Congress slams Smithsonian's anti-religious attacks

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

[longtermmemmory]

Remember the Smithsonian has REEKED of politics spining the real science.

They OPPOSED ORVIL AND WILBER WRIGHT BEING DECLARED FIRST IN POWERED FLIGHT!

They propagandaed the Enola Gay Exhibit.

They SCRUBBED the Natural science museum of "male dominance" in order to be more sensitive to feminists rather than science.

It is no surprise that the only good the Smithsonian does is physical preservation. The explanation is best left to the sources outside of the PC investation of the Smithsonian.

[RunningWolf]

Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian in the name of Darwin

Surprize surprize! /sarc>

[FreedomProtector]

Thanks for the ping!

[MEGoody]

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.

Some evols sure hate it when you point out the politics behind the theory of evolution. It's a dirty little secret they want to keep hidden.

[Coyoteman]

"evidence has accumulated of widespread invidious discrimination against other qualified scientists who dissent from Darwinian theory and/or who are supportive of intelligent design,"

Perhaps this is the type of "science" they are advocating:

The Creation Research Society has the following on their website:

The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.

CRS Statement of Belief

All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

Does this sound like science to you? Does this sound like research? Sorry, not even close.

Any time preconceived beliefs, such as these, override the scientific method, an individual is doing apologetics, not science. It doesn't matter what scientific degrees one may have; to agree to a set of standards such as this, which is common (whether explicit or implicit) in creationist circles, is to cease doing science.

What do you expect science to do when non-science and anti-science and revelation pretend to be the real thing? Kiss 'em?

[49th]

If the "evidence fits creation like a glove" how did a scientific institution such as the Smithsonian come to be so staunchly evolutionist?

While I think that in this case the Smithsonian is clearly in the wrong and is doing a disservice to scientific inquiry by acting in the manner which has been reported; it doesn't make the creationist or intelligent design argument more valid.

The idea of Evolution fought incredible opposition when it was first explained. The whole of the English speaking world was Christian, every scientist sought to use science as a way to show the glory of God in the world... and yet slowly the idea took hold. How could that happen if the evidence didn't support it? If the evidence clearly supported the idea that the Earth is young and that every creature was created as it is now, how could a theory which is so antithetical to the world view of the society from whence it came ever gain widespread acceptance?

[si tacuissem]

Your willing blindness to those undeniable facts disqualifies you from further discussion here.

Undeniable facts? Like your claim that Lifespans are exactly the same now as they were when the Lord walked the Earth? That's science?

[si tacuissem]

Of course, scientists are biased. The difference (to creationists) is, that they can overcome their (BTW very conservative) bias: An experiment or an observation which yields an unexpected outcome will be repeated more often than one which fits exactly into theory. Why? Because the unexpected is more interesting! ... And IF the further inquiry corroborates the unexpected outcome, a scientist will accept it. Compare this to:

The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

Is there anything as a "simple historical truth"?

[Dumb_Ox]

Interesting.

As for conflicts of interest, I purchased a copy of one of Sternberg's extracurricular talks on philosophy, religion and science. I found it provocative enough to engage, and I think he scores some good points. (notes here).

What concerns me is that the woman who sponsored and recorded this talk told me in the Fall of 2005 that she had received at least one investigative phone call about this lecture from the National Center for Science Education. I can only assume they were trying to dig up dirt on Sternberg. DI isn't the only polemical thinktank in this duel, and with so many people involved I am not surprised to find that there is a nice organized list of Sternberg's alleged sins.

What about that charge that one of Sternberg's Smithsonian colleagues was going around asking if he was an undercover priest? That seems surefire evidence of a hostile environment, though I cannot speak to its overall severity.

[FreedomProtector]

Thanks for the ping!

[ThinkPlease]

What about that charge that one of Sternberg's Smithsonian colleagues was going around asking if he was an undercover priest? That seems surefire evidence of a hostile environment, though I cannot speak to its overall severity.

If you read the appendix after every bit of evidence that the report claims to show bias is counted, in the end, all the higher echelon of the Smithsonian ended up doing was next to nothing (except telling him to stop misusing his 'affiliation' with the Smithsonian in his creationist talks). Eugenie Scott(who is advising them about his status as a creationist) says very particularly:

"I guess the big question is whether he is a good enough scientist to remain there. If his non-creationist work is good, then I think he deserves the job. If not, and if others are let go under the same circumstances, then let the chips fall where they may. But none of us are after this guy's job. That isn't the point of this exercise, in my opinion."

and

">I'm sending you this info just so you know that low profile doesn't mean >inactive. On the other hand, his creationist views should not be the main >focus of the criticism. First, if he can do good standard science, that's >all we care about. Newton did pretty good science, and had some pretty >nutty additional ideas about reality, too. So if he keeps the nut stuff out >of his basically descriptive work, that's fine. His science should stand or >fall on its own. "

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I didn't see anything where they asked that particular question, but they certainly didn't act on it in any meaningful way, despite what this report and the report of the OSC might have you believe.

[blitzgig]

Your arguments are spot-on. Nice job.