FIRST LETTER TO RICHARD DAWKINS.
Dear Professor Dawkins,
I am concerned by some of the sentiments expressed in your writings. In A Devil’s Chaplain (Published by First Mariner Books, 2004) page 37, you suggest that we should “prosecute a book which wantonly publishes (what YOU consider to be) lies about the universe”. This is a chilling, sinister, and “Orwellian” sentiment. If the prosecution is “successful”, what should the “sentence” be? In Stalinist Russia, they EXECUTED the (supposed) “liars”. Biologists who heretically “told lies” in opposition to the Lysenko doctrine were actually EXECUTED – literally put to death by the Russian state. But perhaps you would be more merciful, recommending a stiff prison sentence instead?
On page 81 (of A Devil’s Chaplain), you state that you do not grant interviews with “creationists”.
On page 218 (of A Devil’s Chaplain), you say:- “These people have no hope of convincing reputable scientists by their ridiculous arguments”.
On pages 218 and 219 (of A Devil’s Chaplain), you quote from a letter that you wrote to another biologist – “I am proposing that you might consider uniting with me ------ in signing a short letter----to The New York Review of Books, explaining publically why we do not debate (with) creationists----AND ENCOURAGING OTHER EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS TO FOLLOW SUIT”. (My capitals and highlighting). You subsequently explain that to debate a “creationist” merely gives them free publicity and an unwarranted appearance of respectability.
The lines quoted above give a bad impression. They suggest censorship and the stifling of debate. The sinister phrase “AND ENCOURAGING OTHER EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS TO FOLLOW SUIT” suggests that it will be “frowned upon” if they do NOT “follow suit”; and if it is “frowned upon”, then perhaps their academic careers might suffer? (Shades of Stalinism here!)
Possibly you did not intend the above statements to be construed in this way. Nevertheless, they CAN be construed in this way – and this suggests an error of judgment on your part. You should have more sense than to make statements that can be (mis?)construed as promoting censorship.
The “creationists” have made some perfectly valid objections to Darwinism. For instance, scientists cannot put forward any plausible scenario whereby a (necessarily very very highly complex) self replicating organism can emerge from the “pre-biotic soup” of simple amino acids. This is NOT a “ridiculous argument”. It is a serious stumbling block to Darwinism. In your book The God Delusion”, any reference to this particular serious stumbling block is conspicuous by its absence. I think that this omission is seriously intellectually dishonest. Science is about putting BOTH sides of the argument. If you only put one side of the argument, and CENSOR the other side of the argument (and especially if you “ENCOURAGE OTHER EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS TO FOLLOW SUIT”), then this is no longer science; it is pseudoscience. The Nazis ENCOURAGED OTHER BIOLOGISTS TO FOLLOW SUIT at the point of a gun! The Nazis built their racial superiority theories, leading to the Auschwitz gas ovens, by the censorship of verifiable scientific facts.
I understand that you wrote – in a review of a “creationist” book (The Facts of Life by Richard Milton) that the author was “AN UNQUALIFIED HACK”, and that the book was “TWADDLE THAT BETRAYS ----TOTAL PIG IGNORANCE ----SILLY SEASON DRIVEL”. Your review sent a chilling (and “Orwellian”) message to other scientists – that they might receive similar verbal ABUSE if they commented favorably on any FACTUAL material tending to undermine atheism or Darwinism. I am sure that this was not your intended message. If this was your intended message, then – Professor Dawkins – you have taken the first step on the road to the Gulag and the Auschwitz gas ovens.
A further example of your verbal ABUSIVENESS (quoted in Darwin’s Black Box by M. Behe, The Free Press, 2003, page 250):- “Richard Dawkins has written that anyone who denies evolution is either IGNORANT, STUPID, INSANE – OR WICKED”.
You have made various unfortunate remarks which could easily be (mis?)construed, creating a bad impression, and making you look like a neo-Stalinist; and making you seem (to use the vernacular here) rather “crusty”, and bit “nutty” (if I may speak frankly here).
I now invite you to correct this bad impression. I invite you to unequivocally state that you are against ALL forms of repression and unwarranted persecution, and that you unreservedly oppose the censorship (by scientists and academics) of VERIFIABLE FACTUAL material, even if it tends to undermine Atheism or Darwinism.
Furthermore, I invite you to make a further statement. Some three years ago (according to my information), a professor of astronomy Professor Halton Arp wrote an article citing various VERIFIABLE SCIENTIFIC FACTS tending to undermine The “Big Bang” Theory, an (unproven) theory cherished by astronomers. He was informed that his “telescope time” was suspended. Then he was fired from his academic post. Then he was blacklisted by ALL American universities, and he finally ended up in an obscure teaching post in Northern Europe. This (above) is the information that I have. I consider that this is a shameful and disgraceful incident. What is worse is that not one single scientist had the moral courage to speak out against this victimization – presumably (quite realistically) afraid of losing their careers (as reprisal). This above incident is scientific censorship at its very worst. It happened – not in Nazi Germany – not in Stalinist Russia, but in the USA (supposed) land of free speech.
