They have an agenda to push, after all.
I don't know. Do they?
What about secular scientists? Do they not have an agenda too, to obscure evidence, hurry with research, etc., in order to obtain or to maintain recognition and funding?
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C="That article, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, sparked a small flurry of headlines.
Horner and others regarded Schweitzer's research as carefully performed and credible. Nonetheless, says Horner,
"most people were very skeptical. Frequently in our field people come up with new ideas, and opponents say, 'I just don't believe it.' She was having a hard time publishing in journals."
"Until that moment, no one had ever identified that tissue in a dinosaur, making it impossible to definitively sex such an animal. "
Everything we've ever tried to do has been an utter guess," Schweitzer says"
"Schweitzer agrees. "I am a slam-dunk scientist," she says. "I would have much rather held the paper back until we had reams and reams of data."
But without publishing a journal article, she says, she could never have hoped for funding. "Without the papers in Science, I didn't stand a chance," she says.
"That's the saddest part about doing science in America: You are totally driven by what gets you funding." Since publishing, Schweitzer has conducted many of the analyses Poinar suggests, with initially promising results."