Anti-Science Darwinist censors are getting hit where it hurts - their wallets!!!
"Anyone who thinks that today's culture of science allows an open discussion of evolution is sorely mistaken," said Dr. John G. West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture. "When it comes to intelligent design, private and government-run agencies are suppressing free speech."
The Anything-But-God crowd will go to great lengths to lie about Creation Science and Intelligent Design Science. In point of fact the evidence for Intelligent Design and Creation is far more compelling than anything one can come up with for Darwinism. Darwinism in fact is in big trouble because the more we learn about Physics and Biology, the more design and information and complexity and intentionality we find. At some point scientists have to give up on the overused "argument from incredulity" and acknowledge that the normal mind should be incredulous at the fantastic and ridiculous claims made by Darwinism in the light of what we now know about the world around us.
I intend to continue the "Deliver us from Evil" series soon, but frankly the recent findings against the censorship and prejudice and anti-science attitudes of Darwinists is beginning to cost them big money. This is the way it is going to be and, for Darwinists, the way it should be. The reason for this is that Darwinists are afraid of having their assertions compared to the evidence for Intelligent Design and Creation because on the level playing field of actual science? Darwinism is going to lose and lose big. Don't miss the very last article in this post, it is especially fascinating in the light of the pompous pronouncements of the likes of Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers about "science versus religion." Yeah, right!!!
If man is hopelessly religious, what happens when society’s scientific elites teach that religion is groundless? G. K. Chesterton once said, “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.”
The new atheists claim to base their beliefs on scientific evidence. They have no need for religious teachings or rituals. Is it not strange, then, to see the attraction of secularists to movements that give the appearance of new religious forms? Is there something innate in human nature that cries out for the sense of ultimate purpose and connection to the divine that religions have traditionally provided? Three recent examples of near-cult experiences may be illuminating.
Church of TED: On the BBC News, Jane Wakefield talked about a new cult emerging around the popular technology show, TED (Technology, Entertainment and Design), “a non-profit organisation dedicated to ideas worth spreading.” In “Worshiping at the Church of TED,” Wakefield said that the TEDGlobal Conference “has become something of a cult for its followers – appropriately known as TEDsters.” One idea felt worth spreading was to clothe the dead in mushroom suits as “an altogether more organic way of dying.”
TEDGlobal conferences are an eclectic mix of speeches, hi-tech demonstrations, performance art and calls for fixing society. “Meanwhile philosopher Alain de Botton talked about the need for religion 2.0 – with one particularly enthusiastic Tedster suggesting later that TED itself could be the new church.” Wakefield criticized the closed nature of the conferences, then said, “But TEDsters, as befits members of a cult, hold little truck with criticism. They embrace the week-long event as an oasis of intellectual and emotionally stimulation [sic].”
The “mix of intellect and emotion” TED offers seems to satisfy a basic need in some people: “There is also a sense of being part of a huge social experiment.” Participants wear badges in colors that reflect their mood, whether challenged, inspired, or bored.
Church of Wildness: New Scientist reported on the “Wilderness Festival 2011” that ended last weekend. Cathy Tollet described it as “an event promising to feed all the senses with theatre, debates, parties, music and good food.” While held outdoors, Wilderness Festival 2011 was not so much about wilderness as wildness: “the festival aims to reconnect revellers with all things wild.”
And wild is an apt word. A look at a BBC News photo gallery shows some pretty wild folks with glazed-and-dazed faces, pagan costumes, a masked ball, rock theater and lots of raised hands. The official Wilderness Festival website talks about a late-night party “where the wild things are,” an urban voodoo machine, the wilderness spa, a midnight seance, a naked conga dance in the woods, and other ways to abandon restraint and focus on self-absorption. Conservation of wilderness seems a remote theme, as the festival’s YouTube video, a phantasmagoria of flipped-out patrons indulging themselves, shows.
(Three pictures below from the BBC gallery. So this is what Darwinist Church is like?)