Professor Dawkins, I now invite you to comment on this above incident. On the basis that the facts are correct as (above) stated, will you have the moral courage to state that you consider this type of victimization and repression of free speech to be shameful, disgraceful, against the public interest, and against the interests of science?
Science should not be about two opposing sides. All scientists should be on the SAME side, ie:- the side that seeks only the disinterested pursuit of objective truth. No scientist should have their endeavors circumscribed by “faceless men behind closed doors”. No scientist (and no human) should have to live in fear.
You may wonder why I should be concerned about censorship in science. The reason for my concern is as follows:- I have written a book that has – so far – been the “victim” of (a rigid policy of) censorship by the (academic) scientific community. My book (which is a development of discoveries originally made by the renowned astronomer Iohannes Kepler in 1619, in his book The Harmony of The World) demonstrates the fact that ALL THE PLANETS AND SATELLITES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM HAVE THEIR MOVEMENTS “CONTROLLED” BY (OR SYNCHRONIZED WITH) THE EARTH DAY and THE EARTH YEAR. (For example:- The SUM of Venus’ orbital period + Venus’ rotation period = 468.9999 Earth sidereal days. The statistical odds against any random number being this close to a PERFECT WHOLE NUMBER are 1 chance in 5000.) The laws of physics cannot explain why this happens (or why similar synchronization happens with ALL the planets and satellites in The Solar System). The evidence for this above general “rule” of Solar System dynamics is overwhelming, and irrefutable, and indisputable. Effectively, this above “rule” is as rock solid as the statement that 1 + 1 = 2. No academic astronomer will DENY that this above statement is correct. However, neither will any academic astronomer dare to CONFIRM that this above statement is correct (unless they want to flush their career down the toilet!), because this above “rule” contradicts accepted (Newtonian) doctrine, and tends to undermine the atheist hypothesis. The atheist hypothesis is sacrosanct in academic science, and for any academic scientist to comment favorably on FACTUAL MATERIAL that undermines atheism is “career suicide”.
The claim that I make in my book is that the synchronization of ALL the planetary and satellite movements with THE EARTH DAY and THE EARTH YEAR cannot come about without the intervention of an INTELLIGENT AGENCY. The FACTS regarding this synchronization cannot be disputed. However, my INTERPRETATION of these FACTS (as indicating Intelligent Design) is debatable. Atheists might (not unreasonably) insist that just because a Solar System feature is presently inexplicable does not positively PROVE the intervention of an INTELLIGENT AGENCY. My response to this objection is:- Nothing can PROVE the existence of God beyond a shadow of a doubt; but some facts may be highly suggestive. The “control” of planetary and satellite movements by THE EARTH DAY bears a strong Intelligent Design IMPLICATION – but does not constitute absolute proof positive.
In order to gain plausibility, I approached various academic astronomers OFFERING TO PAY THEM THEIR STANDARD FEES to check (and verify in writing) the numerical data and calculations in my book. They were willing to do so – UNTIL THEY REALISED THAT MY BOOK BEARS AN INTELLIGENT DESIGN IMPLICATION. As soon as they realized this, they refused to proceed further. I should emphasize that I was NOT asking them to comment upon my “INTELLIGENT DESIGN” INTERPRETATION of this factual material, only to confirm that my data and calculations are correct.
I approached Professor Carl Murray of Queen Mary College (University of London), author of the standard textbook on Solar System Dynamics. He agreed to write me a referee’s report. When he read my material, he changed his mind, insisting that he was “too busy”. He emailed me stating “I disagree with the opinions you have expressed. I now consider this correspondence closed”. I even threatened him with legal action, demanding financial compensation for “breach of contract”, but he was adamant.
I contacted Professor Ian Stewart, a mathematics professor at Warwick University (and successful author), inviting him to co-author my book. He was initially friendly, with comments such as “I’m reasonably convinced that your results are not a coincidence” (He meant not the result of chance occurrence). - - - - - “You’ve done well to dig it out of the data” - - - - and other friendly remarks. However, WHEN HE REALISED THAT MY MATERIAL BEARS AN INTELLIGENT DESIGN IMPLICATION, his tone changed dramatically. He wrote:- “If you imagine that your synchronizations are NOT explainable by the laws of physics, which your letter seems to imply, then you are heading rapidly in the direction of Cloud Cuckoo Land.” I had written a letter to him emphasizing some points with capitals and highlights. Professor Stewart (bizarrely) claimed that this meant that I was “shouting” at him in my letter. He wrote:- “I’m happy to miss the magnificent opportunity that you believe you are offering me. - - - - Do not write to me again, or contact me in any way”.
Professor Dawkins, I would like to draw a parallel here between YOUR ABUSIVE description of Richard Milton (because he dares to disagree with you) “UNQUALIFIED HACK----TOTAL PIG IGNORANCE”, and Professor Stewart’s characterization of “CLOUD CUCKOO LAND”. Both of these instances are examples of verbal ABUSE. Although I am myself too insensitive to be personally disquieted by verbal ABUSE from science professors, scientists in general are extremely fearful of being the recipient of such verbal ABUSE.
