You mean Aldous Huxley and Jim Watson?
Huxley, when he said this, was setting up a position to argue against. Jim Watson was motivated by a desired to beat Linus Pauling, and has never said what you claim he said.
But hey. if you're going to libel somebody, get his name wrong as well.
And you wonder why scientists hold creationists in such contempt? How about an inability to get simple details correct? How about posting damnable lies without the slightest care whether they're true or not?
There's too many Huxley's for the Creationoids.
Yes. I got stuck on Thomas Watson in the head (who was a 16th century Puritan preacher with no relation to either of these guys). My error, as "Thomas" was stuck in the brain. If you have never made the same mistake, then I am happy for you.
As far as the James Watson statement, he certainly did make it. It was on an interview with Teri Gross on Fresh Air and ran (although it may have been an archive....) this past spring. If you wish I will try to chase it down for you.
I am truly sorry to have irritated you by the mistake in names. I know the difference between the author of "Doors of Perception" and "Double Helix" AND I know their names.
I really wasn't trying to sneer (nor libel) someone. It is simply trying to state that there are deep and personal reasons why people make the kinds of choices they do re: worldviews and they "way" they insist science be done. People who insist that these choices are made in a moral vacuum are either disingenuous or ignorant, or both. People who insist that their own moral choices are irrelevant in their "objective" pursuit of data are sadly naive or deliberately dishonest.