Bill Dembski on censorship of books at Amazon

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 6, 2019

Academic Freedom, Intelligent Design}

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

You think you’re free to read what you want? Think again:

Three days ago on this forum, I raised the question how long would it be before Amazon, which has now started banning videos skeptical of vaccines, starts banning books. I thought books would be safer.

But no. Tommy Robinson’s book Mohammed’s Koran has now been banned on Amazon. For the story, see here. For the Tommy Robinson page at Amazon showing that the book has indeed been removed (proof by absence), see here.

Barnes and Noble has likewise removed it.

… Bill Dembski, “Censorship of Books at Amazon” at billdembski.com

The Big Shuddup was bound to happen in monopoly markets. It is much easier to stop a single leak than hundreds of them.

One naturally hopes it won’t spread to ID or whatever we want to read or watch but who knows? Today, for those in power, the big thing is not to win a debate but stop it from happening.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

ET
A-mats. But then again we wouldn’t exist if they were right…
Good thing I’m not an a-mat. But that still doesn’t prove the existance of objective morality. You know.... that thing that BA77 wanted to take me into his basement to explain... brought back unhappy memories of Pastor Ralph.Brother Brian_{March 7, 2019
March
03
Mar
7
07
2019
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

Brother Brian:
Who said that morality doesn’t exist?
A-mats. But then again we wouldn't exist if they were right...ET_{March 7, 2019
March
03
Mar
7
07
2019
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

BA77
LOL, so you refuse to scientifically test your hypothesis that morality does not exist because of Christian morality?
Who said that morality doesn’t exist?Brother Brian_{March 7, 2019
March
03
Mar
7
07
2019
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

BB, "That’s the Christian spirit." LOL, so you refuse to scientifically test your hypothesis that morality does not exist because of Christian morality? As ET said, "Logic is a foreign concept to evos"bornagain77_{March 7, 2019
March
03
Mar
7
07
2019
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

Brother Brian:
This presupposes that objective morality exists.
Like presupposing the Sun exists.
Contrary to what we see in the world around us.
That doesn't follow. Just because humanity has gone to hell in a handbasket has no bearing on whether or not objective morality exists. Logic is a foreign concept to evosET_{March 7, 2019
March
03
Mar
7
07
2019
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

BA77
Brother Brian, so you don’t think objective morality exists? Really?? Perhaps you would like to come over to my basement for a little one on one scientific test of your hypothesis?
That's the Christian spirit.Brother Brian_{March 7, 2019
March
03
Mar
7
07
2019
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

I find my booksellers using Bookfinder.com, which lists pretty much ANYONE trying to sell the book. Sometimes it turns out that, yes, indeed, Amazon is offering the book I want at the best price (sales price + shipping). Other times, some guy in India has reprinted an out of print book and is selling it for what has to be the cost of the paper. And both Goodwill and some Catholic monks sell used books online. I'm waiting for Used copies of Behe's new book to show up on Bookfinder. I can buy another unrelated book for the difference between "New" and "Used". The ONLY time I use Amazon (or more often Barnes & Noble) for a search is to make sure I have the author and title correct.vmahuna_{March 7, 2019
March
03
Mar
7
07
2019
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

Brother Brian, so you don't think objective morality exists? Really?? Perhaps you would like to come over to my basement for a little one on one scientific test of your hypothesis?
Cruel Logic: (The Original Short Film) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noP4it-QLBE
bornagain77_{March 7, 2019
March
03
Mar
7
07
2019
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

BA77
Whatever Bob, when you can explain how you get ‘real’ objective morality from the illusory morality of atheism, you might have a moral leg to stand on. Til then you’ve got nothing to stand on.
This presupposes that objective morality exists. Contrary to what we see in the world around us.Brother Brian_{March 7, 2019
March
03
Mar
7
07
2019
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

FYI - There is No Such Thing as ‘Hate Speech’ Warning – this explanation may contain language you don’t like. (my son likes this guy)Heartlander_{March 7, 2019
March
03
Mar
7
07
2019
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

Whatever Bob, when you can explain how you get 'real' objective morality from the illusory morality of atheism, you might have a moral leg to stand on. Til then you've got nothing to stand on.
Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqUxBSbFhog
In fact, the way in which you yourself live your own life Bob, in fact, the way in which you have conducted yourself on this very thread, i.e. appealing to some objectively real moral code in order to condemn Robinson, refutes your own atheistic worldview:
The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism 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
Richard Dawkins himself admitted that it would be quote unquote 'intolerable' for him to live his life as if atheistic materialism were actually true
Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html
And in the following article subtitled “When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails”, Nancy Pearcey quotes many more leading atheists who honestly admit that it would be impossible for them to live their life as if atheistic materialism were actually true.
Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way. One philosopher jokes that if people deny free will, then when ordering at a restaurant they should say, "Just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get." An especially clear example is Galen Strawson, a philosopher who states with great bravado, "The impossibility of free will ... can be proved with complete certainty." Yet in an interview, Strawson admits that, in practice, no one accepts his deterministic view. "To be honest, I can't really accept it myself," he says. "I can't really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really?",,, In What Science Offers the Humanities, Edward Slingerland, identifies himself as an unabashed materialist and reductionist. Slingerland argues that Darwinian materialism leads logically to the conclusion that humans are robots -- that our sense of having a will or self or consciousness is an illusion. Yet, he admits, it is an illusion we find impossible to shake. No one "can help acting like and at some level really feeling that he or she is free." We are "constitutionally incapable of experiencing ourselves and other conspecifics [humans] as robots." One section in his book is even titled "We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.",,, When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks's worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn't. Brooks ends by saying, "I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs." He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html
This impossibility for Atheists to live consistently within their stated worldview directly undermines their claim that Atheism is true Specifically, as the following article points out, if it is impossible for you to live your life consistently as if atheistic materialism were actually true, then atheistic materialism cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but atheistic materialism must instead be based on a delusion.
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/
Verse:
Romans 2:13-15 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but it is the doers of the law who will be declared righteous. Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do by nature what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the Law, since they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them.…
bornagain77_{March 7, 2019
March
03
Mar
7
07
2019
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Your main point biased on mis-representing my views, so I guess it doesn't make any difference - you'll continue to mis-represent, and claim victory.Bob O'H_{March 7, 2019
March
03
Mar
7
07
2019
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

Whatever, it makes no difference to the main point I made in regards to your moral hypocrisy.,, i.e. My main point stands!bornagain77_{March 7, 2019
March
03
Mar
7
07
2019
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Are you or are you not an atheist who believes in evolution?
Yes, but that's not what you were saying about me.Bob O'H_{March 7, 2019
March
03
Mar
7
07
2019
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Bob (and weave) O'Hara, my point all along has been to draw out your moral hypocrisy. not to defend Robinson's character tooth and nail. You say you are not a Darwinist. Not to get lost in nuances, I classify everyone who toes an atheistic evolutionary worldview as a "Darwinist" Last I checked, you believed in both atheism and unguided evolution. I would be more than happy to change my opinion of you. Are you or are you not an atheist who believes in evolution?
Fisher’s Proof Of Darwinism Flipped: William Basener Replies To Bob O’Hara https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fishers-proof-of-darwinism-flipped-william-basener-replies-to-bob-ohara/
bornagain77_{March 7, 2019
March
03
Mar
7
07
2019
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

