Origin of Life
ENAZ

Methods of Deception III

6. Darwinists Try to Silence the Opponents of Evolution

Reading time: ~11 min read

One undeniable fact about Darwinism is that Darwinists always seek to silence every opponent of evolution that might have an influence on people. The superstitious religion that is Darwinism, which has settled across the world, and its adherents implement such an oppressive policy that even suggesting doubts about evolution leads to that person experiencing very grave difficulties. According to this fascist imposition, harboring doubts about evolution is a crime. Expressing them is a crime. Even suggesting that evolution is an unproven theory, or that it is only a theory, is also a crime. It is impossible for a scientist opposed to Darwinism to teach in the biology department of any university. It is impossible to find a picture of a fossil refuting evolution in any pro-Darwinist newspaper. It is a huge mistake for a high school biology teacher to express any doubts about the theory, even in error. In all likelihood, that teacher's employment will soon come to an end.

For example, in the documentary Expelled: "No Intelligence Allowed," Professor of Biology Caroline Crocker describes how she was removed from George Mason University for questioning evolution:

My supervisor invited me to his office and he said I am going to have to discipline you for teaching creationism… At the end of the semester I lost my job.146

In a statement to the Washington Post on February 5th, 2006, Crocker said:

"I lost my job at George Mason University for teaching the problems with evolution. Lots of scientists question evolution, but they would lose their jobs if they spoke out.147

Caroline Crocker was blacklisted after losing her job, and has not been permitted to find employment anywhere by the Darwinist dictatorship.148

papağan

Dr. Richard von Steinberg lost his job at the National History Museum for questioning evolution and issuing statements opposed to it. Steinberg's statements on the subject read:

(When the subject of Creationism is brought up) People were so upset about it, they were so upset that you can see their, they had physical and emotional reaction.. The way that chair of the department has put it, is that I was viewed as an intellectual terrorist.149

Brain surgeon Michael Egnor describes the reaction his saying that people have no need to learn about the theory of evolution in order to be doctors as follows:

A lot of people on a lot of blogs called me unprintable names and a lot of very nasty comments. All the people suggested the people called the university I work at and suggested me to retire. I realized when I kind of what public with my doubts about the ... theory... criticism what has amazed me was the viciousness and sort of baseness.150

In the same way, Professor Robert Marks' research site at Baylor University was closed because he questioned Darwinism and the funding given to him for his research demanded back.

The documentary concerned considers the experiences of a great many anti-Darwinist scientists, whether they were willing to divulge their names or not, and these people described in their own words how their academic careers were totally ended because of their rejection of Darwinism.

The journalist Larry Witham summarizes the essence of Darwinism and the methods employed by the Darwinist dictatorship:

Once you're thick in Science, you can question the paradigm. But if you want to get grants, if you want to be elected to high positions, if you want to get awards as a promoter of public education of Science, you can't question the paradigm.

I interviewed dozens and dozens of scientists and, when they're amongst each other or talking to a journalist who they trust, they'll speak about 'It's incredibly complex' or 'Molecular Biology is in a crisis', but, publicly, they can't say that.151

Pamela Winnick, another journalist, describes how her career was put to an end after writing a piece on the subject of Creation and says:

If you give any credence to it [Creationism] -- whatsoever -- which means 'just writing about it', you are just finished as a journalist.152

When the philosopher Stephen Meyer published his opinion that the information in DNA cannot be explained in terms of chance and that it is rather the work of a superior intelligence, Darwinists attempted to wreck the career of the journal's editor.153 The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brought legal charges because of stickers carrying warnings about evaluating evolution "with an open mind in a careful and critical manner" placed on text books in the town of Cobb in the U.S. state of Georgia. Families representing the organization brought charges against schools simply for suggesting teaching on the subject of evolution and Creation. A small group in Dover, Pennsylvania, supported by the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, filed a legal suit in order to prevent the discussion of Creation in ninth year biology classes. The judge ruled in their favor, and the school has been told to pay compensation to the plaintiff. That sum is likely to EXCEED ONE MILLION DOLLARS.154

The writer Ann Coulter offers this analysis;

After Dover, no school district will dare breathe a word about "creationism", unless they want to risk being bankrupted by ACLU lawsuits. The Darwinists have saved the secular sanctity of their temples: the public schools. They didn't win on science, persuasion, or the evidence. They won the way liberals always win: by finding a court to hand them everything they want on a silver platter. This isn't science...155

These repressive methods employed by Darwinist have a high deterrent effect on some people. Faced with a $1 million fine, a school will be hugely intimidated. A teacher who refuses to back down risks losing his or her job. As William A. Dembski says, this system resembles a dictatorial regime. Nobody can even open his mouth to breathe a word against it.

manzara

As a scientist, the evolutionist and professor of physics H. S. Lipson says that science points to Creation, and describes how hard it is to sign up to that fact because of the pressure from the Darwinist dictatorship:

If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? . . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.156

As Lipson says, many scientists, academics and teachers frequently face the threat of Darwinist excommunication. When the principal of a high school in Detroit wished to place various books critical of Darwinism in the library in 1999, the NCSE fiercely opposed the move, using all kinds of intimidation.157

Jonathan Wells describes this policy of intimidation thus:

The NCSE tells school boards that "evolution isn't scientifically controversial," so "arguments against evolution" are "code words for attempt to bring non-scientific, religious views into the science curriculum." Since U.S. courts have declared it unconstitutional to teach religion in public schools, this amounts to a warning that the school board is contemplating something illegal. If the warning doesn't work, the NCSE calls on the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for backup, and the ACLU sends a letter to the school board threatening an expensive lawsuit. Since every school district in the country is already struggling to make ends meet, this bullying by the NCSE and ACLU has been quite successful in blocking overt criticism of Darwinian evolution in public school classrooms.158

