Congress slams Smithsonian's anti-religious attacks

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

[AnalogReigns]

No one is looking for ID "scientists"...

That's just the point. Show me a scientist with WAY above average credientials...educated at the finest schools, and he won't dare hint that he may believe some elements of ID, for fear of the (fanatical atheist/evolutionist)Richard Dawkins-types who control his job.

When one philosophical belief system controls practically all the public and private institutions of science, we fail at many points to get "science" any more.

"Industry" by the way doesn't hire many scientists to get the job done anyway... that's the engineer's job. Scientists are typically in research; a lions' share done by publically funded institutions and universities. I doubt if Dow Chemical or DuPont could care less what their research scientists think about ID, but MIT sure does--and one doesn't get into industry without first making it in the academy.

ID is always considered a "conservative" cause anyway...why would (ultra-liberal) NPR be interested in showing discrimination against IDers (unless it really exists!) in their beloved public universities?

[RobbyS]

ID does not reject 99% of what is generally held. In any case, hiring is generally based on paper-credentials and recommendations. Most of the time the company want a warm body in every slot, and perfer people who do what they are told to do. That is why Einstein ended up in the patent office, and why there he didn't get along there.

[Tinian]

"It does me no injury, for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

~~~Thomas Jefferson

Not according to the Smithsonian Institution!

[APFel]

I thought that because you posted the following:

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

This is incongruent with the article. The man was persecuted for editing an article about ID. He did not force anything on anyone.

And THAT is why I wondered whether you read the article or not.

APf

[ndt]

"That's just the point. Show me a scientist with WAY above average credientials...educated at the finest schools, and he won't dare hint that he may believe some elements of ID, for fear of the (fanatical atheist/evolutionist)Richard Dawkins-types who control his job."

I'm talking about the other way. Nobody is hiring an ID researcher (expert witnesses in lawsuits excepted). Nobody wants an ID researcher because they have nothing to offer.

"Industry" by the way doesn't hire many scientists to get the job done anyway... that's the engineer's job. "

If ID offered a better predictive ability for the development of new pharmaceuticals or other marketable products, they absolutely would be looking for them. They are not.

"Scientists are typically in research; a lions' share done by publically funded institutions and universities."

Having worked in a number of companies related to drug discovery I can assure you that you are very wrong. Most scientists work 9-5 at some corporation, not at a university.

[Balding_Eagle]

Never mind, the poster you're referring to has a history of misrepresenting (bording on deliberate lying) about his opponents position.

When you take a close look at his posts, you can see why he is reduced to doing that. His positions are rooted in wishful thinking.

[little jeremiah]

Interesting.

[ndt]

"This is incongruent with the article."

Sorry, that was poorly worded.

He essentially went crying to congress that he was being discriminated against. I began to see how this could turn into an "affirmative action for ID" issue.

So I commented without clarifying what the heck I was thinking about. The written version of talking to myself.

[ndt]

"Not according to the Smithsonian Institution!"

The Smithsonian has an agenda, Science. I would not expect them to look favorable on an article about astrology either.

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[ndt]

"bording on deliberate lying"

Aren't you little bitter?

"When you take a close look at his posts, you can see why he is reduced to doing that. His positions are rooted in wishful thinking."

Care to give me an example?

[RunningWolf]

"NMNH officials have made clear their intent to prevent any scientist publicly skeptical of Darwinian theory from ever being appointed as a Research Associate, no matter how sterling his or her professional credentials or research.

[trisham]

Knocking our heads against a brick wall bump.

[Keflavik76]

If anybody is seriously wondering about the evidence for Intelligent design, Reasons to Believe has a great web site filled with resources. In many ways it takes more faith to believe that we evolved from some primordial soup then in Intelligent Design.

http://www.reasons.org/

[Balding_Eagle]

That's easy. You wished I was a xenophobe, and tried to get me to argue with you from that position.

Now begone, I wasn't responding to you. This is out of simple curtesy.

You're what we used to call a Disrupter. Now, on occasion, your type is called a Zot.

[marsh_of_mists]

I think the main idea behind ID is that some of the claims of the current theory are wrong. What if they simply spend their time trying to present evidence against the current theory and drop the whole "intelligent design" alternative?

[JCEccles]

I'm talking about the other way. Nobody is hiring an ID researcher (expert witnesses in lawsuits excepted). Nobody wants an ID researcher because they have nothing to offer.

And by what power or talent did you obtain the omniscience to speak authoritatively on behalf of "everybody" so that you could state with such absolute assurance what "nobody" would do?

[RunningWolf]

Most evolutions will do that. For some reason they will never accept a non-evo or what he says at face value.

They will twist and distort it with (the strawman etc) the various tools of mockery and ridicule, because I strongly suspect that it really is not about the science with them.

[RunningWolf]

Most evolutions = Most evolutionists

[ndt]

"I think the main idea behind ID is that some of the claims of the current theory are wrong. "

I'm not sure what claims you are saying are wrong. There are unknowns for sure and there always will be. Anything known to be wrong would be dropped.

"What if they simply spend their time trying to present evidence against the current theory and drop the whole "intelligent design" alternative?"

That would require them to do original research, something they have done almost none of. Trying to disprove is exactly what an experiment does, so if they were to go this route, that would actually be science.

Even so, if you can show that "A" is wrong, that does not mean that "B" is correct. They would need to show that ID has greater predictive abilty then the TOE.