Are you talking about "anti science" here, or are you talking about politics?

When a scientist (or group of scientists) decide that they can't do their research without government funding, they pretty much have to accept the cow with the milk. "Government Funded Independent Research" might as well be an oxymoron. First the scientists turn to the government for funding, then the politicians start telling the researchers what should and shouldn't be researched. The researchers cry foul because they rightfully feel like the research is only valid if it's done properly. Politicians then threaten to cut funding. You can substitute "company" for "government" if you want, the result is the same.

Our public schools are the same. Like it or not, scientists are not school boards, but then again, neither is clergy. Some scientists say, "The Big Bang" and "Evolution" are the only scientific explanations for the origin and progression of the universe. Others jump up and say, "It's just as easy to come to the conclusion that a designer keeping everything running like clockwork as it is to conclude that trillions of things are all working in unison by chance".

Some scientists scoff and say, "ah, that's just religion talking" (which is kind of ironic because nobody else is saying who or what the "designer" is/was, they are merely saying that trillions of things all working in unison is too big a coindincidince to conclude it was all random). The others say, "how do you use the order of the universe to prove it's randomness?"

So, which scientists are right? Can randomness be used to prove order? Can scientific method be used to come to the conclusion that order must have had a designer? Can scientific method be used to explain how something can come from nothing (especially when science has already established the fact that it can't)?

Back at school, school boards are caught between the two schools of thought among scientists and the demands of parents and politicians.

A few facts can be concluded from this situation.

Fact: If you accept money from an outside source, you are no longer an "independent researcher" and subject to the whims, wishes and demands of that outside source.

Fact: If you work for someone else, you are no longer an "independent researcher" and subject to the whims, wishes and demands of those you work for (in this case a school board, and parents).

Fact: Unless you can convince ALL scientists that their conclusions are wrong, you are stuck with having to put up with a split scientific community.

Fact: Since scientists are just as human as anybody else, you aren't going to be able to convince ALL scientists that their conclusions are wrong....

Which brings us back to Politics, but this time we aren't talking about elected officials, we are talking about the Politics of Science.

Good luck! :~D

Good article XX.  It drives me nuts that people feel that they have the right to either just make stuff up for science, or hinder it according to whatever.

We should scrap NASA and reallocate the resources back to the pentagon, the Air Force and not those bone heads in the Army. JPL should be a division of the NSF so the planetary mission could continue.

ParaTed2k, did you read the external URL? This guy tried to inject "just a theory" into everything after big bang words. Is it scientific? NO. (Read my Theory and Theory article)

Also, NASA pretty much fired this guy. He don't even work for NASA anymore and tried to lie his way out in later interviews. Pathetic.

I suspect a group of people is trying to create a sentiment against science.

Religion has always seen science as the enemy. Notice how all proponents of evolution are automatically described as anti-Christian. Not to say that there isn’t some anti-religion sentiment among scientist. The church has often tried to control and shape scientific discovery to suit their needs so there is some resentment there. Carl Sagans movie Contact was an obvious dig at region interfering with scientific progress.

The Center for Science and Culture (CSC) that is the major force behind the movement to get ID taught as an alternative to evolution had a leaked internal document titled “The Wedge” describing there plan to "overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies," and the replacement of "materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." There ultimate goal is to do away with all modern science. This is not some fringe group; this is a large influential organization that gets a lot of support from other mainstream Christian organizations. Link

'There ultimate goal is to do away with all modern science. This is not some fringe group; this is a large influential organization that gets a lot of support from other mainstream Christian organizations.'

And if that's their aim, they should be honest enough to say so, in which case I could at least respect them for their integrity if little else. But they don't. Instead, they hide behind a facade of scientific rigour, calling themselves the 'Center for Science and Culture' when they are patently nothing of the sort. This kind of subterfuge suggests to me only that their arguments are so flimsy as to require deception in order to have any hope of their being accepted.

Religions tend to be very permissive of their own. Most do not agree with what the CSC is doing but they don’t disagree enough to say anything. Like Pat Robertson can call for the assassination of foreign leaders or say that Atheist should not be allowed US citizenship and it’s disagreed with, but he’s a Christian so it’s forgiven. Most Muslims disagree with the actions of the extremist but not enough to seriously condemn them. In the back of their mind they think “maybe Ala does want a jihad with the infidels”. I’M NOT comparing Muslim extremist to Pat Robertson, Pat only talks about killing people. But religions in general must be less forgiving of what is said and done in their name.

I thought the issue with NASA wasn't trying to suppress science, but to prohibit government employees from using their government position to make policy speeches in contradiction of the government's stated policy.

That is, the proper job of a NASA director is to direct NASA, not to use his title to get free airtime to criticize government environmental policy--a topic that NASA is not chartered to develop policy on.

Yeah. That guy went too far, however. He tried to do to big bang what creatism people have done with theory of evolution.

That is, he tried to supress the theory of bang bang in order to push for creatism.

I suspect he got this job just because he was a lackey of some polician that support creatism policies. He didn't even have a required degree for that important job!

Here’s the money quote, folks, the part that has me so outraged. Sitting down? You’ll need to be. In October, for example, George Deutsch, a presidential appointee in NASA headquarters, told a Web designer working for the agency to add the word “theory” after every mention of the Big Bang, according to an e-mail message from Mr. Deutsch that another NASA employee forwarded to The Times.

did you see bill maher last nite (2/24/06)? he showed a pic of atlantis (which is scheduled to be retired in 2008) and announced it would be sent to one of the more backward red states where residents would be encouraged to attack it with sticks.