Church of Self: What can atheist fans of Richard Dawkins do for inner fulfillment? They can go watch The Selfish Gene, a musical playing at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe Show. Mairi Macleod reviewed the performance for New Scientist. Written by a Dawkins fan named Jonathan Salway, The Selfish Gene, “70 minutes of catchy songs, innuendo and laughs as well as science,” tries to show how your family and friends, even when outwardly caring and nurturing, are really just acting out their evolutionary selfish selves.
Macleod was delighted. “What a fun introduction this would be for budding biology students, to whet their appetites and show how biology can answer those tricky life questions – such as how long do you wait before you sleep with your boyfriend? Does it pay to cheat?” The answer is clear: sure it does. How could one do anything else? Opening song: We Are Machines Made By Our Genes.
Something is wrong with the musical. It has a moral escape hatch. “And, as befits a musical comedy, there is an optimistic upbeat ending. It suggests, as Dawkins’s book does, that there is a process through which humanity can save itself from its own selfishness,” she ended her review. “Memes are what means we are not just machines made by our genes.” Trouble is, this moral escape hatch is rusty, as she herself said: “For cutting-edge evolutionary biologists, or for that matter for regular readers of New Scientist, the theory depicted in the show might feel slightly dated, with its talk of memes rather than culture evolution or multilevel selection.”
Macleod left it unanswered whether those newer memes of culture evolution and multilevel selection, presumably as undirected and purposeless as natural selection, can help humanity save itself from its own selfishness. And if in the end we are “not just machines,” what part of us is not mechanical? Is there something beyond that recognizes selfishness as bad? Why would evolved humanity even want to save itself from what the evolutionary process produced? Is there a cry in the subtext for a spiritual reality to fill a deep immaterial need?
A void gnaws within that only the true God can fill. One must avoid a void, but coming to God for fulfillment is scary: it means giving up oneself to a God who is Lord of all. Since misery loves company, and sterile science is pointless, the self-lovers flock to counterfeit religious experiences that promise some kind of stuffing for the void. Charlatans abound to sell their idols of the tribe, marketplace, and cave. When the festival is over, when the rock music and booze has worn off, when the musical ends with no answers for why we should save ourselves from selfishness, what then? Will it make the buyer eager to put on the mushroom suit?
Even asking the question presupposes the answer. We are not machines made by our genes; our genes are machines made by an all-wise Creator for us. We were made by and for our Creator, and our hearts are restless till they find their rest in Him. Here’s the road back to the light (Romans 3:10-26, Romans 6:23, Romans 5:7-8, Romans 10:8-13).
The fact that Darwinism still exists as anything other than in the Museum of Bad Fads tells us that man prefers depravity to dependence on the Creator of all things. He would rather believe in fairy tales than facts.
The Anything-But-God crowd will go to great lengths to lie about Creation Science and Intelligent Design Science. In point of fact the evidence for Intelligent Design and Creation is far more compelling than anything one can come up with for Darwinism. Darwinism in fact is in big trouble because the more we learn about Physics and Biology, the more design and information and complexity and intentionality we find. At some point scientists have to give up on the overused "argument from incredulity" and acknowledge that the normal mind should be incredulous at the fantastic and ridiculous claims made by Darwinism in the light of what we now know about the world around us.
‘I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.’– Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known British journalist and philosopher—Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
I intend to continue the "Deliver us from Evil" series soon, but frankly the recent findings against the censorship and prejudice and anti-science attitudes of Darwinists is beginning to cost them big money. This is the way it is going to be and, for Darwinists, the way it should be. The reason for this is that Darwinists are afraid of having their assertions compared to the evidence for Intelligent Design and Creation because on the level playing field of actual science? Darwinism is going to lose and lose big. Don't miss the very last article in this post, it is especially fascinating in the light of the pompous pronouncements of the likes of Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers about "science versus religion." Yeah, right!!!
Series of Costly Case Settlements Warns Darwin's Bullies: Stop Censoring Intellectual Freedom
"Three case settlements this year show that it is a costly mistake for intolerant academic elites to suppress the viewpoints of Darwin-critics," said Casey Luskin, an attorney and policy analyst with Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. "The growing trend is that those who discriminate against intelligent design face stiff penalties."