I contacted Professor Gerry Gilmore who teaches astronomy/astrophysics at Cambridge University. He agreed to check my numerical data and calculations and to write me a referee’s report on my material. When he received the material, he refused to proceed further. He provided a patently (scientifically) specious explanation for this refusal. He insisted that the orbital periods of planets and satellites cannot be accurately measured. (WRONG! They can be measured accurate to a small fraction of a second, at least, according to The Astronomical Almanac, which is issued by order of The Science Research Council, and published by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office). Professor Gilmore is not an ignorant man, and he must be well aware of this fact. Professor Gilmore made a further (bizarre) objection:- Over millions of years, orbital periods may change, which “fact” invalidates my analysis of their PRESENT relationships. (In fact, satellite orbital periods are known to be stable over timescales of at least several hundred years, typically losing or gaining only a small fraction of a second per hundred years.)
I have had conversations with various professional astronomers who have insisted on anonymity (requiring this in writing – such is their fear/paranoia!). They advised me that no academic astronomer would be prepared to write me a referee’s report verifying my data and calculations – because they would be risking their career if they did! For any academic astronomer to make any favorable comment on FACTUAL MATERIAL that might tend to UNDERMINE ATHEISM would be “career suicide”.
Professor Murray, and Professor Gilmore and (even) Professor Stewart (despite the latter’s somewhat “bitchy” comments) are not bad people. They are frightened men (and with good reason!). They are simply acting prudently. They HAVE to put their careers first, and the disinterested pursuit of objective truth second. They HAVE to yield to a rigid system of academic censorship that exists in the scientific community. The problem is that this system of censorship should not exist in the first place.
In case you think that censorship in science is an unimportant issue:- During the writing in this letter, I caught sight of a copy of The Daily Mail (Monday Feb 18th 2013, pages 1 and 6). A headline article states as follows:- “Hundreds of doctors ------are being prevented from exposing poor (hospital) care by “Stalinist” gagging orders-----secret deals to keep former staff quiet (constitute) a threat to the survival of the health service-----tough legal powers (are) needed to stop whistleblowers being----persecuted-----people are frightened of speaking out-----its---what you had in Stalinist Russia-----gagging clauses------a disgrace----an outrage----medical staff who had tried to speak out but encountered bullying” etc---. (My comment:- Patients’ lives are at risk due to scientific/medical censorship. This is not a trivial issue!)
When scientists lie, they risk losing the trust of the public. When Professor Gilmore insisted that (contrary to all the published data) the periods of planets and satellites cannot be measured accurately, he must have known that this is incorrect. In other words, he LIED (for “doctrinal reasons”). Professor Dawkins, when you wrote “The God Delusion”, forgetting to mention the insuperable difficulty of a (necessarily highly complex) self replicating organism/molecule emerging from the primordial soup (a difficulty you cannot be unaware of), you LIED! (A lie by omission is still a LIE, an attempt to deceive). In other word, Professor Dawkins, you are a LIAR – let’s not mince words here. If scientists are capable of LYING (for “doctrinal reasons”), then the question is:- Can we believe ANYTHING that scientists tell us?
For example:- There is some controversy over the age of The Earth. A professor of geology, Professor George McCready Price has made claims that The Earth is relatively young. However, most academic geology professors insist that The Earth is millions of years old. It seems reasonable to believe their version – after all – WHY WOULD THEY LIE? Answer:- To protect their careers! Here is a scenario:- In the 19th century, geologists decide (upon evidence available THEN) that The Earth is millions of years old. Subsequent research indicates that this timescale is incorrect; but this would be too embarrassing to admit. The researchers are warned that to publish would be “career suicide”. (Is this a “paranoid fantasy”? It certainly meant “career suicide” for Professor Halton Arp, who only published FACTUAL MATERIAL that was “embarrassing” to academic astronomers.) These researchers are pragmatic and sensible men (just as Professor Carl Murray, Professor Gerry Gilmore, and Professor Ian Stewart are pragmatic and sensible men), and in order to protect their careers, these geological researchers “bury” their research – and the public are none the wiser. I am personally prepared to believe that The Earth is millions of years old. However, I have a lingering doubt that perhaps a “cover up” has taken place, and that the views of Professor George McCready Price (regarding a relatively “young” Earth) could be correct after all!
Professor Dawkins – can you see where the lies, and the “spin”, and the censorship, and the verbal abuse, and victimization, and bullying are leading? They are leading to a total distrust (by the public) of scientists. In that case, everyone loses! Professor Dawkins – do you really want to be perceived as the “playground bully”?
I have built up a very extensive database of scientific censorship, scientific misconduct, scientific dishonesty, and scientists acting against the public interest. I intend to publish all this material in a forthcoming book unless I see a rapid and dramatic improvement in the situation.
