If mainstream scientists support non-Creationism views because they need grant money...(details)?

Question

I just asked a question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071115182826AALVR7M&cp=2

And the most legitimate (or rather, least silly) answer was that scientists would all loose their jobs/loose grant money if they dared to support the "truth" of Creationism.

So the question now is: Why are the people in charge of the grant money (basically, the people supporting scientists) hell-bent on refuting Creationism (as Creationists seem to think)? What's their agenda?

And how is it that all these ego-driven blasphemers seem to agree, scientifically? You don't have all these different camps saying that the earth's 7 million, 2 billion, 120,000 years old, etc. Weird huh?

Grazie: DING DING DING!!! You win a cookie!

Linda J: I'm not talking about piddly details like whether this kind of frog should be considered a separate species or a subspecies. I'm talking about the big stuff, like evolution, age of the universe, continental drift, etc. Not a whole lot of contention there.

Punch: Remember, we're trying to stay in the real world here, not Fantasy Land (although it would be nice!).

johmcn: So true...sadly, so true...

Ryan H: "But many of them are atheists or at the very least evolutionists, and thus they already have prejudice toward supporting the views they already believe are true."

WHAT??

Answer 1

Can you imagine the kind of grant money that the Christian Coalition would pay to have a legitimate scientist lend credence to their fairy tales?

The billions of dollars a year that the Christian cult amasses from its followers could buy off the entire scientific community.

That is, they could if legitimate scientists didn't have any integrity.

But unfortunately for them, integrity is what separates science from religion.

Answer 2

To be fair, scientists try to strive toward understanding the measurable reality of the universe. But many of them are atheists or at the very least evolutionists, and thus they already have prejudice toward supporting the views they already believe are true. It is not necessarily egocentricity that drives them, but it may well be blinders to the possibility that evolution may not carry all the answers science is looking for.

Answer 3

So why do so many people believe in evolution? It’s simple, most people believe what they want to believe and they don’t want there to be a God. You see, if God created us, then He also owns us. If He owns us, then He has a right to set the rules by which we must live. If He has set the rules by which we must live, then we are accountable to Him. They don’t want to be accountable to God; they don’t want to be controlled. And so, it is their desire to explain the origin of everything without a Creator at all costs; they MUST believe in evolution. Evolutionism then, is intrinsically an atheistic religion—the religion of secular humanism.

And so much of it is academic peer pressure; it’s not wanting to be different. We are so indoctrinated in molecules-to-man evolution, and many people are intimidated (e.g. Ben Stein's new movie).

Secular scientists are fallible human beings with limited knowledge and limited understanding, and like every human, they hate to be criticized and are subject to bias and preconceived ideas, and they don’t want to lose their grant money.

Neo-Darwinian evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who don’t know everything and who were not there. And history shows that the scientific establishment has been wrong time after time; that is why the science textbooks constantly have to be revised. Often, the bold pronouncements of secular scientists are contradicted years or even months later.

The majority of people used to believe that the world was flat; did that make it flat? The majority of doctors used to think they didn’t need to wash their hands before an operation; did that save the people they were infecting? And on and on... Those who discovered the truth and tried to teach differently were soundly rejected by their colleagues. And as it has been said, “The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

As Dr. Ross Olson said, “Even though the scientific method is supposed to encourage objectivity, some data get recorded and some get ignored, some articles get published and some get rejected—a lot depends on the very human motives of individual people. Even looking at the same data and the same articles, different observers can come to different conclusions. Great breakthroughs in science are not achieved only by the brilliant. They are shared by the honest and courageous who study the emperor’s new clothes and regard truth as more important than political correctness or a grant for further study. This does not mean that someone outside the herd is automatically right. But proper conclusions may be opposed by scholars with ulterior motives.”

Swedish biologist Soren Lovtrup made an interesting statement: “I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology...I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?”

From what I have seen, I have to agree with T. Wallace: “A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)”

Answer 4

We all know grant money can be obtained for any ridiculous idea. The approval does not have to serve a purpose. It is easier to get approval if you are a published scientist and that's all that matters. It makes no difference if you fake your findings. Just that you find what people want to see. Like that has never happened.

Answer 5

Simple, they support Evolutionary Science because they are Scientists and Scientists tend to be logical. Maybe Satan gives a lot of Grants?

Answer 6

There are few "known" because of the fact as quickly as they set loose they're creationists they're forged out of the club. it is one occasion i ought to furnish you lots extra. in case you like a catalogue PHD scientists i supplies you you that, in reality solutions in Genesis has many on paintings rigidity. contained in terms of Richard Sternberg, a Smithsonian examine affiliate and previous coping with editor of the self reliant mag pronounced as the court docket circumstances of the organic and organic Society of Washington, it meant being forged out of the celebrated Smithsonian company in Washington, D.C. almost immediately after publishing the article “The beginning place of organic and organic information and the better Taxonomic categories,” senior scientists on the Smithsonian company lashed out at Sternberg, calling him a “shoddy scientist” and a “closet Bible thumper,” in accordance to a Washington placed up article (August 19). In August 2004, information agencies international reported on the debate as Sternberg got here under severe scrutiny or perhaps persecution for publishing the article written with the aid of Stephen Meyer, a Discovery Institute fellow. “i exchange into singled out for harassment and threats on the inspiration that they think of I’m a creationist,” Sternberg reported in a Washington situations article (February 14, 2005).

Answer 7

Why doesn't the religious right take all that money that their throwing to the Republican politics and instead use it to give to scientist to support their view. Who can be bought, Scientists or Politics?

Answer 8

Amazing that all these ego driven blasphemers agree! I know! And it's like they have to run all these tests and write papers that might be reviewed by others NOT getting said grants! Oh my Zeus! How do they keep those others quiet?

Yup, total conspiracy....

Answer 9

Only people doing science that passes peer review will be granted money. Cranks rarely get any ones backing, excepting other cranks.

Answer 10

Go read the Blind Watchmaker or something. Its astounding how people can comment on Creationism with any degree of ignorance.