I have a question....are there scientific heretics? I don't mean scientists that have aberrant views of some theological doctrine. Instead, I mean that in the scientific community, there are those who are branded heretics because of their understanding of scientific canon?
Read this and see if you get what I mean:
Here is the link for the document: The Dangers of Creationism.
Here is the blog post which led me to the document: Todd's Blog, The truth about Creationism.
Read this and see if you get what I mean:
10. Creationism claims to be based on scientific rigour. In reality the methods employed by creationists are of three types: purely dogmatic assertions; distorted use of scientific quotations, sometimes illustrated with magnificent photographs; and backing from more or less well-known scientists, most of whom are not specialists in these matters. By these means creationists seek to appeal to non-specialists and spread doubt and confusion in their minds. [emphasis my own]This is from a resolution from the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, published in 2007. I do not know what status this document (or even the council) has, but I found the quote to be quite telling: they are accusing the religious of doing things that the religious accused heretics of doing--seeking to mislead believers. The rest of the 20 statements (theses?) are interesting as well, especially when you consider that the document is entitled The Dangers of Creationism. Sounds like a bad B-movie....
Here is the link for the document: The Dangers of Creationism.
Here is the blog post which led me to the document: Todd's Blog, The truth about Creationism.
5 comments:
Science definitely has its own orthodoxy, and therefore I suppose there must be scientific heretics.
Have you seen Ben Stein's documentary Expelled?
I have not seen that documentary...but I plan on getting it out of the Redeemer library, perhaps over Christmas break.
Have you seen it?
It is fairly good, although some of its points are very flawed. Anyway, one of the points it makes is that there is a scientific establishment that marginalizes the views of all those standing on the outside. This exclusion is not merely based on truth and scientific rigour, but is a sort of defense of scientific orthodoxy.
From what I've heard about it, that seems to be the main point. I can see that there would be some finer points which may or may not work...
I'll watch it some time.
you guys need to get out more.
Post a Comment