Professor Dawkins – by your various statements (and actions) you have placed yourself in the position of APPEARING to support scientific censorship and a system of repression and persecution. However, I am sure that this was never your intention.
Finally, I would like to state that I myself was an atheist, until I started studying The Solar System. In my opinion, it is impossible to have a full understanding of the (synchronized) movements of Solar System bodies (as set out in my book), and to still maintain an atheist position. The Solar System behaves in a manner that APPEARS to be INTELLIGENTLY configured. Even on a cursory perusal, this is a forcible impression that is very hard to resist.
Yours sincerely,
Roger Elliott.
P.S. Have a nice day!
A SECOND LETTER TO RICHARD DAWKINS.
Dear Professor Dawkins,
I have read Richard Milton’s book The Facts of Life – Shattering The Myths of Darwinism. I found this book to be extremely impressive, and full of scholarly research. I have also read your review of this book, published in The New Statesman (London), issue for Aug 23rd 1992. I consider myself to be fairly cynical, but even I was shocked, appalled, and disgusted by the blatant intellectual dishonesty of your review. Here are some quotes from this review, together with my comments:-
I quote:- “Every day I get letters - - - - - from flat-earthers, young earthers etc - - - - - ” My comment:- It is intellectually dishonest to place flat-earthers and young-earthers in the same category. All the evidence suggests that the Earth is a sphere, and not flat. However, the evidence for the Earth being 4600 million years old is highly questionable. As Richard Milton points out in his book, “geochronometric” techniques are unreliable, and different techniques yield different results. Some “geochronometric” techniques (which are perfectly reasonable and valid) appear to suggest that The Earth is only a few hundred thousand years old – or less.
A further quote from your review:- “I get letters from - - - - - young earthers- - - - - - astrologers and other harmless fruitcakes. The only difference here is that Richard Milton managed to get his stuff published”
My comment:- You are effectively calling Richard Milton a “fruitcake”. This is VERBAL ABUSE. People who engage in VERBAL ABUSE are ABUSERS! I’m afraid, Professor Dawkins, that this makes YOU an ABUSER! Scientists who engage in VERBAL ABUSE against people who dare to disagree with them are not proper scientists. They are only pseudo scientists. VERBAL ABUSE is designed to intimidate. It is designed to intimidate anyone who might consider disagreeing with the ABUSER. I believe that the VERBAL ABUSE that YOU, Professor Dawkins, engage in sends a chilling message to other scientists. The message is:- If you comment favorably on FACTUAL MATERIAL that undermines atheism or Darwinism, then I will ABUSE you! Even if that is not your INTENDED message, that is how it comes across.
A further quote from your review:- “The publisher – we don’t know how many decent publishers turned it down – is called Fourth Estate.” My comment:- You are effectively saying that Fourth estate is not a “decent” publisher. Again, this is VERBAL ABUSE!
A further quote from your review:- “Would they publish – for this book is approximately as silly – a claim that The Romans never existed- - - - - - - ?”
My comment:- Richard Milton’s book makes some extremely valid points. To suggest that this book is as “silly” as to claim that The Romans never existed is grotesquely intellectually dishonest.
A further quote from your review:- “A fast buck is to be made by any publisher unscrupulous enough to print pseudoscience that they know is rubbish - - - - -“
My comment:-Again further VERBAL ABUSE. You impute that the publishers are only interested in a “fast buck”. You effectively are calling the publishers “unscrupulous”. You claim that this book is “pseudoscience” and “rubbish”. And yet, this “unscrupulously” published “rubbishy” work of “pseudoscience” raises objections to Darwinism that you cannot answer. Perhaps this is why you are becoming angry and ABUSIVE. I have witnessed similar temper tantrums in the nursery. Professor Dawkins is “throwing his rattle out of the pram”!
A further quote from your review:- You refer to Richard Milton as “an unqualified hack”.
My comment:- This is further VERBAL ABUSE. Furthermore, it is intellectually dishonest. It is known as an “ad hominem” argument. If you cannot refute statements someone makes, then attack the person’s character and insult them instead. Very dishonest! Not scientific at all!
