"I am a scientist who does research at a major university. In my experience there is no anti-religious climate in science." - Stormer 3-21-16
Posted on 03/21/2016 9:30:20 AM PDT by fishtank
Evolutionary Tyranny Still Casts Cloud Over Science
by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. *
A recent scientific paper, published in the high-profile journal PLOS ONE, made three separate references to the amazing design of the human hand…and rightly attributed them to the Creator.1 Evolutionists cried foul and raised such an uproar that the journal retracted the paper.
Evolutionary scientists often claim they are objective in their work as researchers and educators. They also claim that creationist research isn't valid because creationists don't publish in secular journals. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The reality is that evolutionists are seldom objective in their pursuit of truth, but instead often abuse their power as gatekeepers and suppress anything that points to a Master Creator as the source of design and complexity in living systems. The irony is obvious: Secular scientists censor creation research, then they mock creation scientists for not publishing in secular journals.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
In a fish’s experience there isn’t an anti-dryness bias either... because it does not understand water.
I will present 4 links from here on Free Republic discussing articles about just that:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3364483/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3375698/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2401051/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2075975/posts
There are plenty more if you’d bother to look.
Re: “But with science, rather than making up some deity to explain it all away, we just say we don’t know.”
Actually, people who claim to be scientists, often don’t just say, “we don’t know,” but rather, “we may not know, but we do KNOW it can’t be God.”
I’m not saying that that is what you claim, but I would just suggest that the belief that God created the universe is not “making up some deity to explain it all away” - rather, the other way around, that the existence of the universe points to the possible existence of God. After all, doesn’t the Big Bang imply a Big Banger, or at least that possibility?
Yes, there seems to be a concerted effort to chill theism and usurp its place, not just work alongside of it.
And usually the replacement proposed is a much worse clumsy bum than most churches could be, too. It is not afraid to posit purposes of humanity in the next breath after saying it believes there is none.
Here is where righteous indignation has a place and if “scientists” get all huffy about it, too bad.
Still waiting for that reliable source. As a science student I assume you wrote a few scientific papers. Do the profs at Annapolis allow you to use newspaper articles in your literature reviews?
I have read thousands of scientific publications. I have never read anything like you describe.
I’m sorry, but you don’t make any sense.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L03710, dos:10.1029/2004GL021750, 2005 a copy of which I found here:
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf
THE M&M CRITIQUE OF THE MBH98 NORTHERN HEMISPHERE CLIMATE INDEX: UPDATE AND IMPLICATIONS
Stephen McIntyre
512–120 Adelaide St. West, Toronto, Ontario Canada M5H 1T1;
Ross McKitrick
Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Guelph Ontario Canada N1G2W1.
a copy of which I found here: https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-ee-2005.pdf
Presentation to the National Academy of Sciences Expert Panel, “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 1,000-2,000 Years.”
Stephen McIntyre, Toronto Ontario
Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Economics University of Guelph
March 2, 2006
which I found here: https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/nas-mm.pdf
There are plenty of others explaining how the data was selected to support the ‘man-made’ “hockey stick” was falsified using improper scientific research methods. The IPCC is a joke of a scientific organization with a political agenda . I’m sure they aren’t the only ones.
Re: “I have read thousands of scientific publications. I have never read anything like you describe.”
Not exactly sure which part of my last post you are referring to but Stephen Hawking recently said:
“There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the universe.”
Harvard geneticist, Richard Lewontin, “The problem is to get [people] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth.”
Isn’t that the same thing as saying that we may not know how the universe began, but we do KNOW that it can’t be God? When Hawking and others define belief in God being the initiator of the existence of the universe as “irrational” and “outside the realm of science” yet claim that the universe created itself from nothing IS rational and within the realm of science - that sounds a bit contradictory or hypocritical to me.
And these represent their opinions, not findings published in peer reviewed scientific publications.
Re: “And these represent their opinions, not findings published in peer reviewed scientific publications.”
Ok.
Science is like art. It is just a name for something people do. And, at the end of the day, art is the higher pursuit.
"I am a scientist who does research at a major university. In my experience there is no anti-religious climate in science." - Stormer 3-21-16
I’m afraid you’ll have to be specific. I’m not going to wade through your links.
"I am a scientist who does research at a major university. In my experience there is no anti-religious climate in science. "
No, you misunderstand both history and science.
Modern science originated as "natural philosophy" in ancient times -- the study of nature.
By the time of our Founders the name was becoming "natural science" meaning the study of nature, but also including only natural explanations.
So, classical natural philosophers like Isaac Newton certainly believed in God, but as the Great Clock Maker, who, so to speak, creates & winds up the Universe then lets nature take its course.
Yes, the study of nature -- natural science -- is the study of God's laws, but not of God's miraculous actions.
So in today's world, the distinction between "science" and "not science" is precisely that: science assigns only natural causes for natural processes.
Any non-natural causes, such as divine miracles, belong to some other realm of study like theology, philosophy or metaphysics.
Bottom line: regardless of how often a scientist finds the Hand of God at work in nature, he or she will give it some other name, a natural name, such as "gravity" or "relativity" or, indeed, "evolution".
We understand that's the way modern science works, and we are never held to the same restrictions as natural-science.
Instead, we are 100% free to recognize God's handiwork wherever and whenever we see it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.