first off, i dont think scientist throughout the word and research department are the same as an organized government power.
seeing as some of them are government sponsored and privately funded each seeking to prove or disprove one anothers theories in order to push their own individuals theory. how would it be possible for scientist who tried using practical applications and inventions if one side was withholding information that was reliant on the success of their experiments..
it is far more unlikely that scientist are conspiracy against the general population then it is for government organization to do the same thing.
not that i trust all the science without it being thoroughly proven or reasonably explained and even then one has to remain suspect as science is susceptable to change with further understanding and research..
There's a real difference between what is possible to loose in the question between creationism and evolution. Creationism has much more to loose than does evolution.
Pointing at other large organizations that have hidden aspects of their mandate and dogma is no justification for hiding anything. It's still an intentional restriction of truth for selfish gain or benefit; be it the Pope or Dawkins.
There is absolutely no question as to which side of the argument has more indisputable fact on it's side. The question is which side is smart enough to be open-minded enough to incorporate those facts (or lack there-of) into their world view. The bible as fact is beyond reasonable question, even the catholic church, the oldest christian organization in the world, admits that. There's simply no way to reconcile the mythology of the bible with the unquestionable facts that discount it as such.
It isn't necessarily...however the collapse of evolution is. All biology is based on it...if it was to be found out to be wrong there would be a huge hole in the scientific world...
People have come out and said evolution is wrong and for that they have been ridiculed by the Scientific Elite.
The scientific world is a community, every community has elites. Science is no exception.
(I am not saying that certain Scientific bodies are suppressing facts which might prove to be the undoing of evolution...just that it is possible- not one of those "yeah well everything is possible" kind of possibilities, but a very real one...)
You think the form of rationale behind most creationist thinking isn't a threat to science? People often assume science will destroy religion...maybe it will be the other way around...
No, I don't think it's a threat to science. I would venture the opinion that most religious people are not as totally irrational as a few of the posters in this thread. I am not a religious person by any means, but I'm not affraid to accept that I don't have all the answers and that anyone who claims to have them all because of a book or a personal belief is operating from a uncontrolable fear that they might not have all the answers.
To some people, admitting that I don't know everything should also imply that they might. But I am no more or less enlightened than any other human being in this world.
they would want me to think that if i disagree then study science and find my own answer using the scientific method.. science is very easy to check up on with knowledge at our finger tips.
the only one i see keeping ppl poorly educated is religion and its out dated believe system.. i am embarrassed when i here halve of the U.S. believes that man and dinosaurs lived around the same time.
You own a massive supercomputer and particle accelerator?
Because that's what scientists want you to think. If there is an ancient conspiracy around it would only have lasted so long by not being easy to spot. Everybody suspects religion of it so we know it's not religion. That means science is evil
All thanks to the work of science.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
The only "science" that ever gets beyond the lab is that which is chosen for publication in journals
normally journals have clear standards and are open to new ideas, however, editors and reviews can have biases.
The research I'm involved in is running into a strong bias at the journal we want to be published in. A lot of it, at least we and some others think, has to do with the fact that the person-who-owns-the-journal's thesis are not supported by our stuff.
I think feceman had 1 example of something like this in a biological journal with respect to intelligent design.
KMC Community Forums
Attachment: 
Jan 14th, 2009 02:13 AM