bs77 - please try not to lie. I haven't "personally support[ed] censorship of this ‘violent racist’". I haven't expressed an opinion on it. You also don't help yourself when writing "Not to defend Robinson’s character, " whilst quite clearly trying to defend him. I would also appreciate it if you didn't make false statements about my worldview. You don't even know what my worldview is, so please don't pretend you do.Bob O'H_{March 7, 2019
March
03
Mar
7
07
2019
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Well Bob (and weave) O'Hara, like I said, the entire Wikipedia article paints a more nuanced picture than you do, for instance,
In April 2012, Robinson took part in a programme in the BBC's television series The Big Questions in which far-right extremism was debated. Mo Ansar, a British Muslim political and social commentator, took part in the same programme, and invited Robinson to join him and his family for dinner. This resulted in several meetings over the next 18 months between Robinson and Ansar to discuss Islam, Islamism and the Muslim community, accompanied by a BBC team which created the documentary When Tommy Met Mo.[47][48] On 8 October 2013, Quilliam held a press conference with Robinson and the EDL's deputy leader Kevin Carroll to announce that Robinson and Carroll had left the EDL. Robinson said that he had been considering leaving for a long time because of concerns over the "dangers of far-right extremism".[49][35] Robinson said that it was still his aim to "counter Islamist ideology [...] not with violence but with democratic ideas". Ten other senior figures left the EDL with Robinson and Carroll, and Tim Ablitt became the EDL's new leader.[49][36] When Robinson was questioned by The Guardian about having blamed "'every single Muslim' for 'getting away' with the 7 July bombings, and for calling Islam a fascist and violent religion, he held up his hands and said, 'I'm sorry, I'm sorry.'" Robinson also said that he would now give evidence to the police to help in their investigation of racists within the EDL. Robinson added that "his future work would involve taking on radicalism on all fronts".[50][47]
Not to defend Robinson's character, like I said, I never heard of the man. Shoot for all I know he very well could be a irredeemably horrible man, but what I find most interesting, in you personally supporting censorship of this 'violent racist', is that you constantly champion a worldview, i.e. Darwinism, that is, at its foundational basis, racist, and which has also led to untold violence within societies.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla" - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1874, p. 178 What Your Biology Teacher Didn’t Tell You About Charles Darwin - Phil Moore / April 19, 2017 Excerpt: ,,, the British thinker who justified genocide.,,, The full title of his seminal 1859 book was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. He followed up more explicitly in The Descent of Man, where he spelled out his racial theory: "The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilization. . . . The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world." - C. Darwin,,, Christian reformers had spent decades in the early 19th century teaching Britain to view non-European races as their equals before God. In a matter of years, Darwin swept not only God off the table, but also the value of people of every race with him. Enabling Genocide Victorian Britain was too willing to accept Darwinian evolution as its gospel of overseas expansion. Darwin is still celebrated on the back of the British £10 note for his discovery of many new species on his visit to Australia; what’s been forgotten, though, is his contemptible attitude—due to his beliefs about natural selection—toward the Aborigines he found there. When The Melbourne Review used Darwin’s teachings to justify the genocide of indigenous Australians in 1876, he didn’t try and stop them. When the Australian newspaper argued that “the inexorable law of natural selection [justifies] exterminating the inferior Australian and Maori races”—that “the world is better for it” since failure to do so would be “promoting the non-survival of the fittest, protecting the propagation of the imprudent, the diseased, the defective, and the criminal”—it was Christian missionaries who raised an outcry on behalf of this forgotten genocide. Darwin simply commented, “I do not know of a more striking instance of the comparative rate of increase of a civilized over a savage race.”,,, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-your-biology-teacher-didnt-tell-you-about-charles-darwin Listen: Bought in a Slave Auction, Displayed as Evolutionary “Science” - March 6, 2019 https://evolutionnews.org/2019/03/listen-bought-in-a-slave-auction-displayed-as-evolutionary-science/ Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes – Foundational Darwinian influence in their ideology (Nov. 2018) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/historian-human-evolution-theorists-were-attempting-to-be-moral-teachers/#comment-668170
It seems that if you, Bob, were truly as concerned with condemning racism and violence as you seem to be in this case with Mr. Robinson, then you would drop your amoral Darwinian worldview, (i.e. "survival of the fittest, i.e. do unto your brother before he does unto you,) in a heartbeat and that you would become a moral Theist, perhaps even a moral Christian, (i.e. love your brother as yourself)? Simply put, your amoral Darwinian worldview does not, indeed can not, match the objective and good morality that you intuitively know is right and that you, therefore, wish to uphold as your own moral standard. ,,, Morally speaking, you already are a Christian.
Words & Dirt - Quotes 10-21-2015 - by Miles Raymer Excerpt: Let us try to translate the most famous line of the American Declaration of Independence into biological terms: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. According to the science of biology, people were not ‘created’. They have evolved. And they certainly did not evolve to be ‘equal’. The idea of equality is inextricably intertwined with the idea of creation. The Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a divinely created soul, and that all souls are equal before God. However, if we do not believe in the Christian myths about God, creation and souls, what does it mean that all people are ‘equal’? Evolution is based on difference, not on equality. http://www.words-and-dirt.com/words/quotes-10-21-2015/
But Bob, in my experience dealing with your less than forthright debating manner, I seriously doubt that you will ever honestly face the blatant hypocrisy harbored when you rightly condemn racism and violence on the one hand, then on the other hand unrighteously defend a worldview that is inherently racist and violent in its foundational basis (indeed has led to much untold suffering in the world). Shoot, besides the inherent racism and violence within your stated worldview, Darwin's misogyny in and of itself ought to make you sick to your stomach to be thought of as a Darwinist:
Women were biologically and intellectually inferior to men, according to Darwin. The intelligence gap that Darwinists believed existed between males and females was not minor, but of a level that caused some evolutionists to classify the sexes as two distinct psychological species, males as Homo frontalis and females as Homo parietalis. In The Descent of Man, Darwin argued - “The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence in whatever he takes up, than can a woman—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.” In The Origin of Species, natural selection was developed along-side of sexual selection. Males were like animal breeders, shaping women to their liking by sexual selection on the one hand along with the recognition men were exposed to far greater selective pressures than women, especially in war and competition for mates, food, and clothing on the other hand. From Darwin’s perspective, males have evolved further than females from a Darwinian perspective. As Jerry Bergman explains, “Natural selection would consequently operate far more actively on males, producing male superiority in virtually all skill areas.” http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2013/08/darwin-zealots-reign-of-terror/
Of note:
Jesus’ Extraordinary Treatment of Women https://www.franciscanmedia.org/jesus-extraordinary-treatment-of-women/
bornagain77_{March 7, 2019
March
03
Mar
7
07
2019
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

