Darwinism and Secular Humanism. The HMS Censorship is steaming full speed ahead.

Censorship of Christians has already begun. Yes, here in the USA! 

On this blog I let commenters say whatever they like as long as their language is appropriate for all ages.   No profanity and you can express your opinion whether you agree or disagree with me.   So it was interesting to find myself being (apparently) censored this week on a page that supposedly is intended to bring about dialogue.   I honestly tried to log back in and reply to the person who replied to me when I pointed out glaring errors in the article that was supposed to start a debate.   So yesterday and again this morning and then this afternoon I tried to be allowed to post my reply without success.   Glitch?  Maybe.  But it feels like censorship.   

I have been posting as radarbinder for years and yet now I am blocked?  I cannot even get them to admit I exist now.   I gave them the nickname I use (and had just used for my first comment) AND email address and they were both rejected.   I copied their message to me below:

Sorry, radarbinder is not recognized as a user name or an e-mail address.

User account | The Nation

Request a New Password

Username or e-mail address: *

I will give you the story and you can draw your conclusions.   

Thought Police at work

Karl Priest alerted me to an article written on The Nation in a section entitled "Subject To Debate."   I will present the article, which I considered a good example of contemptuous ignorance.  The writer probably knows little or nothing about the science involved.   But I will give you the entire article, my reply to the article, a reply to my reply and then the counter to the argument which I tried to post.   As always, the article is fully attributed and linked so you can go there and read it fully for yourself. 

I will simply relate what has happened, another source of information (me) censored by Darwinists and evidently out of fear?

I posted a comment after reading this slanted hit-piece of an article with my Disqus login.   Then some guy commented on my comment, dismissing what I had said with an argument that did not address the issue and in fact was woefully ineffective and irrelevant blather rather than a retort.   So I put in an answer to his lame response and...I was not allowed to answer.   The site rejected my login.  I tried several times to login in order to respond but I was denied every time.   I waited a few hours and tried again.   Nope!   Then I tried earlier today.   No.   Finally I tried just before writing this blog post.  Still locked out.   I conclude that the people running the site are censoring me.   Never happened to me before in many years of blogging and commenting and writing.  So I will not only post the article, my first comment, the so-called retort and then what I tried to post as an answer, I will take the liberty of inserting remarks between the paragraphs since the site has decided to keep me from answering in their venue. 



The article, with comments by me now in between the paragraphs and then the actual comment I made, the empty retort and finally the answer that I was blocked from posting.   You can clearly see from the color of the typeface which portions are my comments and which are from the author and site, which are fully attributed.   As usual, I do tend to use blue to highlight quoted sections as is my style on this blog.

First, the article.   My comments being made now on my blog are interspersed within the article.   The one comment I was allowed to make and the follow-up that was blocked are below the article in this color.

"What's the Matter With Creationism?

Katha Pollitt

June 14, 2012 | This article appeared in the July 2-9, 2012 edition of The Nation.

(AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, file)

About the Author

Katha Pollitt

"Do you know what the worst thing about the recent Gallup poll on evolution is? It isn’t that 46 percent of respondents are creationists (“God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last ten thousand years or so”). Or that 32 percent believe in “theistic evolution” (“Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process”). Or that only 15 percent said humans evolved and “God had no part in this process.” It isn’t even that the percentage of Americans with creationist views has barely budged since 1982, when it was 44 percent, with a small rise in the no-God vote (up from 9 percent) coming at the expense of the divine-help position (down from 38 percent). Or that 58 percent of Republicans are creationists, although that does explain a lot."

Snark, thy name is Pollit!  First of all, the antipathy towards any form of creationism is pretty obvious.  This first paragraph is one long sneer leading up to a punch line (see next paragraph) that completely misses the mark.  There is a larger portion of the public that believes the creation account than any other group and that portion is greater now than it was in 1982.  This despite the fact that Darwinists have control of the news media, the secular scientific organizations and the majority of universities and colleges.   From the time kids enter public school until the day they graduate high school or college, they are being indoctrinated to accept evolution without question.   It is repeated ad nauseum on the various cable/satellite channels that purport to present science and history.   The idea that there are more who believe in creation by God now than in 1982 is a credit to the strength of the evidence for creation and ID (intelligent design) when compared to the myths of Darwinism.  So 58 percent of Republicans are creationists?   Good.  What percent of Democrats are socialists?   

