punishments
DISHONEST SCIENCE – PUNISHMENTS AND REPRISALS.
Science has a culture of reprisals against “whistleblowers”, or against anyone who disagrees with current scientific ideology, or who dares to speak out. The reader may think that this is an exaggeration. However, in this chapter, I will provide quotes from authoritative sources showing that scientists who fail to rigorously adhere to current scientific ideology will lose their careers.
This first quote is from the book God’s Undertaker, by John C. Lennox (Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, published by Lion Hudson, 2007:-
Lennox quotes Barry Commoner (Director of The Critical Genetics project, at The Centre For the Biology of Natural Systems at Queen’s College, City University of New York) – discussing “The Central Dogma” (ie:- that the genome accounts COMPLETELY for an organism’s inherited characteristics). “The theory (ie:- of The “Central Dogma”) has been protected - - - dissent, or merely the discovery of a discordant fact, is A PUNISHABLE OFFENCE, A HERESY THAT MIGHT EASILY LEAD TO PROFESSIONAL OSTRACISM.” (My capitals.)
The next quotes are from the book Free Radicals. The Secret Anarchy of Science, by Michael Brooks (who holds a Ph.D. in quantum physics, and is a consultant at New Scientist magazine), published by profile Books, 2012:-
Page 13:- “Most scientists - - - (are) convinced that they shouldn’t do anything - - - too different from whatever is going on in the laboratory next door. They also know full well that they would fail to get funding - - - - if they dared to break out of the strait jacket.”
Page 232:- Commenting on Rachel Carson’s ground-breaking book Silent Spring:- “Many industry scientists had covertly helped with her research, and those who were openly quoted in the book LOST THEIR JOBS ON ITS PUBLICATION.” (My capitals.)
The following quote is from the book The Book of Facts, Volume 1, by Isaac Asimov (a very famous scientist!), published by Coronet Books, Hodder and Stoughton, 1980, page 207:-
“George Simon Ohm hoped to get a university professorship as a result of discovering the relationship (ie:- the famous “Ohm’s law” in electricity). Not only did he not get the university appointment, but the finding (which was indisputably correct!) produced such opposition from some other scientists that Ohm was FORCED TO RESIGN HIS HIGH SCHOOL POSITION.” (My capitals.)
(My comment:- The following quote almost beggars belief! It is absolutely outrageous!)
This quote is from New Scientist (magazine), November 12th, 2016, pages 8 to 9, Article:- Shaken Baby Science Questioned, by Andy Coghlan:-
“Pathologist Waney Squier, at John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford has argued that - - - the - - -symptoms (of shaken baby syndrome) taken as a sign of child abuse may have other causes. But her court appearances led to her BEING STRUCK OFF THE MEDICAL REGISTER - - - A High Court Judge ordered her re-instatement. - - - “I CAN’T RISK MY JOB BY GIVING EVIDENCE IN COURT” says Irene Scheimberg at The London Hospital, one of the few experts (on shaken baby syndrome). The article states that there are people ON DEATH ROW due to convictions relating to shaken baby syndrome. “Expect to see a lot more false convictions in the UK”, says Heather Kirkwood, a lawyer in Seattle. A Swedish study found that “There’s very low-quality scientific evidence for the claim that child head injuries point to shaken baby syndrome”. VARIOUS SCIENTIFIC AGENCIES HAVE TRIED TO PREVENT PUBLICATION OF THIS REPORT.” (My capitals.)
The following quote is from The Spectator (magazine) 28th November, 2015, page 24. Article:- The Heretic, by David Rose:-
The article is about Professor Judith Curry who is involved in the topic of Global Warming. “Her record of peer-reviewed publication in the best climate-science journals is second to none - - - Her critique of the supposed consensus on global warming is - - derived - - - from solid data and analysis” (Because of her outspokenness) she has been subjected to various verbal abuse (eg:- “anti-science). “The (global warming) debate has become - - - so polarised - - - they have managed to eliminate doubt from what should be a nuanced debate - - - CURRY’S INDEPENDENCE HAS COST HER DEAR. SHE BEGAN TO BE REVILED - - - LEAKED EMAILS REVEALED THAT SCIENTISTS WERE FIGHTING TO SUPRESS SCEPTICAL VIEWS - - - - THERE’S NO WAY I WOULD HAVE DONE THIS IF I HADN’T BEEN A TENURED PROFESSOR - - - IF I WERE SEEKING A NEW JOB IN THE US ACADEMY, I’D BE PRETTY MUCH UNEMPLOYABLE - - - THERE’S NO WAY I COULD GET A - - - - RESEARCH GRANT (due to) THE QUASI MCCARTHYITE TIDE (ie:- in science). (My capitals.)
The next quote if from Private Eye (magazine), number 1417, April 29th to May 12th, 2016, page 17. Article entitled “Medicine Balls”:-
“More than a year after Sir Francis’ report into how NHS whistleblowers are treated, there has been no meaningful change. Not a single sacked whistleblower has been found comparable re-employment.”
The following quote is from The Spectator (magazine) August 8th, 2015, pages 18 to 19, Article:- The GP’s Revenge, by J. Meirion Thomas:-
The article explains how the author (a surgeon at the Royal Marsden Hospital in London) drew attention to failings in the NHS, and because of this The Royal Marsden Hospital effectively sacked him, telling him that “My offence was unforgiveable and deserving of a clean break” - - - “Earlier this year, Robert Francis Q.C. published his “Freedom To Speak Up” review, which concluded that there was a culture within - - - the NHS which deters staff from raising - - - concerns - - - I heard shocking accounts of the way some people were treated when they have been brave enough to speak up - - - In a recent editorial in The British Medical Journal, Doctor Kim Holt called for a public enquiry to tackle - - - BULLYING, INTIMIDATION, AND REPRISALS IN THE NHS.” (My capitals.)
