Intelligent Design and academic freedom, part 3
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?
Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
On my previous two posts dealing with Intelligent Design and academic freedom, I discussed briefly the situation of Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and his being denied tenure seemingly because he is a supporter of Intelligent Design. Tonight, I am going to post some additional brief quotes from The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Regnery Publishing, Inc., One Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C., 20001, © 2006 dealing with similar situations.
1) “To Dr. Richard Sternberg, concerning his treatment by the Smithsonian Institute (SI) after publishing a peer-reviewed article by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer on intelligent design: ‘Our preliminary investigation indicates that retaliation came in many forms. It came in the form of attempts to change your working conditions…. During the process you were personally investigated and your professional competence was attacked. Misinformation was disseminated throughout the SI and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false. It is also clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing you out of the SI.’
—U.S. Office of Special Counsel, 2005” (page 104—my addition)
2) “’Doubting Darwinian orthodoxy is comparable to opposing the party line of a Stalinist regime. What would you do if you were in Stalin’s Russia and wanted to argue that Lysenko was wrong? You might point to paradoxes and tensions in Lysenko’s theory of genetics, but you could not say that Lysenko was fundamentally wrong or offer an alternative that clearly contradicted Lysenko. That’s the situation we’re in.’
—William A. Dembski, 2004” (William A. Dembski has written in favor of Intelligent Design—my addition) [page 182—my addition]
3) “’The only appropriate response should involve some form of righteous fury, much _ _ _ _ -kicking (my editing of the first word—my addition), and the public firing of some teachers, many schoolboard members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians…It’s time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.’
—University of Minnesota professor Paul Z. Myers” (Who, I believe, is a Darwinist. Isn’t that the correct debate tactic to support your “scientific” position?—my addition) [page 186—my addition]
4) “’We will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants [the Dover school board] from …requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution.’
—Judge John E. Jones III, 2005” (Scientific reasoning by judicial edict and judicial tyranny—my addition) [page 191—my addition]
5) “’Teachers seeking to ‘teach the controversy’ over Darwinian evolution in today’s climate will likely be met with false warnings that it is unconstitutional to say anything negative about Darwinian evolution. (How in the world can that be unconstitutional? On what Constitutional grounds? It is absurd!!!—my addition) Students who attempt to raise questions about Darwinism, or who try to elicit from the teacher an honest answer about the status of intelligent design theory will trigger administrators’ concerns about whether they stand in Constitutional jeopardy. A chilling effect on open inquiry is being felt in several states already, including Ohio, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania. (When did judges become teachers, scientists, and school board members?—my addition) [District Court] Judge Jones’s message is clear: give Darwin only praise, or else face the wrath of the judiciary.’ (Judicial tyranny run amuck!!!—my addition)
—Traipsing into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision, by David K. DeWolf, John G. West, Carey Luskin, and Jonathan Witt; Seattle, Wa: Discovery Institute Press, 2006.” (page 152—my addition)
6) “’Although they are able to tell us what may be said, they can’t tell us what we may think…. Science has never been decided by judicial fiat.’
—Cornell IDEA Club founder Hannah Maxson, 2005” (page 200—my addition)
7) “’Real science never has to resort to credentialism (or court decisions to uphold their concept—my addition). If someone with no credentials raises a legitimate question, it is not an answer to point out how uneducated or unqualified the questioner is. In fact, it is pretty much an admission that you don’t have an answer, so you want the questioner to go away.’ (Also, real science is not based upon opinion polls of scientists. Just because a majority [or even an almost unanimous agreement] of scientists believes something to be correct, that does not necessarily insure that concept is correct particularly when there is absolutely no scientifically established proof that supports that concept, i.e. slime into man.—my addition)
—Author Orson Scott Card, 2005” (page 203—my addition)
8) “’One thinks of scientists as calm, intelligent people, perhaps wearing white smocks, who take on questions to which we don’t know the answers, think about them carefully, and test various explanations experimentally until they come up with one that solves the problem…. But that hasn’t been the reaction of the evolutionists to intelligent design at all. They have all but bitten themselves in two trying to drive it straight out of the realm of serious discussion.’ (What do they have to fear? Could it be the truth???—my addition)
—Columnist William Rusher, 2005” (page 205—my addition)
9) “’Ewww…intelligent design people! They’re just buck-toothed, Bible-pushing _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (word edited out by me—my addition) with community-college degrees who’re trying to sell a gussied-up creationism to a cretinous public! No need to address their concerns or respond to their arguments. They are NOT Science. They are _ _ _ _ _ -heads (my editing of the first word—my addition). There. I just saved you the trouble of reading 90 percent of the responses to the ID (Intelligent Design—my addition) position…. This is how losers act just before they lose; arrogant, self-satisfied, too important to be bothered with substantive refutation, and disdainful of their own faults…. The only remaining question is whether Darwinism will exit gracefully (I would not count on that.—my addition), or whether it will go down biting, screaming, censoring, and denouncing to the bitter end.’ (Much more likely. Some hearts are so hard, they will not accept the truth.—my addition)
—Tech Central Station contributor Douglas Kern, 2005” (page 199—my addition)
10) “’I lost my job at George Mason University for teaching the problems with evolution. Lots of scientists question evolution, but they would lose their jobs if they spoke out.’
—Caroline Crocker, quoted in the Washington Post, February 5, 2006” (page 192—my addition)
Again, it must be asked. Where is the academic freedom that academics claim is so important for learning? If there were real academic freedom, wouldn’t academics push for a plethora of views, rather than only one, attempting to stimulate discussion and honest intellectual debate? What are they afraid of? THE TRUTH!!!
