Biological Orthodoxy and Heretics
I`ve been neglecting my Darwinian admirers, so I thought I`d toss out these juicy red steaks for everyone`s enjoyment.
First off, Congress has been investigating harassment by Darwinists of apostates at the Smithsonian;
“After two years of denials and stonewalling by Smithsonian bureaucrats, a congressional investigation now confirms a campaign of harassment and smears against evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg, whose only ‘crime’ was his honest skepticism of Darwinian dogma,” said John West, vice president of public policy and legal affairs at the Center for Science & Culture. “It’s outrageous that the federal government would sanction such blatant discrimination. This is clearly an infringement of Dr. Sternberg’s free speech rights.”
It doesn`t pay to be skeptical of Darwinian Orthodoxy:
Findings of the investigation include:
Officials at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History “explicitly acknowledged in emails their intent to pressure Sternberg to resign because of his role in the publication of the Meyer paper and his views on evolution.” They wanted “to make Dr. Sternberg’s life at the Museum as difficult as possible and encourage him to leave.”
“NMNH officials conspired with a special interest group to publicly smear Dr. Sternberg; the group was also enlisted to monitor Sternberg’s outside activities in order to find a way to dismiss him.”
“The hostility toward Dr. Sternberg at the NMNH was reinforced by anti-religious and political motivations.” NMNH scientists demanded to know whether Sternberg “was religious,” “was a Republican,” “was a fundamentalist,” and whether “he was a conservative.”
If the science is indisputable (just like Global Warming) why do Darwinists become so testy when challenged? Why do they resist an honest and open debate-even inside their own ranks?
Another interesting tidbit-the judge in the Dover decision (which the High Priests of Natural Selection crowed about so loudly) plagerized his decision virtually verbatim from an ACLU document:
"Judge John Jones copied verbatim or virtually verbatim 90.9% of his 6,004-word section on whether intelligent design is science from the ACLU's proposed 'Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law' submitted to him nearly a month before his ruling," said Dr. John West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.
...Jones' copying was so uncritical that he even reprinted a number of factual errors originally made by ACLU attorneys.
For example, Jones claimed that biochemist Michael Behe, when asked about articles purporting to explain the evolution of the immune system, responded that the articles were "not 'good enough.'" Behe actually said the exact opposite: "it's not that they aren't good enough. It's simply that they are addressed to a different subject." Jones' misrepresentation of Behe came directly from the ACLU's "Findings of Fact."
Again copying from the ACLU, Jones insisted that "ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed… publications." But, in fact, the court record contained evidence of several such publications.
Why are these people so afraid of an open debate? If their case is so strong, why not throw it out for discussion? Suppression of dissent is the hallmark of those who are losing an argument, and Darwinists are the kings of this, whether it be through manipulation of the Law, public ridicule, what have you.
First off, Congress has been investigating harassment by Darwinists of apostates at the Smithsonian;
“After two years of denials and stonewalling by Smithsonian bureaucrats, a congressional investigation now confirms a campaign of harassment and smears against evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg, whose only ‘crime’ was his honest skepticism of Darwinian dogma,” said John West, vice president of public policy and legal affairs at the Center for Science & Culture. “It’s outrageous that the federal government would sanction such blatant discrimination. This is clearly an infringement of Dr. Sternberg’s free speech rights.”
It doesn`t pay to be skeptical of Darwinian Orthodoxy:
Findings of the investigation include:
Officials at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History “explicitly acknowledged in emails their intent to pressure Sternberg to resign because of his role in the publication of the Meyer paper and his views on evolution.” They wanted “to make Dr. Sternberg’s life at the Museum as difficult as possible and encourage him to leave.”
“NMNH officials conspired with a special interest group to publicly smear Dr. Sternberg; the group was also enlisted to monitor Sternberg’s outside activities in order to find a way to dismiss him.”
“The hostility toward Dr. Sternberg at the NMNH was reinforced by anti-religious and political motivations.” NMNH scientists demanded to know whether Sternberg “was religious,” “was a Republican,” “was a fundamentalist,” and whether “he was a conservative.”
If the science is indisputable (just like Global Warming) why do Darwinists become so testy when challenged? Why do they resist an honest and open debate-even inside their own ranks?
Another interesting tidbit-the judge in the Dover decision (which the High Priests of Natural Selection crowed about so loudly) plagerized his decision virtually verbatim from an ACLU document:
"Judge John Jones copied verbatim or virtually verbatim 90.9% of his 6,004-word section on whether intelligent design is science from the ACLU's proposed 'Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law' submitted to him nearly a month before his ruling," said Dr. John West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.
...Jones' copying was so uncritical that he even reprinted a number of factual errors originally made by ACLU attorneys.
For example, Jones claimed that biochemist Michael Behe, when asked about articles purporting to explain the evolution of the immune system, responded that the articles were "not 'good enough.'" Behe actually said the exact opposite: "it's not that they aren't good enough. It's simply that they are addressed to a different subject." Jones' misrepresentation of Behe came directly from the ACLU's "Findings of Fact."
Again copying from the ACLU, Jones insisted that "ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed… publications." But, in fact, the court record contained evidence of several such publications.
Why are these people so afraid of an open debate? If their case is so strong, why not throw it out for discussion? Suppression of dissent is the hallmark of those who are losing an argument, and Darwinists are the kings of this, whether it be through manipulation of the Law, public ridicule, what have you.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:54 AM
5 Comments:
Why not have an open debate? Because the proponents of religious viewpoints do not share the logical framework of science so there cannot be a debate. It would be like several pastors challenging obstetricians to a debate on the virgin birth. They do not share a common language because they are talking about two different things.
Birdnow, you are a parrot, a parrot for the Discovery Institute. And as a parrot you repeat anything you hear without understanding or comprehension. If you were to understand or comprehend the DI's musings you would find that they are without substance, instead casting light on the ignorance and folly of the DI rather than casting any light on the topic at hand.
Funny stuff indeed. Astrology, phrenology, geocentrism, and communicating with ghosts are suppressed also.
It's not a question of a debate over the science part, as the science of ID is non-existent. It is a matter of not letting the religious component confuse people as to what science actually does.
You can talk about ID all you want, I haven't seen jackboots trying to take such crap like Wells' PIG out of circulation so the victimizing censorship claim is hollow.
A big part of the problem with ID is that when its proponents are pressed to present their scientific case for a designer, they say we can be satisfied with a design "inference" and leave it at that.
Finally, as far as the ACLU findings of fact, you are falling into the old trap that if you can't find legal fault with the ruling, it is time to attack the judge.
The debate has been open for over one hundred years. The nature of evolution is debated every day. However, the debate moved past the existence of evolution many, many, years ago, and some people simply refuse to believe that they have lost.
Sternberg, motivated by his religious beliefs, used his position to advance known falsehood into a scientific journal. Such behaviour deserved immediate termination. The only reason he survived at all was because his motivation was religious. If he had done the same thing because of financial motivations, there would be no controversy.
Post a Comment
<< Home