The next quote comes from the book A Devil’s Chaplain, by Richard Dawkins, published by Phoenix, 2004, page 61:- “ - - - science-studies barons - - - many of them have tenured professorships at some of America’s best universities. Men of this kind sit on appointment committees, wielding power over young academics who might secretly aspire to an honest (Dawkins’ italic) academic career - - - I know because many of them have told me that there are sincere scholars out there WHO WOULD SPEAK OUT IF THEY DARED, BUT WHO ARE INTIMIDATED INTO SILENCE.” (My capitals.)
(My comment:- It is amazing that Dawkins has the unmitigated gall to write this. He is one of the chief offenders! He frequently indulges in verbal abuse against anyone who dares to disagree with his extremely “ossified”, and “fossilized”, and embedded dogmatic views on evolution. He is one of the “tenured” science-studies “barons” who himself wields power over other academics, and his undue influence would tend to intimidate people into silence, rather than face a torrent of his customary verbal abuse. Dawkins is one of the great champions of censorship in science. If you think that I am exaggerating, here is another quote from the same book by Dawkins (A Devil’s Chaplain), pages 256 to 257:- Dawkins quotes a letter that he wrote to (palaeontologist) Stephen Jay Gould:- “I am proposing that you might consider uniting with me - - - in signing a short letter, say to The New York Review of Books, explaining publically why we do not debate creationists – including the “Intelligent Design” euphemism for creationists – and ENCOURAGING OTHER EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS TO FOLLOW SUIT - - - and offering our letter as a model for others to cite IN REFUSING SUCH INVITATIONS IN THE FUTURE. We - - - have better things to do with our time than give it over to SUCH NONSENSE (My comment:- Verbal abuse here!) - - - Their RIDICULOUS ARGUMENTS (My comment:- More verbal abuse!) - - - Just to appear on a platform with them is to lend them the respectability they crave - - - The mere fact that it (ie:- the debate) is staged at all suggests to IGNORANT BYSTANDERS (My comment:- More verbal abuse) that there must be something worth debating” (My comment:- This gives out a sinister “Orwellian” message. It is telling other scientists that they should limit discussion, that they should only embrace “good-think”, that they should collaborate with censorship, that they should only discuss what Dawkins approves of. In my opinion, Dawkins is a pseudo-scientist of the very worst type. He wields power and influence, and uses it to promote censorship. In my opinion, Dawkins is a disgrace to science, and future generations will remember him as a “crank”, and a “nutter”. )
The next quote comes from the book Impure Science – Fraud, Compromise, and Political Influence in Scientific research, by Robert Bell, Professor of Economics at Brooklyn College, City University of New York, published by John Wiley and Sons, 1992, pages 105 to 111:- Stephen Breuning, Ph.D. - - - pleaded guilty to - - - filing fake research reports - - - The whistleblower - - - was - - Doctor Robert Sprague - - - The astonishing ordeal he had been put through for revealing the truth about Breuning - - - - The National Institute of Mental Health - - - -spent two whole weeks INVESTIGATING ROBERT SPRAGUE (ie:- INVESTIGATING THE WHISTLEBLOWER!) - - - - Sprague received a - - letter - - - saying that Sprague’s - - - testimony - - - was - - - “slanderous and libellous” - - - would file legal action - - - After nearly 18 straight years of funding, The National Institute of Mental Health - - - cancelled Doctor Sprague’s grant - - - -THERE IS AN EXTREMELY GOOD CHANCE THAT PULLING OFF A SCIENTIFIC FRAUD PAYS, AND WHISTLEBLOWING - - - DOES NOT PAY OFF.” (My capitals.)
A quote from pages 142 to 143 of the same book:- “An eminent scientist - - - - stated that - - -“the protection of careers must take precedence over scientific accuracy” - - - The attitude that scientific careers are more important than science has become common among scientists.”
A quote from page XII of the same book:- “A study at a major university showed that - - - 32% of researchers - - - suspected that a colleague had falsified data.”
A quote from pages XV to XVI:- The treatment received by scientists who expose fraud in science - - - The whistleblower frequently becomes the victim - - - - the subsequent “investigation” of fraud by the university - - - becomes an investigation of the informant and a cover-up of the reported action.”
A quote from page 3 of the same book:- “One congressman described peer review as - - -an incestuous “buddy system” that FREQUENTLY STIFLES NEW IDEAS AND SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGHS. - - - - An NIH scientist - - - described another problem with peer review - - - “YOUR FATE IS DECIDED BY YOUR COMPETITORS.” ” (My capitals.)
The next quote is from the book The Book of Lists (Volume) 2, by Wallace Wallechinsky et al, published by Corgi Books, 1981, page 159:-
“Doctor Thomas Mancuso, commissioned by The Atomic Energy Commission in 1964 to measure the safety of nuclear plants. He discovered that even very low levels of radiation can be deadly. His contract - - - was cancelled, and HIS RESEARCH FUNDS WERE CUT OFF - a punishment that is becoming increasingly common among scientists who come up with the “wrong” results.” (My capitals.)
