Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientific McCarthyism
RenewAmerica ^ | February 9, 2009 | Bryan Fischer

Posted on 02/11/2009 12:15:32 PM PST by neverdem

The 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birthday on February 12 serves as a reminder that in his name scientific McCarthyism is alive and well in America's system of education. The same mentality that kept Galileo under house arrest for the last years of his life is today punishing science teachers who dare to raise scientific questions about Darwinian orthodoxy.

Secular fundamentalists have so little confidence that the theory of evolution can stand up to rigorous scrutiny that they are gagging voices of dissent. For instance, one of the world's leading proponents of intelligent design is Dr. Scott Minnich, a biologist at the University of Idaho. Even though Dr. Minnich's advocacy of ID theory was done on his own time, the-then U of I president, Tim White, issued a campus-wide edict prohibiting the teaching of anything but evolutionary doctrine in all science classes. So much for the university as a marketplace of ideas. The Spanish Inquisition couldn't have done it any better.

I was invited last year to present the arguments for intelligent design to an advanced public school science class. When some Tyrants of Tolerance heard that — gasp! — some science students might actually hear both sides of this controversy, I immediately began receiving emails from them, threatening me with career-ending lawsuits and demanding that I out this teacher so they could see to it that he never taught in this town again. Torquemada lives and breathes.

This raises the question: What are they afraid of?

There are many scientific reasons to question the theory of evolution. One law of science is that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Thus science admits that nature can offer no explanation for the origin of either.

Evolutionary theory is contravened by the pre-Cambrian explosion, in which untold numbers of complex life forms appear suddenly and fully formed in the fossil record, with nary a trace of intermediate, transitional forms.

Further, evolution must depend upon genetic mutations as its primary mechanism. But every geneticist will tell you that the vast majority of randomly occurring mutations are harmful if not fatal to the organism. If genes are one day manipulated in the laboratory to produce more complex life forms, that will simply prove our point — it takes both intelligence and design.

And life itself, it turns out, is a huge problem for Darwinian dogma. As Michael Behé pointed out Darwin's Black Box, life is "irreducibly complex" — in other words, a very sophisticated arrangement of complicated chemical machinery must be in place all at once in proper working order for life even to occur. It's simply impossible to get there by the incremental steps required by evolutionary theory.

Significantly, not even Darwin believed his theory could explain the origin of life. That's why his seminal work is called Origin of Species rather than Origin of Life. The only question, Darwin said, was whether life had "been breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one."

Contemporary evolutionists look silly trying to keep a Creator out of the picture. At the end of the documentary "Expelled," noted Darwinian Richard Dawkins admits that life on earth is too complex for evolution to explain. His theory? It was brought here by aliens.

What's at stake here? Literally everything, since the Founders predicated our entire system of government on the truth that there is a Creator who is the source of our fundamental civil rights. Idaho's students deserve the right to know if their view of government makes scientific sense. Let's make February 12 "Academic Freedom Day" in America, and let the discussion begin.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: crevo; evolution; gibberish; intelligentdesign; junkscience; mccarthyism; pseudoscience; science; spam; victimpolitics
Change Some May Not Want You To Believe In

The attitude of the young is quite encouraging. "0% agreed among those in the 18-24 year-old age bracket"!

1 posted on 02/11/2009 12:15:32 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Executive Summary: WAAAA WAAAA I’M A VICTIM WAAAA WAAAA UNFAIR WAAAA WAAAA


2 posted on 02/11/2009 12:17:51 PM PST by steve-b (Intelligent design is to evolutionary biology what socialism is to free-market economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

read later


3 posted on 02/11/2009 12:21:26 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware of socialism in America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I am surprised that an article titled “Scientific McCarthyism” makes no references to global warming.
4 posted on 02/11/2009 12:30:59 PM PST by Between the Lines (Liberals wanting a massive bailout leaves Conservatives wanting to bail out en masse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

There appears to be some evolutionary structure, particularly in genes, that withstands scientific scrutiny.

However, it appears also that alot of it doesn’t fit anything at all.

Thus to struggle on with God....


5 posted on 02/11/2009 12:50:37 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Are medical schools being McCarthyist by not wanting to consider supernatural alternates to disease, such as demonic possession (which lots of people believe)? No - they rightfully stick to germ theory, which is valid, testable, and has held up to over a century of challenge. If a frustrated witch doctor wanted demonic possession to be on the medical school curricula, he’d accuse the “establishment” of being McCarthyist towards him too.


6 posted on 02/11/2009 1:13:26 PM PST by PC99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
What are they afraid of?

Science being destroyed by religious fervor.

Thus science admits that nature can offer no explanation for the origin of either.

And that is outside of evolution, a completely different question being studied by astrophysicists.

the vast majority of randomly occurring mutations are harmful

Vast majority. Give me hundreds of billions of mutations and there is much room for non-harmful mutations.

As Michael Behé pointed out Darwin's Black Box

And as has been pointed out, Behe is wrong. Let it go, the horse died a long time ago.

Significantly, not even Darwin believed his theory could explain the origin of life. That's why his seminal work is called Origin of Species rather than Origin of Life.

The brings up this true statement, yet brought up the "origin of the universe" question above against evolution. It seems he is using the standard strawman tactic, hoping readers have a VERY short memory.

7 posted on 02/11/2009 1:19:09 PM PST by antiRepublicrat ("I am a firm believer that there are not two sides to every issue..." -- Arianna Huffington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

The operating assumption of all Creation Science writers is that their target audience is at least as, if not more, ignorant of science than the writer is.

Much to their relief they are almost always correct in this assumption.


8 posted on 02/11/2009 1:21:58 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I just learned something. February 12th is the 100th birthday of Charles Darwin -- also of Abraham Lincoln.

