Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
On two occasions the United States Environmental Protection Agency has caught scientists deliberately falsifying test results at research laboratories hired by Monsanto to study glyphosate.
I suppose that if people working for a commercial lab are tempted to falsify results for financial gain, that is more or less equivalent to people who make their money by deliberately lying about how their religion trumps evolution.
So lets see what these two kinds of bad practice have in common.
They are both motivated by money.
Their sponsors want them to get predetermined 'data".
The only way they can come up with data favourable to a harmful product / indefensible concept is to lie and falsify.
The difference?
Bad practice in science gets fines, jail time, disgrace etc.
In religion tho................?
So yeah go ahead and "QV" all you like Be sure to explain how there is a higher standard for liars for religion than for liars for research.
The irony is, altering test results isn't scientific in the least, the fact that they did won't discredit science, all it'll do is discredit them as scientists.
Genuine scientists don't need to fabricate test results, if the test results weren't what they expected, then that's as much as a good thing as if the test results were as predicted, because it allows them to alter their hypothesis and begin again, taking into account the new data.
So, no, she means "people working for a commercial lab", not scientists.
On the other hand, this whole thing just goes to show how difficult it is to fabricate results in any scientific field. If their findings are published in a scientific journal, then are consequently peer reviewed, many others will attempt the same experiments, and come up with a completely different set of results, thus exposing them.
I'd venture to say I'll be QVing this thread in the future when I see posts about 'liars for Jesus'.
Would anyone like to comment on this, though?
Sure, I'll comment. These scientists were discovered by other scientists (at EPA) and were punished and reprimanded for their crime.
Now lets look at what happens to a "Creation Evangelist" who lies. He starts his own Website, is praised and quoted by his fellow creationists, starts his own "MegaChurch," and becomes wealthy reinforcing the misconceptions about science in the minds of his flock.
Note any differences there?
__________________ “The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense." -Bishop John Shelby Spong
"It is not the obligation of the State to reconcile various faiths with reality. Do it yourself." -Atomweaver
"We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster."
- Carl Sagan (Demon Haunted World)
Wouldst AV care to identify, renounce and disparage any of the "liars for Jesus" that he mentioned?
Seems to me that failure to do so puts one on a moral equivalent basis with the owner of a lab that not only failed to report, but encouraged fraud on the part of researchers.
And of course, tacitly agrees that only thro' fraud can one get "data" to support the theocreo creed.
Ya --- they're usually referred to as "scum of the earth", or "I hope they lock him up and throw away the key" --- but when scientists do it, they're just "people working for a commercial job"; working outside of the No True Scotsman argument --- as Al pointed out.
Ya --- they're usually referred to as "scum of the earth",
If they are using religion for financial gain, then yes. If they are serious about believing some of the stuff they do, I feel sorry for them.
or "I hope they lock him up and throw away the key" ---
Only if they break the law. If they haven't broken the law I see no reason to lock them up. If they break the law they should suffer the consequences of their actions, just as dishonest scientists do when they break the law.
but when scientists do it, they're just "people working for a commercial job"; working outside of the No True Scotsman argument --- as Al pointed out.
Commercial or not, dishonest scientists are quickly discovered and severely reprimanded (a tainted reputation) or lawfully punished (depending on what crimes they committed). Dishonest creationists are rarely exposed by (except for the AiG/Kent Hovind thing). If anyone breaks the law they should suffer the consequences. Your example only shows that dishonest scientists are exposed by other scientists.
__________________ Slug's 1st Law of YECism- Genesis 1-9 must be interpreted literally. Slug's 2nd Law of YECism- Any other verses can be interpreted liberally to support the 1st Law. Slug's 3rd Law of YECism- Make up any extra-Biblical claim, no matter how wild, to wave-away evidence in violation of the 1st Law.
"If God sent a wind from space, and blew waters off the surface, for example, the waters would go down. Just as if you take a cup full of water over a sink, and blow hard on it, a lot will go out of the cup. Elementary." -dad ^This statement nullifies his own argument by comparing a "present state" event to a "past state" event!
Linear Mode
