IN DEFENSE OF SCIENCE (with some qualifications):

In questioning the limits of and the truth of much of what is misrepresented as hard science, we are not in any way trying to paint science or scientists in general with any broad negative brush.   We believe that pure science is a very good thing.  We believe that pure science should be supported and funded even more than it is now.

Our concerns and comments are aimed only at those scientists who misuse science in ways dangerous to society or who make broad unsubstantiated claims using unproven extrapolations of some actual science, taken out of context of the true limits of science, to make atheistic claims or other claims or profits which negatively affect the morals, direction or safety of society.  Our concerns are certainly also not about the engineering use sciences except for those applications which may harm society.

There is, in any case, great Mystery, Awe, and Wonder in Science.

The large majority of scientists are honest and their work is not antisocial in any way. we are not trying to denigrate the value of their work in true/hard science.  One only has to read a technical article in the evolution sciences for example, (the most questionable in terms of theories) to appreciate that there is also a lot of very high quality science there.  Yes, we believe that to defend good science, it is necessary to point out those areas where science is being misused so that that can be reduced if not eliminated and more good (pure) science done. 

Certainly science theories taken to the extreme can have negative impacts on society.  There have been very bad effects from extreme Darwinism when the reality of evolution is in truth based much more on the Cooperative Gene rather than pure survival of the fittest.  We are not here questioning the Darwinian mechanism as a fine tuning process, but only the unwarranted claims that Darwinian mechanisms explain all of life.

In promoting good science, we do not advocate the elimination of teaching the Darwinian mechanism as playing a significant role in the evolution of life, nor do we advocate any religious group (that includes atheists) determining what can and cannot be taught as science theory.  We believe that science teaching should be limited to hard science (directly verifiable in the laboratory) or at least should include both sides of controversial theories and interpretations of hard fact.

We do advocate more honesty in teaching about the beliefs and consequent biases of particular authors and scientists and the realities of the limits of hard science.  We believe that the teaching of science should include a basic grounding in the philosophy of science.  The science that should be defended is science which is not dogmatic and which sticks to the facts when it claims to know a truth and which is open about uncertainties which the truth is in fact uncertain.

We advocate teaching that science can only disprove theories absolutely but never can prove a theory with certainty.   We strongly disagree with those who argue that if science is not taught as absolute fact the students will be confused.  They say that otherwise "what is the student supposed to think".  The reality is that the student is supposed to "think about and evaluate" the knowledge of actual reality and not be limited to the biases of the instructor or some author on just one side of a controversial issue.  The students should understand to some degree the limits of science as practiced and presented by other fallible humans.   Students should be taught to think and not merely to parrot back, in partial ignorance, the bias of the teacher.

We advocate teaching all the facts about scientific findings and theories including those facts which tend to refute a theory as well as those facts which tend to support a theory.  Science is supposed to be the process of understanding reality better, based on an open analysis of all the facts and potential theories. when, for example, Darwinian macro evolution (this is something far different from the proven micro evolution) is taught as an undisputed fact, without examining the flaws in the theory as it relates to truly inventive evolution changes, that is not reflective of the true spirit of honest science.  Darwinian macro evolution is disputed by many reputable scientists.  To teach it as undisputed fact is contrary to the true spirit of science which is about the open contest of ideas.

Science properly understood and controlled (the long term impact on society properly considered) in its applications (and not made into a false atheistic philosophy or any other philosophy) is generally of great value to society. Science and technology have the potential to make the world a far better place to live in and to make it easier for humanity to become more peaceful and democratic.

Democracy requires, however, an informed electorate which is able to see when we are heading down dangerous roads directed by and dominated by personal or business profit motives. sadly the tendency towards this greed is inherent in our tenured college research system and capitalistic funded research with profit as the goal.

As society becomes more and more dependent on science and technology and as those disciplines gain even more and more power to change the world, it is incumbent on the electorate to as least understand the boundaries and potential threats and biases of science. real science needs the support of an informed society. science needs to be questioned on all sides/aspects of a theory which has moral implications and also in those areas of potentially dangerous research where it may affect the future viability of mankind directly. these needs for questioning especially apply whenever a scientist make statements which are more philosophy than science and secondly but more importantly in those areas involving man's interference or changing of the ecosystem (global warming, genetically modified foods, etc.).

Our support for good science is tempered by the reality of virtually incestuous methods of funding science in the academic community.  Only that science which would support the work of the person controlling the purse strings gets funded in academia.

Our support for good science is also tempered by science funding being controlled by organizations in turn controlled mostly by individuals or businesses governed by monetary interests.  Sadly even in academia, most science administrators also have direct monetary interested in the areas where they control funding, and sadly, most organizations or businesses care little if any about the good of society but instead are short term profit motivated. When money is the driving force, there is too often little if any thought given to the long term impact of what is being done, even if that impact could be adequately predicted. What is needed are oversight boards which do not have monetary interests in the area of concern.

Our support for good science is also tempered by the potential for damage to our society and especially our children by a relatively small number of science researchers and teachers with hidden biases, agendas, and profit motives. In essence, the need is to defend hard fact responsible science from those who would misuse science while continuing to honor the positive contributions of the majority of scientists.   Support for good science should, we believe, be based on the imperative of questioning science (science should be open to all honest questions if it is to be defended.)

Science, mathematics, and beauty

On Being a Scientist

Case Series on Scientific Integrity