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 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.
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."
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.
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...
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...
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.
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.
Talk Origins - 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, The Scientific Case for Common Descent
True Origin answers as follows:
True Origin - A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution”
Evolution News comes with the following...
Evolution News - Douglas Theobald Tests Universal Common Ancestry by Refuting a Preposterous Null Hypothesis
- 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!
- 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 creation.com 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.
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.
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)"
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.
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 talk.origins 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”.
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.
Evolution News - More Problems with TalkOrigins' Response on the Cambrian Explosion
Evolution News - Can Random Mutations Create New Complex Features? A Response to TalkOrigins
Evolution News - In Explaining the Cambrian Explosion, Has the TalkOrigins Archive Resolved Darwin's Dilemma?
Evolution News - Response to Edward Max on TalkOrigins Immunity Article
1729 - 9 errors in talk.origins' responses to creationism
Creation Wiki - Talk.Origins Archive
Creation Wiki - Most mutations are harmful (Talk.Origins)
Creation Wiki - Evolution is ambiguously defined (Talk.Origins)
Creation Wiki - Evolutionists have blinded themselves to seeing design (Talk.Origins)
Creation Wiki - Evolutionists haven't met Hovind's challenge to prove evolution (Talk.Origins)
Creation Wiki - There are gaps between reptiles and birds (Talk.Origins)
Creation Wiki - Consistency of radiometric dating comes from selective reporting (Talk.Origins)
Creation Wiki - Evolutionists interpret evidence based on their preconceptions (Talk.Origins)
Creation Wiki - Transitions among reptiles (Talk.Origins)
William A. Dembski - Obsessively Criticized but Scarcely Refuted: A Response to Richard Wein