So it's about funding. That's exactly one of the criticisms of evolution. The scientific community is not impartial. Not only are large amounts of existing funding at stake as well as jobs, but the community rewards someone finanicially who can discover the oldest "X".
Between funding considerations and an enthusiastic rejection of religious values, the scientific community is too slanted in support of evolution.
No, it's not "about" funding. Funding is an ancillary consideration--if we had all the funds we wanted, we'd still want to make our best guesses, not every squirrelly guess we could possibly make. Therein would lie the death of scientific progress--we'd be equally served to run science as a lottery and let every voting pig at the trough decide what scientific principles we should follow. What's the point of spending twenty years educating discerning scientific pallets, if you aren't going to exercise them?
The scientific community is not impartial.
absolutely
Not only are large amounts of existing funding at stake as well as jobs, but the community rewards someone finanicially who can discover the oldest "X".
You mean like when an astronomer finds the oldest star? And your objection is what now?
Between funding considerations and an enthusiastic rejection of religious values, the scientific community is too slanted in support of evolution.
Well, that's an opinion, and you are entitled to it. Pony up some hard evidence other than that your pet theory is being gored, and I'll give it some thought. Last survey I heard about, most scientists were churchgoers, and vast majority that weren't were lapsed, indifferent, or agnostic.