The Washington Post report on attacks on Richard Sternberg, editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, demonstrates why many scientists are afraid to publically challenge the beliefs of Darwinian fundamentalists. Sternberg decided to encourage discussion of the issue of the origin of life by publishing an article on the issue of Intelligent Design - the idea that biological systems are to sophisticated to have developed without the aid of some Intelligence. Advocates of I.D. include some who support the idea of gradual development of species over long periods of time and the idea that Ronald Reagan and his costar Bonzo the Chimp might be distant relatives. The reaction from Darwinian fundamentalists who call themselves scientists was swift and vicious. They immediately sought to discredit Sternberg for publishing the article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html This reaction demonstrates why scientific journals contain few criticisms of the idea that random mutations could somehow have created sohisticated biological systems. Darwinists like their most vocal adversaries the creationists have 1-bit minds. They can conceive of only two possibilities to explain the origin of life, Darwinism and Creationism. They ignore the possibility of other theories including those that combine aspects of the two beliefs, such as God might have created life using gradual changes, or other possibilities such as the idea that Extraterrestrials might have been involved. Progress in science requires willingness to consider other possibilities. The attacks on Sternberg sound more like what we have come to expect from political activists out to destroy the opposition. I'm not posting this thread to encourage a discussion of the origin of life. That would be a waste of time because too many are too set in their beliefs to do more than simply repeat them. The question here is whether scientists should be willing to consider other views without trying to destroy those who disagree and whether the peer review process has become more a process to insure orthodoxy or to evaluate the merits of theories.