Congress slams Smithsonian's anti-religious attacks

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | December 16, 2006 | Bob Unruh

[editor-surveyor]

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

A new report from the U.S. House of Representatives has condemned officials at the Smithsonian Institution for imposing a religious test on scientists who work there. And it suggests their attacks on a scientist who just edited an article on intelligent design are just the tip of the iceberg of an industry-wide fear of anything that suggests man might not have come from a puddle of sludge.

Dr. Richard Sternberg

The report, which cited a "strong religious and political component" in the dispute, was prompted by a complaint from Dr. Richard Sternberg, who holds biology doctorates from Binghamton and Florida International universities and has served as a research associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.

It was prepared for U.S. Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., chairman of the subcommittee of criminal justice, drug policy and human resources, and easily confirmed Sternberg's harassment and discrimination allegations that his managers criticized him, created a hostile work environment for him, and now have demoted him because of the article, which he didn't even write.

Excerpt Click here for full article

[editor-surveyor]

Fear those that fear the truth. Soon, evolution will be defended by the military standing guard over the classroom.

[editor-surveyor]

Political correctness to the hilt!

[trisham]

I'm amazed at this.

[ndt]

So ID now needs legislation to force real scientists to listen to them. Thats rich.

[RobbyS]

Real scientists also don't need to have bureacrats suppress dissent.

[Keflavik76]

A new dark age falls on scientist and researchers that dare to think outside the box. It sad that people that say they believe in free speech are the first to stifle it. In the words of Bob Dylan:


I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more.
No, I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more.
Well, I wake in the morning,
Fold my hands and pray for rain.
I got a head full of ideas
That are drivin' me insane.
It's a shame the way she makes me scrub the floor.
I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more.



"In November, 2005, for example, National Public Radio reported that it had talked with 18 university professors and scientists who subscribe to intelligent design. Most would not speak on the record for fear of losing their jobs. One untenured professor at Kennesaw State University in Georgia wrote that talking to NPR would be, quote, 'the kiss of death.' Another said, 'There is no way I would reveal myself prior to obtaining tenure,'" the report found.

[Cicero]

No one is more bigoted than a politically correct leftist. And that's basically what the Smithsonian has turned into. No shadow of dissent or questioning is allowed.

[ndt]

"Real scientists also don't need to have bureacrats suppress dissent."

Science welcomes dissent as long as you can back it up with evidence.

Industry hires the people that get the job done. No one is looking for ID "scientists" except lawyers and lobbyists.

I'm just waiting for the next shoe to drop, Affirmative Action for ID.

[marsh_of_mists]

Science welcomes dissent as long as you can back it up with evidence.

Science may, but scientists are human beings. How can you be so sure they don't and won't let their innate human flaws get in the way of their ideals of "pure, unbiased science"? I'm just asking here. I really have no stance or much interest in the intelligent design debate one way or the other.

[Dog Gone]

Soon, evolution will be defended by the military standing guard over the classroom.

Be sure to ping me when the first Marine forces a kid to learn evolution at the point of a gun.

[RunningWolf]

That was a extremely hostile situation he had forced upon him.

The cult of evolution at the core is as anti-science 3d reich medicine.

[razorbak]

Abolishing Jim Crow does not equal Affirmative Action.

The Scientific Establishment does not equal Science.

And you don't equal anybody that has a clue.

[ndt]

"How can you be so sure they don't and won't let their innate human flaws get in the way of their ideals of "pure, unbiased science"?"

Of course you get ego flying around. Science is actually known for that. In the end, the evidence speaks for itself.

A theory is not built by one man. It might be stated clearly by one person, but by the time it reaches the status of a theory, it is the cumulative work of hundreds or thousands of people all coming to a common conclusion.

It's not like there is 3 or 4 "evolutionists" sitting around coffee wondering how they are going to keep their strangle hold on biology.

ID is a handful of people, many not even scientists much less biologists swimming against essentially the entire scientific community. Pushing an idea that is inherently not falsifiable and hence inherently not scientific.

[RunningWolf]

a campaign of harassment and smears against evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg, whose only 'crime' was his honest skepticism of Darwinian dogma," said West. "It's outrageous that the federal government would sanction such blatant discrimination. This is clearly an infringement of Dr. Sternberg's free speech rights."

Sternberg, according to the report, said it's now clear he was "targeted for retaliation and harassment" specifically because he allowed publication of an article critical of neo-Darwinism "and that was considered an unpardonable heresy."

Seem similar behavior closer? /sarc>

[ndt]

"The Scientific Establishment does not equal Science. "

Industry will hire anybody that can produce results. If there is any accuracy to ID then it should be better at making predictions then evolution and hence a valuable tool in industries like drug discovery.

Please find me a single job that is looking for an ID researcher.

[California Patriot]

Kudos to Chairman Mark Souder. We certainly aren't going to see this kind of thing from a Democratic Congress.

[RobbyS]

Science welcomes dissent? Maybe "science," but scientists, no. Paradigm change comes because one generation of place-holders is replaced by another. It certainly doesn't happen the way that Francis Bacon thought. Too many people reject evidence that does not support their interest. I

[APFel]

Did you read the article?

APf

[ndt]

"Did you read the article? "

Yes. What make you think I didn't?