The next quote is from (the magazine) Nexus, volume 24, number 3, April to May 2017. Article:- Vaccines, Bio-warfare, and Betrayal, by Catherine O’Driscoll (who has lectured world wide on veterinary health issues):-
“Scientists who speak out - - - jeopardising their careers - - or are afraid to speak out. This ostensibly means that SCIENCE IS NO LONGER CONCERNED WITH THE OPEN PURSUIT OF TRUTH. It has been hi-jacked by the profit motive - - - Academic institutions - - - in bed with - - - -pharmaceutical companies - - - - drugs that can cause harm - - - - the end of scientific integrity. - - - Academics - - - - speaking out - - - jeopardises - - - - their own careers. - - - Scientists who - - - consort - - - with the pharma(ceutical) industry prosper. - - - Too many SCIENTISTS HIDE - - - UNFAVOURABLE RESEARCH RESULTS - - - ARE RELUCTANT TO SPEAK THE TRUTH FOR FEAR OF REPRISALS.” (My capitals.)
The next quote come from The Spectator (magazine) 19th February, 2011, pages 12 to 13. Article Beating The Ice, by Nicholas Lewis and Matt Ridley:-
The article discusses global warming. “(The journal) Nature’s original peer review process had let through an obviously flawed paper - - - no professional climate scientist then disputed it, PERHAPS BECAUSE OF FEAR THAT DOING SO MIGHT HARM THEIR CAREERS - - - - FUNDING AND PROMOTION DRIES UP IF YOU EXPRESS HETERODOX VIEWS.” (My capitals.)
The next quotes are from the book The Academic Market Place, by Theodore Caplow (Professor of Sociology at The University of Virginia) and Reece J. McGee (Professor of Sociology Emeritus at Purdne University, published by Transaction Publishers (London), 2001:-
Page 91:- The authors provide a quote from an academic recounting the misfortunes of a colleague:- “He propounded in one monograph an unorthodox theory - - - I am convinced - - - that the unorthodox character of this article LOST HIM HIS JOB. His heretical opinions. YOU KNOW HOW THESE PEOPLE CAN GET WHEN THEIR PET DOGMAS ARE ATTACKED.” (My capitals.)
Page 134:- “Among the most common qualities sought in candidates (ie:- for an academic post in a university) are - - - fitting in - - - - acceptance of the values of the department - - - and a willingness to defend it - - - departments are especially WARY OF TRAITORS - - - EQUALLY DANGEROUS IS THE NONCONFORMIST.” (My capitals.)
The next quote is from The (London) Evening Standard, June 21st, 2018, pages 1 and 4. Article:- Police To Probe “Doctor Opiate” Scandal”:-
“Doctor Jane Barton - - - presiding over a system which gave patients powerful drugs they did not need - - - 465 patients had their lives shortened after being prescribed powerful opiate painkillers - - - Sir Brian Jarman, Emeritus Professor at Imperial College, London - - - believes whistleblowers are still RELUCTANT TO EXPOSE MALPRACTICE BECAUSE OF THE RISK OF BEING “FIRED, GAGGED, OR BLACKLISTED”. ( My capitals.)
The next quote is from The (London) Evening Standard September 10th, 2018, page 2. Article:- Crisis-hit St. Georges Axes Complex Heart Surgery:-
“Two surgeons were excluded - - - - Professor Marjan Jahangin had her exclusion overturned - - - - Her lawyer told the court she had been TARGETED BECAUSE SHE BLEW THE WHISTLE ON UNSAFE CARE.” (My capitals.)
The next quote is from the book The Crime Vaccine, by Jay B. Marcus, published by Claitor’s Publishing Division, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1996, page 123:-
The author quotes another researcher (R.A. Gordon, author of the article “Research on IQ, Race, and Delinquency: Taboo or Not Taboo?”, published in the book Taboos in Criminology.):- “Younger colleagues SKIRT CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES FOR FEAR OF NOT RECEIVING RESEARCH FUNDS OR OTHERWISE DAMAGING THEIR CAREERS.”
The next quote comes from the book The Heretics. Adventures With The Enemies of Science, by Will Storr, published by Picador, 2013, pages 314 to 315:-
The author discusses Rupert Sheldrake’s book A New Science Of Life. Sheldrake was talking to Professor Albert Chibnall (a biochemist):-
“This idea of yours is going to get you into trouble” Chibnall warned him. “You’re perfectly positioned for a brilliant career. If you pursue this, you’ll throw it all away - - - It’s dangerous - - - It’ll ruin your career”. Sheldrake ignored him, and - - - published his theory in a book – A New Science Of Life - - - “SO YOU SEE MY IDEA DID GET ME INTO TROUBLE (says Sheldrake) IT DID RUIN MY CAREER. I WAS NO LONGER ABLE TO GET A JOB OR A GRANT.”
The next quotes are from the book Delusions in Science and Spirituality, by Susan B. Martinez Ph.D., published by Bear and co, USA, 2015:-
Pages 170 to 173:- The passage discusses climate scientists who unearth evidence that undermines the global warming hypothesis. “Many of the cooler-headed analysts, as Chris Horner points out - - - ARE AFRAID OF EMPLOYMENT REPERCUSSIONS. One distinguished Israeli atmospheric scientist talked about THIS KIND OF INTIMIDATION. “Many of my colleagues - - - report on their inability to publish their scepticism in the scientific - - - - media - - - - One researcher WAS WARNED THAT HIS FUNDING WOULD BE CUT OFF IF HE PURSUED HIS STUDY of figures for the tropics.” (My capitals,)
Page 20:- the author quotes geologist Robert Schoch (an American Associate Professor of Natural Sciences at the College of General Studies, Boston University) (from his book Forgotten Civilisation):- “The objectivity of science is a myth - - - - submissions to (high status journals) are subject to the peer review system. The reviewers act as censors - - - guarding the status quo - - competing theories are marginalized - - - DISSENTING VIEWS - - - MUST BE SUPPRESSED - - - DETRACTORS LOCKED OUT OF JOBS, PUBLICATION OUTLETS, AND GRANT FUNDING.” (My capitals.)
