Darwinists Root for Obama

CreationEvolutionHeadlines ^ | September 28, 2008

[GodGunsGuts]

Darwinists Root for Obama

Sept 28, 2008 — Ministers in churches are not allowed to promote political candidates, even though they do not take government money.1 Scientists, who often do take federal money in the form of grants, openly take positions on the presidential candidates they feel will further their interests. Is this proper?

Both Nature and Science this week did extensive reporting on the presidential and vice-presidential candidates. While the magazines and the organizations behind them do not receive tax money directly, they act as the leading voices of scientists who are largely supported by grants, and thus they stand to profit directly from the level of funding a President supports. Nature’s editorial bluntly stated, “The most worrying thing about a McCain presidency is not so much a President McCain as a Vice-President Palin.” Their concern was over her opposition to embryonic stem-cell research, and the claim that “She is a creationist” (but see Evolution News). In fact, Nature went out of its way to point out the differences between Obama and McCain on the issue of intelligent design, quoting Obama’s answer with apparent satisfaction: ...

[GodGunsGuts]

ping!

[freespirited]

I beg to differ. There is no shortage of FReepers who accept the Modern Synthesis of Evolutionary Theory yet adamantly oppose Obama.

[GodGunsGuts]

The article is talking about the high priests of the Temple of Darwin. That some Darwinists are willing to break with their own ecclesiastical hierarchy to stop the ObamaNation is laudable, but it does not change the fact that the Temple of Darwin is campaigning for Obama.

[freespirited]

There are hundreds of scientific societies. Most do not take any political position whatsoever.

[tacticalogic]

The article is talking about the high priests of the Temple of Darwin.

IOW, it's fiction.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!