"It’s that the proportion of college graduates who are creationists is exactly the same as for the general public. That’s right: 46 percent of Americans with sixteen long years of education under their belt believe the story of Adam and Eve is literally true. Even 25 percent of Americans with graduate degrees believe dinosaurs and humans romped together before Noah’s flood. Needless to say, this remarkable demonstration of educational failure attracts little attention from those who call for improving our schools."

Despite the fact that students face constant indoctrination and there are groups like the NCSE that exist to censor any mention of creation by God and protect their own religious point of view, almost half of the population still sees that creation by God is a more coherent and logical position than the Darwinist propaganda that has buffeted them all along the way.  To obtain a graduate degree requires even more years of indoctrination, thus, more young people just swallow it whole and go on with their intended careers.

"My brilliant husband, a sociologist and political theorist, refuses to get upset about the poll. It’s quite annoying, actually. He thinks questions like these primarily elicit affirmations of identity, not literal convictions; declaring your belief in creationism is another way of saying you’re a good Christian. That does rather beg the question of what a good Christian is, and why so many think it means refusing to use the brains God gave you. And yes, as you may have suspected, according to the Pew Research Center, evangelicals are far more likely than those of other faiths to hold creationist views; just 24 percent of them believe in evolution. Mormons come in even lower, at 22 percent, although official church doctrine has no problem with evolution."


So far the writer has not presented one single reason why anyone would believe in the idea that everything evolved from nothing for no reason, which is a short summary of what evolution teaches.   For the information of said writer, one thing a "good Christian" would do is believe that the same God Who was fully capable of creating everything would also be capable of giving His created people a message from Him to us, which we call The Bible.   The Bible is the most printed and read book in the history of the world.   Within it is the only coherent account of early human history and a wealth of wisdom for living, along with an account of various prophecies that later came true and a few references concerning science which have proven to be correct.   Those who excavate ancient sites in the Holy Lands include the Bible as a handbook to help them identify the people and cultures exposed when doing a dig there.   So Christians should consider the Bible account of creation to be more reliable than the ever-changing wild guesses of Darwinists.


"Why does it matter that almost half the country rejects the overwhelming evidence of evolution, with or without the hand of God? After all, Americans are famously ignorant of many things—like where Iran is or when World War II took place—and we are still here. One reason is that rejecting evolution expresses more than an inability to think critically; it relies on a fundamentally paranoid worldview. Think what the world would have to be like for evolution to be false. Almost every scientist on earth would have to be engaged in a fraud so complex and extensive it involved every field from archaeology, paleontology, geology and genetics to biology, chemistry and physics. And yet this massive concatenation of lies and delusion is so full of obvious holes that a pastor with a Bible-college degree or a homeschooling parent with no degree at all can see right through it. A flute discovered in southern Germany is 43,000 years old? Not bloody likely. It’s probably some old bone left over from an ancient barbecue. To celebrate its fifth anniversary, the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, has installed a holographic exhibit of Lucy, the famous proto-human fossil, showing how she was really just a few-thousand-year-old ape after all."


What overwhelming evidence for evolution?  Hey, if your local schools are not teaching kids when World War Two took place or where to locate Iran, that is a good reason to find another school or homeschool kids yourself!   The true story behind Lucy is that the so-called hominid is simply an ape.   As to a 43,000 year old flute?   YEC teaches that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, therefore YEC proponents will not date a flute or a bone as being older than the Earth itself!   Who is having trouble thinking here?


As for a massive conspiracy, it is a matter of religion and not science that has caused Darwinism to become widely accepted.   At the moment the people who pass out the money are Darwinists and, if you are in academics you must give lip service to Darwinism to get tenure, you must seem to agree with Darwinism to receive grant money and in fact you may be denied a job in academia or science-related fields or be fired from such a job simply because you disagree with the concept of Darwinism.   This situation was exposed by the movie,  Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.   Subsequent to the release of the film,  a few people victimized by Darwinists have gone to court and sued for damages and, as a result, organizations that are illegally firing or refusing to hire people who are creationists or believe in Intelligent Design are paying for their prejudices with cold, hard cash!

