Search This Blog

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

American Censorship, American Propaganda = Evolution Indoctrination courtesy of the NCSE. Panda's Thumb and TalkOrigins!

Piltdown Superman blog alerted me to this excellent essay, below, by Bas Feijen.   I found it to be quite thorough and am posting it after fielding some questions about the talk origins website.  Keep in mind that many authors use United Kingdom, Australian, New Zealand or Euro-English spelling rather than American English.   The meaning of the words is clear whether the spelling is precisely the same as your accustomed spelling.

I had my own experience in communication with talk origins folks.  Their inability to either comprehend or care about false information posted on their site was surprising to me, as I expected to get a reasonable response to my emails.  Instead I found that the talk origins folks had a philosophy that included only posting evidence for evolution and against creation no matter what evidence was called to their attention and they seemed to be intent on bringing all Christians to a Theistic Evolution mindset if possible while keeping true Darwinists fed with the standard propaganda.

There is no question that the NCSE is devoted to censorship, which is in stark contrast to the First Amendment of the Constitution.   All the incestuous relationships between the NCSE and Panda's Thumb and talk origins and similar sites are designed to funnel any questioning minds right to a Darwinist site which will present evolution as fact and not even consider or discuss evidence for creation or intelligent design.  

Sure, if you are a Ford salesman you are not going to tell a potential customer about advantages certain models of Chevrolet or Toyota might have over the model of Ford you are trying to sell.   But that is business, trying to sell your product, highlighting the best points of your brand and seeking to avoid discussing other brands or, if they come up, having a few talking points that show the client that Ford is superior to the other brand with a few bullet points or a chart.

But science is not supposed to be "Us against Them" but rather man understanding what is true.  The leaders of secular science organizations, academic institutions, government agencies and news and entertainment media are dominated by Darwinists because they censor and ban and cast out all who disagree.   This is not science.   This is censorship.  Darwinism is like the Spanish Inquisition and there are Torquemadas scattered throughout the secular scientific community.  People who dared to own a Bible, be of Jewish descent or attend churches that were not approved by the paradigm of the rulers were taken into custody where they would have to recant or pay the price, which was often death.  In 21st Century America the Darwinists are not killing the people, they are killing their careers.  Nevertheless the comparison is apt:

"...The Spanish Inquisition was used for both political and religious reasons. Spain is a nation-state that was born out of religious struggle between numerous different belief systems including Catholicism, Islam, Protestantism and Judaism. Following the Crusades and the Reconquest of Spain by the Christian Spaniards the leaders of Spain needed a way to unify the country into a strong nation. Ferdinand and Isabella chose Catholicism to unite Spain and in 1478 asked permission of the pope to begin the Spanish Inquisition to purify the people of Spain. They began by driving out Jews, Protestants and other non-believers.

In 1483 Tomas de Torquemada became the inquisitor-general for most of Spain. He was responsible for establishing the rules of inquisitorial procedure and creating branches of the Inquisition in various cities. He remained the leader of the Spanish Inquisition for fifteen years and is believed to be responsible for the execution of around 2,000 Spaniards. The Catholic Church and the Pope attempted to intervene in the bloody Spanish Inquisition but were unable to wrench the extremely useful political tool from the hands of the Spanish rulers..."

Talk Origins vs. True Origin
When studying evolution it is impossible to not encounter the many debates between proponents of evolution and its opponents or people who question certain aspects of it. Of course, science has been overwhelmed by evolutionists long time ago and evolution is somehow a settled theory within science... or at least they try to make you believe it is. It is always sensible to investigate who or what kind of organization is behind certain websites and what the backgrounds are of the people involved.

Talk Origins is a known evolution website and seems a reliable place for information on evolution and science. When doing some more research into the people behind the website one soon finds out the large organization that supports websites like Talk Origins. This is in itself not a bad thing, but it is a bit tricky when people who surf the internet believe it to be objective when in fact this organization is clearly biased and not open to discussion or debate. Let's first take a look at pro-evolution mainstream science in the U.S.

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is a non-profit organization based in Oakland, California affiliated with the
 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). It is the United States' leading anti-creationist organization, and defends the teaching of evolutionary biology and opposes the teaching of religious views in science classes in America's public schools. It also is coordinating Project Steve.

Eugenie Scott
Eugenie Scott

In 1980 Stanley L. Weinberg, a veteran high-school teacher in Iowa, began to organize statewide Committees of Correspondence "committed to the defense of education in evolutionary theory," modelled upon the committees of correspondence in pre-Revolutionary America. Their purpose was to keep interested parties informed about creationist endeavours and to share ideas for responses, allowing a political response at a local level. This grew into volunteer networks in most states, with the Creation/Evolution Newsletter interconnecting them, which was incorporated as the NCSE in 1983.

