Vir nog aanhalings, kyk Aanhalings in die Indeks.
*****************
Prof. J.W. Patterson:
… as a matter of fact, creationism should be discriminated against. … No advocate of such propaganda should be trusted to teach science classes or administer science programs anywhere or under any circumstances. Moreover, if any are now doing so, they should be dismissed. Patterson is ’n professor in ingenieurswese aan ’n Iowa Staats-universiteit. Een van die organisasies wat sy artikel gepubliseer het, die National Center for Science Education, se hoofdoelwitte is om skeppingsleer te beveg. Hulle word deur die Carnegie Foundation befonds.
[Uit “Journal of the National Center for Science Education” van herfs 1984, bl. 19, verklaar]
*****************
Iowa State University engineering professor
‘… as a matter of fact, creationism should be discriminated against. … No advocate of such propaganda should be trusted to teach science classes or administer science programs anywhere or under any circumstances. Moreover, if any are now doing so, they should be dismissed.’
[Uit Games some people play]
*****************
George Caylor en “J”:
Kyk na die volgende onderhoud van George Caylor met ’n molekulêre bioloog – geïdentifiseer as “J” – in ‘The Biologist’ in The [Lynchburg, VA] Ledger, 17 Feb. 2000:
J: . . . To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times.
* One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself.
* Two, it would be insane to say you don’t believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures – everything would stop. I’d be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn’t earn a decent living.
Caylor: I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.
J: The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind’s worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.
[Uit Why do so many scientists endorse Evolution?]
*****************
Karl Giberson, redigeerder van “Research News & Opportunities in Science and Theology”
If an editor chooses to publish a hostile review of a book, common politeness would suggest that the author ought to have some space to respond. But editors have a “higher calling” than common politeness, namely the editorial mission and guidelines that inform every decision as to what will be printed and what will be rejected. I have learned, since becoming the editor of Research News, common politeness is often in tension with editorial priorities … In my editorial judgment, the collection of ideas known as “scientific creationism” (which is not the same as intelligent design) lacks the credibility to justify publishing any submissions that we get from its adherents. I would go even further, in fact. The collection of creationist ideas (6,000 year old earth, no common ancestry, all the fossils laid down by Noah’s flood, Genesis creation account read literally, etc.) has been so thoroughly discredited by both scientific and religious scholarship that I think it is entirely appropriate for Research News to print material designed to move our readers away from this viewpoint. For example, we might publish a negative review of a book promoting scientific creationism … while refusing to allow the author a chance to respond. Is this an unfair bias? Or is it proper stewardship of limited editorial resources?’
[Uit Creationism, Science and Peer Review]
*****************
XXX
“On my public list I have well over 2,000 names, including about a dozen Nobel Prize winners but, unfortunately, a large number of persons that could be added to the public list, including many college professors, did not want their name listed because of real concerns over possible retaliation or harm to their careers. Many of those who did not want their names on this list are young academics without tenure, or academics who are concerned that “outing” them could seriously damage their career. This is a valid concern.”
*****************
Dr Eugene Scott
“In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.”
[Uit Eugenie Scott admits: if students heard criticism of evolution, then they might not believe it!
Kyk ook Does CMI misrepresent evolution?]
*****************
Joao Magueijo
Reader in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College
Peer review is an unpaid and usually anonymous activity. Perhaps for this reason the average referee report is sloppy and sleazy. Reports usually reveal that the referee has not read the paper. Acceptance of rejection often reflects the personal relationship between authors and referee. Publishers have always been reluctant to open their files to historians of science and sociologists. Clearly they are embarrassed to reveal how little science, and how much sociology, there is in their files.
Portuurevaluering is ’n onbetaalde en gewoonlik anonieme aktiwiteit. Miskien is dit vir hierdie rede dat die gemiddelde skeidsregtersverslag slordig en flou is. Verslae dui gewoonlik daarop dat die skeidsregter nie die verslag gelees het nie. Aanvaarding of verwerping weerspieël dikwels die persoonlike verhouding tussen skrywers en skeidsregters. Uitgewers was nog altyd onwillig om hul lêers oop te maak vir geskiedkundiges van die wetenskap en sosioloë was. Dit is duidelik dat hulle verleë is om te openbaar hoe min wetenskap, en hoeveel sosiologie, daar is in hul lêers is.
[Uit “Electronic Archives and the death of journals”. Kyk ook bevets.com/equotesm]