Does Science Have An Open Mind

[HagiaSophia]

The career of a prominent researcher at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington is in jeopardy after he published a peer-reviewed article by a leading proponent of intelligent design, an alternative to evolutionary theory dismissed by the science and education establishment as a tool of religious conservatives.
Stephen Meyer’s article advocates the theory of intelligent design. (Photo courtesy Discovery Institute)

Richard Sternberg says that although he continues to work in the museum’s Department of Zoology, he has been kicked out of his office and shunned by colleagues, prompting him to file a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.

Sternberg charges he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of perceived religious beliefs.

“I’m spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career,” Sternberg told David Klinghoffer, a columnist for the Jewish Forward, who reported the story in the Wall Street Journal…"

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42600

 

[rwoehmke]

Bigots are bigots the world over and science has no corner on the bigot market. You have your scientist bigots, your business/trade bigots your religous bigots, your race bigots, your political bigots and a plethora of other types of bigot. They can all be very nice people until their favorite prejudice is insulted. You can meet them all over, even on these hallowed threads.

 

[jdnation]

Ah the same as usual… in answer to the question, does science have an open mind? it should, Science is not there to substantiate anybody’s philosophical idea of how life came into existence, it simply observes what is happening now. Why this is happening in this manner and how it got here cannot be tested when it concerns the past in which no recordings of scientific research took place. All evolution and creationism are are speculations and mechanisms based on an unchangable dogma. Science is not obligated to anyone. Each side uses what science finds, interprets it according to dogma, and tries to further promote their view.

Evolutionists currently have the monopoly and they will unfairly discriminate and destroy all opposition against their philosophical view. The recent Time Magazine has an article ‘Covert attack on Evolution’ and besides the fact that Time has always been biased against religion and tends to promote the evolutionist view more, if you’ve been keeping up with any articles from any newspapers etc. the evolutionists never bother to challenge the creationists (although they do shout a lot of empty rhetoric that they will), all that’s being argued is that creationists are trying to promote a religious agenda, imagine that… that’s all that’s being argued, Church State separation (although what this has to do with Science I don’t know… perhaps government funding…)

The funny thing is that they feel atheist approaches are somehow neutral! The joke is that atheists are just as religious! Atheism itself is not a religion but a statement of non belief, however atheists must have something to replace the thought of origin and how to live ones life, they cannot just leave it empty. Their religion/s are naturalism, scientism and secular humanism. Scientists are the new mythmakers and will dictate what their morality is and what’s allowed which may be changed given any particular place and time, there is no God but man, and they are neither obligated to obey their own morals, if they can get away with it, all the better. So government ends up supporting a religion more anyway! One just as organized with as many heirarchies, authorities, divisions, dogmas, schisms and schools of thought as any other established Church. Church State separation doesn’t exist, it is impossible! The real meaning is that government make decisions and policies based on the (name removed by moderator)ut of every side without favortism. The side with the better arguments ought to win. However what we are seeing is censorship of the other side before any debate can being. It’s the same with gay marriage, abortion etc.

As their bigotry is so adequately shown…

“Klinghoffer points out the circularity of the arguments of critics who insisted intelligent design was unscientific because if had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
“Now that it has,” he wrote, “they argue that it shouldn’t have been because it’s unscientific.””

 

[philipmarus]

I’ve read recently that Germany currently bans Home schooling. This seems to go hand in hand with why Evolutionists fights so hard to make sure only their view is allowed in state controlled schools.

 

[Lisa_N]

Having grown up with two PhD scientists who were often wrong but NEVER in doubt, the one word answer is NO.

Lisa N