In 1987, author and lecturer
 Eugenie Scott, who holds a PhD in Physical Anthropology, became its executive director. The Board of Directors and official supporters, as explained by NCSE, "reflects our scientific roots."

Reflecting their scientific roots. Roots coming from people like Darwin, Hutton, Lyell?

In the 1990s, based upon its monitoring of creationist efforts, it issued warnings of high levels of official anti-evolutionism and a "sharp surge upwards" in creationist attacks on evolution, including attempts to downgrade evolution from "fact" to "theory" or present the "evidence against evolution". As of 2008, the group has over 4000 members who are "scientists, teachers, clergy, and citizens with diverse religious affiliations."

Since Darwin's time evolutionists yielded much power and took the monopoly in the world of mainstream science. As can be read on this website and many others, creationists offer many scientific arguments against evolution. This is of course a thorn in the eye of the evolutionists.

The NCSE acts as a central information and resource clearinghouse, and helps to coordinate the activities of people fighting creationists. It maintains up-to-date listings of current events and information regarding creationist endeavours and evolution education. Historian of science Michael Shermer [self-proclaimed skeptic] describes its website as being one of "the two best resources on the Internet on the evolution/creation topic" (the other being TalkOrigins Archive). NCSE also opposes intelligent design and other "alternatives" to evolution because they are misleading euphemisms for creationism.

Talk.Origins is a moderated Usenet discussion forum concerning the origins of life, and evolution. It remains a major venue for debate in the creation-evolution controversy... It maintains an extensive FAQ on topics in evolutionary biology, geology and astronomy, with the aim of representing the views of mainstream science. It has spawned other websites, notably TalkDesign "a response to the intelligent design movement", Evowiki, and the Panda's Thumb weblog. has gained many awards and achieved substantial recognition. The Archive is also referenced in college-level textbooks and has had material from the archive incorporated into over 20 college or university courses.

Here we can read that the world of science consists of many powerful organizations obviously opposed to anything involving creationism. They are not only opposed to creationism being taught in schools, but against it in general. They give each other good grades in the media, controlled by themselves, which gives the public the notion that they are right and creationism is wrong. It's one big family.

Wikipedia - Michael ShermerMichael Brant Shermer

Michael Brant Shermer is an American science writer, historian of science, founder of The Skeptics Society, and Editor in Chief of its magazine called Skeptic, which is largely devoted to investigating pseudoscientific and supernatural claims. Shermer also engages in debates on topics pertaining to pseudoscience and religion in which he promulgates the need for scientific skepticism. Shermer is also the producer and co-host of the 13-hour Fox Family (now ABC Family) television series 'Exploring the Unknown'. Since April 2001, he has been a monthly columnist for 'Scientific American' magazine with his Skeptic column.

Shermer states he was once a fundamentalist Christian, but converted from a belief in God during his graduate studies, and has described himself as an agnostic, nontheist, atheist and advocate for humanist philosophy as well as the science of morality. He has expressed reservations about such labels... and prefers to simply be called a skeptic.

Apparently, many skeptics are susceptible to evolutionary bias themselves. Within the scientific community there is also a part of people that vigorously oppose anything supernatural because they had some kind of experience that converted them from theism to atheism. Those people, just like many fundamental religious people, are biased. There is nothing wrong with believing in something, but it becomes a problem when these kind of people present themselves as objective scientists or skeptics.

Stephen Jay Gould

Wikipedia - Stephen Jay Gould

Stephen Jay Gould was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation. Gould spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In evolutionary theory he opposed strict selectionism, sociobiology as applied to humans, and
 evolutionary psychology.

He campaigned against creationism...

As we can read from these definitions there is a huge organization behind the evolution propaganda worldwide. I would like to focus on Talk Origins because that's the website I most frequently viewed in order to find information about evolutionary thought. Because it is backed by mainstream science and mainstream skeptic organizations it would be wise to not regard it as objective. As everybody now knows it is AGAINST everything that questions evolution, and FOR all that is pro-evolution. They tend to label everybody that questions evolution to be religiously motivated and linked to creationism in an effort to denigrate them.

True.Origin - homepage

The True.Origin Archive comprises an intellectually honest response to what in fairness can only be described as evolutionism
 - the doctrine of strict philosophical naturalism as a necessary presupposition in matters of science history (i.e., origins). This doctrine is abundantly evident in much material advocating the Neo-Darwinian macroevolution origins model, including - but not limited to - the “Talk.Origins” newsgroup and the “Talk.Origins Archive” website.

