The fact is, mainstream science is secular, and if your scientific research doesn't reach secular conclusions it will be ignored by the secular majority. Quoting: Lada D
That is not "fact" at all! Where are you getting this from?
Let me explain it to you since you seem to be a bit confused.
"Mainstream" science studies subjects across the board, without the forethought of whether it is 'blasphemous' or not. Experiments are conducted, data gathered, then the findings are posted and picked at, with the main goal of other scientists to PROVE IT WRONG. If the data from a study, let's say on the grand canyon, suggests that it is older than 6,000 years, this does not automatically make the whole of science "secular". If by "secular", you actually mean without an agenda one way or the other, then yes. What would you rather have, the whole of science only work on problems that relate to the bible, or only post data that suggests that the mythologies of Christianity are true? That would be biased, and that would wholly messed up. But I'm sure that's the way you'd like it. I'm sorry science doesn't concern itself with religion, or proving or disproving biblical theories, it has better things to do.
But at no point in time, should anyone suggest that science has an anti-religious standpoint... That's ridiculous. One doesn't automatically give you the other.
That's like saying someone is a comedian just because they happen to make you laugh. That doesn't make them a professional comedian, its the humor that you added on. And I'm afraid that you're convinced of a global conspiracy., but the only proof you have of it is that science doesn't talk about god a lot, or what they find contradicts what the bible days. Still doesn't make it anti religious, just makes it contrary to what you believe.
Gah. Give me a break.