Posted on 12/16/2006 12:22:28 PM PST by editor-surveyor
Evidence indicates that you have that backwards. Most of the ID people work in industry's genetic laboratories to begin with. They are the scientists there, not the lowly technicians like you. That is the birthplace of exasperation with the vacuousness of evolutionism that has brought it to the surface.
There is not a single genetic scientist that has spoken up here in favor of evolutionism; just a few lower level bottle washers that think it makes them look 'scientific.
You know that ID theory is a fraud and complete waste of time without even attempting to actually study it honestly and carefully.
You apparently are the benefactor of received wisdom, but from what source?
Thanks for posting that link, I had forgotten about them.
I concur. The Smithsonian only reflects current academic thought, which is lock-step authoritarian leftist PC. Any form of rigid dogmatism begets bigotry. This is the "scientific" version but bigotry can be found in any rigid human thought system.
I'm not. I've seen that kind of attitude floating around. Gee, I wonder where that could be....
The "scientists" pushing ID have little scientific credibility because of things like this:
The Creation Research Society has the following on their website:
The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.
CRS Statement of Belief All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
Does this sound like science to you? Does this sound like research?
Any time preconceived beliefs, such as these, override the scientific method, an individual is doing apologetics (defense of religion), not science. It doesn't matter what scientific degrees one may have; to agree to a set of standards such as this, which is common (whether explicit or implicit) in creationist circles, is to cease doing science.
ping
And if unicycles had three wheels more people could ride them.
Wouldn't create a better predictive ability for the development of pharmaceuticals, either.
Mind telling me what someone with Dawkin's special views might offer to a company?
Since the treatment of Dr. Sternberg came to light in early 2005, evidence has accumulated of widespread invidious discrimination against other qualified scientists who dissent from Darwinian theory and/or who are supportive of intelligent design. 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.’”77 In another case, the President of the University of Idaho issued a letter forbidding faculty from teaching alternatives to Darwin’s theory in science classes there.78 The widespread hostility of many scientists to criticisms of Darwinian theory makes further violations in this area by federally-funded institutions likely.
The letter
October 4, 2005
Letter to the University of Idaho Faculty, Staff and Students:
Because of recent national media attention to the issue, I write to articulate the University of Idaho’s position with respect to evolution: This is the only curriculum that is appropriate to be taught in our bio-physical sciences. As an academic scientific community and a research extensive land-grant institution, we affirm scientific principles that are testable and anchored in evidence.
At the University of Idaho, teaching of views that differ from evolution may occur in faculty-approved curricula in religion, sociology, philosophy, political science or similar courses. However, teaching of such views is inappropriate in our life, earth, and physical science courses or curricula.
The University respects the rights of individuals to their personal religious and philosophical beliefs, including those persons who may hold and advocate a faith-based view that differs from evolution.
The University of Idaho’s position is consistent with views articulated by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and more than 60 other scientific and educational societies.
Timothy P. White, Ph.D.
President, University of Idaho
Clues as to the thinking.Council minutes
Response to President White’s Letter on Evolution: Chair Zemetra reported that Research Council had, by majority vote, approved a resolution supporting President White’s public letter on evolution and that the Faculty Affairs Committee had decided not to issue any resolution. The question he had was how Faculty Council might wish to respond, if at all. The ensuing discussion could be best characterized as wide-ranging.
It was not clear to the council as a whole what the president’s letter was responding to. Those councilors who were simultaneously members of the president’s cabinet, and thus in a position to know more of the background, said that it was partly in response to journalists’ mischaracterization of a UI faculty member’s testimony in favor of intelligent design as evidence that intelligent design was taught at the University of Idaho. However, in their view that issue was only a part of what had prompted the president to speak out. Also important were the State Board of Education’s internal debate as to what kind of science should be taught in the public schools and, more largely, the national debate on that subject which had occasioned the testimony of the UI faculty member in Pennsylvania. The president felt the university should be exerting leadership in this discussion.
Some councilors seemed to be in agreement that the implied target of the president’s letter, namely, intelligent design, was not an appropriate subject to be taught in science courses. Faculty-approved curricula in the sciences (and in other areas as well) had taken full account of the evidence in deciding what should be taught. One council member from the sciences made a clear distinction between “teaching” (in the strong “inculcate” sense of the word) and “discussion.” While it was inappropriate, as the president had said, to teach non-evolutionary theories in the sciences (and elsewhere) because of the evidence for evolution, it would be perfectly appropriate to discuss any theory in a science class, just as it would be in classes outside the natural sciences.
There appeared to be universal agreement that the president’s statement had not been intended in any way to put constraints on academic freedom or free inquiry among either faculty or students. However, its brevity made it susceptible to misinterpretation in this way. In the end, while there was a substantial minority of council members who felt the best response to the president’s statement would be no statement at all from the council, the majority seemed to feel that it would be helpful to clarify, and thus support, the president’s statement by issuing a statement reiterating the university’s deeply held strong commitment to academic freedom and free inquiry. A council member pointed out that by issuing such a statement, those faculty throughout the university who felt the president’s memo placed limits on academic freedom and freedom of inquiry could be assured that such was not the case. To this end the chair appointed an ad hoc committee composed of councilors Young (chair), McCollough, and Parrish to draft a possible Faculty Council response along those lines, using perhaps as their basis the text the provost had profitably used his time during the debate to compose
First, there are far more "ID" proponents outside of organizations than there are inside, so your constant blind rage against those few in the orgs is just so much tilting at windmills.
Second, those are faith statements. Honest people are often compelled to make them; those such as yourself rarely are.
I believe the objectors (probably a better term than ID) are in the majority in the commercial labs, based as I have said before, on stock holder open house encounters. They are the genuine scientists without an axe to grind that have been spoon-fed evolutionism throughout their developing years and are just to honest intellectually to suck-up anymore.
“Does this sound like science to you? Does this sound like research? “
No, its their statement of belief. You are arguing against a straw man that you have set up.
Very interesting. I know the statistics are astronomically against natural selection from mutation.
The only jobs that you posted that really even care are the Universities, which hate truth, and therefore love lies like evolutionism.
You are dishonest. No wonder you love the lie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.