This month, the state-run California Science Center (CSC) paid $110,000 to avoid a public trial and settle a lawsuit by American Freedom Alliance (AFA). The suit was filed because CSC violated AFA's First Amendment right to discuss intelligent design (ID). As part of the settlement, CSC has also invited AFA back to present the ID event CSC previously cancelled. The case number is BC 423687.
This case reflects the ongoing trend of discrimination against intelligent design. In January, the University of Kentucky paid $125,000 to settle a lawsuit by astronomer Martin Gaskell who was wrongfully denied employment because he was perceived to be skeptical towards Darwinian evolution. (Gaskell actually considers himself a "theistic evolutionist," but he stated "there are significant scientific problems in evolutionary theory" and respectfully cited the work of intelligent design proponents Michael Behe and Phillip Johnson in online notes for one of his talks.) Soon after the settlement of Gaskell's case, Applied Mathematics Letters paid $10,000 and publicly apologized to avoid litigation after it wrongfully withdrew mathematician Granville Sewell's paper critiquing neo-Darwinism.
This case is merely the latest in a long line of well-documented incidents of discrimination against proponents of intelligent design. In 2004, biologist Richard Sternberg was ousted from a research position at the Smithsonian Institution after he allowed a pro-ID paper to be published in a Smithsonian biology journal. Two government investigations found he was the victim of a campaign to investigate and intimidate him due to his skepticism of Darwinian evolution.
In 2006, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure at Iowa State University in large part due to his work developing arguments for intelligent design from cosmic fine-tuning. E-mails uncovered during a public records request showed that Gonzalez's colleagues engaged in secret tenure deliberations where support for ID was counted as an automatic negative.
In 2007, distinguished professor of electrical engineering Robert Marks was forced to shut down a research lab at Baylor University because it investigated intelligent design. There have been multiple similar well-documented cases around the nation.
CSC rented its IMAX theater to AFA to show Darwin's Dilemma, a science documentary advocating ID. However, when CSC learned the film would portray ID favorably, CSC cancelled AFA's event. AFA filed suit in California Superior Court alleging viewpoint discrimination and breach of contract.
"The CSC settlement puts another high price tag on Darwinian censorship of the ID viewpoint," said Joshua Youngkin, Program Officer in Public Policy and Legal Affairs. "The going penalty for viewpoint discrimination against ID is about $100,000, though successfully defending freedom of ID expression is priceless."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This latest court finding against censorship by Darwinists is telling, since academics and the media and in fact the entire modern American culture has been absolutely SOAKED in Darwinist propaganda. It is akin to the methods used by the Soviets in the USSR, continually boasting of the advantages of the Worker State while the poor hapless citizens stood in lines for toilet paper and lived in crowded hovels. In the world of science, Darwinists get grant money and everybody else gets the shaft. But, again, this is going to change because truth eventually wins out in the world of science no matter what the odds.
This month, the state-run California Science Center (CSC) paid $110,000 to avoid a public trial and settle a lawsuit by American Freedom Alliance (AFA). The suit was filed because CSC violated AFA's First Amendment right to discuss intelligent design (ID). As part of the settlement, CSC has also invited AFA back to present the ID event CSC previously cancelled. The case number is BC 423687.
This case reflects the ongoing trend of discrimination against intelligent design. In January, the University of Kentucky paid $125,000 to settle a lawsuit by astronomer Martin Gaskell who was wrongfully denied employment because he was perceived to be skeptical towards Darwinian evolution. (Gaskell actually considers himself a "theistic evolutionist," but he stated "there are significant scientific problems in evolutionary theory" and respectfully cited the work of intelligent design proponents Michael Behe and Phillip Johnson in online notes for one of his talks.) Soon after the settlement of Gaskell's case, Applied Mathematics Letters paid $10,000 and publicly apologized to avoid litigation after it wrongfully withdrew mathematician Granville Sewell's paper critiquing neo-Darwinism.
This case is merely the latest in a long line of well-documented incidents of discrimination against proponents of intelligent design. In 2004, biologist Richard Sternberg was ousted from a research position at the Smithsonian Institution after he allowed a pro-ID paper to be published in a Smithsonian biology journal. Two government investigations found he was the victim of a campaign to investigate and intimidate him due to his skepticism of Darwinian evolution.
In 2006, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure at Iowa State University in large part due to his work developing arguments for intelligent design from cosmic fine-tuning. E-mails uncovered during a public records request showed that Gonzalez's colleagues engaged in secret tenure deliberations where support for ID was counted as an automatic negative.
In 2007, distinguished professor of electrical engineering Robert Marks was forced to shut down a research lab at Baylor University because it investigated intelligent design. There have been multiple similar well-documented cases around the nation.
CSC rented its IMAX theater to AFA to show Darwin's Dilemma, a science documentary advocating ID. However, when CSC learned the film would portray ID favorably, CSC cancelled AFA's event. AFA filed suit in California Superior Court alleging viewpoint discrimination and breach of contract.
"The CSC settlement puts another high price tag on Darwinian censorship of the ID viewpoint," said Joshua Youngkin, Program Officer in Public Policy and Legal Affairs. "The going penalty for viewpoint discrimination against ID is about $100,000, though successfully defending freedom of ID expression is priceless."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This latest court finding against censorship by Darwinists is telling, since academics and the media and in fact the entire modern American culture has been absolutely SOAKED in Darwinist propaganda. It is akin to the methods used by the Soviets in the USSR, continually boasting of the advantages of the Worker State while the poor hapless citizens stood in lines for toilet paper and lived in crowded hovels. In the world of science, Darwinists get grant money and everybody else gets the shaft. But, again, this is going to change because truth eventually wins out in the world of science no matter what the odds.
California Science Center Pays $110,000 to Settle Intelligent Design Discrimination Lawsuit
The state-run California Science Center (CSC) has paid $110,000 to settle a lawsuit by American Freedom Alliance (AFA) against CSC for violating AFA's First Amendment free speech rights to advocate intelligent design (ID). As part of the settlement, the CSC also has invited AFA to present the ID event it previously cancelled.
CSC rented its IMAX theater to AFA to show Darwin's Dilemma, a science documentary advocating ID. However, when CSC learned the film would portray ID favorably, CSC cancelled AFA's event. AFA filed suit in California Superior Court alleging viewpoint discrimination and breach of contract.
"This is an historic victory for the ID movement," said Casey Luskin, an attorney and policy analyst with Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. "The First Amendment forbids government preference for one viewpoint over another, yet evidence disclosed in this case shows the CSC, Smithsonian Institution, and LA County Museum of Natural History attempted to stifle dissent from Darwinism. The result was illegal state-sponsored suppression of protected speech."
AFA was represented by William J. Becker Jr., of the Becker Law Firm, who was supported in the case by the Rutherford Institute. The case number is BC 423687.
"This is the first free speech case for the ID movement, and its first victory in that field," said Becker. "This settlement represents an acknowledgement that a state-owned science institution sought to censor an event solely because it related to ID. It's a vindication for ID, and First Amendment guarantees of free speech."
This case reflects the ongoing trend of discrimination against intelligent design. In January, the University of Kentucky paid $125,000 to settle a lawsuit by astronomer Martin Gaskell who was wrongfully denied employment because he was perceived to be skeptical towards Darwinian evolution. (Gaskell actually considers himself a "theistic evolutionist," but he stated "there are significant scientific problems in evolutionary theory" and respectfully cited the work of intelligent design proponents Michael Behe and Phillip Johnson in online notes for one of his talks.) Soon after the settlement of Gaskell's case, Applied Mathematics Letters paid $10,000 and publicly apologized to avoid litigation after it wrongfully withdrew mathematician Granville Sewell's paper critiquing neo-Darwinism.
"Although Discovery Institute did not host the event, and was not a party to this lawsuit, we were dragged into the case when CSC sought to compel disclosure of thousands of pages of internal documents," said Joshua Youngkin, Discovery Institute's Program Officer in Public Policy and Legal Affairs. "This case warns bullies in the Darwin Lobby there will be consequences for trying to suppress free speech on evolution."
