I come back to this thread, now, while you’re in the process of writing a series where you make an effort to seriously consider some opposing views. It’s interesting to see this change of heart. Where my earlier point was that the majority refused to treat the complaints and views of the minority with anything but mockery, now you are making a true and honest effort to consider some of these opinions.

It’s safe to side with the majority. It’s easy. It’s protected.

Where once it was difficult to convince a highly religious society of Darwin’s theories. Entire social systems and our culture needed to change. What I’m saying is now the pendulum has swung in the other direction.

Your comparison to people shouting you down for saying the Earth is round is a false equivalence. When you make the claim, you stand on firm ground, surrounded by a vast majority of like-minded. You can walk away form that individual or small group knowing that you are a keeper of The Truth and that your opinion on the subject is supported by your employer and the public at large. But if you are a “flat earther”, trying to be heard, trying to reason – you will be dismissed out of hand as a crazy person, your job could be endangered. To hold a minority opinion on subjects like evolution, climate change, etc. comes with consequences. Holding the majority opinion comes with rewards. It’s a mechanism that resembles how “white privilege” works – you don’t see the benefit until you lose it. After all, what is “white privilege” but “majority privilege” – it applies to most any situation where there is a majority and a large minority.

“I live in a country where my President declares climate change to be pseudoscience.”
Now you know how climate skeptics feel. They’ve been made to feel that way for decades, but not just by one loony president – by everyone: teachers, all their friends, all their family, the news, tv shows – when you are in a minority of any kind, you face a continuous drone of cultural marginalization.

An honest scientific study of the universe using THE TOOLS OF SCIENCE, would then, in some way, reveal more about the creator. Likewise, an honest pursuit of the creator, using THE TOOLS OF THEOLOGY, would then, in some way, enhance your ability to understand the physical universe (when you’re using the tools of science.)

To say that they are mutually exclusive denies the nature of each. Confusion always results when scientists attempt to make authoritative proclamations about the nature of a creator, and theologians, using their tools attempt to declare the nature of the physical universe. When the two viewpoints are exercised in cooperation, the result is a deeper, richer understanding of both.

Climate change has elements of theory (there are many proven aspects) and some elements about it that predict economic impact and other future catastrophes when there are honestly too many variables and the earth (along with humans and other species) are simply too adaptable to make those predictions “theory”.

So perhaps our national and global politics would benefit by making a clear distinction between those things that are actual scientific theory versus those things that are predictions and hypotheses (and all too often ridiculed by politicians as “theory”). Then a healthy political debate can ensue. Until then, I think there will continue to be alot of name-calling and incrimination against the scientific community.

Just a thought.

Parents can also teach their children whatever they wish. Zeus is the god of heaven, the Earth is flat. Global Warming is a liberal conspiracy. They can and do. What isn’t legal (at least in the US) is the teaching of religious doctrine such as creationism in publicly funded schools. Despite this fact, it still happens. I myself was taught young-earth creationism in a public school, with the full approval of the community, despite it being illegal.

I live in a country where my President declares climate change to be pseudoscience. Your claim that scientists are a gilded elite is simply delusional.

You are saying that my statement “it’s not those who themselves directly witness evidence and discern from that evidence an idea who are at issue” is not even a little bit true because “Anyone can make the same observations and perform the same experiments”

Your claim lacks logic. The fact that it is (in theory) possible for “anyone” to come to any and all scientific conclusions, does not contradict the fact that they don’t.

If I tell you I have seen a flower that you have never seen or heard of before and I tell you that the flower I saw was blue — is it a fact that this flower is blue? All you have to go by is the fact that I claimed it exists and I claimed it is blue. If other people go see it and come back agreeing with me, is it now established as a fact? Yet still, you have only heard the witness of several, but have not seen it for yourself. If many more go visit the flower, only now several splinter groups have formed. Some say it is not blue at all, but grey or green. Some say it is not a unique flower, but something that already exists and is well known, but has been subjected to a disease or damage. The majority claim it is blue, but there are diverse small minorities claiming these other things. Which is the fact?

Obviously, you are faced with a choice. You can choose to believe those who say it is blue, or those who say it is grey, or those who say it’s another flower. You can choose to avoid the subject entirely and simply say you don’t care either way. You may even choose an empty slate – as far as you’re concerned the thing doesn’t even exist because you yourself has never laid eyes on it and don’t care for the bother of it.

Scientists *are* a gilded elite. By their own making, they set up themselves, collectively, as “those who must be obeyed”. If a majority of scientists claim evolution exists, then you must accept it or face ridicule. You may not educate your child in any other way, so says the State that has subscribed to that belief. A subgroup majority of scientists have agreed that climate change is real and caused by humans. There is a large vocal minority of scientists who disagree on various levels. There is professional and cultural punishment inflicted upon any of these who speak their opinion or publish contradictory evidence for peer review, thus making the minority artificially appear smaller than it truly is.

Scientists have taken the role the was once held by priests in the ancient religions. They hold all the answers, they cannot be questioned, and there are relatively harsh consequences for heretics and skeptics rather than open minded dialog. In our age you may worship any god you wish, but don’t you dare question scientific dogma, you must believe all you are taught – or else.

Surely it is clearly evident to all, including yourself, that this is the current state of things.

Keep in mind, 99.9% of people who are being told about any science theory is getting that information condensed, abbreviated, reworded, dramaticized, and from people who misunderstood it when they heard it relayed to them (from people who ALSO had a canned version, and so on). Most people’s knowledge of evolution extends no further than the word itself and the idea of animals morphing into other animals. They’ll throw in the phrase “over millions of years” automatically without actual thought involved. This is why no one balks when evolution is anthropomorphized – not just in fiction but in the classroom.

Theories are not in themselves in a half state of truth. But to any average person, their understanding of any given theory is more than half untrue and their acceptance of it is not based in knowledge at all but blind faith.