Amanda Gefter wrote a nice article in New Scientist pointing out the sneaky tricks that creationists use to discredit science. You can read the article here.
As a book reviews editor at New Scientist, I often come across so-called science books which after a few pages reveal themselves to be harbouring ulterior motives. I have learned to recognise clues that the author is pushing a religious agenda. As creationists in the US continue to lose court battles over attempts to have intelligent design taught as science in federally funded schools, their strategy has been forced to... well, evolve. That means ensuring that references to pseudoscientific concepts like ID are more heavily veiled. So I thought I'd share a few tips for spotting what may be religion in science's clothing.Unfortunately, you can't read this article on the New Scientist website because it has been removed. If you click on How to spot a hidden religious agenda you'll find the following message ....
Red flag number one: the term "scientific materialism". "Materialism" is most often used in contrast to something else - something non-material, or supernatural. Proponents of ID frequently lament the scientific claim that humans are the product of purely material forces. At the same time, they never define how non-material forces might work. I have yet to find a definition that characterises non-materialism by what it is, rather than by what it is not.
New Scientist has received a complaint about the contents of this story. It has temporarily been removed while we investigate. Apologies for any inconvenience.I can't imagine a complaint that would cause a respectable magazine to withdraw that article. It sounds like New Scientist isn't standing behind its writers.
[Hat Tip: PZ Myers]
No comments:
Post a Comment