Advocates of evolutionary theory practice
 evolutionism when they routinely invoke (and dogmatically defend) naturalistic and humanistic philosophical presuppositions, and arbitrarily apply those presuppositions to their interpretation of the available empirical data. This fact (which many of them zealously deny) severely erodes evolutionists’ credibility, and effectively disqualifies them from any claim to objectivity in matters concerning origins and science, though much material is published by evolutionists under the pretense that it is the product only of purely objective and unprejudiced scientific inquiry.

The contributions posted at this site give some expression to the “other side” - dispelling the two most popular myths perpetuated by most advocates of evolutionism, namely:

1. The myth that the Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution belief system - as heavily popularized by today’s self-appointed “science experts,” the popular media, academia, and certain government agencies - finds “overwhelming” or even merely unequivocal support in the data of empirical science;

2. The myth that the alternative - biblical creation - somehow fails to find any compelling, corroborative support in the same data.

The question of origins is plainly a matter of
 history of science - not the domain of applied science. Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, one’s worldview does indeed play heavily on one’s interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement - the three immutable elements of the scientific method - may be employed.

Many proponents of evolutionism nevertheless persist in claiming exclusive “scientific” status for their popularized beliefs, while heaping out-of-hand dismissal and derision upon all doubters, spurning the very advice of Darwin himself. This site is one answer to such unreasonable - and unscientific - practices...

Charles Darwin: For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived. (The Origin of Species)

True Origin gives a response to Talk Origins and all evolution propaganda worldwide, it offers alternative views and uses science to question evolution theory and the evidences proposed by evolutionists. It's David against Goliath. True Origin's message is to see through the bias of evolutionary thinking that has been imposed on the world since Darwin's time, and it does not exclude certain possibilities or explanations beforehand. Facts based on assumptions may be called facts in the world of evolutionary science, but they are not facts in the real world.

True Origin - Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission

The Talk.Origins (TO) website is promoted, among other things, as an educational site, a place for obtaining information on evolution and answers to the numerous criticisms to this theory. Although TO states that it is a “forum for discussion” - presumably unbiased - much evidence testifies to the contrary. I’ve been observing the TO site from the sidelines for quite some time and have until now restrained myself from responding to the materialistic worldview that this organization pushes on the unsuspecting. It is particularly distressing to me to read the feedback letters from young people and watching those impressionable minds being manipulated through TO indoctrination.

To be fair, and to emphasize that this is not a witch-hunt, I must say that some of the volunteers at TO undoubtedly have good intentions and are sincere in their efforts. However, in this particular arena good intentions and sincerity are not enough (I’ll return to this point at the end of the article). The full, unbiased disclosure of truth is what is essential here and TO doesn’t even come close to providing it. In any event, this article is my first, albeit brief, critique of the Talk.Origins site and I herein intend to expose some of what TO doesn’t tell its readers.

I should begin by saying that almost immediately after deciding to write these words I was overcome with a sense of awe at the magnitude of the task - let me explain: Talk.Origins is very hard to target - a fact that may be so by design. For example, if a person disagrees with TO on the ‘fact of evolution’, these people will employ a definition of evolution [“Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time”] that makes it impossible to disagree and, if one does argue, then that person comes across as being uninformed or irrational or fanatical. This might be acceptable if only it remained right there. But it doesn’t!

That statement about evolution (which happens to be accurate, i.e., genetic characteristics of populations do vary over time) is subsequently modified/extended throughout TO’s many articles and feedback responses so that not only is the person to accept the (empirically corroborated) fact of change, but also that this change is the sole causing agent for the diversity and complexity within an organism (internal organs, cellular structures, etc.) as well as outside of the organism including Earth’s entire flora and fauna. The metaphysical extrapolation of the data that is required to accomplish this feat is somehow missed by TO - either by ignorance or by design.

What’s more, if we are to remain exclusively within the natural (material) realm then the term ‘evolution’ must somehow be further extended to include
 life from non-life, i.e., the emergence of life itself must also be accounted for by the ever-stretching definition of evolution.

This is about the way evolutionists state their so-called evidences for evolution. It is also what closely relates to what I discovered when doing the research for making this website. Of course we can't expect True Origin to be completely objective because of its creationist origin, but that is also an advantage in the sense that those people are very motivated to study a theory like evolution. True Origin gives alternative views, arguments, and makes the reader see evolution in a different light.
The debate about evolution is much more than just science, it also involves belief, worldviews, philosophy, semantics, emotion, and much more. True scientists should stick to the facts, and even more so, be honest and fair about scientific research and explanations. What we know is that evolutionists have abused their position within science many times as is evidenced by the bias in the world of mainstream science, the media propaganda making false claims, hoaxes, ignoring universal laws, the controversial fossil record explanations, etcetera.