Any connection?

.---

Send treats to the troops...
Great because you did it!
www.AnySoldier.com

9 posted on 02/11/2009 1:36:01 PM PST by JCG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"This raises the question: What are they afraid of?"


10 posted on 02/11/2009 1:39:08 PM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve-b; sickoflibs
You missed the point. The evolution side won't tolerate a debate. If they are so confident in natural selection, then they should welcome the debate. They resist because they are so invested in secular humanism and atheism. Doesn't that remind you of the global warmists/alarmists? "The debate is over." How about there's no correlation of abortion with breast cancer when the NY State Department of Health stated not long ago about the increased prevalance of breast cancer on Long Island in effect that not having a full term pregnancy increased the risk of breast cancer?

CORAM, MT. SINAI, PORT JEFFERSON STATION (CMP) FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION pdf format

The importance of reproductive factors in affecting breast cancer risk has been known for a long time. Women who have never given birth (or had a full-term pregnancy) are at a higher risk for breast cancer compared to women who have carried a pregnancy to term.(Page 26)

Never had a full term pregnancy also includes abortion. Where are those clowns that say there's no relation between breast cancer and abortion? It has a very good, politically incorrect section, "BREAST CANCER RISK FACTORS," with references that starts on page 25.

How about they have to continue with embryonic stem cell research when they they discovered cellular reprogramming of somatic cells without viral assistance?

Do We Still Need Embryonic Stem Cells?

Promotion of Reprogramming to Ground State Pluripotency by Signal Inhibition

I don't have a problem with evolution, but I thought we still have a First Amendment for those who don't agree with evolution.

11 posted on 02/11/2009 1:52:06 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The so-called “debate” is simply heckling from the peanut gallery. It is equivalent to hiring witch doctors with beads and rattles as advisors to the National Institutes of Health or publishing Truther conspiracy theories as an addendum to the official report on the 9/11 attacks.


12 posted on 02/11/2009 1:56:14 PM PST by steve-b (Intelligent design is to evolutionary biology what socialism is to free-market economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

It’s either God or magic. Take your pick.


13 posted on 02/11/2009 2:01:02 PM PST by webboy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
I am surprised that an article titled “Scientific McCarthyism” makes no references to global warming.

I took up the slack. See comment# 11.

14 posted on 02/11/2009 2:01:53 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat; PC99; allmendream
Science being destroyed by religious fervor.

Which religion? See comment# 11, please.

15 posted on 02/11/2009 2:05:56 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

btt


16 posted on 02/11/2009 2:16:09 PM PST by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Evolutionary theory is contravened by the pre-Cambrian explosion, in which untold numbers of complex life forms appear suddenly and fully formed in the fossil record, with nary a trace of intermediate, transitional forms.

Misrepresentation of the Cambrian explosion is a cornerstone of the worst of some ID proponents. Fish appeared in the late Cambrian - well after the initial 'explosion'. Entire cladistical families - amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds - did not appear until after the Cambrian. Land was not inhabited at the end of the Cambrian. It's like implying there wasn't a house next door yesterday and a complete house is there today - when all that is present is the foundation and some framing.

17 posted on 02/11/2009 2:28:16 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Any religion.

That post takes the issue beyond evolution to prove a point about evolution, which it doesn’t.

We do have politicially-influenced science these days, and Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change is a prime example. But it is unrelated to evolution. GWCCC is a very recent idea and has been politically pushed by various people with vested interests (economic, political, ideological) since the beginning. Evolution grew from being the underdog and only attained its current status on the top of the scientific food chain after over a century of scientific work on it despite attacks from all sides.

Yes, most scientists laugh at flat-earthers. The bar to a challenge being taken seriously is quite high with such a long-established science.

As for the 1st Amendment, go for it. Nobody is stopping you. But the 1st Amendment does not require that others take you seriously.


18 posted on 02/11/2009 2:34:50 PM PST by antiRepublicrat ("I am a firm believer that there are not two sides to every issue..." -- Arianna Huffington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
It is equivalent to hiring witch doctors with beads and rattles as advisors to the National Institutes of Health or publishing Truther conspiracy theories as an addendum to the official report on the 9/11 attacks.

There's plenty of things that we don't know with absolute certainty. The NIH has spent significantly on alternaive medicine. We don't understand the placebo effect. If it helps their faith, good for them. They'll probably live longer. I keep coming across studies like this one.

Religious participation and mortality risk among the oldest old in China.

19 posted on 02/11/2009 2:36:24 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
but I thought we still have a First Amendment for those who don't agree with evolution.

Nope, and it is not limited to Evolution. Try Global Warming. Gay marriage, and a host of other ideas.

Amazingly these Scientist are all about inquiry and truth, unless it does not agree with their conclusions, and those conclusions are often determined buy grants.

20 posted on 02/11/2009 2:39:45 PM PST by itsahoot (We will have world government. Whether by conquest or consent. Looks like that question is answered)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"There are many scientific reasons to question the theory of evolution. One law of science is that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Thus science admits that nature can offer no explanation for the origin of either."

The example given to support the claim is false. Science knows that matter is energy and all the energy in this world arose out of the vacuum. There is no conflict with, or evidence that the law of conservation of energy has been violated in any way.

"The evolution side won't tolerate a debate. If they are so confident in natural selection, then they should welcome the debate."

The scientific method does not include debate as a tool to determine truth. It also requires evidence, which debate doesn't provide.

"I don't have a problem with evolution, but I thought we still have a First Amendment for those who don't agree with evolution."

Science is taught in science class. Religion is not science, regardless of the First Amend. Those folks that wish to call that which is not science, "science", can do so outside the science class. ie. in Church, or Sunday School

21 posted on 02/11/2009 2:40:59 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson