Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Because atheist scientists totally don't have an agenda:http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=45e0467e-defe-421b-a471-f28fbbf2db27
That was a wonderful source for my paper on creationism in education.
That'a a wonderful try, but let me address why it fails to be relevant.
The article actually supports, at least on the part of several of the scientists mentioned, my earlier point that the creationist scientists Tim Rout parades are typically condemned because of their methods, not their faith. The article even mentions Pythagoras, whoh was a member of "a cult with their own strange beliefs" -in paraphrase, as I can't recall the specific wording.
It also is an article written, not by a scientist, but by a journalist who has a hard time reporting the story objectively; without adding his two cents. So, you can't blame scientists for the things said by the writer of the article. The animosity displayed in the article doesn't come from the scientists, but rather from teh journalist writing the piece.
As Scott claims, he's worried that Ross will use his doctorate to "miseducate" the pubic. But he also says that his methods are impeccible; yet also present a stark contrast to his apparent beliefs. So, apparenty Ross is a young earth creationist who believes the planet to be no more than 10,000 years old, but his adherence to the proper scientific method has resultd in his doctorate being awarded.
All that being said, Gentry, the scientist mentioned several posts back, was a Seventh-day Adventist who also recieved several degrees and then spent 30 years ignoring his education in order to further his creationist beliefs. I would imagine this is what Dr. Ross is addressing. (not Gentry specifically, but the discouraging trend witnessed and refuted by many other scientists)
As for the paradigm revolution mentioned, it's less a matter of truth with which you seem take exception and more the fact that the paradigms aren't tossed out wholesale in favor of going back to the less apparent and provable ones. Because evolutionary theory hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt doesn't mean that creationism hasn't been disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Now, surely a guy who names himself after a 6000 year old solar-system-wide astrological event couldn't want to go back to thinking the sun is the center of the solar system.