Friday, September 08, 2006

Darwinian Censorship - the sick reality of modern “science”

Dr. Sternberg has 2 Phd.s in evolutionary biology. He was severely ostracised for merely having published a paper by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.

The scientific/religious persecution he underwent and still undergoes is abhorrent to say the least.

Dr. M. Behe and hundreds of others that have dared do the unthinkable — criticise the theory of evolution — have lived through the same treatment - have seen there careers underminded, their papers refused publication not matter what they say and have been through the worst darwinist humiliations possible short of being burned at the stake for heresy.

Free country? Not where science is concerned. Not where darwinism is concerned.

In China you can criticise Darwin but not the government.
In America you can criticise the government but not Darwinian evolution…. not if you value your job and your reputation.

Now I ask, what is the difference between the religious abuses wrought by the arrogant and power mad roman catholic church against men like Galileo and what is being done to any legitimate degreed working scientist daring to question Darwinism?

Then to add insult to injury, with all the honesty of a pathological liar, professional darwinists perpetually refer their dupes to the supposed “fact” that creationist/intelligent design proponents do not publish peer-reviewed material in any respected journals!! No kidding! They do everything they can to make sure it never happens!!!

Disgusting to say the least. These evil Darwinian fundamentalist fanatics ought to be ousted in the most public way possible. And we are talking about the highly respected Smithsonian Institute ! They ought to be publicly exposed and tarred and feathered for their hypocrisy and persecution.
Another example : “At George Mason University in Virginia, biology professor Caroline Crocker was banned earlier this year from teaching about intelligent design in her classes.

The same burn-them-at-the-stake approach is being applied to scientists who criticize Darwin without raising the issue of intelligent design. At the Mississippi University for Women, chemistry professor Nancy Bryson was removed as head of the division of natural sciences in 2003 after merely presenting scientific criticisms of biological and chemical evolution to a seminar of honors students.

Biology professor P.Z. Myers at the University of Minnesota has even demanded “the public firing and humiliation of some teachers” who express doubts about Darwin.

Defenders of Darwin’s theory typically justify their efforts to silence dissenting scientists by equating any criticism of Darwin’s theory to believing in a flat Earth or denying that the Earth revolves around the sun. Yet such comparisons are specious.”

A comment by a working biologist: “Yes, open discussion is not to be found among the the evolutionary establishment, much as the scientific establishment of Galileo’s day squelched his work. “

Creationists/IDers - and virtually anything that even suggests that Darwinism is not true, whether they be evolutionists themselves or not - is immediately relagated to the garbage can and the writer humiliated and black-listed - the way Behe has been blck-listed. And amazing measures to silence them are undertaken as in the Sternberg case.

Behe has many times given intelligent rebuttals for the vast and vehement criticism he received for his anti-gradualist views. Those rebuttals almost universally never get published. Which explains why there are so many pseudo-intellectual, nerd evos that still say he is ignorant and way off base.
Here is a copy of a conversation with a molecular biologist that confirms these facts as a real everyday threat.

One of the best aspects of my wife JoAnne’s Bed and Breakfast is the chance for a great conversation with an interesting guest. People fascinate me, and the laid-back atmosphere of the bed and breakfast allows me to get to know our guests well. I was with a congressman the moment the Monica Lewinsky story broke, and discussed the possible impeachment. I enjoyed visiting with a Russian attorney who wrote the post-communism Russian Constitution. But all our guests have good stories, and I like to hear them all. I ‘replay’ them later, and I have the ability to remember conversations nearly word for word. That memory skill comes from either thirty years as a financial planner, or six years as a touring musician.

One of the most interesting, and disturbing conversations, was with a molecular biologist working in genetic research. Jeff and his wife were in from New York to celebrate the 2000 New Year. I think they just wanted out of New York City, and Lynchburg is about as “out” as he could get! Jeff described himself as a “secular Jew,” which meant that he was not into practicing his religion. (There seems to be a lot of secular Jews and secular Christians around these days.) I asked Jeff about his profession and he told me that he was a molecular biologist, specializing in genetic research. He and his team were scientific “detectives” tracking down the cause of disease.

Our conversation went something like this:

G: “Sounds like pretty complicated work.”

J: “You can’t imagine how complicated!”

G: “Try me.”

J: “I’m a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of Encyclopedia Britanica. One hundred volumes, thousands and thousands of pages of small print words.”

G: “With the computer, you can just use ‘spell check’!”

