Darwinism Media Science

Scientists misattribute science writer’s work, to protect Darwinism’s reputation

Spread the love

2017-01-26-1485394131-8968744-NatureCorrection.jpeg Suzan Mazur notes at Huffington Post that the semiotics journal Sign Systems Studies (University of Tartu Press) published an article on the recent Royal Society conference on new trends in evolution.

In the opening pages of his article, Kull decides to cite the July 2008 Altenberg conference as one of those pivotal events, a meeting of scientists called to determine whether or not an extended evolutionary synthesis was needed. I was barred from attending Altenberg for getting out in front of the story.

Kull then proceeds to mention branding of Altenberg as the “Woodstock of Evolution,” because it created a sensation and put the meeting on the map, gave it life.

The Altenberg 16

That branding took place in a newsbreaking story of mine by the same name, syndicated online March 4, 2008 by Scoop Media: “Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?“

But Kull in his article decides to attribute the “Woodstock of Evolution” to author John Whitfield instead. Whitfield’s story actually trailed mine by six months appearing in the September 18, 2008 issue of Nature — the Woodstock reference on the cover and the Altenberg story that I broke inside, but no attribution to my story. Nature was forced to apologize in the October 2 issue by way of correction and later appended that correction to the Whitfield story. More.

No question, Mazur invented the term “Woodstock of Evolution.” But of course, with the lid blowing off the mess, the containment team tries to attribute the term to someone who is very much less likely to continue to demand accountability. Is it remotely probable that a politically correct secretary to science boffins would have thought of such a term?

Or is Whitfield more than their office help? Does he want to fight Mazur for the title?

If so, we’ll hear. Meanwhile, when people are squabbling over the credit for advertising the bankruptcy of Darwin Incorporated, maybe all future meetings on the subject should begin with that bankruptcy as an established fact. Would save us some time.

The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing 'the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin' The book behind the tiff is Mazur’s The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry (2009). But she has since written several more books, including Paradigm Shifters and Public Evolution Summit. Both are highly recommended, along with The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry (2009), if you want to know why evolution insiders are getting fed up with the Darwinocracy.
Royal Society
Why is it all such a problem to admit?: We’ve learned so much about how life forms change over time that a lot of recent past theory is just deadweight now. Whatever happened to Dollo’s Law? Vestigial organs? Junk DNA? All predicted by past theory and not found as predicted, but the system seemingly never gets replaced with a better one.

See also: Suzan Mazur on Royal Society finally agreeing to release evolution documents

Follow UD News at Twitter!

21 Replies to “Scientists misattribute science writer’s work, to protect Darwinism’s reputation

  1. 1

    Surely one of the brethren will be in here soon to bad-mouth Mazur. It’s never failed before.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    The problem for Susan Mazur is that neither Altenberg nor the Royal Society meetings have been quite the paradigm shifts they were cracked up to be. Of course, it isn’t hard for leading evolutionary thinkers to be way out ahead of people who still think that Darwin is the be-all and end-all of evolutionary theory

  3. 3
  4. 4
    Seversky says:

    Upright BiPed @ 1

    Surely one of the brethren will be in here soon to bad-mouth Mazur. It’s never failed before.

    Far be it from me to deprive a leading anti-evolutionist of a successful prediction

  5. 5

    Anti-evolutionist?

    Sev, if you can just let the last 50 years of scientific findings into worldview your jokes will get funnier. I promise.

  6. 6
    Mung says:

    Seversky is an anti-evolutionist!?

    wow. my troll meter must be past due for calibration.

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    Mung @ 6

    Seversky is an anti-evolutionist!?

    wow. my troll meter must be past due for calibration.

    What does a troll need with a troll-meter?

  8. 8
    Dionisio says:

    Upright BiPed

    1 Upright BiPed January 26, 2017 at 7:29 pm

    Surely one of the brethren will be in here soon to bad-mouth Mazur. It’s never failed before.

    2 Seversky January 26, 2017 at 7:31 pm

    The problem for Susan Mazur is that neither Altenberg nor the Royal Society meetings have been quite the paradigm shifts they were cracked up to be. Of course, it isn’t hard for leading evolutionary thinkers to be way out ahead of people who still think that Darwin is the be-all and end-all of evolutionary theory

    3 Upright BiPed January 26, 2017 at 7:33 pm

    cha-ching

    Bingo!

    It took less than 3 minutes for your prediction to happen.

    If you had made such an accurate prediction in the stock market it would have been headlined in the WSJ and you’d be a celebrity in the business/financial circles! 🙂

    Jokes aside, is Professor Kalevi Kull a proponent of biosemiotics?

  9. 9
    J-Mac says:

    The Darwinian bigots and bullies are enjoying the upper hand (they think) because somehow they’ve convinced the governments that Darwin=science and that somehow got connected to “facts” that are not there. Darwinists are working hard to avoid the thorn in the flesh; like the origins of life issue, the foundation of their faith, as if it never existed and there is not need to mention it because of their faith called “evolution

    How do you correct this huge problem?
    What would you do if you were the Designer/God and got to correct it?

    He must be very keen on correcting these injustices but He doesn’t overreact, which makes me think in different dimensions… well I’m going to try at least…

  10. 10
    Mung says:

    Seversky: What does a troll need with a troll-meter?

    A constant reminder of who, and what, one really is. A constant dose of reality.

    Who needs it.

  11. 11
    Mung says:

    Dionisio: Jokes aside, is Professor Kalevi Kull a proponent of biosemiotics?

    Yes. Absolutely. That accounts for the extra froth Seversky generated.

