What if the scientific concensus shoe was on the other foot? Creationism is a light that Darwinists cannot put out!
As the movie "Expelled" clearly demonstrated, there is a ruling paradigm in control of science and media and academia that is scared to death of Creationism and Intelligent Design. They are so scared of being exposed for the paucity of the science behind their claims that they censor information. They are prejudiced against Christians and non-Christians who, because of evidence, can clearly see that organisms are designed and know that the Law of Biogenesis is inviolable. Darwinist's continual propaganda about the fossils and the rock layers and dating methods that guarantee long ages for anything (even brand new rock from volcanic activity) make the general public think that evolution is both true and vital to science. In fact it is irrelevant to science except when it hinders it. Operational science doesn't need Darwinism nor does it use Darwinism. That is why Darwinists formed the NCSE, which is nothing more than an organization designed to allow only evolution to be taught in classrooms. It only exists to censor. Then you have Talk Origins, a site that is devoted to give people answers to questions of origins but is not terribly concerned about the accuracy of their claims. In fact some folks started True Origin Archive in part to rebut the claims of Talk Origins. I have blogged previously about my concern for some of the information that Talk Origins had posted online and their refusal to change that information despite it's inaccuracy. But there is a large contingent of Darwinists who do not care about truth. They have no regard for the content of textbooks as long as they preach the message of the naturalistic materialistic atheistic macroevolution that goes hand in hand with radical eco-nuttology and paganism and socialism and eventual tyranny.
Every step mankind makes away from God is a descent into a hell on earth. Will we ever learn? Didn't we learn from Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Castro and Jung-Il and Pol Pot? All these Ivy League elitists who never had to work for a living, rejecting capitalism and embracing the ideas of Malthus and Skinner and Marx and Alinsky. All the prejudiced scientists like Richard Dawkins and Michael Ruse and P.Z. Myers who make a living in part by attacking the truth, what would happen if they had to face the world in reverse?
What if Michael Ruse had to defend his concept of life forming "on the backs of crystals" before a peer review of Intelligent Design proponents and actually present something coherent? What if Myers had to defend with evidence the many claims he's made about the development of fetuses before a panel of creationists? What if they were branded as "Creation Deniers" and denied jobs, tenure, the right to peer review simply because they believe in the hypothesis of macroevolution? Ruse has already admitted that Evolution is a religion, a faith fully a part of an atheistic worldview. Suppose we had our worldviews flipped and Darwinists had to defend their hypothesis? How would they explain the beginning of anything to a world that had not been systematically brainwashed? Why would anyone care, seeing as how Darwinism doesn't really have any application to operational science other than being an occasional handicap (like the concept of vestigal organs)?
Creationism is based on history. Creationism is also the basis for modern science. If we decided to take a roll call of the greatest scientists of the last 1,000 years we would find that the most important discoveries were made by believers in creation. In light of that, perhaps we should have a litmus test and toss all "Creation Deniers" out of schools and universities and scientific organizations. No more Eugenie Scott going around trying to crush the dissemination of ID information. No more best-selling awkwardly unscientific best-sellers by Richard Dawkins. How would Darwinists behave if the shoe were on the other foot?
... adherence to ID (which, after all, claims to be a nonreligious theory) should be absolute grounds for not hiring a science professor.
Notwithstanding Coyne's absolute assertion that scientists who "adhere" to ID are unemployable, Coyne actually claims that his professional exclusion of scientists who endorse ID is not anti-religious bigotry:
...I abhor discrimination against hiring simply because of someone's religion...
Yet Coyne has called for the resignation of Dr. Francis Collins, an esteemed scientist who is the director of the National Institutes of Health and who is an opponent of ID. Coyne demands Collins' resignation merely because Collins has publicly expressed his Christian views.
Coyne:
Collins gets away with this kind of stuff [i.e. speaking publicly about the compatibility between science and his belief in God] only because, in America, Christianity is a socially sanctioned superstition. He's the chief government scientist, but he won't stop conflating science and faith. He had his chance, and he blew it. He should step down.
What "chance" did Collins "blow"? Collins blew his chance to pass the atheist litmus test by keeping his mouth shut about his belief in God. Coyne's religious discrimination is explicit and undeniable. And Coyne goes further. He asserts that mere adherence to ID, whether held by a scientist with religious views or by a scientist with no religious views, absolutely precludes employment in science. Note that Coyne's blacklist extends to all areas of science, not just to evolutionary biology or even to biology. Coynes' blacklist would apply to oceanographers and chemists and meteorologists as well. Coyne proposes a blacklist of ID scientists from all employment in science.