Why is Talk Origins the end-all of citations for evolutionists?

- Question: Everyone I debate and you debate who is an evolutionist will bring up this website sooner or later as irrefutable proof for evolution. It is known to almost all who have been on it as an EXTREMELY biased website which will not listen to a single thing you say unless it is for their theory. In fact, inside their feedback archive which starts in 1996 and ends in 2006, not a single message posted talked badly about the site or the theory of evolution. In fact it is a non-profit site which asks for donations. In fact, if I were to mention True Origin, the opposite of talk origins, evolutionists will not even look at the link, because it is a creationist website, but believe I should look at their link to Talk Origins, because it is an evolutionist website.

- Answer: As I have said before, The Debate concerning Creation vs Evolution is NOT about evidence. Atheists cite evidence only as a smokescreen to hide the real reason, and that is Philosophy and Ideology. Their Fierce attack against my answer here that I will receive is proof of this. Evolutionary scientists mock creation and/or intelligent design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a “science,” they argue, it must be able to be observed and tested; it must be “naturalistic.” Creation is by definition “supernatural.” God and the supernatural cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes); therefore, creation and/or intelligent design cannot be considered science. Of course, neither can [macro]evolution be observed or tested, but that does not seem to be an issue with evolutionists. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered. If creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools. And Those at Talk Origins are filled with them.

- Reaction: Reality is only an interpretation of existence... evolution and religion are products of that. You need to ask more basic questions if you want to find your meaning. Religion and science are distractions!

I think that is a very good conclusion to the debate: religion and science are just distractions from reality. And evolution is a kind of religion that opposes and ridicules any other belief. There is nothing wrong with science, but with the people who believe they can explain everything with this very limited tool. People who want to prove God does not exist, or who exclude God from any explanation of life before having proven He doesn't exist must be deluded. On the other hand there are luckily those who don't base their belief on a materialistic tool limited by assumptions. People that realize science is only a small part of the grander reality called life.

Yahoo - Why is so revered by evolutionists?

- Question: If I were to point out some problems with the answers in talkorigins, would evolutionists still regard it as a reliable source of information?

- Answer: It is run by evolutionists. You will never get a fair and unbiased view of anything there, in my experience. Much of what I've seen is evolutionary dogma promoted as 'science' when it is nothing of the sort. They are scared stiff of admitting that Creationists might have a point. Check out for an alternative view. Sure they are biased, but they are honest about their bias and their assumptions. Talk Origins is utterly biased and refuses to acknowledge that they are biased and that there is another point of view.

This is also what I found while surfing the net, most evolutionist websites are completely blinded by their faith in evolution that they ignore and fail to see the alternatives available to evolution theory. On the other hand, many creation websites have satisfying answers to silly evolution theories, claims, and attacks. There is a sense of hate from evolution side to anything opposing evolution which is contrasted with the position of so-called creationists or more leveled outsiders who question evolution simply because it is suspicious in many ways. It is of course obviously presented on the official websites of mainstream science organizations like for example NCSE that they have an outspoken pro-evolution opinion and are against anything else.

The same goes for other websites that are often claimed to be considerably reasonable but are in fact evolution propaganda. There is a complete network of websites that have a pro-evolution bias which are used as references by main science organizations.

Conservapedia - The Panda's Thumb (blog)

The Panda's Thumb is a blog run by evolutionists, many of whom are associated with the NCSE or other evolutionist endeavors such as TalkOrigins. Panda's Thumb is often used as a "reliable source" at Wikipedia for articles related to intelligent design, creation science, and evolution despite not meeting Wikipedia's official, binding policy on verifiability regarding blogs. The NCSE also cites the Panda's Thumb as though it were an unaffiliated reliable source. Panda's Thumb is owned by the same group that owns TalkOrigins. TalkOrigins is another self-published website frequently used as a so-called reliable source on Wikipedia for articles related to evolution, or the creation-evolution controversy.

Wikipedia - Pages that link to "The Panda's Thumb (blog)"

Wikipedia - The Panda's Thumb (blog)Panda's Thumb (blog)

The Panda's Thumb is a weblog on the creation-evolution controversy from a mainstream scientific perspective. In 2006, Nature listed it as one of the top five science blogs. It is written by multiple contributors, including Wesley R. Elsberry, Paul R. Gross, Nick Matzke, PZ Myers and Mark Perakh, many of who also have complementary weblogs at ScienceBlogs. The blog takes its name from The Panda's Thumb, the pub of the virtual University of Ediacara, which is named after the book of the same name by Stephen Jay Gould, which in turn takes its title from the essay "The Panda's Peculiar Thumb", which discusses the Panda's sesamoid bone, an example of convergent evolution.