J: “There is no ‘spell check’ because we don’t know yet how the words are supposed to be spelled. We don’t even know for sure which language. And it’s not just the ‘spelling error’ we’re looking for. If any of the punctuation is out of place, or a space out of place, or a grammatical error, we have a mutation that will cause a disease.”

G: “So how do you do it?”

J: “We are learning as we go. We have already ‘read’ about two articles in that encyclopedia, and located some ‘typo’s’. It should get easier as time goes by.” G: “How did all that genetic information get there?” J: “Do you mean, did it just happen? Did it evolve?”

G: “Bingo. Do you believe that the information evolved?”

J: “George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by ‘genius beyond genius,’ and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise.”

G: “Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?”

J: “No. It just evolved.”

G: “What? You just told me —?”

J: “Just stop right there. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don’t believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures - everything would stop. I’d be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn’t earn a decent living.”

G: “I hate to say it, Jeff, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.”

J: “The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind’s worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the ‘elephant in the living room’.”

G: “What elephant?”

J: “Creation design. It’s like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn’t there!”

I didn’t use Jeff’s family name, although I doubt many New Yorkers read the “Ledger.” After all, Jeff is a good man who deserves to earn a good living. I am just a bit angry that we allow him to be bullied by evolutionists. It makes me yearn for the day when all molecular biologists will be able to say: “Hey, there’s an elephant in our living room! Maybe we can make friends with it!”

The prejudice is so deep that many evos minds are blinded to even the simplest logic.

The examples of clear, unjust and even illegal persecution against ID scientists - and even those evos who even just begin to question the adequacy of darwinism publicly or privately - are vast.

Free country? Nope. Not where “science” is concerned.


“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the GREATEST HOAX ever.” - Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Physiologist. Atomic Energy Commission. As quoted in: Evolution and the Emperor’s New Clothes, 3D Enterprises Limited, title page


“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” - Prof. Louis Bounoure,
President Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research. The Advocate, p. 17


“I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity.” - George Gallup, Famous statistician


“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” - Stephen Jay Gould, ‘Ontogeny and Phylogeny’, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128

I Love Lucy!


“The evidence given above makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pygmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way (awkwardly upright on occasions, but mostly quadrupedal).
The ‘evidence’ for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing.”
Albert W. Mehlert, Former Evolutionist & paleoanthropology researcher. “Lucy - Evolution’s Solitary Claim for Ape/Man”. CRS Quarterly, Vol 22, No. 3, p. 145


“Today, a hundred and twenty-eight years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. … The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that for the most part these ‘experts’ have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully, as one could say.” - Wolfgang Smith, Mathematician and Physicist. Prof. of Mathematics, Oregon State University. Former math instructor at MIT. Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of de Chardin. Tan Books & Publishers, pp. 1-2

ALL YOU LADIES - check this one out !!


“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence - in whatever he takes up - than woman can attain-whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.” - Charles Darwin,
‘The Descent of Man’, vol. II, p. 327.)

Ok, mesdames, repeat after me : “Darwin was a sexist monkey” - at least 7 times.


According to ‘The Amateur Scientist’ section of Scientific American, May 1997:

Haze is a vital indicator of our atmosphere’s health … but little is known about how the amount of haze is changing globally because no-one is coordinating haze observations from widely dispersed areas. That may change with the latest design from Forrest M. Mims III … . He has invented an atmospheric haze sensor that costs less than $20 and is so simple that even the most hardened technophobe can put it together in under an hour. Mims’s instrument could revolutionize this important area of study by opening the field to all-comers, that is, to amateur scientists.1

The article failed to mention that Scientific American refused to hire him when they found out that he was a creationist. No matter what one’s scientific abilities, denying the modern-day religion of macro-evolution is heretical enough to justify discrimination and ill treatment. Even the journal Science, itself known to refuse to publish creationist views, wrote:

Even today, some members of the scientific establishment have seemed nearly as illiberal toward religion as the church once was to science. In 1990, for instance, Scientific American declined to hire a columnist, Forrest Mims, after learning that he had religious doubts about evolution.

Thus, many creationists write under pseudonyms or otherwise hide their beliefs from the establishment.

Ironically, the founding editor of the magazine, Rufus Porter, would probably not get a job today, as he was a creationist! He wrote:

… without prejudice … let us, as rational creatures, be ever ready to acknowledge God as our Creator and Preserver.

The list of cases involving censorship, prejudice, witch-hunting and good old fashion religious persecuation in this field is a shame on the whole scientific community and revealing of it’s generalized sickness in the post modern world.