Cross posted @ God Is 4 Suckers!
Pursuant to a thread at Pharyngula, a particular book was mentioned. So Googling it up, I found this wonderful bit of folderol:
By now you've probably heard about that infamous movie so many people are talking about called EXPELLED, starring Ben Stein. No? OK, so if you haven't seen it yet, you should. This film played for a limited engagement in theatres across the USA in 2008 (but don't go rushing out to buy the video until you've visited the offers from our partners at the "Order Online" tab above). If you missed the movie (or just want to read up on what others are saying about it) you can check out another movie trailer here, and read some reviews and commentary about it here.
‘Limited engagement’ actually translates to ‘invitation only’ across a limited amount of showings, and I’m sure we’re all up on this non-issue that Stein tried to stoke a non-fire in the intellectual underbrush.
So why am I even mentioning this movie? Because the book Slaughter of the Dissidents (SOD) picks up where the movie "Expelled" leaves off. If you thought Expelled was mind-blowing, then this book will educate you even further about this important issue of repression of freedom and discrimination currently playing in academia today, along with many case studies of expelled scientists and educators (some of the SOD case studies also focus on some of the "Expelles" introduced in the movie).
I thought it was mind-blowing that Stein imagined he even had a controversy, let alone a point.
"Expelled" has taken many Americans by surprise. Suddenly, a growing number of people are wondering: what is this discrimination against Darwin skeptics all about? What do you mean we kick people out of academia just for asking questions about evolution! Is this really true? And just how bad is it really.
Like all empty incendiary rhetoric, it’s really not all that bad. Nobody’s been ‘slaughtered’, either physically or metaphorically. It’s simply scare-mongering, is what it is.
Well, in a word, the treatment of Darwin skeptics in our culture (scientists, educators, and students) is very poor. Many of them endure incredible humilation and eventual loss of their jobs. But even worse, being a Darwin skeptic for many of these people is a complete career-ender. Of course, there are many who try to argue against such claims, as you can see by visiting sites like "Expelled Exposed." We plan to provide some rebuttals to those arguments at some point in the future. But for now... SOD will serve as a starting point.
You won't believe some of the reasons many educators have lost their jobs, and how they often get blackballed from academia, or why some students failed to get an otherwise earned degree. This pernicious form of discrimination is not only widespread in the U.S. but is also nauseating to most Americans. SOD goes into great detail about how and why it occurs, and provides you with scores of actual case studies. As you read this book you'll discover that one of the most precious things we own is at risk, right here in America. What is that?
In a word,
FREEDOM
The price you pay for going against the scientific consensus (and especially on a topic that has been proven up and down and sideways to Muskogee) is…well, ridicule is something you’ll have to endure, especially when you don the martyr’s cap and cry ‘poor me!’ when you propound twaddle.
Freedom to disagree about some aspects of evolution without losing your job or being denied an earned degree. Freedom to tell people you dare to question any aspect of evolution on scientific grounds - without referencing any religious text.
Either the author doesn’t understand the definition of ‘aspect’, which is:
1. appearance to the eye or mind; look: the physical aspect of the country, 2. nature; quality; character: the superficial aspect of the situation, 3. a way in which a thing may be viewed or regarded; interpretation; view: both aspects of a decision. 4. part; feature; phase: That is the aspect of the problem that interests me most. 5. facial expression; countenance: He wore an aspect of gloom. Hers was an aspect of happy optimism. 6. bearing; air; mien: warlike in aspect. (6 will do for now), or he’s being deliberately misleading about the ‘any aspect’ phrasing. Either one wouldn’t be a surprise.
And also the freedom to let others know what you personally believe outside of science without having such an utterance turn into a rabid witch hunt.
That’s utter nonsense, otherwise notables such as Ken Miller and Francis Collins would be pilloried in accordance with this ‘logic’.
Do you know it has reached the point in America where, on this subject at least, if you are an educator and you opine that you have reservations about any aspect of evolution based on scientific evidence, you are often immediately labeled as "religious" (whether you really are or not), and you are (often) immediately determined to be 'unfit' to teach science or get a science degree?
Unmitigated crap. Maybe a biology degree, but this ‘any aspect’ accusation is ridiculous.
And speaking of religion, it looks like we live in an era where freedom OF religion has been twisted to mean freedom FROM religion. Some groups supporting this type of discrimination proclaim that "Freedom depends on free thinkers," unless, of course, you happen to be 'religious'.
I don’t think I need to go any further with this. Of course, you can’t have freedom OF religion unless you have freedom FROM religion. This isn’t ‘discrimination’ – this is fact. It’s an equal playing field now – and this is the standard argument from martyrdom, except that we are all now familiar with the lies the Christians tell us, the lies they believe and will fight for, against all odds and evidence.
In addition, I might add that this execratory bit of work has an introduction by none other than “Dr.” D. James Kennedy. For those of you unfamiliar with this particular fuckwit, he was that same idiot who made the repugnant ‘documentary’ titled Darwin’s Deadly Legacy, which has been debunked and repudiated (but is still for sale!). Also, a hardcore theonomist.
One can only hope that this disorder we term religion will wilt away, that the human race can move onwards to greener pastures.
Till the next post, then.
6 comments:
Krystalline,
Your comments, athough typically similar to what we find among many bloggers, do deserve a response. Since I wrote the remarks you are addressing, I hope you'll allow my rejoinders:
1. Rhetoric.
"Like all empty incendiary rhetoric, it’s really not all that bad. Nobody’s been ‘slaughtered’, either physically or metaphorically. It’s simply scare-mongering, is what it is."
One thing this book is NOT full of is "empty incendiary [sic] rhetoric." If you'll read the book, you'll find plenty of case studies of actual people who have lost their careers for anything as simple as making a few comments to challenging students and others to question the consensus views surrounding evolution. One of the reasons I published the book was to demonstrate that there is in fact a rather significant issue here that goes WAY beyond just rhetoric. I would encourage you to read the book, rather than just make this kind of comment sight-unseen.
2. the meaning of the word "aspect." I used the word with the third definition in mind: " a way in which a thing may be viewed or regarded; interpretation; view: both aspects of a decision."
3. On my comment about the need to have freedom to express dissenting views about Darwinism you said "That’s utter nonsense, otherwise notables such as Ken Miller and Francis Collins would be pilloried in accordance with this ‘logic’."
You missed the point here. May I point out that both Ken Miller and Francis Collins have religious views, but they (as well as many others in our country) manage to integrate those beliefs with a wholesale subscription to evolution. People with religious views who do NOT so subscribe to all aspects of evolution frequently find themselves facing dire consequences, as we document in SOD.
4. Regarding my comment that many people are denied degrees and lose their jobs for having reservations about some aspects of evolution, you commented "Unmitigated crap. Maybe a biology degree, but this ‘any aspect’ accusation is ridiculous."
Patently untrue - and this book offers both arguments and examples substantiating this claim.
Again, I urge you to read the book.
5. You misunderstand the meaning of my comment: "it looks like we live in an era where freedom OF religion has been twisted to mean freedom FROM religion. Some groups supporting this type of discrimination proclaim that "Freedom depends on free thinkers," unless, of course, you happen to be 'religious'."
You response was: "Of course, you can’t have freedom OF religion unless you have freedom FROM religion. This isn’t ‘discrimination’ – this is fact. It’s an equal playing field now – and this is the standard argument from martyrdom, except that we are all now familiar with the lies the Christians tell us, the lies they believe and will fight for, against all odds and evidence."
What my comment was intended to convey is, far too many folks seem to think that you cannot teach science if you have incompatible religious beliefs, thus, you must be free FROM certain types of religious influences. This most certainly IS true in many of the case studies we've examined.
You yourself commented at the end of your post: "One can only hope that this disorder we term religion will wilt away, that the human race can move onwards to greener pastures." I rest my case.
You can call it all balderdash all you want, but the book backs this up with numerous instances of evidence. And you know what? it's not just Dr. Bergman or me who are making such claims. Go out and read the reviews of SOD on Amazon -- and you will see plenty of people acknowledging this.
Kevin Wirth
CEO, Leafcutter Press
1. If you'll read the book, you'll find plenty of case studies of actual people who have lost their careers for anything as simple as making a few comments to challenging students and others to question the consensus views surrounding evolution.
I did a brief foray into checking most of these people mentioned on your website. Severely unimpressed.
2. the meaning of the word "aspect." I used the word with the third definition in mind: " a way in which a thing may be viewed or regarded; interpretation; view: both aspects of a decision."