From the Amazon page linked above.   You can also go to the Discovery Institute page to read up on the movie, the stories of various scientists and teachers who were victimized by Darwinist tyranny and what is happening now as well.


Back to the article:


"Patricia Princehouse, director of the evolutionary biology program at Case Western Reserve University, laughed when I suggested to her that the Gallup survey shows that education doesn’t work. “There isn’t much evolution education in the schools,” she told me. “Most have no more than a lesson or two, and it isn’t presented as connected with the rest of biology.” In fact, students may not even get that much exposure. Nationally, Princehouse said, at least 13 percent of biology teachers teach “young earth” creationism (not just humans but the earth itself is only 10,000 years old or thereabouts), despite laws forbidding it, and some 60 percent teach a watered-down version of evolution. They have to get along with their neighbors, after all. In Tennessee, home of the Scopes trial, a new law actually makes teaching creationism legal. “No one takes them to court,” Princehouse told me, “because creationism is so popular. Those who object are isolated and afraid of reprisals.” People tend to forget that Clarence Darrow lost the Scopes trial; until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise in 1968, it was illegal to teach evolution in public schools in about half a dozen states."


So the writer thinks there should be "laws forbidding" teaching Young Earth Creationism in schools?  How afraid can you be of a subject that you seek to outlaw the mention of it in this country, the United States of America, where the last time I looked the First Amendment remains part of the law of the land!   I think it interesting that these Darwinists should fear the teaching of what YEC says...I mean, if evolution has such good evidence to support it, wouldn't teaching YEC simply help the evolution cause?   Darwinists want Thought Police patrolling the halls in the schools?   I guess the year 1984 came and went but those who would like to see parts of it (the book) come true are still here?

Referring to the novel 1984 by George Orwell, a visual.


"Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University and practicing Catholic who is a leading voice against creationism, agrees with Princehouse. “Science education has been remarkably ineffective,” he told me. “Those of us in the scientific community who are religious have a tremendous amount of work to do in the faith community.” Why bother? “There’s a potential for great harm when nearly half the population rejects the central organizing principle of the biological sciences. It’s useful for us as a species to understand that we are a recent appearance on this planet and that 99.9 percent of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct.” Evangelical parents may care less that their children learn science than that they avoid going to hell, but Miller points out that many of the major challenges facing the nation—and the world—are scientific in nature: climate change and energy policy, for instance. “To have a near majority essentially rejecting the scientific method is very troubling,” he says. And to have solidly grounded science waved away as political and theological propaganda could not come at a worse time. “Sea-level rise” is a “left-wing term,” said Virginia state legislator Chris Stolle, a Republican, successfully urging its replacement in a state-commissioned study by the expression “recurrent flooding.”


Notice that "Global Warming" has disappeared and "Climate Change" has taken its place?   Despite the faked charts and data and the conspiracy that the United Nations and the CRU, among others, attempted to foist upon us, real science revealed that man-made warming was not happening.   So the loonbats just changed the name and kept on harping on their evidence-free concerns about the environment.   With satellites and deep-diving drones taking measurements of the temperatures of the atmosphere, the surface of the planet and also temperatures below the surface of the oceans, the warming alarmists have had to revise their catchphrase.   How stupid do they think you are, that you would believe that CO2 (which is actually plant food) could possibly be capable of dangerously warming the planet when it is far too tiny a percentage of the atmosphere to have a discernible effect on temperatures and, if there is more of it in the atmosphere, it will be good for crops and therefore for mankind?   We should be asking for more CO2 production so that crops all over the world will grow better!  I mean, if you actually care about feeding hungry people for a change rather than pretend that polar bears are in danger?


I would just love to have the infamous Kenneth Miller give us evidence to support the concept that "...99.9 percent of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct.” But don't hold your breath, evidence is not a strong suit for Darwinists.


"The group Answers in Genesis, which runs the Creation Museum, has plans to build a full-size replica of Noah’s Ark as part of its Ark Encounter theme park. If that “recurrent flooding” really gets going, you may wish you’d booked a cabin."