CSC rented its IMAX theater to AFA to show Darwin's Dilemma, a science documentary advocating ID. However, when CSC learned the film would portray ID favorably, CSC cancelled AFA's event. AFA filed suit in California Superior Court alleging viewpoint discrimination and breach of contract.
"This is an historic victory for the ID movement," said Casey Luskin, an attorney and policy analyst with Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. "The First Amendment forbids government preference for one viewpoint over another, yet evidence disclosed in this case shows the CSC, Smithsonian Institution, and LA County Museum of Natural History attempted to stifle dissent from Darwinism. The result was illegal state-sponsored suppression of protected speech."
AFA was represented by William J. Becker Jr., of the Becker Law Firm, who was supported in the case by the Rutherford Institute. The case number is BC 423687.
"This is the first free speech case for the ID movement, and its first victory in that field," said Becker. "This settlement represents an acknowledgement that a state-owned science institution sought to censor an event solely because it related to ID. It's a vindication for ID, and First Amendment guarantees of free speech."
This case reflects the ongoing trend of discrimination against intelligent design. In January, the University of Kentucky paid $125,000 to settle a lawsuit by astronomer Martin Gaskell who was wrongfully denied employment because he was perceived to be skeptical towards Darwinian evolution. (Gaskell actually considers himself a "theistic evolutionist," but he stated "there are significant scientific problems in evolutionary theory" and respectfully cited the work of intelligent design proponents Michael Behe and Phillip Johnson in online notes for one of his talks.) Soon after the settlement of Gaskell's case, Applied Mathematics Letters paid $10,000 and publicly apologized to avoid litigation after it wrongfully withdrew mathematician Granville Sewell's paper critiquing neo-Darwinism.
"Although Discovery Institute did not host the event, and was not a party to this lawsuit, we were dragged into the case when CSC sought to compel disclosure of thousands of pages of internal documents," said Joshua Youngkin, Discovery Institute's Program Officer in Public Policy and Legal Affairs. "This case warns bullies in the Darwin Lobby there will be consequences for trying to suppress free speech on evolution."
If man is hopelessly religious, what happens when society’s scientific elites teach that religion is groundless? G. K. Chesterton once said, “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.”
The new atheists claim to base their beliefs on scientific evidence. They have no need for religious teachings or rituals. Is it not strange, then, to see the attraction of secularists to movements that give the appearance of new religious forms? Is there something innate in human nature that cries out for the sense of ultimate purpose and connection to the divine that religions have traditionally provided? Three recent examples of near-cult experiences may be illuminating.
Church of TED: On the BBC News, Jane Wakefield talked about a new cult emerging around the popular technology show, TED (Technology, Entertainment and Design), “a non-profit organisation dedicated to ideas worth spreading.” In “Worshiping at the Church of TED,” Wakefield said that the TEDGlobal Conference “has become something of a cult for its followers – appropriately known as TEDsters.” One idea felt worth spreading was to clothe the dead in mushroom suits as “an altogether more organic way of dying.”
TEDGlobal conferences are an eclectic mix of speeches, hi-tech demonstrations, performance art and calls for fixing society. “Meanwhile philosopher Alain de Botton talked about the need for religion 2.0 – with one particularly enthusiastic Tedster suggesting later that TED itself could be the new church.” Wakefield criticized the closed nature of the conferences, then said, “But TEDsters, as befits members of a cult, hold little truck with criticism. They embrace the week-long event as an oasis of intellectual and emotionally stimulation [sic].”
The “mix of intellect and emotion” TED offers seems to satisfy a basic need in some people: “There is also a sense of being part of a huge social experiment.” Participants wear badges in colors that reflect their mood, whether challenged, inspired, or bored.
Church of Wildness: New Scientist reported on the “Wilderness Festival 2011” that ended last weekend. Cathy Tollet described it as “an event promising to feed all the senses with theatre, debates, parties, music and good food.” While held outdoors, Wilderness Festival 2011 was not so much about wilderness as wildness: “the festival aims to reconnect revellers with all things wild.”
