[orionblamblam]

> many scientists have biases against scientific creationism

Two points:
1: There is no such thing as "scientific" creationism. Just because you tack the word "science" on something doesn't mean it's scientific.
2: I suspect it's not "many scientists," it's "the vast majority of scientists." There is nothing wrong with scientists having a bias agaisnt wacky superstitions. Would you have a problem with a scientist who had a bias agaisnt ouiji boards or UFOlogy?

Now, if a scientist were to present *actual* *evidence* and a cogent theory that stood inopposition to evolution, they would be listened to. But just shouting "God did it!", which is what Creationism boils down to, is massively non-scientific.

> So total is the current censorship on any effective criticism of Neodarwinian science

Total censorship, eh? Huh. One wonders if that includes this forum... or if the statement is just yet another example of Creationist hyperbole.

> Fred Hoyle... allegedly received death threats

Ah, the wonderful "alleged." In any event... so what? *I* recieved death threats in high school for merely mentioning that I believed that the fossil record supported evolution, and that Creationism was in dire question. Not just threats... got beat up pretty good a few times. Now, the fact that many Creationists such as those are unthinking morons does not mean that Creationism is an idea without merit; it's Creationisms utter lack of merit that makes Creationism an idea without merit.

And here's a note: the immediate presence of threats to my person hardly shut *me* up. It would not shut up a real scientist who "knew" that evolution was in error and who had the evidence to prove it.

[DannyTN]

Two points:
1: There is no such thing as "scientific" evolutionism. Just because you tack the word "science" on something doesn't mean it's scientific. (See I can do that too!)
2: ...There is nothing wrong with scientists having a bias agaisnt wacky superstitions.

The problem here is that evolutionist scientists refuse to consider scientific observations in support of Creationism, because they consider creationism superstition, not because such observations don't exist.

Now, if a scientist were to present *actual* *evidence* and a cogent theory that stood inopposition to evolution, they would be listened to.

No they wouldn't and that article pointed out several cases where people were fired despite the evidence, such as the guy who developed Plutonium hologram dating.

Evolutionists just don't want to hear opposing viewpoints. It upsets their worldview. It means those immature unchristlike morons who beat you up in High School, were right about Creation and you were wrong. It means that if there is a designer, then that designer is very likely God and you will have to answer to him. Better to bury your head in the sand. Anything but that. If I ignore His existence, if I'm unwavering in my insistence that I just didn't know, He can't prove anything on me.

So block it out, ridicule it, say it amounts to nothing more than "God did it!". The scientific observations are what they are, even if they support Creationism.

If the observation is that life arises suddenly in the fossil record complete with advanced forms of life, that can't be true, because it points to a designer, and the most obvious designer is God.

If the observations are that most dinosaurs fossils were the result of a huge Catastrophic flood, ignore it.

If no fossil can be found anywhere that has the Carbon-14 completely depleted which should have occurred in every fossil over 90,000 years old, then ignore it. Say that it is from contamination. And then ignore what that level of contamination implies for most of the other methods of radiometric dating.

If there are major holes in the assumptions of radiometric dating and conflicting data in radiometric readings, bury the conflict and conform your findings to the evolutionist worldview.

If someone comes up with an alternative dating method that threatens evolution. Fire him. Don't consider the evidence.

I'm sure that everyone of the people who discriminated against Creationists had rationalized it as the right thing to do in their own minds. That's what Eve did in the garden, That's what the Nazi's did. It's easy to ignore truth. Man has a long history of doing so.

The scientific community has a long history of doing so too. The list of famous scientists that the scientific community has ridiculed is very long. The sad fact is that most scientists simply repeat what they have been taught. They do not approach their work unbiased and they do not do original research to satisfy their own assumptions.