It is unfit for science just as prejudice is a blight in the court room.

The good news is that the inconsistency of being anti-design out of an anti-God prejudice is becoming too obvious to hide any longer, with thanks lately in part to Dawkins. It won’t work to deny the possibility of design, just because someone hates the idea of anything that might indicate that undirected natural processes are insufficient.

IOW, even if abiogenesis is possible in some fashion, that would not even then guarantee that the form of life we see (based on symbolic information processing) is necessarily explainable by undirected processes.

Such a priori requirements, whether to exclude design or to exclude rocks falling from the sky (which Aristotle explained couldn’t be possible), are always bad for science, since they can compel scientists to spout nonsense that fits the requirement, though it distorts our understanding of nature. So we end up explaining meteorites as the ejections of volcanoes or assert that chemicals behave in ways they do not.

Ergo, the issue raised by the intelligent design hypothesis is legitimately a worthwhile scientific issue, not a question that could be settled within a religion class, etc.

That is not a defense of abiogenesis, but I would hope that those who accept abiogenesis would at least follow their assumptions through and face up to the logical consequences.

the countless examples of closed-minded rejection and persecution of “heretics” in many fields of science, not just evolutionary biology.

I’d love to learn more about the countless examples, links please!

Step 2: type “find chuck norris” in the search box (do not press enter) .

Step 3: click “I’m feeling lucky” instead.

Jason @ 35

Actually if that is true the discipline of science is unworkable and useless.

Out of interest, are you a working scientist and if so don’t you question the status quo? It seems to me that religion is fixed in place and should not (cannot) be questioned, whereas the whole point of science is that it’s provisional and should be continuously questioned. As science is not “unworkable and useless” as evidenced by the fact you are sitting in front of a computer, what’s the reason?

Daniel King @ 31

The National Institutes of Health, of all places. If this story can be substantiated, surely a Congressional Investigation is in order.

Exactly my thinking! My inital thought is this is potentially one of the most explosive things to come out of the whole expelled debate.
The professional journals would love an opportunity (not all are fans of the NIH) to shine the light of truth on such activities!

Salvador, any chance of any further details? As I said above, I have some contacts that would love an opportuity to make a name for themselves exposing such behaviour.

Walt Ruloff mentioned that in filming Expelled he observed there is active suppression of the exploration of RNA synthesis at places like the NIH. These discoveries would overturn much of neo-Darwinism but these medical advances can’t be funded because they violate the party line.

Without breaking any confidences, would it be possible for you to go into any further detail on this very serious allegation?

I’ve some contacts in the profession that would be very interested to hear the specifics of this suppression of the exploration of RNA synthesis at the NIH and I’d be happy to pass the details onto them. I assure you it would be looked into by open minded people.

Thanks

Actually if that is true the discipline of science is unworkable and useless.

Daniel King (13): “Interesting speculations, Milkman, that prick my curiosity.

What kinds of new discoveries do you envision?

I know scientists who’d give their eye teeth to shake up the establishment.”

They certainly would not give their eye teeth to have their career trashed. I’m sure Dr. Richard Sternberg has lost any nieve notions he might have had about shaking up the establishment with a peer reviewd paper that raised a different perspective on an old problem.

Major paradigm shifts in science are not typically smooth and easy. Understandably, the establishment has an investment in a current paradigm and does not prefer to be shaken up. It does not do so readily.

It took the better part of a century to move from scoffing to accepting the idea that rocks could fall from the sky, contrary to Aristotles view of the perfection of the heavens. And that change did not require any change to our view of humanity or of life.

Dean Kenyon was an origin of life scientist who authored a well received text book defending the abiogenesis hypothesis. But the accumulating data eventually convinced him that that hypothesis was unsustainable and he became convinced that the evidence pointed toward intelligent design as the best explanation. What did he get for his this? He had to fight to even continue teaching classes in his own field.

Daniel King (13): “Interesting speculations, Milkman, that prick my curiosity.

What kinds of new discoveries do you envision?

I know scientists who’d give their eye teeth to shake up the establishment.”

They certainly would not give their eye teeth to have their career trashed. I’m sure Dr. Richard Sternberg has lost any naive notions he might have had about shaking up the establishment with a peer reviewed paper that raised a different perspective on an old problem.

Major paradigm shifts in science are not typically smooth and easy. Understandably, the establishment has an investment in a current paradigm and does not prefer to be shaken up. It does not do so readily.

It took the better part of a century to move from scoffing to accepting the idea that rocks could fall from the sky, contrary to Aristotle’s view of the perfection of the heavens. And that change did not require any change to our view of humanity or of life.

Dean Kenyon was an origin of life scientist who authored a well received text book defending the abiogenesis hypothesis. But the accumulating data eventually convinced him that that hypothesis was unsustainable and he became convinced that the evidence pointed toward intelligent design as the best explanation. What did he get for his this? He had to fight to even continue teaching classes in his own field.