Panda's Thumb - About

First, it is an example of jury-rigged evolutionary adaptation made famous by the late Stephen Jay Gould in an essay of the same name. Second, it is the legendary virtual bar serving the community of the legendary virtual University of Ediacara somewhere in the Ediacaran hills of southern Australia, growing out of the lore of the Usenet newsgroup. And now it is a weblog giving another voice for the defenders of the integrity of science, the patrons of “The Panda’s Thumb”.

This website is obviously related to Talk Origins and it is of course dubious to regard this website as objective. It is a bit suspicious that these kind of websites are referred to by mainstream science organizations that are supposed to spread objective science. The world of science today is completely biased with websites and organizations that only allow pro-evolution stuff. The rest is excluded or expelled. To get an idea of the mixture of mainstream science, evolutionary biased scientists, and websites like this you can do a search on for example the NCSE website... NCSE - search: "Panda's Thumb" or NCSE - search: "Talk Origins"

Evillusion - My Debate with an Avid Evolutionaut from TalkOrigins

The most amazing feature that I have found with [evolution-] believers is that they are angry and sensitive with challenges, they use pejoratives frequently, and they never doubt this dubious science. Never. They are 100% in lockstep. The ones that I have communicated with all have to refer to a paper written by someone else. They can’t do their own thinking, and use their own common sense. 

Evolutionists are no more or less blinded by faith than people who don't believe in evolution. Evolutionists are convinced that the many insurmountable assumptions on which science and evolution are based, are facts. This is a contradiction that clearly reveals their theory involves circular reasoning because none of the fundamental ideas of evolution can be proven scientifically. When researching evolution one inevitably encounters the aggressive nature of mainstream science organizations in opposition to anything else. Scientists should at least respect one another and consider each others arguments seriously. People blinded by belief are narrow-minded. Add some propaganda and bias and we have the main ingredients for a dogmatic belief system.


Searlas said...

Don't forget the British Centre for Science Education, another incestuous partner in the censorship relationship. But they fight

radar said...

Thanks! In Great Britain and Australia there is a big contingent of Darwinists...They usually talk like they are superior but avoid debating creation scientists and, when they do, they try to make it about religion!!! Oy, the brain, it hurts!

Anonymous said...

I had my own experience in communication with talk origins folks. Their inability to either comprehend or care about false information posted on their site was surprising to me, as I expected to get a reasonable response to my emails. Instead I found that the talk origins folks had a philosophy that included only posting evidence for evolution and against creation no matter what evidence was called to their attention and they seemed to be intent on bringing all Christians to a Theistic Evolution mindset if possible while keeping true Darwinists fed with the standard propaganda.

you disagree with near everything on that site. That you think your information on the comical mexican dinosaur figurines is the correct information and TO disagrees is not a good excuse to dismiss and fail to address any "darwinist" arguments from TO. It is easier, but you're not fooling anyone.


Anonymous said...

my favorite line from the article, so telling,: " As I have said before, The Debate concerning Creation vs Evolution is NOT about evidence. Atheists cite evidence only as a smokescreen to hide the real reason, and that is Philosophy and Ideology."


Searlas said...

Like you've said before they love ridicule & BCSE forums have that instead of science.

I gotta say this, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!

radar said...

Lava, unintentional much? You realize that the statement is exposing the lack of evidence for evolution, which is why they want to make it about religion?

The TO information about the Acambaro figurines is laughably and intentionally wrong. They know they are wrong, I know they know, and they post it anyway. There is nothing comical about the "mexican dinosaurs" as they were more anatomically correct than secular science was concerning the varieties they depicted AND they were proven genuine by multiple methods.

There is a stegosaurus carved on an ancient Cambodian temple, a pair of long-necked titanosaurs or similar dinosaur carved on the grave monument of a pastor of a church in England from hundreds of years ago.
We find them on pottery and carved on rocks and painted on cave walls.

There are drawings and carvings in many cultures of dragons, which is what they called dinosaurs. The Chinese calendar includes the dragon and all the other creatures are still alive. There are hundreds of accounts in official town records and personal memoirs of dinosaur fights, killing off dinosaurs, dinosaurs killing livestock or children and so on.

I had to laugh when Darwinists looked at the stegosaurus carved on the temple wall and claimed it was a hippo!!! I mean, if you are blind you would have an excuse, but if you can see and still refuse to "see" then you are truly deluded.