Following moves aimed at putting an end to the teaching of evolutionary biology in the state of Kansas, where there has been a huge campaign for Creation to be taught in schools, the education system in the state came in for widespread intimidation and pressure. In a piece sent to Science magazine, Herbert Lin, president of the National Research Council, announced that American colleges and universities should not regard the biology classes taught in Kansas schools as academic. The following month, Scientific American magazine editor John Rennie asked university admission committees to tell the Kansas schools administration that they would "examine the qualifications of students applying to them from the state of Kansas with the greatest care " and asked them to issue "an open letter to families in Kansas declaring that this bad decision would have severe consequences for their children's futures."159 The meaning of the threat was clear. It is a crime to oppose the theory of evolution, and those committing such an offense must be annihilated at once.

In one recent case, a researcher from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute by the name of Nathaniel Abraham announced that he had lost his job for denying the theory of evolution. A letter written to Abraham in 2004 by a Woods Hole scientist said he had been removed from his post because Abraham said he did not accept the "evolutionary aspects" of the National Institutes of Health grant, even though the project clearly required scientists to use the principles of evolution in their analyses and writing.160 In other words, a scientist was officially excommunicated for denying the theory of evolution. The fact that the subject achieved prominence as the result of a suit brought by Nathaniel Abraham in 2007 definitely stems from people finding the courage to stand up to the Darwinist dictatorship.

Phillip Johnson relates the story that in 1981, the British Museum of Natural History celebrated its centennial with an exhibition on Darwin's theory of evolution.

A sign at the entrance read: "Have you ever wondered why there are so many different kinds of living things? One idea is that all the living things we see today have evolved from a distant ancestor by a process of gradual change. How could evolution have occurred? How could one species change into another? The exhibition in this hall looks at one possible explanation – the explanation of Charles Darwin."

An adjacent sign read: "Another view is that God created all living things perfect and unchanging." An accompanying brochure admitted, "the concept of evolution by natural selection is not, strictly speaking, scientific.""

The response from the scientific community was outrage. An editorial in the journal, Nature, asked rhetorically: "Can it be that the managers of the museum, which is the nearest thing to a citadel of Darwinism, have lost their nerve, not to mention their good sense? … Nobody disputes that, in the public presentation of science, it is proper whenever appropriate to say that disputed matters are in doubt. But is the theory of evolution still an open question among serious biologists? And if not, what purpose, except general confusion, can be served by these weasel words?".161

That is the technique of the Darwinist dictatorship. Words written against the theory of evolution are heralded as "aggression," and the appropriate measures are immediately taken under the influence of Darwinist scientist and globally respected journals. Under pressure from the Darwinist dictatorship all anti-Darwinist statements are hurriedly silenced.

This despotism of course serves one single purpose. It is essential for Darwinists to portray the theory of evolution as a proven one and thus spread it across the world. They imagine that they can do this by keeping the fact of Creation from people, by never mentioning the fact that Allah created all things and by indoctrinating people with evolution alone. But there is another fact that Darwinists have never considered. There is no need for people to be educated in order to see and realize that living things are created. Anyone who uses his reason just a little can clearly see that there is something extraordinary, a perfection, intelligence, consciousness, artistry and glory in life. And he will also conclude that all these could never come into being as the result of unconscious, unthinking and unaware coincidences bereft of any ability to think, reason, reflect, make judgment or distinguish between right and wrong. It is not hard for someone who thinks for such a few seconds to realize all this. Allah reveals in verses that the miracles He creates are obvious to people who think:

Darwinists have actually begun to realize that the measures they have taken are all in vain. The conditioning they used to maintain with oppressive methods and false evidence will have no effect on the more aware people around today.

Jonathan Wells says that an increasing number of scientists have begin doubting Darwinism and have set about making their voices heard:

The truth is that a surprising number of biologists quietly doubt or reject some of the grander claims of Darwinian evolution. But – at least in America – they must keep their mouths shut or risk condemnation, marginalization, and eventual expulsion from the scientific community. This happens infrequently, but often enough to remind everyone that the risk is real. Even so, there is a growing underground of biologists who are disenchanted with the Darwinists' censorship of opposing viewpoints. When isolated dissidents begin to realize how many of their colleagues feel the same way, more and more of them will begin to speak out.162

References

  1. Ben Stein, Expelled "No Intelligence Allowed", 2008 ↩
  2. Jonathan Welss, Ph.D., The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Regnery Publishing Inc., Washington, 2006, p.192 ↩
  3. Ben Stein, Expelled "No Intelligence Allowed", 2008 ↩
  4. Ibid. ↩
  5. Ibid. ↩
  6. Ibid. ↩
  7. Ibid. ↩
  8. Jonathan Welss, Ph.D., The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Regnery Publishing Inc., Washington, 2006, p. 95 ↩
  9. Ann Coulter, Godless The Church of Liberalism, Crown Forum Publishing, 2006, p. 200 ↩
  10. Ibid. ↩
  11. H. S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, 1980, p. 138 - Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, p. 201 (emphasis added.) ↩
  12. Jonathan Wells, The Icons of Evolution, January 2003, p. 218 ↩
  13. Ibid. ↩
  14. Ibid., p. 220 ↩
  15. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/12/07/biologist_fired_for_beliefs_suit_says/?page=2 ↩
  16. Jonathan Wells, The Icons of Evolution, January 2003, p. 220 ↩