Page 19:- The author comments regarding dissidents in the scientific community:- “Any defiance - - - IS CAREER SUICIDE - - - EMPLOYMENT ITSELF IS AT STAKE.” (My capitals.)
The next quote is from the book The Design Revolution, by William Dembski, published by Intervarsity Press, 2004:- Preliminary comment on this book by Stephen Barr, Professor of Physics at The University of Delaware:-
“Can one formulate objective criteria for recognizing design? (ie:- Intelligent Design in nature) - - - EVEN TO RAISE SUCH QUESTIONS IS DANGEROUS.” (My capitals.) (My comment:- He means dangerous to an academic career.)
The next quote is from the book Impure Science. Fraud, Compromise, and Political Influence in Scientific research, by Robert bell (Professor of Economics at City University of New York), published by John Wiley and Sons, 1992, page 190 onwards:-
Cantekin had been Director of Research - - - (at) (The) Children’s Hospital, Pittsburgh - - - HE WAS FIRED - - - (for) violations of research ethics - - - That he did no such thing would later become a matter of Congressional record - - - Cantekin - - - did - - - - publish the truth - - - Cantekin’s charges concerning honoraria (ie:- fees) received by Doctor Bluestone from pharmaceutical companies - - - 262,067 (US) dollars - - - Doctor Cantekin - - - had grave doubts about the scientific validity of research - - - - funded by pharmaceutical companies seeking to prove the effectiveness of their antibiotics. - - - There has since been evidence that the efficacy of antibiotics in treating otitis media is negligible - - - the rates of recovery were HIGHER for patients who did NOT receive antibiotics. - - - Evidence of the ineffectiveness of antibiotics would have been available - - - several years ago if THE MEDICAL SCHOOL HAD NOT PREVENTED DOCTOR CANTEKIN FROM PUBLISHING. - - - - Congressman Weiss’s Congressional Report DETAILED DOCTOR CANTEKIN’S SUBSEQUENT HARRASSEMENT - - - ATTEMPTS TO REVOKE HIS TENURE, AND FIRE HIM FROM THE UNIVERSITY.” (My capitals.)
If a theory has to be ENFORCED by a system of COERCION AND REPRISALS, if a theory has to be bolstered by VERBAL ABUSE AND BLUSTER, and deliberate obfuscation, instead of reasoned argument, then that theory is almost certainly bogus – almost certainly mere pseudoscience.
The NAZI racial superiority “theory” was ENFORCED by a system of COERCION. In the end, it turned out to be pseudoscience.
The theory of LYSENKOISM (in Russia) was ENFORCED by a one way ticket to the GULAG, or by an unexplained “DISAPPEARANCE”, or even (in some cases) by FIRING SQUAD for dissenters! In the end, Lysenkoism turned out to be pseudoscience.
Nevertheless, at the time, scientists, wishing to keep their careers, went along with a theory that they knew to be rubbish, and sometimes even collaborated in the persecution of dissenters.
The ATHEIST/DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS has one feature in common with NAZISM and LYSENKOISM. It is ENFORCED in the scientific community by a brutal system of COERCION AND REPRISALS. There are no actual executions. There is no actual GULAG. Instead of the FIRING SQUAD, the Atheist/Darwinian proponents use CAREER LOSS as a weapon against anyone who has the temerity to question their IDEOLOGY. They also use violence of the tongue – VERBAL ABUSE as a “dissuader” against any deviation from “GOOD-THINK”. If the ATHEIST/DARWINIAN HYPOTHESIS had any scientific merit, then these “TOTALITARIAN” and “ORWELLIAN” methods would not be required. Instead reasoned argument would be used. In case the reader may suspect that what I am saying is a bit far-fetched, here are some quotes from various mostly authoritative sources that substantiate what I am saying:-
The following quote is from the book – Is Evolution Proved? A Debate Between Douglas Dewar (Fellow of The Zoological Society) and H. S. Shelton, published by Hollis and Carter, 1947. Introduction by Arnold Lunn.
In the preface, page 8, Lunn quotes Dwight (who was a Professor of Anatomy at Harvard University):- “The TYRANNY - - - - in the matter of evolution - - - is overwhelming - - - - there is OPPRESSION AS IN THE DAYS OF THE TERROR. How VERY FEW leaders of science DARE TO TELL THE TRUTH.”
The next two quotes are from the book – The Design Revolution – by William Dembski (Dembski completed an undergraduate degree in psychology (1981, University of Illinois at Chicago) and master's degrees in statistics, mathematics, and philosophy (1983, University of Illinois at Chicago; 1985, University of Chicago; 1993, University of Illinois at Chicago, respectively), two PhDs, one in mathematics and one in philosophy (1988, University of Chicago; 1996, University of Illinois at Chicago, respectively)), published by Intervarsity Press, 2004:-
Page 304:- Dembski quotes Michael Behe (Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania.), who pointed out in an interview with the Harvard Political Review – for a biologist to question Darwinism endangers one’s career. Behe states “There’s GOOD REASON TO BE AFRAID. Even if you’re not FIRED FROM YOUR JOB, you will be easily PASSED OVER FOR PROMOTIONS. I would strongly advise graduate students who are skeptical of Darwinian theory NOT TO MAKE THEIR VIEWS KNOWN.” (My capitals.)
(My comment:- Adolf Hitler would be laughing in his grave!)
