The Left and censorship...
Dean Kenyon, like one former atheist came to the conclusion that abiogenesis is, quite simply, impossible. Physicists define something as impossible once it reaches a level of improbability that is defined as a state of clear impossibility.
But some things are held to because of the dogmas of the Left,
"When Kenyon taught the prevailing naturalistic theories of biological and chemical evolution in his large introductory biology course for non-majors, he also explained his own skepticism about whether these theories were consistent with the evidence and argued that intelligent design was a legitimate alternative to naturalistic evolution. A handful of students complained, and the department chairman immediately endorsed their complaints. He announced that he would not allow Kenyon to teach this course in the future, on the ground that the professor was improperly introducing his 'religious opinions' into the science curriculum."
(Colorado Law Review
SPRING, 1995 66 U. Colo. L. Rev. 461
ESSAY: IS GOD UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
By PHILLIP E. JOHNSON )
Darwinian censorship,
"....dogmatic Darwinists begin by imposing a narrow interpretation on the evidence and declaring it to be the only way to do science. Critics are then labeled unscientific; their articles are rejected by mainstream journals, whose editorial boards are dominated by the dogmatists; the critics are denied funding by government agencies, who send grant proposals to the dogmatists for "peer" review; and eventually the critics are hounded out of the scientific community altogether. In the process, evidence against the Darwinian view simply disappears, like witnesses against the Mob. Or the evidence is buried in specialized publications, where only a dedicated researcher can find it. [Enter, the dedicated researcher!] Once critics have been silenced and counter-evidence has been buried, the dogmatists announce that there is no scientific debate about their theory, and no evidence against it. Using such tactics, defenders of Darwinian orthodoxy have managed to establish a near-monopoly over research grants, faculty appointments, and peer-reviewed journals in the United States. In April 2000 a furor erupted at Baylor University in Texas over the right of academics to dissent from Darwinian orthodoxy. The Michael Polanyi Center, named after a noted philosopherof science, had been established six months earlier by theUniversity administration to promote research on the conceptual foundations of science. When the Center sponsored a major international conference (numbering among its participants two Nobel laureates), all hell broke loose, because the faculty learned that the Center's director,William Dembski, was openly critical of Darwinian evolution. The Baylor Faculty Senate immediately voted to shut downthe Michael Polanyi Center.....
Sloan said it "borders on McCarthyism." As of this writing,the future of the Michael Polanyi Center at Baylor is uncertain. Dogmatic defenders of Darwinian evolution control not only most American universities, but they also wield enormous power over most public school systems. Kevin Padian is president ofthe ironically misnamed National Center for Science Education(NCSE), which pressures local school districts to prohibit classroom challenges to Darwinian evolution. (The executive director of the NCSE was a co-author of the NationalAcademy's 1998 booklet on evolution that included the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail.)In 1999, when a school district near Detroit wanted to put some books critical of Darwinism in the high school library, the NCSE strongly advised them against it.[...]
If [a] 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. In Burlington, Washington, high-school biology teacher Roger DeHart taught evolution for years, but supplemented his pro-Darwinian textbook with material criticizing Darwinian evolution from the perspective of "intelligent design theory." In 1997 the ACLU wrote a letter to the local school board threatening legal action on the grounds that intelligent design theory is religious rather than scientific. DeHart withdrew the disputed materials, but requested permission to provide others dealing with scientific problems in Darwin's theory. [.....]"
(Icons of Evolution
By Jonathan Wells
(Regnery: 2000) :135-38)
What begins to happen in this context of censorship,
"Fred Hoyle, The Origin of the Universe and the Origin of Religion18 (1993). The vast majority of scientists work in isolated areas of science and base most of their opinions about evolution on what they have been taught. Being similarly indoctrinated since grade school, they are just as likely to follow the dominantevolutionary paradigm as the non-scientist. Hoyle calls this type of mental conditioning 'respectable ignorance' because it is the antithesis of what science is supposed to represent."