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Oh, har-de-har-har!   If you know anything about the Bible, you would know that God promised never to flood the Earth again.   Having read this article, I decided to actually give a logical response to the article and so I checked into the site and replied, below, using a different font color to indicate the comment actually posted at the site and later, the retort I was not allowed to enter.  


"What part of the Law of Biogenesis don't you understand? There are chemical barriers that prevent the "building blocks of life" from forming naturally. Furthermore, there is no natural source of information that is required to form and operate the cell. DNA is packed full of specified information. The cell has meta-information that is the instructions needed to build duplicates of the original. Where did that come from? Every single assertion made by Darwin was based on ignorance. He thought the rock layers were uniform around the globe (not at all) and were laid down over long ages (they are catastrophic and usually can be shown to have been laid down by the actions of water). Darwin thought the fossil record would be filled with transitional forms (there is not one that can be proved to be a transitional although some possibles exist) and that the cell was some simple "protoplasm" instead of the incredibly complex and remarkable thing we now know it to be. Darwin thought mutations created new forms but now we know that DNA has a "mutation-fixer" built in and that mutations tend to harm organisms. Variations within kind come from genetic material already present in the organism. The mother lays the framework for the child so that if a sparrow lays eggs they will hatch as sparrows and not hawks. Science has left evolution behind, the high priests of secular humanism just ignore the evidence and censor it so their pet religion of naturalism may remain alive. It waits like Dracula for common sense and real science to open the casket and drive in the stake of reason."

I corrected an accidental misspelling of the word, religion, otherwise this is exactly what I posted. So here was the one of several replies by a user called Dr. GS Hurd.    He refers to radarbinder several times on several quotes so, again, proof that I was a registered user until I dared defy Darwinism!!!

Dr. GS Hurd wrote, in response to radarbinder:

radarbinder has given an excellent example of creationst babble. I have read it three times and could not find a single true statement.

I'll give a correction to one of his more obscure errors, that Darwin considered the cell to be, "some simple "protoplasm." Darwin made several studies of marine life while studying medicine at Edinburgh under the
encouragement of Dr. Robert Edmund Grant. Grant shortly later became
Professor of comparative anatomy and zoology at London University,
(1827-1874). Grant referred in print to two of Darwin’s original
discoveries made in 1826; that the so-called "ova of Flustra" were in
fact larvæ, and that the little globular bodies which had been supposed
to be the young state of Fucus loreus were the egg-cases of the
worm-like Pontobdella muricata. These were based on the careful microspopic analysis of living specimens. Darwin had read papers on these
observations to the student’s “Plinian Society” founded by Professor
Jameson.

Of course, this Hurd fellow had not addressed the issue he claimed to answer at all.  I would have been kind enough to correct his spelling but the comment has a background and font I do not want to change so it is obvious to the reader that I received it from the site, sent to me as a response to my comment via email.  If Darwin identified something as an egg case, that does not speak to his understanding of the structure of cells.  Hurd's answer reminds me of the kind of thing a college student will write on an essay test when he really has no understanding of the question.   It is a long-winded factoid that does not have anything to do with Darwin's understanding of the cell.  So I wrote the retort to the guy yesterday but I have been blocked from posting it at the Nation site, so I am putting it here, below:

"Sorry, but Darwin read lots of things. You are not "correcting" me because for one thing your answer does not address what Darwin thought of the cell. You have not addressed even one of my points. We both know why, for you cannot. 

Your hero came back from the Galapagos Islands not yet aware all those birds he studied were finches! He took creationist Edward Blyth's description of natural selection, meant to describe a design feature, and made it into a mechanism for evolution rather than conservation of kind. He also culled information from Wallace and Hutton and pulled it all together into a tenuous hypothesis that would never have been considered today. It was out of ignorance that he wrote and, in fact, his drive to produce ANYTHING to replace creation by God meant that he considered Lamarkism and other mechanisms to trot out the old myth of life creating and improving itself left over from the Greeks. Blyth, Wallace and Hutton between them gave him the mechanism he needed to make the case he wanted to present. 