A further quote from your review:- “Perhaps the world really did bounce into existence in 8000 BC. Perhaps the whole vast edifice of orthodox science really is totally and utterly off its trolley.” My comment:- Richard Milton does not definitively state in his book that the Earth “bounced into existence” in 8000 BC. He compares various geochronometric techniques, all of which give conflicting results; and he points out that some techniques do indeed point to an age of about 10,000 years for the Earth, while other techniques point to far longer time scales. He is simply drawing attention to FACTS here. What you have done here, Professor Dawkins, is to deliberately twist Richard Milton’s words round so as to imply something other than what was stated or intended. It is really intellectually dishonest to twist someone’s words round in this manner. Now I want to comment on your speculation:- “Perhaps the whole edifice of orthodox science is really totally and utterly off its trolley”. My comment:- Academic scientists and sheep have a lot in common. Where a charismatic and authoritative “herd leader” goes, the rest of the sheep/scientists tend to follow. Dissent from the orthodox opinion means career suicide in the academic world. Scientists are loath to acknowledge that “The Emperor has no clothes”! We can believe that The Earth is 4600 million years old ONLY IF WE CAN TRUST SCIENTISTS NOT TO LIE IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEIR CAREERS. If I had a nice cushy academic position on a generous salary, paid for by exorbitant tuition fees, (which I don’t) then I would myself probably be prepared to lie about the age of The Earth. If Richard Dawkins says The Earth is 4600 million years old, I’d happily agree with him. If anyone tried to adduce FACTUAL MATERIAL suggesting a “young” Earth, I would happily obfuscate the facts and “muddy the waters” to confuse the issue – as long as they paid me enough. Every man has his price. Academic scientists have their price too! However, Richard Milton is not an academic scientist. He has no cushy career to protect. In that case, he is free to speak the truth. I would take his word against any academic scientist any day of the week.
A further quote from your review:- “Twaddle that betrays - - - - - complete and total pig ignorance - - - - - ” My comment:- Further VERBAL ABUSE.; but this transcends the ABUSE that we have seen so far. Now we are seeing the darker side of Richard Dawkins. We are seeing Richard Dawkins becoming positively apoplectic! Professor Dawkins, you must have felt very very threatened by the points made in Richard Milton’s book. The VERBAL ABUSE is getting really nasty now! It’s fairly obvious that you could not answer the points made in Richard Milton’s book. Otherwise, you would have answered them, instead of getting all hot and bothered!
A further quote from your review:- “All qualified physicists, biologists, cosmologists, and geologists agree on the basis of massive mutually corroborating evidence that the age of The Earth is at least 4 billion years. Richard Milton thinks it is only a few thousand years old.” My comment:- Nowhere in the book does Richard Milton state that he thinks the Earth is “only a few thousand years old”. Professor Dawkins, you have deliberately misrepresented Richard Milton’s views (and words). This is intellectually dishonest.
A further quote from your review:- “Anyone who believes that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old needs psychiatric help”. My comment:- To state that someone needs psychiatric help is VERBAL ABUSE.
A further quote from your review:- You refer to Richard Milton as “an untrained amateur”.
My comment:- For a start, this is VERBAL ABUSE. Apart from this, an “untrained amateur” has no academic position/salary to protect, and is not constrained to adhere to a particular doctrinal position. I would also like to make some further comparison between the “untrained amateur” and the academic scientist. The academic scientist tends to be highly specialized in just one narrow area of expertise. Having dealt with academic astronomers (for instance), I have been astounded and flabbergasted by their abysmal ignorance and obtuseness in the general field of astronomy, outside their own specialized field. To quote the Zen master Shunryu Suzuki, “The mind of the beginner (ie:- the “untrained amateur”) is empty, free of the habits of the expert, ready to accept, to doubt, and open to all the possibilities”. The “untrained amateur” can have a wider purview, and see the “bigger picture”. Seeing the “bigger picture” is something that (in my experience) academics are generally incapable of. I found Richard Milton’s book to be impressive in the breadth of its treatment. On the other hand, I wonder if there is ANY academic scientist who genuinely possesses the required BREADTH of knowledge in geochronometry to make a scientifically valid assessment of the age of the Earth (even if he dared to make an honest assessment without risking his career!). All you have in academic science are various experts in narrow areas, playing “follow my leader”. In academic science, the loudest voice wins – and YOU, Professor Dawkins have an inordinately loud voice; and I think that academic scientists are genuinely afraid of you. They fear the VERBAL ABUSE that you might hurl at them if they should dare to disagree with your opinions on the age of the Earth, or indeed any other topic.
A further quote from your review:- You refer to Richard Milton’s book as “silly season drivel”. My comment:- Again more VERBAL ABUSE, just the kind of VERBAL ABUSE that academic scientists are really afraid of.
QUESTION:- Are my claims of scientific lies and bullying and “cover up” simply an unrealistic paranoid “conspiracy theory”? Here are some quotes from various scientists that substantiate my claims:-
Here are some quotes from Rupert Sheldrake’s book The Science Delusion (Pub Coronet 2012) (Rupert Sheldrake was formerly Director of Studies in Cell Biology at Clare College Cambridge, research fellow of the Royal Society, author of some 80 technical papers, and many books – in other words, NOT an “untrained amateur”)
(Page 4). Dogmatic ideology - - - FEAR-based conformity - - - are inhibiting scientific creativity (My capitals and highlights). - - - - - - Scientists are very aware of the powerful taboos that restrict the range of permissible topics - - - - the dogmas that restrict free enquiry”.
(Page 7). - - - “Sciences will be regenerated when they are liberated from the dogmas that constrict them - - - - - - - - ”
(Page 27). Doctor Sheldrake describes scientists as “ordinary people competing for funds and prestige, constrained by peer-group pressures and hemmed in by prejudices and taboos, with the result that entire areas of research are excluded from mainstream science and from regular sources of funding.”
