|Evolution in the News - November 2011|
|by Do-While Jones|
An evolutionist admits discrimination in a New Scientist article.
Sometimes it is hard to find on-line versions of articles because the on-line article title is nothing like print article title. Such is the case with an article by Steven Newton titled, “Call creationism’s bluff” in print, but called, “Geology will survive creationist undermining” on-line.
According to New Scientist, “Steven Newton is programs and policy director at the US National Center for Science Education, a non-profit organisation based in Oakland, California, devoted to defending the teaching of evolution in public schools.” It might be more accurate to say that the NCSE is actually the National Center for Science Eradication because they are a political pressure group devoted to crippling America’s science program by censoring the science curriculum of any information critical of the theory of evolution, as is abundantly clear from their website, http://ncse.com/.
This article is remarkable in that it shows a change in tactics for the NCSE. They seem to be admitting that their strong-arm tactics have failed. Newton now advises geologists to “call creationism’s bluff.” He doesn’t realize that creationists aren’t bluffing—they are holding the winning hand.
Newton begins his article by stating the "problem":
WHAT should a scientific society do when creationists want to participate in its conferences? This question faces many scientific organisations in the US. 1
The obvious answer, “Judge the paper on its merits, regardless of the religious beliefs of the presenter,” never crosses his mind. His mind is made up. He wants to censor any scientific information that contradicts the theory of evolution, so he is focused on how best to suppress the information.
Many proposed that presentations by creationists be banned outright. Scientific conferences, they said, have no obligation to include non-scientific ideas; astronomy conferences do not welcome astrology talks, so why does the GSA [Geological Society of America] tolerate young-Earth creationists who reject the foundational principles of geology? 2
Creationists were banned from GSA conferences for many years. They are just now being permitted to participate because the evidence for a young Earth is more compelling than the old Earth model that has been the foundation of geology for too many years.
I am not suggesting that the ideas of young-Earth creationism will ever be accepted by mainstream geology. But if scientific societies impose bans, then the creationists win an important victory: they will be able to make a plausible claim of censorship and discrimination.
While the exclusion of creationists can pose problems, their inclusion at conferences does little harm. The reputations of scientific organisations are largely unaffected, as few people even notice. Creationists will use their participation to claim acceptance, but most scientists understand that a 15-minute talk or a poster presentation does not carry the same weight as a paper in Nature or Science. A few posters hardly challenge an entire scientific discipline. 3
Notice, he isn’t concerned about science, he is concerned about political strategy. He feels it is OK to secretly ban creationists from conferences, but if the ban is made public, it looks bad for evolutionists. Therefore, he suggests letting creationists put up posters so it looks like they are being given a fair shake, while still quietly suppressing substantial papers in professional journals. The public will never know how many creationist papers are rejected by journals and conferences.
He concludes his article by saying,
The GSA is not the only organisation facing this issue: the Society for Developmental Biology, the Entomological Society of America and the American Society for Cell Biology have all encountered similar problems. And it's not just at these relatively informal meetings that creationists have surfaced. Peer-reviewed scientific journals, such as the Journal of Paleontology and Geology, have published - almost certainly without being aware of the authors' true views and motivations - papers by creationists arguing minor details of what they imagine occurred during Noah's flood.
Scientific organisations will continue to experience creationist infiltration; this week's GSA meeting will include several presentations by creationists. But it is important for scientists not to overreact and to remember that science is far stronger than any creationist attempts to undermine it. 4
The prejudice just drips off the page! He fears “creationist infiltration.” But, for once, we hope the scientific elite listen to him and actually do allow all scientific opinions to be presented because science is far stronger than the evolutionists’ attempts to make their creation myth appear scientifically valid. Science is against evolution.
|Quick links to|
|Science Against Evolution
|Back issues of
of the Month
Steven Newton, New Scientist, 8 October 2011, “Call creationism’s bluff”, pages 30-31,