First, there are just as many corrupt people in religion as there are in science. There are good and bad people in every possible group.  It's just how it is.

Second, there are people that claim to be religious so they can be viewed as credible to others that are religious.  They don't really care about how God may judge them.

Third, there have been hoaxes from both the religious and scientific fields.  Lying is in human nature, so you will get it from every end, you just have to learn how to find what is the truth. 

Fourth, just as using a few examples of human dishonesty in the religious field to discredit all religion/faith/spirituality is ridiculous, so is using a few examples of human dishonesty in the field of science to discredit all science.

Fifth, not everyone that is involved in science is an atheist.  That's a ridiculous, and incorrect, over-statement.

Moral of this article?  Don't believe anything at face value, whether it's from a religious perspective, or a scientific one.

Of course, since human's are lazy, there will always be people that fall for lies from both sides.

I find it amusing that you criticize science when it gets things wrong, and in the same sentence manage critcize it for changing to correct those wrongs. Christian aren't ridiculed for faith in an unchanging God. If they are ridiculed for having faith in an unchanging book.

The beauty of science is that it is self-correcting. Of the hoaxes you list, the first one actually benefited opponents of evolution, the second was debunked by scientists from its beginning. Has "bigfoot" ever been taken seriously by science? Archaeoraptor was never accepted by the science community, and was completely debunked less than a year after it was introduced. 

You then go on to post what amounts to the results of some sociology surveys. Ironically, an attempt to discredit science (including the hardest, most rigorous scientific fields) with science (from one of the "softest" least "scientific" fields). I'll give you credit for including the following, even though you gloss over it.

Of course, you'd and Fanelli would much rather go with a "guilt until innocent" theory

The usual apples/oranges silliness, trying to use science to debunk science to boot.  Of course, scientists have faked data - been true as long as 'science' has been around.

I'm willing to admit it.  Are you willing to admit that there may be 'faked data' (as you define it) in the Bible?

...

...

...

...

Didn't think so.

I agree. 

I agree on this as well. 

You're three for three.  I agree with this.  We need to search out what is true and what is not.  I have spoken alot about those phonies in the churches, but this article was strictly about science since that was what the article in the times was about. 

True.    I'm not trying nor would I ever attempt to try and discredit science. 

Did I say that?  Almost anyone here who knows me knows that I have a son who is a Scientist.  His undergrad degree is in Molecular Biology and he's almost done with his graduate work mostly in the Neuro Science field.  He's working on a cure for epilepsy and has a few written articles in the Scientific Journals. 

Anyhow this son is very Christian and is even not close to being atheistic.....although so far all of his colleagues he's worked with are atheists.  There are Christians in the science field but the majority of them are unbelievers from what I see, especially today.  I don't believe it was always like that.  We have some pretty famous Scientists in history who believed in the Supreme Creator.

Agree

Agree.  Wow Silver and Jade, we are mostly in agreement on this one. 

they are ridiculed for both.  And they both go together.  An unchanging God is going to have an unchanging word.  Truth never changes and since God is truth he nor his word would change, would it? 

No, not in the bible anymore than I am willing to admit there is faked data in true Science.  The bible has proven itself over and over to the most sincere critics out there. 

Gravity is truth........thermodynamics is truth.....the earth revolving around the earth is truth....the bible is truth. 

while their atheistic counterparts put their faith in Science that is either continually changing or deliberately falsified.

That is where, in my opinion, you implied that if one were to believe in science, they were an atheist.  Perhaps I misunderstood. 

Just for grins, gimme the academic differentiation between Science & true Science (when the Spirit moves you, of course ).  Would true Science be to a believer as Science is to a Jesus Freak?  Something along those lines?

Yes, that's what I said meaning that the Scientists with no faith put their faith in science not God.  I'm not talking about those who are Christians which I could name many well known Scientists over the years. 

Dawia,

I just put up this today.....check out what Einstein had to say about atheistic science and religion:    http://kfc.joeuser.com/article/355230/Secular_Totalitarianism 

there's true science and there's junk science.  There's true religion and there's false religion.  A Jesus Freak like me has no problem with true science.  I don't think the two are mutually exclusive as Einstein goes on to say. 

So a picture of 'true' science is beginning to emerge: that would be science practiced or conducted by believers in the Christian God, as opposed to any form of (by implication, 'false') science practiced or conducted by atheists (or perhaps believers in other gods?).  If that's not your position, let us know, 'cause I'm interested in understanding the difference between 'science' and 'true science.'

KFC,

I just read your article, but not the comments yet....I'm aghast...just when you think it can't get worse, we learn this...  

the link reported one in 7 scientists have "seriously breached acceptable conduct by inventing results .....presenting data selectively and or changing the conclusions of a study..Misconduct was far more frequently admitted by medical or pharmacological researchers than others, supporting fears that the field of medical research is being biased by commercial interests."

This is outrageous. Lives are virtually at stake.

So unethical!  Who can we trust anymore? According to the link, it seems to be mainly about money.

One is Divine Faith and the other is human faith.

You mentioned some of the hoaxes that have been developed from human faith in pseudo science.  Evolutionary icons that show drawing of "ape to mankind" and Haeckel's embryos are two more. Unwwary school kids see these in their science textbooks and believe they "evolved" from animals!

S&JT

I dont know if there are just as many, but yes, there are corrupt religious people and "Woe to them" come Judgment day ...those who are given more authority over people will be judged more harshly so the Holy Bible says.

I understand your point of comparison, but KFC is not discrediting science. Your point of comparison also doesn't lessen or justify these unethical and dishonest doings by scientists in the medical and pharmalogical fields. For example, how would you like to be one of the those who gets a shot, vaccine or prescription that seriously harms your health?

What if the chemicals, in say, hair coloring products really cause bad side effects and the scientists know this but are shutting up becasue they'll lose their job?  

Daiwa posts:

Evidently.   But with this it's getting exposed. Light is being shed on the wrong-doing and this is a good thing.

There is no difference between science and true science...they are the same.

There is science and there is pseudo science; sometimes called junk science....in the long run, science will expose pseudo science.

The Science of genetics has debunked pseudo scientific macro-evolution theory.

Haechel's Embryos is an example of pseudo scientific fraud.

Ya, that's the ticket!   

 I didn't attempt to lessen or justify it, I just simply pointed out that religion and science both have corruption because people are corrupt.

No it hasn't, at least amougst scientists.  The other main examples of fraud all have been.

I thought that gods laws changed between the old and new books? 

Gravity is a theory, in just the same as evolution.