Pages 304 to 305:- (Dembski tells us):- Doubting Darwinian orthodoxy is comparable to opposing the party line of a Stalinist regime - - - - - Over-zealous critics of Intelligent Design regard it as their moral duty to keep biology free from Intelligent Design. - - - - I’ve known such critics to contact design theorists’ employers and notify them of the “heretics” in their midst. - - - - The day one such story appeared, a close friend - - of mine - - - was DISMISSED FROM HIS RESEARCH POST at a prestigious molecular biology laboratory. He had worked in that lab for ten years - - - - WELCOME TO THE INQUISITION.” (My capitals.)
(My comment:- Joseph Stalin would be laughing in his grave!)
The next two quotes are from the book Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed, by Douglas Axe (Director of The Biologic Institute; he also held a research scientist position at Cambridge University), published by HarperOne, 2017:-
Page 51:- Axe had been working under Sir Alan Fersht at The CPE (Centre for Protein Engineering). Axe tells us that:- “An article in New Scientist - - - revealed that one of my fellow scientists had been pressing Alan (Fersht) to dismiss me because of my connection to ID (Intelligent Design) - - - - - - Alan did - - - - give in to the internal whistleblower who wanted me removed - - - I received - - - an email - - -“Please vacate as soon as possible”.”
Page 54:- Axe comments:- “Once an embellished view of science becomes established, active suppression of dissent becomes inevitable. - - - Everything that opposes the institutionalized agenda is labeled “anti-science” by those working to protect the agenda, and the fear of that label quickly ENFORCES COMPLIANCE.”
The next quote is from the book – Evolution – Possible or Impossible? By James F Coppedge, Ph.D. (Director of Probability Research in Biology, Northridge, California), published by Zondervan Publishing House, eighth printing, 1980, page 181:-
The author quotes a letter in the journal Nature, volume 240, December 29th, 1972, page 57:- “The majority of biologists accept the prevailing views (of Darwinism) uncritically - - - others have - - - - come to realize the flaws in contemporary Darwinism. But for them to speak out - - - - would probably ruin their careers.”
The next quote is from the book – Uncommon Dissent, edited by William Dembski (Dembski completed an undergraduate degree in psychology (1981, University of Illinois at Chicago) and master's degrees in statistics, mathematics, and philosophy (1983, University of Illinois at Chicago; 1985, University of Chicago; 1993, University of Illinois at Chicago, respectively), two PhDs, one in mathematics and one in philosophy (1988, University of Chicago; 1996, University of Illinois at Chicago, respectively)), published by ISI Books, 2004, Introduction by William Dembski.
In the introduction (Page xxxvi) Dembski comments:- The critic of Darwinism faces a prisoner’s dilemma in which perpetuating Darwinian falsehoods either by actively promoting them or by silent complicity is the best strategy for advancing one’s (academic) career.”
The next quote is from the book – Why Be An Ape? Observations On Evolution, by “A London Journalist (Mr. Newman Watts), published by Marshall Morgan and Scott Ltd., Page 38:-
The author comments:- “The rage for evolution - - - is based on - - face-saving. Pompous experts - - - will not humiliate themselves to the extent of admitting that they - - - advocated a theory which proved in the end to be wrong. Evolution must be saved because THEIR FACE MUST BE SAVED. - - - - - The present CENSORSHIP is - - - - exercised in the interests of a narrow creed which it has become a DEADLY HERESY TO DOUBT OR QUESTION.” (My capitals.)
(My comment:- Science is SUPPOSED to be about “The disinterested pursuit of objective truth”. Unfortunately, science is actually about money, power, prestige, and FACE-SAVING! Truth has to take a back seat in science. It is sad to see how scientists tie themselves into knots, and bend themselves into incredible contortions in order to protect the theory that they have spent their whole life teaching. These contortions are simply a FACE-SAVING EXERCISE.)
The next quote comes from the internet.
https://freescience.today/story/caroline-crocker/
“Dr. Caroline Crocker taught second-year cell biology at George Mason University, and received exceptional student reviews. As part of the unit on evolution, she usually brought up intelligent design and criticisms of evolutionary theory.
At the end of the fall semester in 2004, her supervisor told her she would be suspended from teaching that class and reassigned to labs due to her presentation of intelligent design. Crocker made clear to her supervisor that she would not teach intelligent design again — but he refused to rescind his decision. When her contract expired in 2005, George Mason did not renew it.”
The next quote comes from the internet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/03/michael_reiss_why_i_resigned_f.html
“Michael Reiss, - - - - who was forced to resign from his position as director of science education at the Royal Society, six months ago, has spoken about his resignation for the first time on today's Sunday Sequence programme. I asked him if he was "forced to resign" and he replied, "That's a fair summary of what happened."
Many Fellows of the Royal Society, Britain's most distinguished science academy, had been outraged to hear that their director of science education was trying to give creationism equal time in the nation's classrooms. - - - - - those within the science establishment who mounted a campaign which succeeded in having him removed from his Royal Society job.”
The next quote comes from the internet.
https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Suppression_of_alternatives_to_evolution
Lloyd Dale was an award-winning and highly qualified high school teacher in South Dakota who was fired in 1980 for teaching about both evolution and creation.
Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure and promotion to associate professor by Iowa State University, despite apparently easily meeting their criteria. The university's stated criteria for promotion to associate professor says that "For promotion to associate professor, excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required and would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals". Gonzalez exceeded this by 350%, with 68 such papers, including papers that had surprisingly high numbers of citations.
But Gonzales co-authored a book in 2004 which revealed his support for intelligent design, and two of his colleagues have admitted that his views on intelligent design were a factor in denying Gonzalez tenure.