(Ohio State Law Journal 2002
63 Ohio St. L.J. 1507
ARTICLE: Storm Clouds on the Horizon of Darwinism:
Teaching the Anthropic Principle
and Intelligent Design in the Public Schools
By Jeffrey F. Addicott)
But some things are held to because of the dogmas of the Left,
"When Kenyon taught the prevailing naturalistic theories of biological and chemical evolution in his large introductory biology course for non-majors, he also explained his own skepticism about whether these theories were consistent with the evidence and argued that intelligent design was a legitimate alternative to naturalistic evolution. A handful of students complained, and the department chairman immediately endorsed their complaints. He announced that he would not allow Kenyon to teach this course in the future, on the ground that the professor was improperly introducing his 'religious opinions' into the science curriculum."
(Colorado Law Review
SPRING, 1995 66 U. Colo. L. Rev. 461
ESSAY: IS GOD UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
By PHILLIP E. JOHNSON )
Darwinian censorship,
"....dogmatic Darwinists begin by imposing a narrow interpretation on the evidence and declaring it to be the only way to do science. Critics are then labeled unscientific; their articles are rejected by mainstream journals, whose editorial boards are dominated by the dogmatists; the critics are denied funding by government agencies, who send grant proposals to the dogmatists for "peer" review; and eventually the critics are hounded out of the scientific community altogether. In the process, evidence against the Darwinian view simply disappears, like witnesses against the Mob. Or the evidence is buried in specialized publications, where only a dedicated researcher can find it. [Enter, the dedicated researcher!] Once critics have been silenced and counter-evidence has been buried, the dogmatists announce that there is no scientific debate about their theory, and no evidence against it. Using such tactics, defenders of Darwinian orthodoxy have managed to establish a near-monopoly over research grants, faculty appointments, and peer-reviewed journals in the United States. In April 2000 a furor erupted at Baylor University in Texas over the right of academics to dissent from Darwinian orthodoxy. The Michael Polanyi Center, named after a noted philosopherof science, had been established six months earlier by theUniversity administration to promote research on the conceptual foundations of science. When the Center sponsored a major international conference (numbering among its participants two Nobel laureates), all hell broke loose, because the faculty learned that the Center's director,William Dembski, was openly critical of Darwinian evolution. The Baylor Faculty Senate immediately voted to shut downthe Michael Polanyi Center.....
Sloan said it "borders on McCarthyism." As of this writing,the future of the Michael Polanyi Center at Baylor is uncertain. Dogmatic defenders of Darwinian evolution control not only most American universities, but they also wield enormous power over most public school systems. Kevin Padian is president ofthe ironically misnamed National Center for Science Education(NCSE), which pressures local school districts to prohibit classroom challenges to Darwinian evolution. (The executive director of the NCSE was a co-author of the NationalAcademy's 1998 booklet on evolution that included the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail.)In 1999, when a school district near Detroit wanted to put some books critical of Darwinism in the high school library, the NCSE strongly advised them against it.[...]
If [a] 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. In Burlington, Washington, high-school biology teacher Roger DeHart taught evolution for years, but supplemented his pro-Darwinian textbook with material criticizing Darwinian evolution from the perspective of "intelligent design theory." In 1997 the ACLU wrote a letter to the local school board threatening legal action on the grounds that intelligent design theory is religious rather than scientific. DeHart withdrew the disputed materials, but requested permission to provide others dealing with scientific problems in Darwin's theory. [.....]"
(Icons of Evolution
By Jonathan Wells
(Regnery: 2000) :135-38)
What begins to happen in this context of censorship,
"Fred Hoyle, The Origin of the Universe and the Origin of Religion18 (1993). The vast majority of scientists work in isolated areas of science and base most of their opinions about evolution on what they have been taught. Being similarly indoctrinated since grade school, they are just as likely to follow the dominantevolutionary paradigm as the non-scientist. Hoyle calls this type of mental conditioning 'respectable ignorance' because it is the antithesis of what science is supposed to represent."
(Ohio State Law Journal 2002
63 Ohio St. L.J. 1507
ARTICLE: Storm Clouds on the Horizon of Darwinism:
Teaching the Anthropic Principle
and Intelligent Design in the Public Schools
By Jeffrey F. Addicott)
posted by mynym at 7:52 AM
<< Home