ba77 - you might want to read everything after that quote. For example the part about criminal convictions:
Robinson's criminal record includes convictions for violence, financial and immigration frauds, drug possession, public order offences, and contempt of court. He has served at least three separate custodial sentences: in 2005 for assault, in 2012 for using false travel documents, and in 2014 for mortgage fraud. In April 2005, Robinson was convicted of assaulting an off-duty police officer who had intervened to protect Robinson's girlfriend from Robinson. He was given a custodial sentence. In July 2011, at Luton and South Bedfordshire Magistrates' Court, Robinson was convicted of using threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour, for leading a group of Luton Town F.C. supporters into a brawl involving 100 people in Luton on 24 August 2010. In September 2011, at Preston Magistrates' Court, Robinson was convicted of assault for headbutting a man in Blackburn on 2 April 2011. In November 2011, he was given a 12-week jail term, suspended for 12 months.
And that doesn't include the illegally entering the US, and fraud. You might also want to look up "some of my best friends are Jews". I don't have strong views on whether Amazon should ban books. But if it is a problem, then you should be able to find more deserving cases than Tommy Robinson.Bob O'H_{March 7, 2019
March
03
Mar
7
07
2019
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

Bob states
"I think ID will be safe as long as it doesn’t become nasty and support violence and hate speech."
Hmmm? Interesting comment, especially considering the overall hateful behavior of Darwinian trolls in public and the violent history of the Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' philosophy in general, as well as the on going concerted effort to silence ID proponents with censorship by Darwinists.
Darwinists protesting too much (Over "Darwin's Doubt) - Telling signs of a worldview in trouble - By Subby Szterszky | July 23, 2013 Excerpt: "Their online followers echo the disrespect in even harsher tones; any rare voice of dissent in support of Meyer is promptly browbeaten into silence. The attitude is not unlike a bunch of insecure schoolyard bullies, closing ranks and reassuring each other by trading insults aimed at the uncool kid across the yard." http://www.focusinsights.org/article/science-and-technology/darwinists-protesting-too-much Update per Nancy Percy: The microbiologist, Kas Thomas, who wrote the article expressing doubts about Darwinian theory (posted below) is shocked, shocked that he is being vilified by Darwinists: " I am not a creationist, and yet now I know from first-hand experience what it feels like to be on the receiving end of scorn born of dogma — scientific dogma. I don’t know why it should surprise me to find there are bullies on all sides of this issue. Until now, I stupidly thought scientific minds were more tolerant and less bullying than religious thinkers. The comments here show the truth. There are closed-minded, intolerant bullies on both sides. “Bully” meaning someone who is not content to leave one well-reasoned comment, then move on; someone who has to keep leaving more and more comments, using the most vitriolic language, simply because they can’t get their way.... It’s pretty clear who the bullies are here. I must say I’m shocked at the degree of intolerance and disrespect shown in some of these comments by Darwinists, who in many cases (it turns out) are anything but open-minded, tolerant, or reasonable. The comments speak for themselves. As I say, it’s clear who the bullies are." Here's the original article again: http://bigthink.com/devil-in-the-data/the-trouble-with-darwin Darwin's diabolical delusions - Ellis Washington - September 2011 Excerpt: Tragically, for over 150 years since the publication of Darwin's diabolical, anti-scientific book, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," nonpartisan science, truth, logic and deductive reasoning have been ruthlessly suppressed and replaced with state-funded Darwinist propaganda, groupthink, education atheism, liberal fascism and Machiavellian tactics as demonstrated in the Sewell case representing the ongoing battles between the Darwin Gestapo and Intelligent Design scientists. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=343445 Internet Trolls Really Are Horrible People - Narcissistic, Machiavellian, psychopathic, and sadistic. - By Chris Mooney - Feb. 14, 2014 Excerpt: The research,, sought to directly investigate whether people who engage in trolling are characterized by personality traits that fall in the so-called Dark Tetrad: Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others). It is hard to underplay the results: The study found correlations, sometimes quite significant, between these traits and trolling behavior. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html While Ranting about "Quote Mining" in "Creationists Texts," Paper in Scientific Journal Misquotes and Misrepresents Pro-ID Article - Casey Luskin - March 31, 2015 Excerpt: These following two articles, (published by people with backgrounds in the field of rhetoric, writing in journals dedicated to studying science communication), discuss how evolutionists seek to marginalize dissenters with ridicule and incendiary rhetoric, rather than meeting us head-on with arguments and evidence. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/while_ranting_a094851.html “In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (Dissent from Darwinism list)(I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys… ” Professor James M. Tour – one of the ten most cited chemists in the world https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/ Discrimination (by Darwinists) is a pervasive reality in the scientific (and education) world. It’s also a hidden reality. Scott Minnich Richard Sternberg Günter Bechly Eric Hedin Don McDonald David Coppedge Caroline Crocker Bryan Leonard Martin Gaskell Dean Kenyon Roger DeHart Granville Sewell https://freescience.today/stories/ Here are many more examples of discrimination against people who dare question Darwinism https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/review-of-darwins-doubt-slams-id-theorists-for-not-publishing-in-darwinist-run-journals/ On the Fundamental Difference Between Darwin-Inspired and Intelligent Design-Inspired Lawsuits - September 2011 Excerpt: *Darwin lobby litigation: In every Darwin-inspired case listed above, the Darwin lobby sought to shut down free speech, stopping people from talking about non-evolutionary views, and seeking to restrict freedom of intellectual inquiry. *ID movement litigation: Seeks to expand intellectual inquiry and free speech rights to talk about non-evolutionary views. per ENV "Consider the irony. When Peter Singer endorsed killing handicapped babies in the crib, at a public lecture in front of the very people he advocated killing, Coyne defended his academic freedom and pleaded: Can’t we all just get along? When a professor raises the question of design in an astronomy class, or a museum puts up a donor’s plaque crediting God for nature, Coyne erupts in rage and calls in the lawyers. For Coyne, killing babies is a topic for reasoned discussion. Invoking God, or considering scientific evidence of design, is an outrage. William Fleming had it right: Atheism is a disease of the soul, before it is an error of the understanding." - Michael Egnor per ENV Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes - Foundational Darwinian influence in their ideology (Nov. 2018) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/historian-human-evolution-theorists-were-attempting-to-be-moral-teachers/#comment-668170
Verse:
Acts 4 Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to listen to you rather than God. For we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.”
bornagain77_{March 7, 2019
March
03
Mar
7
07
2019
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

I never heard of Robinson before, but it appears that even wikipedia paints a more balanced, nuanced. treatment of Robinson than Bob (and weave) O'Hara does with his broad brush condemnation of the whole man:
"Robinson denies racism and antisemitism,[33] and has declared his support for the Jewish people and Israel, calling himself a Zionist.[34] Robinson has said that his group of friends includes black and Muslim people.[33][35]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(activist)#Biography
bornagain77_{March 7, 2019
March
03
Mar
7
07
2019
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT}

I hope you do know who Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, err, Tommy Robinson, is. Basically, a violent racist and criminal. I think ID will be safe as long as it doesn't become nasty and support violence and hate speech.Bob O'H_{March 7, 2019
March
03
Mar
7
07
2019
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT}

What % of book market does Amazon have? Is there a case for anti trust?es58_{March 6, 2019
March
03
Mar
6
06
2019
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

No ET, business are not free to sell what they want to sell. Supreme Court has been very clear that if you are in business in the US, you must sell to those who you may not agree with. While the circumstances may be slightly different, the principle is the same with Amazon. It will be interesting to see if progressives are willing to be held to the same standard as what they hold others to.Mark from CO_{March 6, 2019
March
03
Mar
6
06
2019
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

Businesses are free to sell what they want to sell. Perhaps this publicity will help the book's sales.ET_{March 6, 2019
March
03
Mar
6
06
2019
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply