is not identical to physical science. The hard sciences like physics and chemistry may be physical sciences, but economics, sociology and psychology are also sciences. There's even a field of academic study called "political science". --Ed Poor Talk 17:37, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

How many articles have links to this article, with physical science being the intended destination? Philip J. Rayment 20:31, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Albert Einstein was not a Christian. Perhaps we should explain more about his religious ideas. Did he ever come out as a full-fledged atheist, positively denying the existence of God? --Ed Poor Talk 12:17, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Wouldn't the Albert Einstein article be the place for that? Philip J. Rayment 01:00, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Einstein was a Jew, (BTW, why isn't there an article Judaism and Science?).

Question: why is it significant that many scientists are atheists. (It would have been just as accurate to say "many scientists are Christians/Jews/Buddhists/" etc.) DLerner 12:21, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

The significance would be that their atheism colours their science, such as rejecting God as a possible explanation of how we came to be. And I don't think that it would be "just" as accurate to say that many scientists are Buddhists. Some religions have greater representation than others. Philip J. Rayment 18:46, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Scientists before Christ

In regard to [1], Eratosthenes calculated the Earth's radius and Callippus calculated the length of a solar year. Drochld 19:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Does astronomy count? If so, you could use the entire Mayan civilization. Barikada 20:23, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
It might depend to some extent on what you call "science". See for example these quotes from a review of Rodney Stark's book[2]:
India, China, Persia, Greece and Rome all had venerable traditions of scholarship but why did only Christian Europe develop science?
The Greeks pursued learning with great zeal but there remained always a gap between their speculative philosophy and their observation.
These both indicate that science didn't exist before Christian Europe.
So were Eratosthenes' and Callippus' works not quite what we'd refer to as "science" (e.g. simply mathematical calculations rather than use of the 'scientific method'), or were they isolated exceptions to the rule?
Qualifying the scientists as "since Christ" seems a bit arbitrary. Perhaps we could change it to "Most of the early scientists of the modern scientific era who started many of the scientific fields...", although that seems a bit awkward to me. Or is it currently okay because "who started many of the scientific fields" is sufficient qualification?
What do you think?
Philip J. Rayment 20:35, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't think it's accurate to say that they started the scientific fields in the modern era, so I would qualify the statement as "in the early modern scientific era", since nowadays, scientists are less likely to be religious than the public.
Regarding the Greeks, science has become more rigorous throughout history. See phrenology and race science, for example. I would be surprised if the beginning of any ancient scientific fields didn't start in superstition. Drochld 21:10, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I'm not sure that science really has become more rigorous. Whilst some things like phrenology are no longer around, other areas, such as evolution, are as alive as ever.
Are you suggesting the following: "Most of the early scientists in the early modern scientific era who started many of the scientific fields...". That still seems a bit awkward or unnecessarily wordy for me. At the very least, I would drop the first use of the word "early" if we went with something like that.
Philip J. Rayment 22:42, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I suggest "Most of the scientists in the early modern scientific era . . ." It's not clear that they started the fields they were investigating. Drochld 23:37, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Maybe we should also note that most Europeans and Americans at the time were also Christians. It puts into contrast the strange divide we see now. Drochld 23:41, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I've been trying to figure out for a few days what I think of the suggested wording. I've decided that I don't like it (sorry). I think that the meaning of "early modern scientific era" is unclear. I'm now thinking that a better wording would be along the lines of "Most of the scientists from the scientific revolution to the 19th century...". Also, the claim about them starting the various scientific disciplines is essentially correct (the first scientists in the fields are pretty-well by definition the founders of those fields).
Researcher Rodney Stark, apparently an agnostic, researched this issue. The following is from a review of one of hist books:
To illustrate the role of Christians in the rise of science, Stark researched ‘scientific stars’ from 1543 to 1680, the era usually designated as the ‘scientific revolution’, and came up with a list of the top 52. Of these, 26 were Protestant and 26 Catholic; 15 of them were English, 9 French, 8 Italian, 7 German (the rest were Dutch, Danish, Flemish, Polish and Swedish respectively). Only one was a sceptic (Edmund Halley) and one (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 at least of which could be characterized as ‘devout’ because of their evident zeal. It is not until the time of Darwin that atheism appeared to accomplish anything significant in science (Halley’s work in astronomy and mathematics owed no debt to atheism).[3]
Philip J. Rayment 09:09, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I like "scientific revolution", and I don't think the naturalistic theory of evolution is a significant finding. It seems more like an way to justify atheism.