Robert Gentry became the acknowledged expert on radiohalos, and published papers in a number of leading scientific journals, including Science, Nature, and Journal of Geophysical Research. However, when his creationist views became known, his contract with Oak Ridge National Laboratories was cancelled.
Roger Paull was a substitute teacher in Arizona. - - - - He briefly mentioned intelligent design to the class. The next day he was suspended and has not been able to teach since, having been effectively "blackballed". He says that he was viewed "almost the same way a potential pedophile would be".
Günter Bechly is a distinguished paleontologist, specializing in fossil dragonflies, exquisitely preserved in amber for tens of millions of years. After revealing his support for the theory of intelligent design, he was pushed out as a curator at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany.
The following quotes are taken from the internet.
https://creation.com/contemporary-suppression-of-the-theistic-worldview
The article is entitled:- Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview
(Dr. Jerry Bergman has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology at Northwest State College in Archbold OH for over 17 years and is a graduate of the Medical College of Ohio, Wayne State University in Detroit, the University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State University.)
[A] former Louisiana State Senator … said instances [of] … pro-creationism professors and teachers … being dismissed have begun to proliferate in the past ten years … highly-qualified educators denied tenure or otherwise discriminated against simply because they hold views or engage in activities which oppose the tenets of … [evolutionism].
Gross name-calling, even by eminent scientists, is commonly found in the secular literature. A typical example is Isaac Asimov’s statement that all ‘creationists are stupid, lying people who are not to be trusted in any way.’ And that all of their ‘points are equally stupid, except where the creationists are outrightly lying.’
Refusal of admittance to graduate programs
It was found that it was not uncommon for a creationist to be denied admission to a degree program even if he/she clearly exceeded published admission standards. In some cases the person denied was able to locate letters of recommendation which recommended against admission specifically because of the candidate’s creationist worldview.
Refusal to award degree
Some creationists interviewed, although they clearly met all of the requirements, were openly denied a degree (usually a Ph.D. in the sciences) because of their creation orientation and/or publications.
Denial of promotion
Many creationists claimed that they were not promoted even though they clearly exceeded the written standards for promotion (high student ratings, more than an adequate number of publications, etc.). In several cases this was openly because of their creationist publications.
Denial of tenure
Many cases of tenure denial clearly based mainly on the creationist activities of the candidate were encountered. It was often obvious that bias existed because of active involvement in the creationist movement. Research has well documented that a known scientific creationist who does not experience some bias in this crucial decision is a rare exception. This view was fully supported by the interviews with creationist professors and others.
The writer surveyed 28 professors at a recent science convention about discrimination against creationists. All those interviewed stated that they doubted very much if their department would ever hire an out-of-the-closet creationist for a faculty position.
Although some prominent creationists have experienced little discrimination, or discrimination for which they could prove a prima facie case, almost 70 percent of those Bergman41 interviewed claimed to have faced discrimination, and close to 40 percent believed they had evidence to demonstrate their claims. The thousands of creationists with tenure in science departments usually achieve it by one of two ways. One survey found that the most common method is to stay in the closet—not openly identify oneself as a creationist (43 percent); and the second method (38 percent) is to become a creationist after achieving tenure.42 This study did not locate a single out-of-the-closet conservative creationist awarded tenure in any state university in the last ten years, and very few before.
Patterson advocates employment evaluation openly based on one’s religious beliefs, concluding that:
‘creationism is discriminated against, but this is precisely as it should be. It is the responsibility of teachers and school officials to discriminate against … anyone who advocates … [creationism]. I’m glad this kind of discrimination is finally catching on, and I hope the practice becomes much more vigorous and more widespread in the future.’
Discrimination against students
In discussing whether creationist students should be discriminated against, one well-known science educator approvingly quotes those who conclude that a professor should have the right
‘to fail any student in his class, no matter what the grade record indicates’,
and even advocates,
‘retracting grades and possibly even degrees, if [a person espouses creationism] … after passing the course or after graduating.’
He also stresses that it is the university’s responsibility to terminate creationists and rescind their degrees, advocating that even students with excellent grades who produce highly regarded work should be denied their degree and expelled from the university if it is discovered that they are a creationist!
Zuidema reports that some professors have proposed that ‘… grades or degrees of university students who hold special creation concepts after having taken science courses [should be retracted]. In other words, flunk them—retroactively, if necessary!
The author comments that:- “The signing of a statement swearing that one is an atheist was once required to teach in a Soviet university.”
(My comment:- This really is O.T.T. (over the top)! ADOLF HITLER would not just be laughing in his grave. He would be getting up and DANCING with glee!)
The next quote is from the book Delusions in Science and Spirituality, by Susan B. Martinez, Ph.D., published by Bear and company, USA., 2015, pages 112 to 113:-
“I personally know one prominent - - - opponent of Darwinism who was ACCUSED OF MENTAL ILLNESS - - PILLORIED - - - To buck Darwinism - - - would be professional suicide. There is too much to lose: grants, promotions, tenure - - - - lecture invitations.”
The following quote is A REAL EYE OPENER!
For a scientist of the stature of LYNN MARGULIS to make such a comment means that it should be taken very seriously!
Lynn Margulis (born Lynn Petra Alexander; March 5, 1938 – November 22, 2011) was an American evolutionary theorist and biologist, science author, educator, and popularizer, and was the primary modern proponent for the significance of symbiosis in evolution. Historian Jan Sapp has said that "Lynn Margulis's name is as synonymous with symbiosis as Charles Darwin's is with evolution." In particular, Margulis transformed and fundamentally framed current understanding of the evolution of cells with nuclei.
