Congress slams Smithsonian's anti-religious attacks

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

[editor-surveyor]

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

A new report from the U.S. House of Representatives has condemned officials at the Smithsonian Institution for imposing a religious test on scientists who work there. And it suggests their attacks on a scientist who just edited an article on intelligent design are just the tip of the iceberg of an industry-wide fear of anything that suggests man might not have come from a puddle of sludge.

Dr. Richard Sternberg

The report, which cited a "strong religious and political component" in the dispute, was prompted by a complaint from Dr. Richard Sternberg, who holds biology doctorates from Binghamton and Florida International universities and has served as a research associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.

It was prepared for U.S. Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., chairman of the subcommittee of criminal justice, drug policy and human resources, and easily confirmed Sternberg's harassment and discrimination allegations that his managers criticized him, created a hostile work environment for him, and now have demoted him because of the article, which he didn't even write.

Excerpt Click here for full article

[ndt]

"you might want to remind Frances Collins, the scientific director of the Human Genome Project "

You should keep reading, we already cover him.

He explicitly rejects ID in his book.

[Moorings]

Apparently evolution cannot stand on its two feet, so crowd out anyone who disagrees. If ID could not stand on its own, then it would wither and die without any assistance.

However darwinists have taken it as their mission in life to silence any dissenting voice.

If evolution cannot stand on its own two feet lets silence all dissent. Garbage

[RunningWolf]

From the article I read that it amounts to the Smithsonian Institution has imposed a religious test on scientists who work there.

And apparently its rampant throughout other taxpayer supported academic venues.

"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. The widespread hostility of many scientists to criticisms of Darwinian theory makes further violations in this area by federally-funded institutions likely,"

[mo]

He does describe it as a "fringe" movement,as I recall...but other greats have been more OPENLY explicit than France Collins seems to think he can afford to be....

Buckminster Fuller.."We are magnificently successful products of design in a Universe the complexity and intricacy of whose design integrity utterly transcends human comprehension, let alone popularly acceptable descriptions of "divine design." "

[Moorings]

There is only one god evolution, and his prophet is Darwin. /sarcasm

[ndt]

"but other greats have been more OPENLY explicit than France Collins seems to think he can afford to be"

What makes you think hes not saying exactly what he thinks? He wrote a book for crying out loud, he can't feel that oppressed.

I have to ask since you are the second to bring him up. Is he currently being touted by some ID resource?

ABERNETHY: What do you say to your fellow Christians who say, "Evolution is just a theory, and I can't put that together with my idea of a creator God"?

COLLINS: Well, evolution is a theory. It's a very compelling one. As somebody who studies DNA, the fact that we are 98.4 percent identical at the DNA level to a chimpanzee, it's pretty hard to ignore the fact that when I am studying a particular gene, I can go to the mouse and find it's the similar gene, and it's 90 percent the same. It's certainly compatible with the theory of evolution, although it will always be a theory that we cannot actually prove. I'm a theistic evolutionist. I take the view that God, in His wisdom, used evolution as His creative scheme. I don't see why that's such a bad idea. That's pretty amazingly creative on His part. And what is wrong with that as a way of putting together in a synthetic way the view of God who is interested in creating a group of individuals that He can have fellowship with -- us? Why is evolution not an appropriate way to get to that goal? I don't see a problem with that. The only problems that get put forward are by those who would interpret Genesis 1 in a very literal way. And that interpretation in many ways is a -- is a modern one. Saint Augustine in 400 AD, without any reasons to try to be an apologist to Charles Darwin, agreed that that was not a particularly appropriate way to interpret the words that are written in that first chapter of the Bible.

[Coyoteman]

Saint Augustine in 400 AD, without any reasons to try to be an apologist to Charles Darwin, agreed that that was not a particularly appropriate way to interpret the words that are written in that first chapter of the Bible.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and the moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to be certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and they hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make confident assertions [quoting 1Ti. 1:7; emphasis added].

St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 1:42-43.

[ndt]

FYI Not to minimize his accomplishments but Buckminster Fuller was an architect. Not sure how strong a case he can make for a biological process.

If your thinking about chemistry and fullerenes, they were only named after him.

[ndt]

"Saint Augustine in 400 AD..."

Seems like we get stuck in reverse sometimes.

[shuckmaster]

You're doing a great job here ndt. If you happen to come across an honest creationist in your debate here, please let me know. I've never met one.

[APFel]

Sorry, that was poorly worded.

No, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that I was writing a thesis. I thought I was writing an off the cuff reply to some anonymous guy on the Intarweb.

Next time I'll consult my editor.

APf

[RunningWolf]

Buckminster Fuller had more qualifications than a few of the greatest proponents of evolution, for at least one them she had no formal education.

Its just more of the calculus that the evolutionists need to keep their belief propped up.

[loboinok]

The "scientists" pushing ID have little scientific credibility because of things like this

Would you consider this man to be credible and credentialed?

"Professor Henry F. (Fritz) Schaefer is one of the most distinguished physical scientists in the world. The U.S. News and World Report cover story of December 23, 1991 speculated that Professor Schaefer is a “five time nominee for the Nobel Prize.” He has received four of the most prestigious awards of the American Chemical Society, as well as the most highly esteemed award (the Centenary Medal) given to a non-British subject by London’s Royal Society of Chemistry. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Moreover, his general interest lectures on science and religion have riveted large audiences in nearly all the major universities in the U.S.A. and in Beijing, Berlin, Budapest, Calcutta, Cape Town, New Delhi, Hong Kong, Istanbul, London, Paris, Prague, Sarajevo, Seoul, Shanghai, Singapore, Sofia, St. Petersburg, Sydney, Tokyo, Warsaw, Zagreb, and Zürich.

For 18 years Dr. Schaefer was a faculty member at the University of California at Berkeley, where he remains Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus. Since 1987 Dr. Schaefer has been Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Center for Computational Chemistry at the University of Georgia."

[ndt]

"Buckminster Fuller had more qualifications than a few of the greatest proponents of evolution, for at least one them she had no formal education."

But surely creationists can do better than to put forward an architect and a geneticist who believes in evolution. Right? Like....

BTW Buckminster Fuller was a dude and he had no formal education only if you don't consider Harvard and Bates College place to get a formal education.

[editor-surveyor]

I can see why someone like you would dislike WND; They print all the truth, and your chosen philosophy cannot survive truth.

[shuckmaster]

I never said I disliked WND. I find it very entertaining always good for a quick laugh while surfing the 'net. It does surprise me however that you would use the term "truth" in the same sentence. Do you also find truth at the Onion and National Enquirer? Excuse me but, I'm getting up a good hearty laugh just thinking about it. LOL! WND=truth! HA HA HA You're too funny!

[editor-surveyor]

Buckie had his own view of everything, and he certainly rejected Darwinism. I've attended lectures he gave where he laughed at Darwin. He was also a socialist.

[editor-surveyor]

When you can't refute the article, attack the source.

Don't you disgust yourself?

[Tinian]

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

Nope.

If you really aren't an embarrassment, that is, if they gin it up, you've just won the lottery! Besides, the Smithsonian isn't a "company".

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.

The Smithsonian is a public institution. The rules are a bit different here. Try firing a radical Muslim from the TSA.

You've been sailing on the S.S. Clueless far too long.

[RunningWolf]

Well laugh all you want for that is about as contributory as anything else you bring here, meaning NOT.


The article is about a congressional report documenting the politicization of Science at the Smithsonian Institute.