Atheists tell us that to be against atheism is to be against science. This is a common misconception in the modern world.
“The term ‘antiscience‘ refers to persons or organizations that promote their ideology over scientifically-verified evidence, usually either by denying said evidence and/or creating their own.”
The atheist authors of the article linked above, as well as the Wikipedia article, do not recognize that they are promoting an ideology, not science. The ideology is that the scientific method can give final information about reality. Yet, the authors realize that the conclusions of science must always be tentative, and subject to revision by more data and better paradigms. They assert that science is “…open to change if the position comes in conflict with observed fact.” But then they assert evolution and man-caused climate change as dogma, not subject to change by observed fact.
For them, science can create dogma that cannot be questiioned. This is what is really “antiscience.” It makes science into just another religion, and a really bad one at that. This destroys its ability to help us feed ourselves and build things, because we are locked into the atheistic dogmas of the past as religious dogma.
Now this is interesting– the atheists get most of this right, but do not recognize what they are promoting in evolution is pseudoscience, because of their insistence on denying that individuals can discover things missed by the community when it becomes dogmatic.
It should be clear to any thinking person that that which is thought to generate universal knowledge is one’s god. One naturally imposes that god, science, on other people by force, especially since it is not recognized as a religion, which should not be established by the government. This is the idolatry of the modern age, and it is as destructive of humanity as any ancient pagan worship of graven images.
Judges plan to outlaw climate change denial–
// “The most important thing the courts could do,” he said, was to hold a top-level “finding of fact”, to settle these “scientific disputes” once and for all: so that it could then be made illegal for any government, corporation (or presumably individual scientist) ever to question the agreed “science” again. Furthermore, he went on, once “the scientific evidence” thus has the force of binding international law, it could be used to compel all governments to make “the emissions reductions that are needed”, including the phasing out of fossil fuels, to halt global warming in its tracks.//
Atheists are religious totalitarians who impose their god, which they mistake for science, on everyone.
“No idea or belief should be illegal; conversely, no idea should be so sacred that it legally justifies actions that would otherwise be illegal.” —Lawrence Krauss
What Krauss is saying here is that there is no morality, only law established by a society. There was a time when societies outlawed cursing the God of the Bible. The idea of atheism would have been wrong by his standard, since it would justify an illegal action. The conflict is not between religion and science; it is between two religions, one of which is not easily recognized as a religion.