How accurate is the perception that Richard Dawkings is creating an atmosphere of fear, debilitating science?

Question

It is true that science must be open to questions and inquiry in order to survive. At the same time, I can't help but feel that a hypothoses that relize on an intelligent design theory is basing itself on a huge assumption, and one of the principles of sience is to minimize assumptions. I read this one article detailing how all the accounts of the expelled in the movie "expelled" were falsified and taken way out of context. While there is no doubt in my mind that the people who made that movie are a shiftless lot, one can't go about believing everything they read on the internet either.

The idea that a culture of fear pervades the sciences is a valid concern. Many scientists who were christians (or religious) have made great contributions and the idea that they can't work freely out of fear of persecution is terrifying. I do believe that everything by chance is the appropriate outlook for scientific research, as it minimizes assumptions, but since science answers how and religion

Answer 1

Richard Dawkins is doing no such thing.  There is no atmosphere of fear that is damaging to science.  

Intelligent design is no scientific theory at all.  It is just Biblical genesis with new clothing.  Intelligent design is used when the proponents find something that is not completely answered by the current scientific literature.  Every time new science advances, intelligent design must retreat.

I don't think that religious scientists have anything to fear as long as their religion does not become mixed in their science.  

Of course, most religious believers dismiss all of the gods that societies hold sacred.   I assume that Christians think that believers in Zeus, Odin, Thor, Isis, Bastet, Ares, et.al., are mistaken.   Most scientists believe the same thing, except they don't make exceptions for the gods of their particular societies.

Answer 2

It's not accurate at all. And his name is "Dawkins." You have many other misspellings.

Answer 3

I am Subcommander Grapefruit.

Answer 4

Science is based upon the fact that all its tenets must be open to scrutiny by its peers. If this is not so then we are reduced to believing things through faith.

Science must also be able to make predictions from its theories which are then proveable through experimentation.

Religion fails in these two areas, they must rely on faith and their predictions cannot be experimentally proved.

The first question I must ask myself is why are there so many religions, if one of them is true it should be demonstrably true otherwise how can anyone know which is correct. Most people grow up in the religion of their parents and find it hard to throw off the beliefs ingrained into them from birth.

I think it shows a massive amount of arrogance to think that one is right and a much larger portion of the world is wrong when you have no evidence to back up your beliefs.

Anyway in the west most scientists are either agnostic or atheist.

Answer 5

It is accurate, but perhaps a little exaggerated.  Any person should be free to observe that life and other aspects of our universe look more like something that was designed than something that happened by accident.  That simple observation is not worthy of ridicule or persecution.  If this were a purely objective evaluation, then to say life happened by accident is more worthy of ridicule.

Science should continue doing what it does best.  It should propose hypotheses to explain phenomena without restriction.  Ideas should move beyond hypothesis only when well supported by evidence objectively evaluated.  But science is done by humans, who sometimes take ideas farther than they deserve to go, just because they don't like an alternative such as the involvement of God.

Look at the early history of science.  It was done by men of God (Christians) who wanted to understand how creation worked in order to better glorify God.  Their work was supported mostly by their own personal resources or by the church.

You say, "I do believe that everything by chance is the appropriate outlook for scientific research, as it minimizes assumptions."  That's not true, and it is itself an assumption.  Science should readily admit when it doesn't know why or how something happens.  That makes clear where future discovery is needed.