  12. 12
  13. 13
    J-Mac says:

    How big is evolution’s closet?

    While this is a vital question, what I’m wondering about even more is how did the closet get so full in the first place???

    How did this faith-driven quackery hijacked so many brilliant minds into believing that the delusions can be real???

    What force is driving these delusions, so that people completely ignore every urge towards common sense and good judgement they may have had???

  14. 14
    Silver Asiatic says:

    The closet is big. The closet represents a world of fear – and sadly, of cowardice. The truth is haunting many evolutionists and atheists. when they run from the truth, they end up saying totally irrational things. Or, in the case of the closet, they don’t say anything. They just hide.

    We see it here on UD often. We bring atheists right to the edge of their comfort zone. Then the conversations stops or gets diverted. They want to go back in the closet where they think it is safe. But the Truth can still find them, even when they think they’re hiding.

  15. 15
    Silver Asiatic says:

    J-Mac

    I’ll give these a try:

    While this is a vital question, what I’m wondering about even more is how did the closet get so full in the first place???

    Darwin was powerfully deceptive. “Modern man” learned that his ego was bigger than God. Supposedly, science had all the answers. But this little game has been exposed as totally false – now they know it but don’t want to admit that. So, into the closet they go. And ‘they’ is an absolutely huge part of tenured academia. The same professors who proclaim the ‘certainty’ of evolution in the classroom, go home into the closet with their doubts and fears. Many others would be in the closet also, but they’re just blind to any counter-evidence to their evolutionary-beliefs.

    How did this faith-driven quackery hijacked so many brilliant minds into believing that the delusions can be real???

    Excellent question and I really don’t know. I might trace it back to theology and philosophy breaking down. Darwin was just a casualty of the so-called enlightenment, which was a casualty of various spiritual disorders in Europe at the time. But more simply – I don’t know. Good question!

    What force is driving these delusions, so that people completely ignore every urge towards common sense and good judgement they may have had???

    Again, excellent question and I want to know that also. I would agree fully with you here — it must be some kind of force driving this. These are academically accomplished, intelligent people. They know a lot of facts. But they know almost nothing about reality. Plus, nobody can get them to admit it! That’s why they’re in the closet.

    In the closet are those fearful-souls who are waiting for their secular-messiah. They’re waiting for the next genius who will show that evolution and materialism really is correct. They’ve had some pretend-messiahs (Dawkins, etc) but nobody is listening to them.

    So, they’re living in fear — knowing that their game has been exposed for all the world to see. They’re just lucky that most of the populace doesn’t pay any attention to anything so they haven’t realized yet that the evolutionary-scam has been destroyed.

  16. 16
    Seversky says:

    J-Mac @ 13

    How did this faith-driven quackery hijacked so many brilliant minds into believing that the delusions can be real???

    What force is driving these delusions, so that people completely ignore every urge towards common sense and good judgement they may have had???

    It’s a good question and, like the AGW controversy, there seem to be two main possibilities: either the vast majority of the world’s biologists are engaged in some worldwide conspiracy to hoodwink the rest of us for reason best known to themselves or there is good reason to think that the theory of evolution, while far from perfect, is the best explanation available of how life on Earth has spread and diversified after it appeared.

    For those who subscribe to a conspiracy theory of evolution, like those who think 9/11 was organized by CIA/Mossad and Sandy Hook was staged and no one actually died, I suspect there is nothing that could change their minds.

  17. 17
    J-Mac says:

    Silver Asiatic,

    All I can say your approach is great! I’ll have to watch the movie “Creation” again in the hopes I can get into the mind of one of the most brilliant minds of his time…

  18. 18
    J-Mac says:

    Seversky,
    I like your approach… Your not stupid…. Your know your stuff… The question is which way are you going to sway and most of all WHY?

  19. 19
    Axel says:

    Your post 2, Sev.

    ‘leading evolutionary thinkers….?’

    Sounds kind of oxymoronic.

  20. 20
    Axel says:

    ‘For those who subscribe to a conspiracy theory of evolution, like those who think 9/11 was organized by CIA/Mossad and Sandy Hook was staged and no one actually died, I suspect there is nothing that could change their minds.’

    Love it !!! Any lingering doubts as to Seversky’s mentis being compos …. right down the toobs. You forgot the ‘nuts’ who don’t believe Oswald, the lone gunman with a rifle the Italian manufacturers claim could not possibly have been the murder weapon, was JFK’s assassin.
    —————-
    ‘ either the vast majority of the world’s biologists are engaged in some worldwide conspiracy to hoodwink the rest of us’

    You mean, ‘world-wide conspiracy’, as in ‘world-wide coalition of multinationals funding the science faculties, world-wide’ ? God forbid that the multinationals should be subject to any moral constraints Christianity might legislate for…. !

  21. 21
    Axel says:

    When he wrote the Origin of the Species, was not Darwin still a deist ? I believe he was flattered ‘out of his mind’, so to speak, by the frenzy of hysterical excitement of the atheists of the day, who lost no time apotheosizing him.

    There seems to be compelling evidence that he reverted to his Christian faith towards the end of his life, however. There is absolutely no reason to doubt Lady Hope’s testimony. Moreover, he was sending charitable donations to the Christian missions until just before his death. Before the atheists’ carnival got to him, in a letter to a friend, he had expressed great admiration for both the characteristic intelligence and physique of the sub-Saharan Africans.

    He had already recognised that the Cambrian explosion (and I believe, another feature) had put paid to his theory. although he expressed it, I believe in terms of their presenting major problems for his theory.

Leave a Reply