The foolishness of 'framing' science

2/14/2008 | 2:27 PM | Evolved Rationalist

Mooney and Nisbet's whole framing spin is actually just another appeaser attack on atheists and has actually nothing to do with science. The fans of framing have only one goal in mind: Spin, spin, and keep spinning to appease the religious. Their rallying cry seems to be "Dawkins is badddddddddd for science." This really makes me wonder where the actual science is in their spin.

Before any framing fans throw a tantrum about my remark that there is actually no scientific validity (or truth) in their claims, let's see what Mooney and Nisbet said in their own words:

Leave aside for a moment the validity of Dawkins's arguments against religion.

Here, we are asked to ignore whether or not Dawkins' arguments are true or false! Mooney and Nisbet want people to accept their position without any question. They are actually following the tactic of evangelicals: Asking people to accept what they say on blind faith alone.

Mooney and Nisbet are not people on the side of science and rationality. They are simply spin doctors without a shred of concern about the truth of certain ideas. To put it bluntly, they don't give a fuck about the truth.

The public cannot be expected to differentiate between [Dawkins'] advocacy of evolution and his atheism.........many fear that teaching evolution in our schools could undermine the belief system they consider the foundation of morality. Dawkins not only reinforces and validates such fears -- baseless though they may be -- but lends them an exclamation point. ...he stands as a particularly stark example of scientists' failure to explain hot-button issues, such as global warming and evolution, to a wary public.

So, do Mooney and Nisbet have suggestions about how Dawkins should do things differently? They fail to offer anything feasible. At this point, all they seem to be doing is trying to clutch wildly at straw-man arguments.

Dawkins has attracted far more attention and publicity than any other proponent of science. How exactly is this supposed to be read as a failure? They also claim that Dawkins has done a poor job at explaining "hot-button issues." Oh, really? The failure of the public to understand these issues is due to religious dogmas that are preventing scientific knowledge from making headway. By denying this and choosing to trumpet the appeaser stand, Mooney and Nisbet lose respectability for not having the guts to face the root of the problem. Notice that this is exactly the opposite of the Dawkins tactic, the strategy they are so vehemently fighting against!

And the Dawkins-inspired "science vs. religion" way of viewing things alienates those with strong religious convictions. Can't science and religion just get along?

It is a fact that scientific knowledge is a threat to ignorant religious beliefs. What Nisbet and Mooney are advocating is that we should hide this very fact. Should we actually lie (like the framing advocates suggest) about the fact that science is a threat to religion? Religious people would see right through this, and we will lose all credibility (and the hope of ever convincing anyone) in the process. If people have wrong beliefs, they have to and need to learn this, even the hard way, if those false beliefs are a danger in any way. If we lie, as the framers suggest, people will know that we are just as dishonest as the religious frauds. No thank you, framers. I choose not to be a common liar.

Notice the blatant anti-science attitude of Mooney and Nisbet in how they put the truth second when it comes to presenting science, just to appease the religious believers. These spineless appeasers want to supposedly present science by ignoring the truth, contrary to the very foundation of science itself.

Mooney and Nisbet claim to have the right belief, and the only right belief about presenting science. Why don't they provide evidence, statistics, or anything to back them up? All I can see is spin, spin and more spin.

Should we lie and speak words we know are false just to bend over backwards to accommodate religion? This, the very that Mooney and Nisbet is asking of us, is blatantly dishonest. I believe that we should come out and state our beliefs openly, because the truth will (hopefully) prevail some day. This truth can only be brought to light if atheists are not forced to don the proverbial kid gloves whenever it comes to religion

Enough is enough.

Posted in Science |

If you enjoyed this post Subscribe to our feed