What's wrong with kicking back and marveling and the intricate patterns in the world God created for us? Why all the distrust and fear? --Ed Poor Talk 09:13, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Distrust and fear? More like a "willing ignorance", because they don't want there to be a God to whom they are answerable.
Regarding evolution, the quote continues with "And the obvious flaw in Darwinism is that it ‘falls notably short of explaining the origin of species’ (p. 177). So atheism is left nakedly ideological, with all its attempts to wrap itself in science thwarted." Also, there is a footnote which adds "By attributing the appearance of design to natural selection, Darwin replaced this argument for the existence of God with a naturalistic process. His argument was flawed, however, in that natural selection can only select from things that already exist so it does not explain the origin of the created kinds".
Philip J. Rayment 09:20, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
This appeal to authority is not impressive. And I'm all for marveling at the patterns of the world... but marveling is not science!-PhoenixWright 09:25, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
Why do you consider it unimpressive? Philip J. Rayment 09:31, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
A quote does not the truth make. Argument ought not be throwing sources at one another all day. Further it's from a biased source. Anyways, I have to go, but keep that in mind.-PhoenixWright 09:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
No, a quote does not make the truth, but research can, in principle, establish the truth, and that is what Stark did. So what's the problem? And how is the source biased? And what sources would be unbiased? Philip J. Rayment 09:47, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Okay, let's go into it further. The source is biased - CreationOnTheWeb - because it professes to be a scientific group with an agenda. The world's dominant mind on the philosophy of science, had this to say about agenda'd science -

The scientist must, for example, be concerned to solve problems about the behavior of nature.... More important, the solutions that satisfy him may not be merely personal but must instead be accepted as solutions by many.... One of the strongest, if still unwritten, rules of scientific life is the prohibition of appeals to heads of state or to the populace at large in matters scientific.
"Structure of Scientific Revolutions," p. 168. See, I have quotes too. That suggests that one ought to distrust a scientist with an agenda, who, by assuming an agenda, becomes no scientist at all. That makes me doubt anything arising within the "Journal of Creation."

Moving on, though, the analysis of the quotes has no context. The quoter takes "falls notably short of explaining the origin of species," out of context, so I have no way of verifying the quote short of buying the book, which I assume you haven't done.-PhoenixWright 09:59, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

The source is a book review of a book that is by someone who is apparently an agnostic, and certainly not someone who works for CMI (Creation Ministries International). You're shooting the messenger. Second, CMI (the organisation; you named the web-site) does not profess to be a scientific group. They profess to be a Christian ministry that employs scientists and does its best to make its articles, etc. scientifically accurate. Yes, they have an agenda, just as almost everyone does, including atheists like Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott. But that doesn't mean that their science is faulty, nor that they have ceased to be scientists. Rather, you are engaging in the genetic fallacy: finding fault with the source rather than the argument. As for your quote, it doesn't refute anything I've said, but it's an interesting coincidence that the very person that you've been accused of being a sockpuppet of quoted me that book a few days ago. But as you're repeating, I'll repeat: Questioning the source of a claim rather than the claim itself is fallacious. It is clear that most mainstream journals also have agendas (for evolution, etc.), so do you distrust them also? I didn't think so. The fallacy of taking a quote out of context is one of removing it from its context in such a way as to change the meaning. As you have not read the book, you have no basis for claiming that it is out of context. Philip J. Rayment 10:27, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
Thomas Kuhn is wildly popular among scientific and enlightened individuals, and he's widely taught in most colleges' humanities courses. I would call that no coincidence; I'm sure that, just like the person of whom I'm an alleged sockpuppet, I've gone to the bathroom in the last 24 hours :-).
Also, have you read the book :-) ?-PhoenixWright 10:36, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
It's not a coincidence? There is a connection? So you are him? And here I was prepared to put it down to (an interesting) coincidence!
No, I haven't read Kuhn's book. How many and what creationist books, magazines, and/or journals have you read?
Philip J. Rayment 10:55, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Oops! Sorry

Sorry for the misstatemet Philip. I meant to say "that is a coincidence." forgive me. I also meant to ask if you'd read Stark, not Kuhn, but I do commend Kuhn to your attention.-PhoenixWright 11:14, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Removal of quotes