(Page 297). “Scientists are - - - - - subject to social forces and peer group pressures, and they need acceptance and funding - - - scientists are often dogmatic and prejudiced when confronted with evidence - - - that goes against their beliefs. They usually ignore what they do not want to deal with. Turning a blind eye is the no nonsense way to deal with potentially troublesome ideas”
A quote from the science journal Nature (233: 36-40, Sept 1971) Article title:- Was There Really a Big Bang? By G. Burbridge. “Views of cosmology at any epoch are largely determined by the ideas of a few strong individuals, rather than by an objective appraisal of the information available”. (My comment:- As I have already observed, scientists and sheep have a lot in common!) The article continues with the comment “It is against the spirit of scientific enquiry to regard observable effects as arising from causes unknown and unknowable to science.” (My comment:- The implication being that scientists prefer to censor FACTUAL MATERIAL if they cannot explain it.)
Here is a quote from Richard Milton’s book The Facts of Life, pub Fourth Estate 1992, page 83. “Geologists and astronomers were so virulently opposed to Velikovsky’s books that they threatened to boycott the scientific textbooks of his publisher Macmillan, forcing the firm to turn Velikovsky’s work over to another publisher.” (My comment:- This is Nazi-ism pure and simple!)
Here are some further quotes concerning the attempted CENSORSHIP of Velikovsky’s book “Worlds In Collision”. – taken from The People’s Almanac, by D. Wallechinsky and I Wallace, pub. Doubleday, NY, 1975, pages 929 to 931. “Several scientists collaborated in an effort to prevent publication - - - Scientists who supported Velikovsky’s thesis were - - - (in some cases) dismissed from their (academic) positions - - - scientists - - -ignored or distorted his evidence - - -What came out of this - - -as reported in Science magazine was A PROPOSAL FOR A PRE-PUBLICATION “THEORY CENSORING BOARD”, ITS PURPOSE BEING TO PREVENT THE WRONG KIND OF SCIENTIFIC BOOKS FROM BEING PUBLISHED” (My comment:- Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin would be gratified to see their work continued by academic scientists in the (supposed) “free world”!) If Velikovsky had been totally wrong-headed, then this episode of NAZI STYLE CENSORSHIP would be less egregious. However, many of his predictions proved to be correct. For instance (quoting from The People’s Almanac), Professor H.H.Hess, former chairman of The Space Board of the National Academy of science commented that - - -- while all of his (Velikovsky’s) predictions were made long before proof was at hand, “I do not know of a single prediction you made that has since proven to be false” “Among the correct prognoses:- The extremely hot surface temperatures of Venus - -- the hydrocarbonaceous content of its atmosphere - -- - the electromagnetic nature of solar flares, the existence of the Van Allen radiation belt - - - - radio emissions from Jupiter - - - -Einstein - - - offered to use his influence to arrange other experiments on Velikovsky’s behalf - - - - Einstein - - - - died with (Velikovsky’s book) Worlds in Collision open on his desk.”
In your book – A Devil’s Chaplain (Published by First Mariner Books, 2004) page 37, you, Professor Dawkins, suggest that we should “prosecute a book which wantonly publishes (what YOU consider to be) lies about the universe”. This chilling, sinister, and “Orwellian” sentiment appears to be in the same spirit as the proposal for a PRE-PUBLICATION CENSORING BOARD. The problem here is that academic scientists can be mistaken in their judgment of what constitutes “lies about the universe”. They were apparently wrong about Velikovsky’s book.
Here is a quote from The Book of Facts, Volume 1 by Isaac Asimov, pub Coronet Books, Hodder and Stoughton 1980. (Page 207). George Simon Ohm’s discovery of Ohm’s Law - - - - produced such opposition from other scientists that Ohm was forced to resign his high school position.” (My comment:- This is Nazi bullying tactics by scientists.)
