Moderator for science mag article on how DNA studies shake tree of life bans discussion of “whether evolution is true.”

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 15, 2014

Evolution, Media, News, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Further to “Science mag admits, DNA studies shake tree of animal life, ”noting a Nautilus story, the moderator appeared briefly among the so far 171 approved comments to announce,

Hey all. Nautilus Moderator here. This is a science magazine, and our comments section isn’t the place to debate whether evolution is true. Consider this thread closed.

Wow. Stephen Hawking can cast doubt on black holes in Nature, but following an article that makes nonsense of standard evolution claims in Nautilus, readers are not permitted to discuss “whether evolution is true.”

Oh please. Like we said earlier to others, lose the loudhailer and the pom poms.

The big problem now isn’t whether “evolution” is true or untrue but whether current findings are making it nonsense.

I’m curious. Are there other subjects that might reasonably follow from the content of an article that one is not allowed to debate at Nautilus or in other science media? Experience, anyone? Could we compile a list?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Well Franklin, I may be wrong, but I do not think the site(s) you listed have ever, as a general rule, allowed comments by anyone (whether trollish comments or well thought out comments). I think you are merely setting up a straw man since the thread in question was shut down for merely the questioning of if evolution is true or not and was not shut down for any exceedingly boorish behavior as is characteristic of typical internet 'new' atheists. Even UD, in a policy a clearly agree with, limits the trollish behavior of new atheists on its threads. Elsewise UD would be overrun by such behavior. So yes, I do agree with common sense censorship to prevent lewd, dishonest, and disruptive behavior, but the censorship exhibited by atheists is of a totally different nature in that it seeks to prevent any questioning of evolution itself. There is no other theory in science that has such immunity from criticism. Quantum Mechanics and General relativity are constantly questioned and pushed to extremes of verification. Only Darwinian evolution is above questioning and verification. Which is good since it has no rigid falsification criteria in the first place ! :)bornagain77_{February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

I don't know BA77 is their overall censorship at the website I posted driven by their fear of atheist's being able to comment on their website? Seems to me that if anyone suggests that closing comments or restricting comments is a wrong-headed policy on one site why isn't it wrong on all sites? Or are there situations where you feel censorship is justified?franklin_{February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

Moreover, deep down, in their heart of hearts, it seems atheists really do know there is a God, and they are simply in 'denial' of that fact (properly basic belief, Plantinga):
Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? - October 17, 2012 Excerpt: "Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find." The article describes a test by Boston University's psychology department, in which researchers found that "despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose" ,,, Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/design_thinking065381.html Atheists get sweaty when daring God - November 2015 http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2013/11/atheists-get-sweaty-when-daring-god.html?m=1 Scientific Study Indicates Atheists know God Exists (despite what they say to the contrary just as Bible says in Romans1:20)! – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m_a1f9RHYA Belief in God is a Properly Basic Belief (Alvin Plantinga) - video http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/Arguments-About-God-Alvin-Plantinga-/1261
Verse and Music:
James 2:19 Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and shudder. Stairway to Heaven on Harp - full version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apdaZfYIJTU
bornagain77_{February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

Hmmm Franklin, I don't know, let's see,,, could it have something to do with this?
How atheists became the most colossally smug and annoying people on the planet (internet) - 2013 Excerpt: When did atheists become so teeth-gratingly annoying? Surely non-believers in God weren't always the colossal pains in the collective backside that they are today? Surely there was a time when you could say to someone "I am an atheist" without them instantly assuming you were a smug, self-righteous loather of dumb hicks given to making pseudo-clever statements like, "Well, Leviticus also frowns upon having unkempt hair, did you know that?" Things are now so bad that I tend to keep my atheism to myself, and instead mumble something about being a very lapsed Catholic if I'm put on the spot, for fear that uttering the A-word will make people think I'm a Dawkins drone with a mammoth superiority complex and a hives-like allergy to nurses wearing crucifixes. These days, barely a week passes without the emergence of yet more evidence that atheists are the most irritating people on Earth. Last week we had the spectacle of Dawkins and his slavish Twitter followers (whose adherence to Dawkins' diktats makes those Kool-Aid-drinking Jonestown folk seem level-headed in comparison) ,,, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100230985/how-atheists-became-the-most-colossally-smug-and-annoying-people-on-the-planet/ Dane Cook - Sneezing Atheist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXtVzj9y-bo
The Atheist's whole schtick is insane:
When Atheists Are Angry at God - 2011 Excerpt: I’ve never been angry at unicorns. It’s unlikely you’ve ever been angry at unicorns either.,, The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/01/when-atheists-are-angry-at-god The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism (atheism) is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3 Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
I strongly suggest watching Dr. Craig’s presentation, that I have linked, to get a full feel for just how insane the metaphysical naturalist’s (atheist's) position actually is.
Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ
bornagain77_{February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

does anyone know why this site doesn't allow comments on its posts/articles? http://www.discovery.org/ I think that ay least one of the 'news' authors contributes posts to this site perhaps they might chime in to address why readers aren't permitted to discuss the various topics being raised.franklin_{February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT}

Well, being atheists, leaving the comments open or closing them off, they really lose either way they choose, (more than they think) http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lemsrqQnJo1qfn7qmo4_400.jpgbornagain77_{February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

If this doesn't prove that evolution is the religion of the scientific ruling class then nothing does.Peter_{February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

Good, the faster the masks come off the better.lifepsy_{February 15, 2014
February
02
Feb
15
15
2014
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply