Congress slams Smithsonian's anti-religious attacks

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

[Louis Foxwell]

Their glossy PR, National Geographic, has similarly become a dogmatic front for environmentalism, darwinism and atheism.

[RobbyS]

I think you are misconstruing the constroversy. It is not between creationists and evolutionists but between microevolutionists and macroevolutionists. The latter seem to presuppose a uniform development that is not in evidence. That is why Gould's theory is so much in vogue. Probably, though, it is a holding pattern. My whole attitude is like Pascal's: let us wait on the evidence and not presume to know what we don't know.

[ndt]

"Very interesting."

Only if you believe his pipe dream. I have personally worked along side literally hundreds of "genetic scientist" (by various titles) at several different jobs and have to the best of my knowledge none would have qualified as a creationist although many were religious (very diverse group).

Cartoons lampooning creationists were generally posted on the refrigerator door for everyone to laugh at.

[ndt]

"And if unicycles had three wheels more people could ride them."

I'm not at all sure what that means. Well I know what it means I just don't know what it has to do with anything.

"Wouldn't create a better predictive ability for the development of pharmaceuticals, either."

Generally I would recommend using a subject a sentence so others can tell what your talking about.

Would you care to rephrase the statement?

[ndt]

"I think you are misconstruing the constroversy. It is not between creationists and evolutionists but between microevolutionists and macroevolutionists."

Well it depends. Creationists can be a very diverse lot. Old earth, Young earth, micro vs macro and I even had somone argue for a geocentric worldview recently.

"My whole attitude is like Pascal's: let us wait on the evidence and not presume to know what we don't know."

Well that's just being agnostic. I can respect that.

[RunningWolf]

Some modern and great genetic scientists have turned away from their atheism and blind acceptance of darwinist dogma

The scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome has posited that such discoveries bring man "closer to God."

Francis Collins, director of the U.S. National Human Genome Research Institute, says that unraveling the human genome gave him a first-hand view of the handiwork of the Almighty.

In his forthcoming book, "The Language of God," he explores one of the most amazing discoveries of the modern era – that life is actually encoded with a mind-boggling amount of information written out in a clearly understandable language. Needless to say, information and language are not the byproducts of random chemical reactions or other godless evolutionary mechanisms.


Like the renowned former atheist Antony Flew – who announced last year that recent scientific discoveries had convinced him of the existence of a creator-god – Collins grew up believing in evolution and had no interest whatsoever in the "God" question. He states: "I was very happy with the idea that God didn't exist and had no interest in me."

But by surrendering to God, was he abandoning science? Not at all, as even an article about him in the Sunday Times in Britain acknowledged. The Times pointed out: "Collins joins a line of scientists whose research deepened their belief in God. Isaac Newton, whose discovery of the laws of gravity reshaped our understanding of the universe, said: 'This most beautiful system could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.' Although Einstein revolutionized our thinking about time, gravity and the conversion of matter to energy, he believed the universe had a creator."

We must remember, after all, that the scientific method itself was developed in a distinctly Christian culture (Europe at the end of the Middle Ages) and was advanced for two primary Christian purposes – for the glory of God and the benefit of mankind. These early scientists believed that because God was rational and orderly, and a Lawgiver to boot, the universe had to be rationally arranged in an orderly manner with fixed laws, which in turn meant it could be both studied and understood by His created beings. And that's precisely what they found – rather than the chaotic world that would exist if evolution were true.

Furthermore, many of the greatest pioneers of science – including the founders of whole branches of science (Newton, Pascal, Boyle, Faraday, Pasteur, etc.) – were Bible-believing Christians. Newton wrote far more on theology than he ever did on science, and observed that the sun was at the proper distance from Earth to give us the right amounts of heat and light. "This did not happen by chance,".

Scientists have since discovered dozens of such equations throughout the universe that, if any one of them were off by the smallest of fractions, life on our planet would be unsustainable. So it turns out the heavens really do declare the glory of God, as the Bible said all along. It's no wonder Kepler defined science as "thinking God's thoughts after Him."