In 1966 Margulis moved to Boston University, where she taught biology for twenty-two years. She was initially an Adjunct Assistant Professor, and appointed to Assistant Professor in 1967. She was promoted to Associate Professor in 1971, to full Professor in 1977, and to University Professor in 1986. In 1988 she was appointed Distinguished Professor of Botany at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. She was Distinguished Professor of Biology in 1993. In 1997 she transferred to the Department of Geosciences at Amherst to become Distinguished Professor of Geosciences.)
Now that we have established her credentials, here is the quote:-
The quote is from the book The Third Culture, by John Brockman, published by Simon and Schuster, 1995. Article by Lynn Margulis entitled “Gaia Is a Tough Bitch”
On pages 132 to 133 Margulis discusses Richard Lewontin (As of 2003, Lewontin was the Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at Harvard. He has worked with and had great influence on many philosophers of biology.)
“I asked him - - - why, when he himself was pointing to serious flaws related to the fundamental assumptions, did he want to TEACH THIS NONSENSE - - - His second reason was - - - IF HE DIDN’T COUCH HIS STUDIES IN THE NEO-DARWINIST THOUGHT STYLE (archaic and totally inappropriate language in my (ie:- in Margulis’) opinion), HE WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO OBTAIN GRANT MONEY that was set up to support this kind of work.” (Margulis then states her opinion that “The Neo-Darwinist population genetics tradition IS REMINISCENT OF PHRENOLOGY - - - It will look ridiculous in retrospect, because IT IS RIDICULOUS - - - NONE OF THE OUTCOMES OF THE EXPERIMENTS MATCHED THE THEORY.” (My capitals and highlighting.)
(My comment:- Wow! That comment was a real eye opener! For a scientist of the stature of Richard Lewontin to admit that he is effectively either lying or complicit in a lie, ie;- that he is teaching what he knows to be “nonsense” is shocking indeed! What this shows is that scientists’ main priority is their salary, rather than “the disinterested pursuit of objective truth”, and they are prepared to lie in order to obtain that salary.
On pages 136 to 137 of the same essay, Margulis comments:-“Most people don’t like to hear that what they have been doing all those years is BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE - - - It is far easier to stay with OBSOLETE INTELLECTUAL CATEGORIES.” (My capitals.)
The next quote is from the book Home is Where The Wind Blows – Chapters From a Cosmologist’s Life, by Fred Hoyle (n 1958, Hoyle was appointed to the illustrious Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy at Cambridge University. In 1967, he became the founding director of the Institute of Theoretical Astronomy (subsequently renamed the Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge.), published by University Science Books, 1994, page 217:-
“The existence of life is seen to depend crucially on a fine tuning of the laws of physics. - - - - - Either our existence is a freakish accident - - - or the universe is teleological, with the laws (of physics) DELIBERATELY ARRANGED BY SOME AGENT TO PERMIT OUR EXISTENCE. The latter view is - - - common to most religions, but it would be better for a scientist to have a millstone hung round his neck THAN THAT HE SHOULD ADMIT TO SUCH A BELIEF - - - - IF HE DOES, HIS PAPERS WILL BE REJECTED, HE WILL RECEIVE NO FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE - - - - for to hold such a view is the GREATEST POSSIBLE SCIENTIFIC HERESY.”
The next quote is from the book Risk, by Dan Garner, published by Virgin Books, 2009, pages 263 to 264:- The author discusses Rachel Carson’s book – Silent Spring (about damage to the environment by pesticides) “The chemical industry launched a CAMPAIGN OF NASTY ATTACKS ON CARSON.”
The next few quotes will be concerned with the VERBAL ABUSE that scientists, in general and advocates of the Atheist/Darwinian IDEOLOGY in particular, tend to use against anyone who has the temerity to challenge their IDEOLOGY.
This quote is from the book Free Radicals. The Secret Anarchy of Science, by Michael Brooks (who holds a Ph.D. in quantum physics, and is a consultant at New Scientist Magazine), pages 180 to 181:- “Scientists’ predilection for - - - insult and disparagement of peers remained strong through the post-war period. And thing aren’t much different now. - - - - Carl Sagan once wrote - - - (about science) “A few saintly personalities stand out amidst a roiling sea of - - - backbiting, SUPPRESSION OF DISSENT, and absurd conceits.” ” (My capitals.)
The following quote is from Scientific American (magazine/journal), special edition. Winter 2017 to 2018. The Science Behind The Debates. Article:- Should Science Speak Top Faith? (A Discussion Between Lawrence M. Krauss and Richard Dawkins)
Dawkins:-“I once wrote in a New York Times book review – It is absolutely safe to say that – if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is IGNORANT, STUPID, OR INSANE (OR WICKED - - - - -) That sentence has been quoted again and again in support of the view that I am a bigoted, intolerant, close-minded, intemperate ranter. (MY comment:- No! No! No! No one could ever possibly think that!) But you know in your heart that it is a simple, sober statement of fact.”
Here is a further Dawkins quote from the internet – BrainyQuote.com
“Faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of MENTAL ILLNESS.”
Here are some more Richard Dawkins quotes – this time from Dawkin’s review of Richard Milton’s book The Facts of Life. Shattering The Myths of Darwinism. This review was published in New Statesman (magazine), London, 28th August, 1992:-
“Every day I get letters - - - from young earthers - - -astrologers and other harmless FRUITCAKES - - - this book is approximately as SILLY - - PSEUDOSCIENCE THAT THEY KNOW IS RUBBISH - - - THIS UNQUALIFIED HACK - - - COMPLETE AND TOTAL PIG IGNORANCE - - - NEEDS PSYCHIATRIC HELP - - - MILTON AN UNTRAINED AMATEUR - - - DISINGENUOUS or more plausibly STUPID - - this sort of SILLY SEASON DRIVEL - - - ” (My capitals.)