And wild is an apt word. A look at a BBC News photo gallery shows some pretty wild folks with glazed-and-dazed faces, pagan costumes, a masked ball, rock theater and lots of raised hands. The official Wilderness Festival website talks about a late-night party “where the wild things are,” an urban voodoo machine, the wilderness spa, a midnight seance, a naked conga dance in the woods, and other ways to abandon restraint and focus on self-absorption. Conservation of wilderness seems a remote theme, as the festival’s YouTube video, a phantasmagoria of flipped-out patrons indulging themselves, shows.
(Three pictures below from the BBC gallery. So this is what Darwinist Church is like?)
Church of Self: What can atheist fans of Richard Dawkins do for inner fulfillment? They can go watch The Selfish Gene, a musical playing at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe Show. Mairi Macleod reviewed the performance for New Scientist. Written by a Dawkins fan named Jonathan Salway, The Selfish Gene, “70 minutes of catchy songs, innuendo and laughs as well as science,” tries to show how your family and friends, even when outwardly caring and nurturing, are really just acting out their evolutionary selfish selves.
Macleod was delighted. “What a fun introduction this would be for budding biology students, to whet their appetites and show how biology can answer those tricky life questions – such as how long do you wait before you sleep with your boyfriend? Does it pay to cheat?” The answer is clear: sure it does. How could one do anything else? Opening song: We Are Machines Made By Our Genes.
Something is wrong with the musical. It has a moral escape hatch. “And, as befits a musical comedy, there is an optimistic upbeat ending. It suggests, as Dawkins’s book does, that there is a process through which humanity can save itself from its own selfishness,” she ended her review. “Memes are what means we are not just machines made by our genes.” Trouble is, this moral escape hatch is rusty, as she herself said: “For cutting-edge evolutionary biologists, or for that matter for regular readers of New Scientist, the theory depicted in the show might feel slightly dated, with its talk of memes rather than culture evolution or multilevel selection.”
Macleod left it unanswered whether those newer memes of culture evolution and multilevel selection, presumably as undirected and purposeless as natural selection, can help humanity save itself from its own selfishness. And if in the end we are “not just machines,” what part of us is not mechanical? Is there something beyond that recognizes selfishness as bad? Why would evolved humanity even want to save itself from what the evolutionary process produced? Is there a cry in the subtext for a spiritual reality to fill a deep immaterial need?
The apostle John said that God gives light to every human being who enters the world, but they do not comprehend it (John 1:1-13). The apostle Paul identified that starting point of light as the knowledge of God through creation (Romans 1:18-23). John went on to describe the greater light that became manifest in Christ, who created all things, when the logos became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14-18), calling us back to the Father and providing the way through His death and resurrection if we will receive Him (John 1:12). Try as they might to snuff it out with science, philosophy and emotional abandonment, everything people do only reinforces the recognition of light that has come into the world, and men prefer darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil. One has to love truth to come to the light (John 3:1-21).
A void gnaws within that only the true God can fill. One must avoid a void, but coming to God for fulfillment is scary: it means giving up oneself to a God who is Lord of all. Since misery loves company, and sterile science is pointless, the self-lovers flock to counterfeit religious experiences that promise some kind of stuffing for the void. Charlatans abound to sell their idols of the tribe, marketplace, and cave. When the festival is over, when the rock music and booze has worn off, when the musical ends with no answers for why we should save ourselves from selfishness, what then? Will it make the buyer eager to put on the mushroom suit?
Even asking the question presupposes the answer. We are not machines made by our genes; our genes are machines made by an all-wise Creator for us. We were made by and for our Creator, and our hearts are restless till they find their rest in Him. Here’s the road back to the light (Romans 3:10-26, Romans 6:23, Romans 5:7-8, Romans 10:8-13).
The fact that Darwinism still exists as anything other than in the Museum of Bad Fads tells us that man prefers depravity to dependence on the Creator of all things. He would rather believe in fairy tales than facts.
‘I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.’– Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known British journalist and philosopher—Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.