It's refreshing to hear honest researchers simply report on the data and candidly admit where the evidence appears to lead. But this honesty comes at a terrible price. You would think that the scientific arena would promote objectivity and serious consideration of all ideas. But that's not what we find. In fact, it's just the opposite. It is the goal of every researcher to get published. But in academia, peer review is used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. And under this flawed system, the acceptance of a new find trumps its actual validity: "We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong." (Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet).
"The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers may enable the intermediators to act as gatekeepers. Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories. Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that match them. At the same time, established scientists are more likely than others to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals/publishers. As a result, ideas that harmonize with the established experts' are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones." (Wikipedia, "Peer Review," various sources, references 41-48.)
Under such restrictions, as you would expect, researchers are forced to go along if they want to get along. Otherwise their careers are over before they've even begun. And it is within this environment that for some bizarre reason intelligent design has been absolutely barred from all discussion.
Guillermo Gonzalez is one of the astrobiologists who co-wrote the book, "The Privileged Planet". He was an assistant professor in the department of physics and astronomy at Iowa State University. When I checked into his background a little deeper I was disappointed to learn (but certainly not surprised) that after publishing his views in the book that he co-authored, his tenure was subsequently denied by the university when it came due. "Academic tenure is primarily intended to guarantee the right to academic freedom: it protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or spend time on unfashionable topics. Thus academic tenure is similar to the lifetime tenure that protects some judges from external pressure. Without job security, the scholarly community as a whole may experience pressure to favor noncontroversial lines of academic inquiry. The intent of tenure is to allow original ideas to be more likely to arise, by giving scholars the intellectual autonomy to investigate the problems and solutions as they see fit, and to report their honest conclusions." (Wikipedia). After many appeals he has since moved on and currently resides at Ball State University in Indiana as an assistant professor in the department of physics and astronomy.
Two years prior to his consideration for tenure, approximately 130 members of the faculty of Iowa State University signed a statement opposing "all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor." Similar statements were issued by faculty at the University of Northern Iowa and at the University of Iowa. A total of approximately 400 professors signed the three petitions. Here are a few of the statements made:
"Intelligent Design has become a significant issue in science education, and it has now established a presence, even if minimal, at Iowa State University. Accordingly, if you are concerned about the negative impact of Intelligent Design on the integrity of science and on our university, please consider signing the "Statement on Intelligent Design by Iowa State University Faculty" below. We, therefore, urge all faculty members to uphold the integrity of our university of "science and technology," convey to students and the general public the importance of methodological naturalism in science, and reject efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science."
Wow. Does that sound like objective scientists to anybody? Banding together to pre-emptively strike down any and all theory of intelligent design, regardless of evidence. A Creator is just too unthinkable for these "scientists" regardless of where the evidence leads. Even the TV show, Ancient Aliens, is more objective than this bunch and regularly exposes the ridiculously flawed version of history we are required to believe. They, too, however, have an unthinkable attitude toward God, and so attribute our creation and assistance to aliens. The responsibility for the overwhelming evidence for our design has to belong to someone, right?
How very strange that any honest research that leads to logical conclusions pointing to intelligent design should be such an affront to the establishment, and so, be discredited straightaway. Once upon a time we formed theories based on evidence. Today we force the "evidence" to fit the theory and discard what doesn't fit. This inexcusable bias and intolerance to truth is, alas, the reality of the "science" of today. Shameful. We really have to do our own homework and fully utilize the Internet. Mainstream channels are unreliable and you simply won't find the truth on T.V. Hats off to the folks who are risking everything by resisting these academic bullies, sacrificing promotions and careers to reach us with the facts.
We can make up our own minds from there.
The Last Trump, Christian News Network 21 Comments
[7/30/2015 2:16:39 PM]
Fundie Index: 8