Tree of life not real (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, February 22, 2014, 01:10 (3905 days ago) @ dhw

Dhw: You have referred to Darwinism in this context. The agnostic Darwin was scrupulously fair in his assessment of the evidence, and agonized over some of his conclusions, but just like Dawkins and yourselves, he was convinced that his theory was right. -I am aware that Darwin was very troubled about his agnostic decision. He went ot church with Emma until he died, because she never lost her faith. Of course he was a very honorable man, as is Dawkins, who may be somewhat intellectually dishonest in his presentation of science, but I'm sure he never has done the things Tony is describing.-> 
> dhw: But the assumption that ethics are the province of the godly is a step too far for me, and it blinds us to the fact that all parties are equally guilty of ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their theories. That, I'm afraid, is common to beliefs in every walk of life.-I apologized for dashing off a reply to Tony that did not reflect my complete thoughts. Lets try again: Tony was describing unscrupulous scientists who were undercuttng rivals. This action has to be understood within the context of knowledge of scientific grants and what that means. Today to survive as an academic research scientist you must obtain grants for supplies, assistents, your salary, etc. To get grants, mainly from the government, you have to produce innovative ideas for research, produce interesting results, and lots of papers about those results. The mosst successful scientists develop a degree of fame. If you don't get a series of grants your career dies. -I have presented here much evidence of fraud in the science literature, problems with peer review, which is just some evidence of the tension involved.-With that background, let me add that over 90% of the American Acadamy of Science members are atheists by self-admission. In the soft sciences like medicine the rate is 60%. -Given the subset of characterists Tony was describing, the odds are overwhelming that 99% of this group are atheists.-
On the other hand, I'm absolutely sure that 95% or more of atheists and agnostics are honorable folks. You are right to remonstrate me for a poorly thought out off-hand comment, but it reflects the anger I have, as Tony has also, about the people he was describing. I have written this without reviewing his comments.