(My comment:- Richard Milton’s book was well researched and informative. He makes some very good points in the book. Dawkins’ review of this book fails to answer any of the points that Milton raises. I would protest that it is a very unfair review, except for the fact that it is “par for the course”; and that one EXPECTS this kind of language from people who support The Atheist/Darwinian Ideology.
“FRUITCAKES”!!!!!!?????????? “PIG IGNORANCE”!!!!!!????????
“NEEDS PSYCHIATRIC HELP”!!!!!???????
This is not the language of science. This is the language of ideology. When you see language of this kind, you know that you are no longer dealing with science, but with pseudoscience. Real science deals in the currency of reasoned argument and discussion, not verbal abuse and vilification.)
The next quotes are from the book God Is Not Great. How Religion Poisons Everything, by Christopher Hitchens, published by McClelland and Stewart, 2007
Page 78:-“ - - - - creationist STUPIDITY - - - “
Page 81:- “ - - - the latest FOOLISHNESS contrived by the faithful - - -“
Pages 84 to 85:- “ - - - the STUPID notion of Intelligent Design - - - “
Pages 86 to 87:- “Intelligent Design - - - in all its well-financed propaganda - - - dissolves into PUERILE tautology - - - PIFFLE - - - MUMBO-JUMBO - - - - The non-theory of irreducible complexity is a joke.”
Page 89:- “This was wishful PIFFLE.”
Page 249:- “ - - - - - The Intelligent Design RACKET - - - - Jonathan Wells, the author of a LAUGHABLE anti-evolutionist diatribe entitled The Icons of Evolution - - - Mr Wells’ book is unlikely even to rate a footnote in THE HISTORY OF PIFFLE.”
(My comment:- Jonathan Wells’ book The Icons of Evolution makes some very good points, and is extremely informative. I can warmly recommend this book. It is a carefully researched work of science. Jonathan Wells has a Ph.D. In Molecular and Cellular Biology from Berkeley)
The next quote comes from the book Uncommon Dissent, edited by William Dembski, published by ISI Books, 2004. Essay:- The Deniable Darwin, by David Berlinsky (Berlinski was a research assistant in molecular biology at Columbia University and was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France.), pages 263 to 306:-
Page 290 Daniel C. Dennett (As of 2017, he is the co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies and the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University.) criticizes Berlinsky’s essay:-“”You can publish bull - - t at will - - - such inspired SILLINESS - - - betraying his CLUELESSNESS.”
(My comment:- Dennett does not even attempt to actually refute any of Berliski’s points. He simply engages in a tirade of verbal abuse.)
The next quote is from the same book – The Introduction by William Dembski, page xviii:- “In (the book) Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Daniel Dennett views religious believers who dissuade their children from believing Darwinian evolution as such a threat to the social order that they need TO BE CAGED IN ZOOS.” (My capitals,)
The next quotes are from the book The New Atheism, by Stephen Le Drew (Post-Doctoral Fellow at Uppsala University), published by Oxford University Press, 2016:-
Page 45:- “Dawkins - - - has joined a growing chorus of xenophobia and ethnic nationalism in Europe, tweeting endlessly about “Muslim barbarians”.”
Pages 69 to 70:- “(Sam) Harris suggests that religious belief may be indicative of a DEFECT IN BRAIN FUNCTION - - - - Harris goes as far as to equate faith - - - - with MENTAL ILLNESS - - - Social and cultural reasons for believing are not explored.”
Page 71:- “(Richard Dawkins refers to) “Those FAITH SUFFERERS.”
Page 77:- “Dawkins revealed in a tweet, on March 13th, 2013, that he had never read The Koran; and in the next sentence he referred to Islam as “The greatest force for evil today”.”
Page 181:- “Richard Dawkins’ - - -frequently stated view that religious socialization is a form of CHILD ABUSE - - - - Further Dawkins suggests that, if religion does indeed constitute child abuse, then the state would have a duty to protect children from it, which might include TAKING CUSTODY OF THEM TO PROTECT CHILDREN FROM IT.”
The next quotes are from the book Kicking The Sacred Cow, by James P. Hogan, published by Baen, 2004:-
Page 9:- The author provides a verbatim quote from Richard Dawkins:- “Faith is one of the world’s great evils, COMPARABLE TO THE SMALLPOX VIRUS - - - ”
Page 16:- The author quotes Daniel Dennett (As of 2017, Dennett is the co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies and the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University.):- “Anyone who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply IGNORANT – INEXCUSABLY IGNORANT.” The author continues “Dennett also expresses reservations about the suitability of anyone denying Darwinism to raise children,”
(My comment:- Perhaps a “gulag” of concentration-camp-style “orphanages” could be set up to “house” and “re-educate” the children of dissenters from The Atheist/Darwinian ideology. The problem is that such a “gulag” would have to cover millions of square miles, so many “recipients” of the “re-education” would there be.)
If the proponents of The Atheist/Darwinian Hypothesis/Ideology cannot do better than this, they do not deserve to be taken seriously. If they prefer tirades of verbal abuse to reasoned argument, then we cannot consider their argument as being serious science. If coercion and reprisals are required to spread their philosophy, then how can we trust them? If they are prepared to deliberately lie, bend the truth, obfuscate, vilify, and bluster, and behave essentially like Stalinists or Nazis, then this can only mirror the bankruptcy of their philosophy. The only way to deal with the playground bullies is to stand up to them. The only question is:- Does the scientific community have the stomach for it?