Thursday, March 04, 2004
The (True) Mechanisms of Evolution:
Intimidation and Censorship
From Cremo's book, Forbidden Archeology's Impact. Hope this helps clear up how science is "really" done in this field. I hope to have a page listing scientists who have been discriminated against because they dared challenge the high priesthood of evolution. Any info on this would be appreciated. Meanwhile, a sample of evolutionist bigotry:
Some of these quotes have to do with NBC's airing of Mysterious Origins of Man (MOM), which included material about the many fossil finds that falsify evolution. Although MOM included topics that might rightly be classified as pseudoscience, it is the material that contradicts evolution that has put an arachnid up the alimentary canal of Darwin's devotees.
Keep in mind that Darwin was a theology student who didn't even understand the Biblical teaching of creation!
"This kind of claptrap needs a response to NBC, its affiliates, and the program's sponsors. ... We're working on sponsors now. Anyone record the show who can provide a sponsor list?"
- letter to Nat'l Assoc. of Science Writers from Jere H. Lipps, paleontologist at U. of Calif. at Berkeley, 2/27/96. FA, p. 483
"If you are worried about science in America, tell your local NBC station, NBC, and its various sponsors that you object to the portrayal of this program as science. America must get smart and we can make a difference!
"Mysterious Origins ... and similar programs are a very definite black mark on NBC, its affiliates, the programs' [sic.] sponsors, and its producers to represent them as science. [Lipps goes on to list the sponsors of the program.] ... As science the program is garbage, but no one I know wanted the program banned from the airways, least of all me, who finds it a wonderful example of pseudoscience."
- letter to various newsgroups from Lipps, 5/30/96. FA, p. 517
"At the very least NBC should be required to make substantial prime-time apologies to their viewing audience for a sufficient period of time [!] so that the audience clearly gets the message that they were duped. [Does this mindset sound familiar?] In addition, NBC should perhaps be fined sufficiently so that a major fund for public service education [I wonder who will screen the content ...] can be established."
- letter to various people and newsgroups from Lipps, 6/21/96. FA, p. 533
"Perhaps Kellogg's would join with me and other scientists [sic.] in promoting intelligent science presentations and representations in the media. ... How about it? Ask your scientists if they might be interested. They really do know the difference between science and non-science, I assure you, or Kellogg would be in deeper trouble on lots of other issues."
- letter to Kellogg, a sponsor, from Dr. Lipps. Does the word "oily" come to mind? Cremo comments: "Dr. Lipps seems very determined to make sure that the American television-viewing public never again sees a television program that criticizes the theory of evolution.". FA, p. 498
"Christopher Wood: Anybody know who the sponsors are? I would like to get an early start : boycotting them. There's always the off chance that some of them will : pull their sponsorship.
"Terry Lacy: Might be nice to add something like "Does your sponsorship of the broadcast imply an endorsement of the same intellectual dishonesty? Can the public assume that your firm engages in same? [!]" Maybe someone could set up a 'sponsors of fraud' web page, listing the names."
- letter to various origins newsgroups from August Matthusen, 5/31/96. FA, p. 519. Cremo responds:
"What is really interesting about messages like the above is their depiction of 'how science works.' The response to unwanted ideas and evidence is not counterevidence and intellectual refutation, but boycotts and intimidation."
- Cremo's comment on the above letter. FA, p. 520
"It's all a bunch of hooey, and my recommendation is to stay away."
- B.D., Yale University. FA, p. 492
"You should be banned from the airwaves."
- J.J., ALCI. FA, p. 492
"Jim Rogers (March 6) ... I am *appalled* that NBC would air something so shoddy and misleading in a documentary format aimed at the general populace. ... [The producers] *owe* it to their audience to present some balance, instead of giving a two-minute summary of the "other side" from the producer's own biased perspective.
"Etherman (March 6) I've noticed that PBS specials on dinosaurs, origins of man, etc. never present opposing views. ...
"Jim Rogers (March 7) How many times must evolution be defended from anti-scientific creationists?
"Etherman (March 8) Are you suggesting that evolution is sacred and should not be questioned? My, how unscientific of you!"
- FA, p. 494
"Daniel D. Scripture: But it [MOM] ain't science. It is just a sideshow, fun for the ignorant (because it is only plausible to the ignorant).
"Angus Mann: Weeeelllll. I have been watching the postings on this newsgroup for a while and if it is a 'sideshow for the ignorant,' then why have we all got so worked up about it? Curious. Because it goes against the beliefs and findings of so many archaeologists?"
- FA, p. 495
[more to come?]
"Ten or twenty years ago the campaign of intimidation waged by Lipps and other fundamentalist Darwinians in the scientific community would have been sufficient to keep NBC from airing the program again or force NBC to let a fundamentalist Darwinian commentator dictate to the public how they should see the show. ...
"The campaign of intimidation waged by Lipps and his cohort is a real demonstration of how fundamentalist Darwinian science (as opposed to most other science) works. Darwinism is an ideology that fundamentalist Darwinians uphold by unscientific means (after all, what is so scientific about trying to intimidate a television network into taking a show off the air?).
"Darwinism is not a concept that can be demonstrated by ordinary scientific means. [See "Evolutionists on Evolution" for quotes by evolutionists attesting to this.] It is simply an article of faith. And adherents of this faith think that they have a right to impose it upon everyone and silence anyone who speaks against it. ... [They] would like to have a monopoly on access to the thinking of the general public. Fortunately, they do not have it and I hope they never will..[sic.]"
Darwinist censorship rears its ugly, intolerant head once again:
Legal philosopher Brian Leiter of the University of Texas is a self-proclaimed disciple of Nietzsche who fiercely champions a Darwinian materialist vision of the world from his weblog, The Leiter Reports. Having a blog on which to hold forth about the rights and wrongs of the world without the benefit of an editor doesn't make Leiter unique or particularly noteworthy, but one of his other sidelines does. Leiter is the author of The Philosophical Gourmet Report which ranks graduate philosophy programs "in the English-speaking world." His rankings are respected and followed. Accordingly, Leiter is a powerful figure in the academy who is invited to speak by peers who may find him personally objectionable but too important to offend or ignore. The respect for his rankings has perhaps caused him to place a correspondingly high value on his opinion in other matters, which is the only explanation for the story I'm about to tell. ...
One doesn't need to work very hard to read between the lines. Leiter seems to be threatening VanDyke's career if he should dare to set foot in the academy. The tone of his post makes clear that he means this student editor of the Harvard Law Review harm. Leiter's statement is the equivalent of an academic temper tantrum and is likely to backfire. The attack by a high-powered academic on an intellectually open law student is not the stuff of which great reputations are made. Leiter's peers, some of whom may actually have believed all the hype about academic freedom, will probably wonder just how this sort of proposed blacklisting squares with long-cherished ideals.
Francis Beckwith, who has been the object of attacks by Leiter before, is shocked the University of Texas professor would respond to a student's work so uncharitably. Beckwith expresses appreciation for Leiter's scholarly work, but adds, "Leiter's apparent intention to employ his own celebrity and academic stature to crush a young man's spirit and his future job prospects in the legal academy, and to do so by means of blacklisting and mean-spirited McCarthyesque intimidation tactics, is absolutely unjustified."