[ndt]

" The scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome has posited that such discoveries bring man "closer to God.""

You do realize that Francis Collins rejects both creationism and Intelligent Design. He is more of an Theistic Evolution kind of guy.

[ndt]

Here is Francis Collins definition of Theistic Evolution

(1) The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago,

(2) Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life,

(3) While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time,

(4) Once evolution got under way no special supernatural intervention was required,

(5) Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes,

(6) But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.

Basically God put one heck of a spin on the first shot and let evolution do what evolution does.

Is that what you believe?

[Tinian]

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

Using tour logic they might not look favorably, either, upon a scientist who attends Mass!

You seem to have overlooked an important point:

The clash arose after Sternberg, who edited the scientific journal "Proceedings" that legally was separate from Smithsonian but occasionally got some public support, published a peer-reviewed article by the Discovery Institute's Stephen Meyer, who is a proponent of intelligent design.

The article was not published in a journal associated with the Smithsonian.

How can you or the Smithsonian rationalize punishing someone for expressing his views in a venue that is in no way associated with the Smithsonian?

That would be the same as firing an employee for going to Church--and you know it.

Let's go over this one last time, reading aloud if necessary:

"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

Question: Just who is breaking the legs here?

Hint: most of us here are smart enough to admit to the correct answer.

[Keflavik76]

It must tough for the modern day evolutionist to admit that Newton, Pascal, Boyle, Faraday and Pasteur believed in Intelligent Design. Genetic Scientists must post their pictures on refrigerator doors for everyone to laugh at.

[RobbyS]

Pascal was not agnostic. He was, after all, the guy who climbed mountains to check barometric levels rather than sit around to spin theories What I mean is that he saw the immensity of it all when he realized that between us and the stars there was an incalculable void. We know as much about the geological past as we do about the universe beyond us. A lot, but not a lot.

[editor-surveyor]

"Is that what you believe?"

] That's not something that any intelligent, honest person could believe. It is steeped in tendentious denial, and willing deception.

We'll let Mr Collins tell us himself when he registers as a freeper, ok?

[RunningWolf]

I don't have to agree with him to use him as a an example that people can change their conclusions after a period of thought and introspection.

[Moorings]

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

Way to twist the discussion from the topic! The article is about the scientist being HARASSED... not about "real" scientists not listening. All of a sudden the closed minded "scientists" on my tax money are the victims. Bullcr@p!!

Stop trying to hijack the thread to propagate your propaganda.

[ndt]

"How can you or the Smithsonian rationalize punishing someone for expressing his views in a venue that is in no way associated with the Smithsonian?"

It happens in companies all the time. If you become an embarrassment to a company you will likely be fired.

"That would be the same as firing an employee for going to Church--and you know it."

No, church is not a scientific venue.

"Just who is breaking the legs here?"

This has nothing to do with personal freedoms. He is free to espouse whatever he wants, and the Smithsonian is free to fire him whenever they want.

There is no civil right to work at the Smithsonian.

[shuckmaster]

Hey, it's in WND so it has to be true! - NOT

[Moorings]

Cartoons lampooning creationists were generally posted on the refrigerator door for everyone to laugh at.

Only in the perverted thinking of some self described "scientists".

[ndt]

"Way to twist the discussion from the topic! "

No twist, this is from the congressional recommendations.

"Congress should consider statutory language that would protect the free speech rights regarding evolution of scientists at all federally-funded institutions."

If ID can't stand on it's own two feet, legislate it so people have to listen. Garbage.

[ndt]

"We'll let Mr Collins tell us himself when he registers as a freeper, ok?"

Actually that is from his book in his own words.

[mo]

"Nobody wants an ID researcher because they have nothing to offer." ......you might want to remind Frances Collins, the scientific director of the Human Genome Project at the National Institutes of Health .....and the author of "The Language of God"...of just how unemployable such a scientist is....