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?
Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
On my previous two posts dealing with Intelligent Design and academic freedom, I discussed briefly the situation of Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and his being denied tenure seemingly because he is a supporter of Intelligent Design. Tonight, I am going to post some additional brief quotes from The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Regnery Publishing, Inc., One Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C., 20001, © 2006 dealing with similar situations.
1) “To Dr. Richard Sternberg, concerning his treatment by the Smithsonian Institute (SI) after publishing a peer-reviewed article by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer on intelligent design: ‘Our preliminary investigation indicates that retaliation came in many forms. It came in the form of attempts to change your working conditions…. During the process you were personally investigated and your professional competence was attacked. Misinformation was disseminated throughout the SI and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false. It is also clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing you out of the SI.’
—U.S. Office of Special Counsel, 2005” (page 104—my addition)
2) “’Doubting Darwinian orthodoxy is comparable to opposing the party line of a Stalinist regime. What would you do if you were in Stalin’s Russia and wanted to argue that Lysenko was wrong? You might point to paradoxes and tensions in Lysenko’s theory of genetics, but you could not say that Lysenko was fundamentally wrong or offer an alternative that clearly contradicted Lysenko. That’s the situation we’re in.’
—William A. Dembski, 2004” (William A. Dembski has written in favor of Intelligent Design—my addition) [page 182—my addition]
3) “’The only appropriate response should involve some form of righteous fury, much _ _ _ _ -kicking (my editing of the first word—my addition), and the public firing of some teachers, many schoolboard members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians…It’s time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.’
—University of Minnesota professor Paul Z. Myers” (Who, I believe, is a Darwinist. Isn’t that the correct debate tactic to support your “scientific” position?—my addition) [page 186—my addition]
4) “’We will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants [the Dover school board] from …requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution.’
—Judge John E. Jones III, 2005” (Scientific reasoning by judicial edict and judicial tyranny—my addition) [page 191—my addition]
5) “’Teachers seeking to ‘teach the controversy’ over Darwinian evolution in today’s climate will likely be met with false warnings that it is unconstitutional to say anything negative about Darwinian evolution. (How in the world can that be unconstitutional? On what Constitutional grounds? It is absurd!!!—my addition) Students who attempt to raise questions about Darwinism, or who try to elicit from the teacher an honest answer about the status of intelligent design theory will trigger administrators’ concerns about whether they stand in Constitutional jeopardy. A chilling effect on open inquiry is being felt in several states already, including Ohio, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania. (When did judges become teachers, scientists, and school board members?—my addition) [District Court] Judge Jones’s message is clear: give Darwin only praise, or else face the wrath of the judiciary.’ (Judicial tyranny run amuck!!!—my addition)
—Traipsing into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision, by David K. DeWolf, John G. West, Carey Luskin, and Jonathan Witt; Seattle, Wa: Discovery Institute Press, 2006.” (page 152—my addition)
6) “’Although they are able to tell us what may be said, they can’t tell us what we may think…. Science has never been decided by judicial fiat.’
—Cornell IDEA Club founder Hannah Maxson, 2005” (page 200—my addition)
7) “’Real science never has to resort to credentialism (or court decisions to uphold their concept—my addition). If someone with no credentials raises a legitimate question, it is not an answer to point out how uneducated or unqualified the questioner is. In fact, it is pretty much an admission that you don’t have an answer, so you want the questioner to go away.’ (Also, real science is not based upon opinion polls of scientists. Just because a majority [or even an almost unanimous agreement] of scientists believes something to be correct, that does not necessarily insure that concept is correct particularly when there is absolutely no scientifically established proof that supports that concept, i.e. slime into man.—my addition)
—Author Orson Scott Card, 2005” (page 203—my addition)
8) “’One thinks of scientists as calm, intelligent people, perhaps wearing white smocks, who take on questions to which we don’t know the answers, think about them carefully, and test various explanations experimentally until they come up with one that solves the problem…. But that hasn’t been the reaction of the evolutionists to intelligent design at all. They have all but bitten themselves in two trying to drive it straight out of the realm of serious discussion.’ (What do they have to fear? Could it be the truth???—my addition)
—Columnist William Rusher, 2005” (page 205—my addition)
9) “’Ewww…intelligent design people! They’re just buck-toothed, Bible-pushing _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (word edited out by me—my addition) with community-college degrees who’re trying to sell a gussied-up creationism to a cretinous public! No need to address their concerns or respond to their arguments. They are NOT Science. They are _ _ _ _ _ -heads (my editing of the first word—my addition). There. I just saved you the trouble of reading 90 percent of the responses to the ID (Intelligent Design—my addition) position…. This is how losers act just before they lose; arrogant, self-satisfied, too important to be bothered with substantive refutation, and disdainful of their own faults…. The only remaining question is whether Darwinism will exit gracefully (I would not count on that.—my addition), or whether it will go down biting, screaming, censoring, and denouncing to the bitter end.’ (Much more likely. Some hearts are so hard, they will not accept the truth.—my addition)
—Tech Central Station contributor Douglas Kern, 2005” (page 199—my addition)
10) “’I lost my job at George Mason University for teaching the problems with evolution. Lots of scientists question evolution, but they would lose their jobs if they spoke out.’
—Caroline Crocker, quoted in the Washington Post, February 5, 2006” (page 192—my addition)
Again, it must be asked. Where is the academic freedom that academics claim is so important for learning? If there were real academic freedom, wouldn’t academics push for a plethora of views, rather than only one, attempting to stimulate discussion and honest intellectual debate? What are they afraid of? THE TRUTH!!!
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 4:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home