Here are some quotes from the book Free Radicals. The Secret Anarchy of Science by Michael Brooks (PhD in quantum physics, and consultant at New Scientist):- (Page 239). Some scientists have been reluctant to make strong claims about climate change lest contrarians attack them - - - - - - the threat of personal and professional ATTACKS, INTIMIDATION, AND BULLYING have put many scientists off correcting the erroneous outpourings of climate change deniers”. (My comment:- I would emphasize, in the above text, the words “INTIMIDATION” and “BULLYING”. This is standard practice in academic life!) (Page 232). Commenting on Rachel Carson’s ground breaking book Silent Spring “Many - - - scientists had covertly helped with her research; and those who were openly quoted in the book LOST THEIR JOBS on its publication” (My comment:- Nazi-ism pure and simple!) (Page 180). “Scientists’ predilection for - - - INSULT AND DISPARAGEMENT of their peers remained strong through the postwar period, and things aren’t much different now.” (Page 81). “Carl Sagan once wrote (about science) – A few saintly personalities stand out amidst a roiling sea of jealousies, ambition, backbiting, SUPPRESSION OF DISSENT, and absurd conceits.” (Page 55). “ - - - - a survey to several thousand scientists to ask what bad things they had done in the last three years - - - - A third of respondents owned up to - - - - transgressions. These included falsifying data - - - and stealing someone else’s ideas” (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 - - - that they would fail to get funding - - - - if they dared to break out of the strait jacket.” (Page 257) The author quotes Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset:- “The majority of scientists are shut up in the narrow cell of their laboratory - - - familiar only with one particular science - - - a succession of mediocre tedious advances.” (Page 186). Quoting the American geneticist Carl Clarence Lindegren:- “The scientific establishment is permeated with opinions which pass for valid scientific inductions, and with CONTRADICTIONS THAT ARE DISREGARDED because it is too painful to face the prospect of revision of the theory which would be required to reconcile the contradictory observations with the dominant theory.” The author then goes on to quote the renowned biologist Lynn Margulis “In trying to explain - - - the theory - - - I found it necessary - - - to overcome this often inexplicit but powerful resistance to a new point of view.” (Pages 80 to 81). “Stalin supported Lysenko, and pressures were put on geneticists to renounce the principles of Morganist genetics. Some refused and were imprisoned - - - -For the next five or six years controversy ceased; no one dared to defend the genetic theories that were being taught elsewhere in the world. - - - - Early in the session (Alikhanian) defended genetics against Lysenko’s attacks. But when the support of the Central Committee of The Communist Party for Lysenko was announced, Alikhanian immediately declared that for a fervent communist this must be considered a valid reason to regard the Lysenko position as true. He went on to denounce the genetics he had formerly taught.” (My comment:- This shows that academic scientists WILL BE PREPARED TO LIE in order to protect their careers.)
Now, Professor Dawkins, let me quote from your own book The God Delusion (Pub Black Swan, 2007, Paperback edition, pages 126 to 127):- You freely admit that, of scientists who have been elected by their peers to the (American) National Academy of Sciences, only 7% believe in a personal God, whereas 40% of scientists who have been rejected (by their peers) for membership of The National Academy of Sciences believe in a personal God. (My comment:- Apparently admitting religious belief can damage a scientist’s career – even denying them entry to The National Academy of Sciences!)
Here is a quote from a letter that I received from William R. Corliss (The world’s leading scientific anomalist – founder of The Sourcebook Project, and writer/compiler of many science books) Doctor Corliss writes:- “You are aghast that astronomers hang on to old beliefs so long, and are so unadventurous. Believe me, this attitude prevails in most of science. One excursion outside the mainstream and your future ascension - - - - is forever blocked.”
And now a quote from Richard Milton himself (The Facts of Life, page 236):- “Some scientists pay lip service (to The Western Scientific Method of Enquiry), while thinking and acting like intellectual Stalinists. There is a strong streak of intellectual arrogance and intellectual authoritarianism running through the history of Darwinism - - - This authoritarian streak is still present in some Darwinists today, and is denoted by the outrage and indignation with which they greet any reasoned attempt to expose the theory to debate and to the light of real evidence.” My comment:- I WONDER IF HE HAS ANYONE PARTICULAR IN MIND – PROFESSOR DAWKINS??!!!
Here is a quote from the book Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in The Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology ed by Dr H. Tristram Engelhardt jr and Dr Arthur L. Caplan, pub Cambridge University Press, 1987. (Page vii) “Contemporary societies - - - - - presume that science can resolve disputes (in science)- - -- - Such disputes are, however, not purely scientific - - - - They are formed around and structured by complex ethical and political interests.”
Here are some quotes from the book Why We Lie by the internationally renowned psychologist Dorothy Rowe (Pub Fourth Estate, London 2010):- (Page 65.) If you are the student of a well known - - - scientist, one of the most dangerous things you can do is to obtain research results that throw doubt on this scientist’s theories” (Page 64). So rarely does a scientist gracefully relinquish a theory that built his reputation that much is made of occasions when a scientist does just this.” (Page 26). “Our trust is often abused. Some scientists will lie about their results because they cannot bear to admit that their favorite hypothesis is wrong.” (Page 111). Thus many professionals learn a particular theory, stick to it for the rest of their lives, and deny all evidence against the theory - - - - - ” (My comment:- Does this ring any bells, Professor Dawkins?) (Page 125). “In the scientific world there are arguments that have all the hallmarks of a religious war - - - reputations can be ruined, and prestigious jobs and research grants lost. What is going on here has nothing to do with science. When a scientist builds his sense of being a person on the theory he is investigating - - - - evidence that could show that his theory is wrong can result in the scientist believing that his sense of being a person is about to be annihilated. To prevent this, the scientist will fight - - - - ferociously - - - Truth can cease to be important when the sense of being a person is at stake.” (My comment:- Professor Dawkins, is this why you are getting so “hot under the collar” about the INCONVENIENT FACTS brought to light in Richard Milton’s book? Is your “sense of being a person” being threatened when your pet theory (ie:- Darwinism) is challenged? Is this the reason for all the VERBAL ABUSE (instead of calmly adducing FACTS in rebuttal)? Perhaps this very astute psychologist Dorothy Rowe has “hit the nail on the head” here.
Here are some quotes from the book Ubiquity by Mark Buchanan, pub Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London, 2000 (Mark Buchanan has a PhD in theoretical physics, and has worked as an editor on the journal Nature, and also New Scientist.):- (Page 43). The author quotes Isiah Berlin, who described the history of thought as “ a changing pattern of great liberating ideas, which inevitably turns into a suffocating strait jacket.” (Page 170). “The historian Michael Polyani came to the conclusion that scientists are not so open-minded and rational as they would have you believe. Instead, he found that – there must be at all times a predominant accepted scientific view of the nature of things - - - A strong presumption - - - - must prevail - - - that any evidence which contradicts this view must be invalid. Such evidence has to be disregarded - - - - Instead of always being open minded, Polyani found that scientists often have their minds and eyes closed. Rather than seeking evidence to test their ideas, they often ignore such evidence even when it hits them in the face. - - - - Thomas Kuhn (author of the highly acclaimed and influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) noticed that scientists seemed to be emotionally committed to a shared set of ideas, and will not even consider rejecting these ideas unless their maladjustment to the nature they are meant to describe becomes obviously and intolerably great.”
Here is a quote from the philosopher William James:- “History demonstrates - - - the extreme slowness with which the ordinary academic - - - mind acknowledges facts to exist which - - - threaten to break up the accepted system.”
I have a large database of similar quotes. The fact is that all the planets and satellites have their movements “controlled” by (or synchronized with) THE EARTH DAY, and this UNDENIABLE FACT bears an Intelligent Design implication, WHICH MEANS THAT NO ACADEMIC ASTRONOMER WILL DARE TO MAKE ANY MEANINFUL COMMENT ON THIS FACT, FOR FEAR OF LOSING THEIR CAREER. Effectively, astronomers have the effrontery to CENSOR GOD’S WORD WRITTEN IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM, and the public are none the wiser. This is not a paranoid “conspiracy theory”. The system of scientific CENSORSHIP is something that academic scientists live with every day of their lives.
Richard Milton’s book that you have reviewed in such an unfair, intellectually dishonest, and ABUSIVE manner makes some very valid points, which I will briefly list below:-
(1). Geochronometric techniques are unreliable. The evidence regarding the age of the Earth is conflicting. It may be young; it may be old. We cannot be certain. If the Earth is young, there is insufficient time for evolution to take place.
(2). Clearly sedimentary rocks form (at least in some cases) QUICKLY rather than slowly. If complete dinosaur skeletons can be buried, then this must happen QUICKLY, otherwise, the remains would become scattered. If upright fossil trees are found in the coal strata (which is a frequent occurrence), then they were buried QUICKLY. This implies that sedimentary rocks take hundreds of thousands rather than billions of years to form. This implies a young Earth, which gives insufficient time for evolution to take place.
(3). Fossil micro-organisms are found in the earliest sedimentary rocks. In that case, life is as old as the (cooled) Earth itself, leaving insufficient time for evolution to take place.
(4). Lack of transitional/intermediate fossil forms suggests that one species cannot “evolve” into another species by a series of intermediate steps, otherwise we would see fossil evidence of these intermediate steps.
(5). “Genetic homeostasis”, ie:- there are natural limits imposed on sub-specific variation. For instance:- You can “breed” a greyhound into an terrier, but you cannot “breed” an greyhound into a cat (to put it very crudely). In that case, a greyhound cannot “evolve” into a cat – or into any other radically different species. In that case, “evolution” does not happen, except in the minds of committed Darwinists (ie:- “evolution” does not happen in real life).
(6). Some animals have remained absolutely unaltered in their morphology throughout the whole of the geological record, ie:- they have not “evolved”. This fact suggests that animals do not “evolve”.
(7). One species cannot evolve into another species by a series of random BENEFICIAL mutations, because (according to the evidence) there ARE no BENEFICAL mutations, only harmful mutations.
(8). The Tasmanian (marsupial) wolf is anatomically identical to the European (placental) wolf; but both species “evolved” SEPARATELY from a shrew. Random mutations cannot produce THE EXACT SAME DESIGN TWICE. Clearly there was a pre-existing “template” guiding towards a developmental “goal”. This has a strong Intelligent Design implication.
(9). The simplest known life form is a virus. Could viruses have emerged from the primordial soup and then evolved into humans? No – because a virus can only replicate if it inhabits a host cell – and cells did not exist then.
Professor Dawkins, I hope you are not too upset by this letter. (I mean that sincerely.) You have been “dishing it out” for years, and the scientific community has been in fear and trembling, no one daring to challenge you. Now finally you are “getting some back”. I’m sure that you are “man enough” to take it – and to understand that my (abusive?) comments against you are made not with malice, but in the spirit of promoting the freedom of scientific enquiry.
Yours sincerely,
Roger Elliott.
PS. Have a nice day!