So here's my challenge to Dr. Coyne:
As of today, over 800 scientists have signed A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. These scientists, all of whom hold PhD's or MD's (with an academic appointment), work at many universities, including Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Dartmouth, Rutgers, University of Chicago, Stanford, Berkeley, Princeton, MIT, among others. Many of the scientists are senior investigators (young untenured scientists take enormous risks by questioning Darwinism). The statement they sign is:
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.Not all of these scientists explicitly endorse ID, but clearly many do, and those that do would constitute "unemployable" scientists by Dr. Coyne's standard.
~~~~~~~~~~
"Retro-science must be in, because the proposed materials are filled with outdated scientific claims," said Casey Luskin, a policy and education analyst with Discovery Institute. "It's truly amazing how much discredited information keeps getting recycled year after year."
In order to satisfy state educational standards set in 2009 (TEKS), the Board of Education asked publishers to submit supplementary instructional materials that would enable students to "analyze and evaluate" core aspects of evolutionary theory, and to "examin[e] all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking." But according to the 70-page Discovery Institute study, only one set of instructional materials out of the 10 evaluated managed to comply with the TEKS as well as avoid glaring scientific errors.
Top science bloopers in the proposed instructional materials include:
- erroneous statements that the 1950s Miller-Urey origin of life experiment produced amino acids under conditions that accurately simulated the early earth.
- long-discredited claims that the appendix, tonsils, and other organs are non-functional "vestigial" organs left over from a blind evolutionary process. In fact, these organs are now recognized by scientists to serve important biological functions.
- fraudulent embryo drawings originating with nineteenth-century German racist Ernst Haeckel that are used to claim that vertebrate embryos are the same at the earliest stages of development (not true).
"In addition to promoting outdated science, most of the proposed instructional materials completely fail to meet the TEKS critical thinking requirements," said Luskin. "The TEKS require instructional materials that will help students examine 'all sides of scientific evidence,' 'encourage critical thinking,' and 'analyze and evaluate' key claims of modern evolutionary theory. But out of the ten instructional materials we reviewed, only one made a serious effort to meet these requirements," said Luskin.
The full analysis of instructional materials prepared by Discovery Institute can be downloaded here, while the Executive Summary of the report is reprinted below...(read entire article to see)
~~~~~~~~~ .
When Darwinists DO debate, it is usually a mistake...
In fact, one remarkable debate featuring Ian Plimer versus Duane Gish was so bad (I have watched the entire thing myself) that an NCSE member used the debate as a teaching tool = How Not To Argue With Creationists!
By the way, any time a creationist makes a series of points it is still popular for Darwinists to ignore the points and call it a "Gish Gallop." If you are ever accused of Gish-galloping take it as a compliment because it will mean at least one of your points cannot be answered.
Creation.com published a demolition of Plimer's book "Telling Lies for God"
Still, you will find Darwinists using methods apparently taken from Plimer despite their obvious faults. (Oddly enough, Plimer is a global warming skeptic, very unusual for a Darwinist).
Darwinism is like Geocentricism, it is unsupportable by evidence but the powers that be WANT it to be true and that is the only reason it is popular. Heliocentricism won out because it was true albeit unpopular with both church and the scientific community at first. Truth always wins out in the end. Plate tectonics is now accepted. Uniformitarianism is slowly being rejected. Darwinism is stalled at the discovery of DNA and has no means of explaining a sophisticated coding system made up of materials that cannot form in nature by chance and are darned hard to make in labs, and we are only talking about the containers of information and not the information itself. Darwinists have absolutely no explanation for that. When confronted with these kinds of things Darwinists either lie or dodge. Guys, the coding mechanism designed by God to help all kinds of organisms survive various conditions is more sophisticated than anything mankind has devised.
People like Pamela Crocker and Guillermo Gonzalez have paid the price for questioning Darwinism. But the fight is really just beginning. People are now filing wrongful-firing suits and fighting for their right to academic freedoms and the First Amendment rights being extended to campuses and newsrooms and publishing houses and on one site there is an entire page devoted to this issue and below are a few examples: