- Whether or not global warming is occurring and whether or not the blame can be laid at the feet of humanity is a science vs. science argument. You might think one side is doing science badly, but the scientific method is the framework for both.
- One can believe that God is necessary explanation for the origin and/or complexity life while making a science-based case that challenges the net-darwinian paradigm. Considering the robust connection between religion and the modern scientific enterprise, this really should not be a problem. (1)
- Those on both sides of the GMO debate rely on the scientific method to make their case.
- Those on both sides of the vaccine debate muster claims using the scientific method, no matte how quickly certain claims will crumble under scrutiny.
- The abortion debate certainly involves religion, but it clearly involves scientific/biological/philosophical claims on both sides about the nature of the unborn.
My point here is limited: "science denier" is almost always an inaccurate term, and I see it everywhere. It annoys me. It's a conversation stopper meant to poison the well in any discussion. In a world where real news is called fake news and words seem to increasingly lose their meaning, even small victories count.
* * * * *
(1) I think there is an argument to made that all statements about origins are unavoidably theological statements in that they will make a claim about the necessity or possibility of God in the process. Some start with or without God and then make claims about science; some start with science and then make claims about the existence and/or nature of God - or lack of it. Either way, the two topics become tightly intertwined. Let's not kid ourselves: both sides are trying to tell a story of everything that enables us to hold a belief (or non-belief) about God that meshes with what the scientific method reveals.