**Due By Saturday April 23, 2022 no later then 5pm Pacific USA time
**No plagiarizing
Over the past several years, some important fields of scientific study (e.g., climate change, evolution) have become entangled with ideological agendas. Unfortunately, when scientific findings have political or religious implications, stakeholders tend to react emotionally, displaying either unquestioning acceptance or extreme skepticism, depending on their own ideological perspective. This creates a wedge between elements of the scientific community and certain societal groups. On the one hand, scientists are accused of allowing their political viewpoints to affect the way they analyze, interpret, and report their findings. And consistent reports of data tampering and academic dishonesty only add fuel to this fire. On the other hand, skeptical members of the public are dismissed as being irrational, unintelligent, or foolish. In such a culture of suspicion and defensiveness, it is difficult to make progress.
For this week’s discussion board, think about the societal groups to which you belong (e.g., political, religious, ethnic).
- How would you describe your group’s relationship with the scientific community?
- Is there any “bad blood” between your group and some part of the scientific community?
- Explain. What areas of division or distrust can you identify? What is the impact of these divisions?
This post should be no less than 250 words.
****Next, respond to the posts of TWO other students BELOW in no less than 50 words each**
—>>>>Respond to Kristin 50 words minimum
The relationship that my group has with the scientific community can be a mixture of emotions. Christians tend to be seen from scientists as having untrustworthy ideas of the beliefs from the Bible and not being statistically proven. Both aspects of religion and science have a compelling number of differences because of personal belief that can come between the two.
I would have to say that there is plenty of “bad blood” between Christians and some part of the scientific community. When it comes to the “bad blood” between the two groups, I find it more to be on personal influences that contribute to the division and not so much as proof from one aspect or the other. There is great deal of debate of who is right when it comes to the beliefs but there is not a saying that one supersedes the over the other.
The biggest one that comes to mind within this division is how the world was created. Christians follow the teaching in the Bible that all things were created by God. On the other hand, scientists would say that the world was created by evolution over time. The back and forth of this belief creates many disagreements between the two because typically science proves things from a biological standpoint. The bible does not have the “data” that science typically likes to see to prove something factual from a scientific perspective therefore there is questioning that science always has on Christian beliefs. The beliefs of Christians and information derived from the Bible of God’s creation should not be taken away from those who have religious beliefs. There is adequate amount of coexistence between the two that can go hand in hand to avoid the division and in turn embrace the knowledge from both aspects to make informal conclusions.
—->>>> Respond to Raylene 50 word minimum
I would describe my group’s relationship with the scientific community as not a close relationship because my societal group is religious. My societal group believes that God is the reason for our creation and the theory of evolution is not something that brings them skepticism because they trust God and his word. However, I can’t necessarily say the same about myself. I do consider myself religious, but I am skeptical about human creation. It is difficult for me to choose one side, but I also don’t feel as though I need to choose one side.
There isn’t necessarily bad blood between my group and the scientific community, but one thing that I do see in my church community is that they have no regard for science. They don’t even question science, which I disagree with because I believe science is very important in understanding the world around us. I don’t think religion is the reason for all life, but I do believe that both faith and science worked together to create humankind.
The areas of division and distrust I can identify is my religious community not trusting medicine as much as they trust their faith. They believe that medicine might help heal those who are sick, but they also believe that their prayers and God will be the sole person in creating a miracle. I think it is great that they have trust in God, but I also believe that they should have faith in medicine as well. Because science and faith can work together to create a miracle.
