Still Not Good for the Gander

David Attenborough is still making specials for the BBC it seems.  Apparently he has a new one out, which is making some waves due to some alleged censoring by Creationist media outlets in Europe.  If these media outlets are indeed censuring his work, then that is wrong, and should be stopped.

Materialists are on the war path lately to censure things they don’t agree with, like the Council of Europe and their attack on ID science, the “Sternberging” of academics, the treatment of Dr. Robert Marks, etc.  I could say that they are simply getting a taste of their own medicine and leave it at that, but that would seem hypocritical to me.  I believe in freedom of speech.  I believe in academic freedom.  For me to advocate stifling the freedoms of materialists would make me no better than they.  I will not stoop to their level.  We shouldn’t be censuring evolution, we should be examining it more.  We should teach evolution; but the evidence for and against.  Just as it is wrong to censure evolution, it is wrong to censure all the evidence that speaks against the theory.


9 responses to “Still Not Good for the Gander

  1. Sternberg wasn’t censored, of course. He was criticized — and that is all — for violating the rules of his society by publishing an ID article in a journal unsuited to the topic, and for violating peer review processes to get the third-rate article in there.

    But he was never censored in any way.

    And the same is true in every other case. It’s when creationists either seek to censor evolution directly (as in the Scopes trial, and the recent Pennsylvania trial), or to dilute evolution until it can’t be recognized, a form of censorship by itself, that scientists come to defend science.

    Defending science against calls for censoring is not censorship. You’re looking through the telescope backwards.

  2. professorsmith

    Diluting evolution – as you put it – by presenting evidence that contradicts it is not censorship. It should be quite clear from my post that I do not advocate censorship in this debate. So, your plaint that I am looking through the wrong end of the telescope seems misplaced.

    I’ve also documented quite a few instances on censorship on the part of materialists/Darwinists on this blog already. And, in regards to Sternberg, the independent government review of the situation disagrees with your view that Sternberg was not censored.

  3. Do you mean censoring or censuring? I assume the former.

  4. professorsmith

    Yes, the former Lars. Thank you for catching that.

  5. Diluting the teaching of evolution by presenting religious dogma and disproven claims (there is no evidence supporting creationism or intelligent design, nor that contradicts evolution, that is proposed by these groups), is indeed a form of censorship. You should read the decision in the Louisiana case (Edwards v. Aguillard).

    More than 100 times since 1925 creationists have proposed laws to censor evolution. Until last year, no one had ever proposed a law to censor creationism/intelligent design. Such a law was introduced in the Wisconsin legislature, but scientists prevailed on the sponsor to take it down. History shows overwhelmingly that it is creationists who seek to censor science.

    What instances of censorship have you documented? There are none. There has been no independent government review of Sternberg’s “situation,” and I find it galling that you’ve been suckered to think there was. Such are the manifold lies of creationism that even honest innocents are deceived and turned to spreading disinformation.

    Under the law, had the first investigator found any problem, he is bound to turn his findings over to the proper investigating authority — in this case, the Smithsonian’s inspector general. He did not do so. One might argue that he was just hopelessly incompetent, but it’s much more likely that he knew there was nothing there. Sternberg himself could have asked the IG to review it, but did not. Any congressman could have asked the IG to review it. None did.

    When discussing creationism, one learns that where there is smoke there is subterfuge. That’s true in Sternberg’s case, too. He committed serious ethical violations which, had it been done on the government’s dime, could result in prison time. He asked the wrong agency to investigate, and when that agency said it lacked authority to investigate, Sternberg failed to make a complaint to the authority who could have tracked down the facts. I think he doesn’t want the facts known, officially.

  6. professorsmith

    Mr. Darrell,
    I note that you are not reading my posts as I clearly am not calling for diluting evolutionary teaching. Please stop repeating falsehoods.

    As for Sternberg, you should read this. Again, your claims are found wanting and I find it highly distasteful for you to blame the victim here.

  7. I’m not blaming the Smithsonian. I’m blaming Sternberg.

    That Office of Special Counsel “report” is what I’m talking about when I say “great ethical lapses.” the document should get the lawyer disbarred. The OCS is not authorized to make such broad allegations, especially outside of a legal proceeding where the other guy gets a fair shot at responding.

    The sum total of the OCS report is this: Smithsonian’s researchers were concerned about the ethical lapses of Sternberg in violating the peer review rules of his journal and keeping secret the publication of an article inappropriate for the society that published the journal, and probably inappropriate for publishing at all. As I noted, had that been done on government money, it could get jail time for Sternberg.

    Read the OCS report carefully. It says that after discussing what would be appropriate sanctions on Sternberg, everyone involved agreed that because it was done on Sterberg’s own time, nothing could be legally done. So they did nothing.

    I find it distasteful for you to defend perpetrators of academic and scientific fraud, especially those who slander their benefactors.

    If there were science in ID, it would be in the textbooks through competitive action of the publishers, without any need for any legal action. Because there is no science there, however, the only way to get it into the school room is to dilute the teaching of evolution. This strategy is well up front in training sessions with creationists — if they can’t gut biology by getting Darwin out, at least dilute it.

    If you’re actually not advocating putting in anything about ID, I apologize. But I would have sworn you said earlier you thought it should be inserted in the sections about dealing with the “problems” of evolution.

    One of the high ironies is that if ID were inserted, there would be less time to talk about the real problems in evolution theory.

  8. To avoid the spam filters, I’ll put the links in two at a time.

    Here’s a good, serious discussion of the problems with the OCS report:

    I commented on it briefly here:

  9. professorsmith

    Mr. Darrell,
    It seems that you have nothing substantive to add to the discussion except wild allegations.

    Jail time? How fanciful.

    Academic and scientific fraud? How melodramatic.

    And, once again I tell you that I am not trying to dilute evolution in the classroom. You obviously don’t read what the other person you are “debating” says. You even go so far as to claim that I’ve gone through training sessions to be a Creationist? Yes, you are grasping at straws to start asserting conspiracy theories for which you have no evidence. Of course, you have no evidence for quite a lot of your claims and you say your opinion a lot as if everyone else should take it as fact. How droll.

    Seeing as how you have nothing new except to drudge up more tired, worn-out, already refuted nonsense, I think this thread has come to its end. Comments are now closed.