TheGySom removed a couple of quotes with the edit comment Since articles are not collections of quotes, a start, and I agree that articles should be more than a collection of quotes. However, in doing so, he's removed the points that the quotes were making. This I don't agree with. Further, the replacement "basis of science" section is talking about its principles, not the basis for it. Philip J. Rayment 23:00, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Could you please clarify a little. I removed the first quote because it belongs in the Christians and Science article, not this one. The second quote seemed to state that the basis of science was an orderly universe, and that this was proof of a Creator. This doesn't really talk about the basis or need for science, although I will admit that I was incorrect in replacing it with the principles of science. How about renaming the section "Principles of Science", and we can try creating a "Basis of Science" section without relying on quotes? TheGySom 23:10, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
There is no Christians and Science article, but I'm happy for the first quote to be left out of this article, for now at least. The second quote did indeed state that the basis of science was an orderly universe. It did not say that this was proof of a Creator. You will note some discussion above about the multiplicity of science articles; I think that natural science should be merged back into this one. It has more on this issue of the basis of science. But the quote did talk about the basis of science: without the basis, derived from the Bible, of believing that the universe was orderly, science as we know it would not have come into existence.
Also, although I agree that an article should not comprise only or primarily quotes, it is quite useful and appropriate to include quotes, and this one is worth including, I believe. Philip J. Rayment 01:41, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Some claim that

It is a claim that The methodological naturalism is based on God making laws that govern the universe and logic, this is not universal within Christian doctrine or unique to Christianity. The scientific method was practiced before and there aren't any documents by those individuals who started using the scientific method that lay out explicitly that they are doing so because they assume that God made the universe in a particular way. If you can provide some of these documents for verification my conditional edits will still be accurate, but unneeded, if not then it is still an unverified claim to "Some claim that this is because..." is far more accurate and trustworthy than "this is because...". 1 timothy 6:20 tells us to be weary of false knowledge, so far that claim is just a rumor, and we should treat it as such, rather than invest in it, because if it is wrong then it will lead us astray. If you have read Ecclesiastes then you should know that it is good in the eyes of the lord to be wise, and I think its clear that it is unwise to make a claim based on faith in a rumor and then claim that it is based on fact and evidence, as we claim that conservapedia is. --Brendanw 11:21, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

You are wrong. It is not "rumor", but the result of much research by several different researchers. Did you read the references? Philip J. Rayment 02:37, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
I read the refferences (3 and 4, I don't have access to 5) and guess what, they don't contain any sources that lead them to their conclusion. It seems to start out of no where around 1850, as a rumor. as I said if you can find a reference that actually goes back to the time in question you win, but until that time you need a reference otherwise its just you saying that I am wrong. And even if you are correct my wording is still 100% correct if you are wrong and that is not the basis then your wording is 100% wrong and mine is still 100% correct. --Brendanw 17:39, 3 November 2008 (EST)
"...they don't contain any sources that lead them to their conclusion.": Given that one is quoting someone else, and the other is an overview expanded later on (and that expansion is not on-line), that's hardly surprising, but doesn't mean that it's merely "rumor". You are still dismissing expert scholarship with nothing substantial of your own. But if you want more, here is a review of reference 3 which goes into more detail, and includes this comment: "Among the passages most commonly cited by medieval scholars was: ‘Thou has ordered all things in measure and number and weight.":
Yes, your wording is 100% correct. And if you said that "Some claim that the world is flat" you would also be 100% correct, but that doesn't mean that we should put such statements in articles.
Philip J. Rayment 20:46, 3 November 2008 (EST)
I haven't forgotten about this or left it [4] , I'll be back later when I don't have so many essays to write --Brendanw 13:52, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Scope of scientific study

Science covers more than the physical and natural world. Psychology is also a science, and the human mind has not been shown to be a purely physical or natural phenomenon. Created by God, the human mind is more likely to be an aspect of our eternal soul than merely a function of the brain.

We must not let liberal contributors (probably spillovers from Wikipedia) dictate their liberal agenda here. --Ed Poor Talk 13:14, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

Aspects of science

I've been thinking this over a lot, and I'd like our article to say:

  1. Science is a set of descriptions of our world
  2. Science is a way of studying the world and thinking about it to create these descriptions
  3. Science is the people and institutions involved in all of this

Science books for children largely consist of the first aspect. Only a very tiny minority of academics gets involved in the second aspect, and the news media largely ignores it. We do hear about prominent leaders (in the third aspect), especially if they make a breakthrough or get an award or if they fall from grace. --Ed Poor Talk 15:19, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Ed, your distinctions are great, but my own view is that politics transcends all categories and all disciplines. Every profession is affected by political bias, so why not scientists also? George Orwell was right, I feel, when he said "all issues are political." It's only recently that the public has woken up to the political distortions in science.--Andy Schlafly 18:27, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Can this be looked at seriously?

This article needs to be reviewed and rewritten. The fact that in the first paragraph it minimizes women's contribution to science shows this was written by someone who took a few mandatory science classes in high school but never grasped it importance. Reading over the whole thing I cannot figure out if the author is saying science is trying to minimize Christianity or it is the child of Christianity. Science basis itself on hypotheses, experimentation and evaluation of results.

Do this: Create a User:NorthernSights/Science article proposal, re-write the article as you think it should be, and offer it as a proposed change. It's possible that some or all of what you write could be included in the current article. Karajou 16:11, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

Women's influence on science

I would like to propose a small change to the second sentence to reflect the growing role of women in the scientific community. Instead of "Second, there are the men (and a few rare women) of science who have amassed these descriptions and communicate them to everyone else.", how about: "Second, there are the men and women of science who have amassed these descriptions and communicate them to everyone else.

While I am not a politically correctness nut, I do believe everyone is equal, and I think the current sentence portrays most women as not being capable of furthering science. I wanted to hear everyone's opinion on this matter instead of just changing the article without asking. --Jaddriscoll

I agree with your point and suggestion. Please go ahead and edit as you think best.--Andy Schlafly 20:35, 13 July 2010 (EDT)
On the other hand, don't go overboard and insinuate the idea that women have been contributing as much to science as men. Even if we'd like to start offering them equal opportunity, the fact is that their contributions have been minuscule. The great exception is Madame Curie, who justly gets a unit of radiation named after her (the curie), plus one radioactive element (curium).
I don't see anything in that sentence or any other here, implying that women are less capable. The question is whether their significantly lower work output is due lack of opportunity (i.e., sex discrimination) or lack of motivation (wouldn't most women rather stay home and raise their kids?).
It's difficult to discuss these matters, because the last time a prominent academic tried to do so, he was set up for a fall (see Lawrence Summers). If you want to help write honestly about women's influence on science, I'm happy to help. But please don't waste my time by trying to inject feminist propaganda. --Ed Poor Talk 16:27, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
These links may be of interest. The only one I had heard of, aside from Curie, was Rosalind Franklin, who featured prominently in The Double Helix. Tisane 17:12, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
I'm all in favor of finding out more about the obscure, the overlooked, and the downtrodden. For example, in classical music, if there have been any women composers whose compositions I've been ignoring, I'd love to listen to their music. And in literature, I finally discovered Jane Austen (women have made further inroads in fiction writing than in music, it seems).
There's even a woman whose work is prominent in the global warming field. She's a Harvard astrophysicist. [5]
But it's because their contributions are so rare that one is interested; the last thing I'd want to do is pretend that their contributions have been commensurate. That would sweep under the rug any actual differences due to inclination or opportunity. Let's keep it real, baby. --Ed Poor Talk 17:48, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
if there have been any women composers whose compositions I've been ignoring, I'd love to listen to their music. As for the romantics, I'd recommend Clara Schumann, Fanny Mendelssohn (Hensel), and Amy Beach. JDWpianist 08:51, 15 July 2010 (EDT)
Hi team. It's true that women, for whatever reason, have historically made less contribution to physics than have men. Exactly how much less is difficult to pinpoint, as women were historically not allowed to present science except through men and so forth; I'm sure you're all familiar with this unfortunate bit of history. Anyways, if you're looking for prominent pre-feminism female scientists, check out Emily Noether, who is responsible for my favourite theorem in physics. Noether's theorem (as it is called) proves that all symmetries in physics have an associated conservation law. For example, time symmetry implies conservation of energy; in other words, the fact that a ball will fall exactly the same way whether dropped now or next Thursday implies that energy is conserved. I think this is a deep insight. Noether's theorem generalizes to quantum mechanics and has been a key tool in the advance of high energy theory. --JStone 12:19, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

Well, how about this revision: "Second, there are the men (and in more recent times, women) of science who have amassed these descriptions and communicate them to everyone else.". I think this portrays the increased influence women have had, without sounding all feminazish.--Jaddriscoll

Nice compromise. Thanks. --Ed Poor Talk 12:03, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

Article assumes huge bias that are irrelevant to content

They state that "Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, believed in God" despite the fact that

this has nothing to do with science as
science is a process, not people
Christianity is mundane enough to irrelevant regardless

It says "and many were creationists although the ideas of evolutionism or Darwinism were not yet popular", despite the fact that evolution wasn't formally theorized until the time they were popular. I'd also like to point out, since Conservatives apparently love quotemining and playing the game of picking names: DARWIN WAS A CHRISTIAN.. There have been many statements that Science and Christianity don't need to be conflicting (and yet you're portraying Science as an atheistic canker). These statements have been made both by Churches and Scientific Institution. Science isn't Atheistic- Scientists tend to be Atheistic (because for the purpose of science, which needs testable, disprovable, observable results, there is no God. That's faith, not science.)

Two consecutive sentences are completely flawed in any accuracy that is helpful to the reader. I think this article should be reevaluated. Valuables 21:12, 8 August 2011 (EDT)