Post date: Dec 06, 2008 11:13:10 AM
‘Science … is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as ‘truth’ is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time … [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm — in this case neo-Darwinism — so it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict the paradigm to get a hearing. They’ll find it difficult to [get] research grants; they’ll find it hard to get their research published; they’ll, in fact, find it very hard.’
Professor Evelleen Richards, Science Historian, University of NSW, Australia, Lateline, 9 October 1998, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3839
‘Many well qualified scientists of the highest standing would today accept many of Wilberforce’s criticims of Darwin … today it is the conventional neo-Darwinians who appear as the conservative bigots.’
Professor Sir Edmund Leech, addressing the 1981 annual meeting of the British Association for the advancement of Science.
‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.’
‘Battle over evolution’ Bill Moyers interviews Richard Dawkins, Now, 3 December 2004, PBS network
Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University:
‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’
Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.
‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen [but see the difference between origin and operational science—Ed.].’
Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
Professor D.M.S. Watson, one of the leading biologists and science writers of his day, demonstrated the atheistic bias behind much evolutionary thinking when he wrote:
Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.
D.M.S. Watson, Adaptation, Nature 124:233, 1929
More: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830