ATHEIST COERCION AND REPRISALS.
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.” (My capitals.)
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
(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.’
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.
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.
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.
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.’
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 quotes are from the book Purpose and Desire, by Dr. J. Scott Turner (Professor of Biology at the State University of new York, published by HarperOne, 2017:-
Page 9:- “In the modern metaphysics of biology, which regards - - - - purposefulness, intentionality, and consciousness as somehow illusory. For a biologist to treat them as something real is therefore a modern heresy, and those who advocate it suffer the fate that heretics often do: they are cast mercilessly from the altar.”
Pages 44 to 46:- “Epistemic closure – where everyone simply agrees that we will think only one way about the universe - - - Another common pathology of epistemic closure is - - - politically enforced orthodoxy - - - - with unpleasant consequences for those who demur. - - - sustaining agreed-upon myths by RIDICULE OR EXPULSION of those who depart from the “correct” thinking.” (My capitals.)
The next quote is from the book Mind and Cosmos, by Thomas Nagel (Professor in the Department of Philosophy at New York University), published by Oxford University Press, 2012, page 7:- “Almost everyone has been BROWBEATEN into regarding the reductive research program as sacrosanct.” (My capitals.)