Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, writing in Human Events.
Excerpt:
There have been parallels cases where e-mail traffic was released showing Darwinian scientists displaying the same contempt for fair play and academic openness as we see now in the climate emails. One instance involved a distinguished astrophysicist at Iowa State University, Guillermo Gonzalez, who broke ranks with colleagues in his department over the issue of intelligent design in cosmology. Released under the Iowa Open Records Act, e-mails from his fellow scientists at ISU showed how his department conspired against him, denying Dr. Gonzales tenure as retribution for his views.
To me, the most poignant correspondence emerging from CRU e-mails involves discussion about punishing a particular editor at a peer-reviewed journal who was defying the orthodox establishment by publishing skeptical research.
In 2004, a peer-reviewed biology journal at the Smithsonian Institution published a technical essay of mine presenting a case for intelligent design. Colleagues of the journal’s editor, an evolutionary biologist, responded by taking away his office, his keys and his access to specimens, placing him under a hostile supervisor and spreading disinformation about him. Ultimately, he was demoted, prompting an investigation of the Smithsonian by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
Global warming alarmism and Darwinism are two sides of the same coin. The former is embraced to achieve socialism, the later is embraced to achieve secularism, which leads to moral relativism. Neither is true, so neither is interested in authentic scientific inquiry nor open-minded debates with dissenters. Non-theists don’t have a worldview that rationally justifies the moral requirements of scientific inquiry, so for them science is just something to be twisted to support hedonism.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
“Non-theists don’t have a worldview that rationally justifies the moral requirements of scientific inquiry, so for them science is just something to be twisted to support hedonism.”
I never thought about that. An interesting topic that need more attention. I mean, why would atheists be honest when they can get promoted, receive massive fundings, achieve fame while being dishonest?
Not saying atheists are dishonest, I’m just questioning the basis, now that we starting to see some shocking revelation from these emails.
LikeLike
Guillermo Gonzalez wasn’t pushing science, he was pushing religion – ID cannot be tested nor can it make any predictions. Any “theory” that states “god did it” is useless in scientific circles and must be ignored by any credible scientist.
Lets assume a god created animals as you proposed – he did it in a way that is logical, self-sustaining, and adaptable (think evolution) or he did it in a way that requires continued magical intervention, the latter should be detectable unless he put a “non-detection spell” on the whole process. I guess when god makes himself available we can all ask him
LikeLike
Was GG pushing religion when he made the cover of Scientific American, or when he co-authored that Cambridge University textbook in astronomy, and published articles in Science and Nature? What does it take to be a real scientist? Do you have to hide the decline using Mike’s Nature trick?
LikeLike
when he made the cover he was pushing science, but when he tried to push the idea that a magical being that we cannot verify, measure, or observe in any manner known, it stops being science. Science is about repeatable, observable, measurable theories that predictions or models can be made from (a simple description of course). ID fits none of that. It’s simply stating that there is a magical being that did it, trust us. You want to stop scientific progress – well, what if you’re wrong? We will have stagnated our progress for an idea that was (in my opinion, obviously) wrong. Science doesn’t stop because we believe we have found the answer, it continues to dig and investigate…much to the chagrin of religious zealots.
LikeLike