Uncommon Descent has featured blog entries recently which highlight a disturbing trend, namely, the use of science to advance socio-political ends. That was essentially the complaint used against advocates of Intelligent Design. A mostly successful attempt was made to link ID to a socio-political movement based on a document of the Discovery Institute popularly known by the term wedge. Yet the Discovery Institute is a very minor player in the overall scheme of things with very little discernable impact on larger socio-political events. It does not even merit campaign talking points by either major U.S. political party during a busy election period. If the DI is intent on making its mark on the world it would do well to study from some masters at advancing socio-political agendas.
The UD post Steve Fuller on Michael Reiss and academic freedom links to the article Science shouldn’t shut down discussion which contains this quote:
In particular, there is nothing intrinsically un- or anti-scientific about creationist ideas. On the contrary, creationist assumptions, especially when God is understood as an intelligent designer, have deeply informed the history of the science that both theists and atheists continue to promote today.
A belief in God is neither scientific nor unscientific. When that belief is attacked, based on the presumption that it harms science, you witness both an untruth and an exploitation of science.
Science and society: Here a tic, there a tic, everywhere a heretic .. notes a trend which make policy positions impacting environmental concerns subject to socio-political orthodoxies. Interpretations of energy and technology useage must be "green." Yellow is OK too as long as the fearful are those afraid to buck environmental orthodoxy. Bring scientific data to environmental discussions but bring all data and all interpretations relevant to good decision making.
How angry is the Brit god of science? – pretty angry, it seems … contains this quote from Harry Kroto:
I do not have a particularly big problem with scientists who may have some personal mystical beliefs – for all I know the President of the Royal Society may be religious. However, I, and many of my Royal Society colleagues, do have a problem with an ordained minister as Director of Science Education – this is a totally different matter. An ordained minister must have accepted that there was a creator (presumably more intelligent than he is?) thus many of us (maybe 90% of FRSs) cannot see how such a person can pontificate on how to tackle this fundamentally unresolvable conflict at the science/religion interface. Reiss cannot have his religious cake in church and eat the scientific one in the classroom. This is where the intellectual integrity issue arises – and it is the crucial issue in the Reiss affair.
So Kroto has no problem with scientists having "mystical beliefs" but does have a problem with those believing in a creator. Why? Because of a "fundamentally unresolvable conflict at the science/religion interface." So should we not expect Kroto to introduce irrefutable scientific evidence that there is no creator? Maybe, at least, we could hope for data pinpointing the interface. But don't expect too much from Kroto in the way of scientific evidence on this issue. Kroto is expounding his religious feelings and using science as a cover.