You specifically state, & I quote, any aspect - which is intentionally misleading, & conjures up an iron fist crushing any inquiry.
3.People with religious views who do NOT so subscribe to all aspects of evolution frequently find themselves facing dire consequences, as we document in SOD.
Wait, is it 'any aspect' or 'all aspects'? You really need to choose the words more carefully. & is this in scientific circles only, or elsewhere?
4. Patently untrue - and this book offers both arguments and examples substantiating this claim.
I'm going to require an unequivocal & non-debatable example of this.
Again, I urge you to read the book.
Don't hold your breath.
5.What my comment was intended to convey is, far too many folks seem to think that you cannot teach science if you have incompatible religious beliefs, thus, you must be free FROM certain types of religious influences. This most certainly IS true in many of the case studies we've examined.
What your comment ACTUALLY conveys, is miles away from the intent. & if you're a YEC, I'd rather you weren't teaching children, as that's not only antithetical to actual reality, but hugely unscientific as well. I'd no more want that person teaching than I'd want Jeanne Dixon or Edgar Cayce teaching in a classroom.
There's plenty of sheep out there who'd gladly part w/their hard earned dough for foolishness such as this. Just go into any New Age store & find the job billboard.
Or Amazon reviews.
I also like how you didn't seem to defend your intro via that moron Kennedy. Or do you also claim that evolution was the source of Nazi antisemitism as well?
Well, Kevin, I'm still awaiting 2 answers:
1. Do you make the claim that evolution is the source of Nazi antisemitism, &
B. an unequivocal & non-debatable example of 1 person whose life was ruined by taking an alleged stand.
You said:
"1.
I did a brief foray into checking most of these people mentioned on your website. Severely unimpressed."
Great, so you're not impressed. What substantive response could I possibly offer to that remark?
Not impressed with what? Regarding whom?
2. You correction of my usage of the word "aspect."
I stated that my usage was intended to convey the idea that people have been let go from their jobs because they dared to challenge one or more ways in which evolution or Darwinism may be viewed or regarded or interpreted.
My usage of the word "any" aspect was not intended to be all-inclusive, but rather, to indicate a single instance (as in ANY aspect).
It is definitely true and NOT misleading. READ THE BOOK. And as for "conjures up an iron fist crushing any inquiry," I would agree that the iron fist HAS MOST DEFINITELY been used again Darwin dissidents. This is the way dissidents are quite often treated, depending on the scientific discipline and issue.
Unless you've been living under a rock somewhere, then you know this is accurate.
Go read all about it from a third party who - as far as I know - has absolutely no vested interest in the evolution debate, and you can see for yourself that this has been going on for a LOOOOONG time in science.
His name is Brian Martin.
Even his references are quite a goldmine!
http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/99rsppp.html
Here is an example article he wrote: Suppression of Dissent in Science
http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/99rsppp.html
3.People with religious views who do NOT so subscribe to all aspects of evolution frequently find themselves facing dire consequences, as we document in SOD.
"Wait, is it 'any aspect' or 'all aspects'? You really need to choose the words more carefully. & is this in scientific circles only, or elsewhere?"
No, YOU wait. I chose my words carefully - you just can't seem to think outside your own tunnel vision. You're quibbling like a baboon(again).
Some people do not subscribe to all aspects of Darwinism. And when they don't, they quite often get into trouble, as we go to grain pains to document in SOD.
Tell you what smart guy - why don't YOU go apply to Cornell and tell everyone you question macro evolution and see how far they throw you out the door. Learning by example is always better than nit-picking.
I'm done responding to this ridiculous post.
You need to READ THE BOOK.
1. Not impressed w/the examples you gave.
2. Exactly what I meant, same page, you're misusing the context.
I have no doubt that some kind of discrimination occurs in science, but every time I investigate ID/creationists, there's a HUGE degree of selected highlights, so pardon me if I remain skeptical.
3. The words "any" & "all" have different meanings. "All" can include "any", but "any" can't include "all".
As for your 'careful choosing of words', baboons don't quibble (they don't speak), & what are "grain pains"?
why don't YOU go apply to Cornell and tell everyone you question macro evolution and see how far they throw you out the door.
Realtime example, please.
You need to READ THE BOOK.
Tell ya what, fella: I find AT LEAST A FEW valid examples of what you're alluding to as 'slaughter', I'll be happy to.
Post a Comment