That Darwinists have been sizzle rather than steak ever since is reflected in the numerous goofs and fakes they've presented in place of evidence from Huxley on up to Gingerich.  Perhaps the first big slice of baloney presented to the public?   Thomas Huxley found and marketed "Bathybius haeckelii" as a primitive life form, when in fact it was a precipitate of calcium sulfate.  Yes, there is a longer story.  But it was indeed aptly named, as Haeckel was deliberately deceptive, publishing the fake embryo chart that is still found in a few textbooks despite being falsified and exposed as fraud. Fairy tales and fraud have been the hallmark of Darwinist teaching ever since."

If you go to the Nation site, you will not see my retort.  They will not let me post it!   I tried several times, as I said earlier.  Meanwhile many other commenters have jumped in and jumped up and down on my first comment, ganging up with mostly the same old Darwin's Fairy Tales stuff.   So my email is getting all these comments to notify me that others are posting.  But me?  Nope!   Verboten.   No more comments accepted from me!

So I have responded within my blog because The Nation has locked me out of the comments thread.    It is not likely they will even notice me, this small and obscure worldview blog that floats along on the blog ocean like a small sailboat.   Meanwhile the massive HMS Censorship steams along, happily ignoring evidence and leaving little guys like me bobbing in it's wake.   

Here is the proof from their site with my comment under another comment so you can clearly see that my name was a registered user and their claim that I am not is false.   Here is a portion of the page, ugly because it is a straight copy from where my comment has been living for over a day now.

Showing 20 of 272 comments

• Greg Shenaut 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand

  I am an optimist, so I see this a little differently. First, human evolution has no direct effect whatsoever on our daily life. We can all live, procreate, flourish, and die without ever touching or being touched by evolution, and everything will all unfold approximately the same whether we believe or disbelieve or completely ignore it. In any case, almost none of us are prepared to defend rigorously either side of the debate. Second, belief versus disbelief in evolution has taken on great symbolic meaning in our daily life. Virtually all nominal Christians “believe in God” and even “accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior”, so those don't work so well to identify one's unusually strong commitment to being a Christian. But relatively few Christians dare to affirm disbelief in biological evolution. So I believe that people really are affirming disbelief in evolution primarily in order to position themselves near the conservative pole in the continuum of Christian believers, and they really have no position worthy of the name on the issues. (It doesn't hurt that it drives people closer to the opposite pole absolutely bezonkers when people say they disbelieve in evolution.)

  show more show less

  • ALike
  • Reply

  • 3 hours ago
  • 
    
• 
  
• radarbinder 11 comments collapsed CollapseExpand

  What part of the Law of Biogenesis don't you understand? There are chemical barriers that prevent the "building blocks of life" from forming naturally. Furthermore, there is no natural source of information that is required to form and operate the cell. DNA is packed full of specified information. The cell has meta-information that is the instructions needed to build duplicates of the original. Where did that come from? Every single assertion made by Darwin was based on ignorance. He thought the rock layers were uniform around the globe (not at all) and were laid down over long ages (they are catastrophic and usually can be shown to have been laid down by the actions of water). Darwin thought the fossil record would be filled with transitional forms (there is not one that can be proved to be a transitional although some possibles exist) and that the cell was some simple "protoplasm" instead of the incredibly complex and remarkable thing we now know it to be. Darwin thought mutations created new forms but now we know that DNA has a "mutation-fixer" built in and that mutations tend to harm organisms. Variations within kind come from genetic material already present in the organism. The mother lays the framework for the child so that if a sparrow lays eggs they will hatch as sparrows and not hawks. Science has left evolution behind, the high priests of secular humanism just ignore the evidence and censor it so their pet relition of naturalism may remain alive. It waits like Dracula for common sense and real science to open the casket and drive in the stake of reason.

So there above is a portion of the comments thread from The Nation article comments thread and proof that I was registered before someone decided to make a change...I am posting it so, if they scrub my comment off of the page (which will be hard since subsequent commenters refer to my identity so they would have to remove their comments, too) you will see that it was there as of Sunday evening.   I've been banned but not yet erased.   Yet.

If the Nation decides to unblock me, I might go back and respond again or I might not.   It is likely I will not bother going back there again.   If Subjects To Debate are not actually open to debate, why bother even trying?  The Darwinists can have their own little world and pat each other on the back and chortle away.  Meanwhile, I think I have the appropriate musical finish to today's post: