academic freedom Evolutionary biology Intelligent Design

Bret Weinstein now smeared at Wikipedia?

Spread the love

Readers may well remember biology teacher Bret Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying, a progressive teacher couple at Evergreen State College, early victims of the very Woke they had themselves encouraged, without realizing where it must end.

Our Danish correspondent Karsten Pultz notes that Weinstein is now being smeared at Wikipedia as well:

Weinstein might as well have been an ID type like paleontologist Gunter Bechly who was erased from Wikipedia.

This is probably what always happens when you encourage progressives to be their sweet little selves:

See also: Fighting back against Cancel Culture with Douglas Murray: “When Evergreen State College turned hooligan in 2017, the shock was not that American universities contained students unsuited to any education outside a correctional facility. Nor, frankly, was it a surprise that the college president George Bridges was so supine that he ended up begging the student protesters to allow him to go to the bathroom to pee (‘Hold it’ was the advice given by one hoodlum). What was surprising was that even when the professor who had inadvertently caused the breakdown (leftwing, Bernie-supporting, lifetime Democrat Bret Weinstein) was physically threatened, repeatedly defamed and finally chased off campus for good, not one of his longstanding colleagues took any public stance in his defence. Solidarity — perhaps the noblest aspiration of the political left — was totally absent. And these academics and administrators were not living in 1930s Moscow, but in 21st-century Washington State.” — Douglas Murray

Oh well, it’s not mass murder yet.

21 Replies to “Bret Weinstein now smeared at Wikipedia?

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    News, they didn’t know that Wiki has been hopelessly compromised and agenda driven, riddled with . . . misinformation and disinformation . . . for many years. KF

  2. 2

    These intimidation tactics are ruthlessly employed by the left because they work. This is an uprising of communism (atheist to its core). It’s not mass murder yet, but anyone who understands the history of communist uprisings knows that mass murder is always just around the corner.

  3. 3
    jerry says:

    These intimidation tactics are ruthlessly employed by the left because they work

    That’s because they know there will be no retaliation and they control most of the communication channels. But if push comes to shove, they will fold because no one on the left wants to risk injury and definitely not death for what they profess.

    The problem is that most of those who would oppose the left, will not risk injury or death either since belief is weak.

  4. 4
    KRock says:

    Such tactics (i.e., the purging and cancellation of anyone not willing to toe the part line) are eerily reminiscent to those that were employed by the nazis.

    Although what we are witnessing may not be mass murder per se, it can certainly be construed as a form of social genocide.

  5. 5
    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES says:

    Lying, by unanimous consent.
    In Academia.

    Yawn
    Same old same old
    And Evergreen State? Who cares.
    Their profs, they’re just junior college flunkies.

    You want lies, go to Princeton, Harvard, Oxford, Sorbonne, the top colleges.
    Look at the Miller Urey experiment. A fraud for 70 years.
    Perpetrated on all of us. Continuing today with hundreds of millions of our children.
    By the world’s top gurus, science educators, and publishers.

    Our text books, they told us that Miller and Urey made “amino acids, the building blocks of life.”
    But that’s a lie. They didn’t make building blocks of life.

    Amino acids, they’re like gloves, they can be right and left handed..
    That was known long before Miller and Urey.
    And Miller and Urey, their amino acids were mixed up, both left and right handed.
    But uh oh. Living things they got only left handed.
    And Atheist Biologists, they don’t got a way to make only left handed ones.
    So Miller and Urey, they didn’t show that living things can come from common chemicals.
    They showed they cant.

    But that gave ammo to the Creationists.
    So our top Scientists, they lied.

    But its 2021. The cat’s out of the bag.
    Which is why us Creationists are sitting in the catbird seat,
    Laughin and laughin, at our Peer Reviewed Atheist Scientist friends..

  6. 6
    OldArmy94 says:

    Jerry, so far, the left has been insulated from the consequences of their actions. I am very surprised that we haven’t seen violent responses from those wronged.

  7. 7
    jerry says:

    I am very surprised that we haven’t seen violent responses from those wronged.

    Somewhere in the recent past (last yest) I read an article by someone who analyzed the riots by the left and had infiltrated them. He said one main objective was to provoke a response by the conservatives so they, the left, could then demonize them as instigators of violence in order to pass laws to confiscate their guns and reduce their rights.

    A perfect example is the January 6 attack on the Capitol by a few violent but unarmed groups and the subsequent response by the left.

    A second objective was to then justify their escalated violence as just a response to the violent conservatives.

  8. 8

    There is now widespread mental illness among college students, like 50 percent over their student career, suffer from debilitating mental illness.

    So who is really the guilty party here?

    The mentally ill students, or the guy who promotes that vicious materialist culture at universities, where there is no acknowledgement at all of the subjective human spirit making choices?

    Brett Weinstein is the more guilty one.

  9. 9
    Belfast says:

    @Tammie @5
    Miller/Urey were no frauds, I’m sure you did not mean to impute this but it should be pointed out that Miller wrote, much later, “ It must be admitted from the beginning that we do not know how life began.
    It is generally believed that a variety of processes led to the formation of simple organic compounds in the primitive earth. These compounds combined together to give more and more complex structures until one was formed that could be called living.
    No one should be satisfied with an explanation as general as this. “

  10. 10
    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES says:

    Thank you for your measured response, but……….I DID mean to impute fraud to Miller and Urey.

    They knew that lies about their work were (and still are) being told to hundreds of millions of impressionable youngsters in Biology textbooks. They condoned the lies.

    Here’s the background:
    Miller and Urey’s experiment used simple chemicals to make amino acids .Proteins, RNA etc are made out of amino acids. Thus amino acids are the building blocks of life. But…as was well known at the time, the amino acids in living things are all left handed. Miller and Urey made amino acids that were both right and left handed. These mixed ones are NOT the building blocks of life. And 70 years later, scientists still haven’t found a way that all left handed ones can be made naturally.

    Here is the lie. The textbooks, then and now, said that Miller Urey made the building blocks of life., when, as discussed above, Miller and Urey did not do that. Indeed, they showed it is likely impossible to make “the building blocks of life”out of common chemicals

    Knowing of this widespread misrepresentation, Urey said nothing. Miller was worse. He milked it for a cushy unproductive career by taking credit for the false discovery.

    The ethic that makes science possible is that the truth must always be told. Miller and Urey corruptly condoned lies. Lies from the Science establishment, both then and now. All those gurus, their hundreds of millions of textbooks, spreading lies.

  11. 11

    TLH@10: Bravo! Well done and well said.

  12. 12
    ET says:

    RNA is NOT made of amino acids. Amino acids are the building blocks of the building blocks involved in life.

    Miller or Urey kept vials of their experiments. Decades later other scientists took a closer look and found more amino acids. But all that is moot as life is much more than amino acids. I applaud Urey and Miller for conducting the experiment. They were curious so they set out to see if the current thinking has any merit.

  13. 13
    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES says:

    Dear ET

    Thank you for response,
    You congratulate Miller and Urey for doing the experiment that made amino acids out of even simpler chemicals And for keeping their vials!

    But the discussion was about lies. How Miller and Urey condoned the lies that were told about their experiment. Lies to prop up an Atheist agenda. Lies told to hundreds of millions of young Science students since 1953. Lies still told today. Lies by the entire Science establishment

    You didn’t mention those lies. You blew them off.

    Why?
    That basing the edifice of Science on lies is okay?
    That continued funding is what counts?
    That lying is noble when youre lying to defend Atheism ?
    If not, why did you sweep 70 years of lies under the carpet?

  14. 14
    Silver Asiatic says:

    NASA’s Astrobiology magazine said this in 2014:

    Stanley Miller, the chemist whose landmark experiment published in 1953 showed how some of the molecules of life could have formed on a young Earth, left behind boxes of experimental samples that he never analyzed. The first-ever analysis of some of Miller’s old samples has revealed another way that important molecules could have formed on early Earth.

    The study discovered a path from simple to complex compounds amid Earth’s prebiotic soup. More than 4 billion years ago, amino acids could have been attached together, forming peptides. These peptides ultimately may have led to the proteins and enzymes necessary for life’s biochemistry, as we know it.

    http://astrobiology.com/2014/0.....lyzed.html

    So there we have it. The Miller/Urey experiment demonstrated how life could have formed from non-living chemicals in a pre-biotic soup. They showed that those amino acids could have been attached together and then peptides, protiens, enzymes, DNA would follow.
    Solid and clear evidence for abiogenesis.

    I don’t think Miller or Urey ever denied, retracted or corrected such statements made about their experiments over the decades (this one was made after both were dead, but it’s the same as has been said since the 1950s). If what they demonstrated was not evidence for abiogenesis, they should have loudly and consistently affirmed that such things were a misunderstanding of their experiments.

  15. 15

    TLH@13: Miller deserves credit for conducting the experiment and preserving the data, but he also deserves condemnation for allowing the data to be fraudulently misrepresented throughout academia. That fraud is an indelible stain on his scientific career, much like Einstein’s cosmological constant… but worse.

  16. 16
    ET says:

    Earth to Tammie- The entire materialistic schtick is a lie. Why pick on Urey and Miller who at least did something? Heck these liars still perpetuate the lie that DNA determines biological form. And that differential accumulations of genetic changes produced the diversity of life. That is ALL total BS. All lies. And you are concerned with Urey and Miller? Really?

    Also, do you know what RNA stands for? Do you know the difference between an amino acid and a nucleic acid?

  17. 17
    Silver Asiatic says:

    We can say that Urey and Miller actually tried to do something with the materialistic theory, and scientifically it was done well.
    A person can be a competent scientist and totally corrupt otherwise. But there’s also a big problem with interpretation of what an experiment shows. The experiment can be conducted with rigor and accuracy but then the interpretation of the results can basically be a lie,
    The M/U experiment was useful to show the limits. The fact that it is still being trotted out as evidence of life-from-nonlife is incredible, really.
    The worse liars are those who use the M/U results as a proof of materialism. Some have finally admitted that the experiment does not work. I credit ID and Jonathan Wells and those guys who opposed the story line for that good development.
    That’s something that ID deserves credit for, definitely. Undercutting the bogus narrative that has taken over 50 years for materialists to quietly admit now.

  18. 18
    vividbleau says:

    Jerry
    “He said one main objective was to provoke a response by the conservatives so they, the left, could then demonize them as instigators of violence in order to pass laws to confiscate their guns and reduce their right”

    Jan 6th and the so-called insurrection will be used the same way the Reichstag Fire and the subsequent Reichstag Decree was used by the Nazis. Every time you hear insurrection think “ Reichstag Fire” and everything becomes clear.

    And yes the left will do everything it can to provoke conservatives to violence because when it happens, not if, it benefits them because in the heart of every far lefty lurks a totalitarian.The far left loves more totalitarianism which would be the result in response to the violence.

    Vivid

  19. 19
    kairosfocus says:

    Vivid, yes, and isn’t it interesting that the Reichstag Fire crisis isn’t a standard part of our general education package. It almost makes one wonder why it is that the story of how the most universally acknowledged unmitigatedly evil dictator seized absolute power through agit prop and lawfare is somehow pushed to the margins of our common fund of knowledge. Not quite a conspiracy of silencing but at least a common evasion of plain duty by those who inform and educate us. Ironically, on a topic where learning this is vital to defending our civilisation, the common thought association fed by dominant narratives will be that appeal to Hitler is fallacious and demonising. Not when it is manifestly relevant and counter-balances a narrative that actually does just such a demonisation, with a huge clue being suppression of the direct comparison of a Summer of riot, arson, mayhem, agit prop and murder complete with networks of street thugs. How convenient. KF

    PS: This is one time when Wikipedia’s admissions are at minimum relevant and mostly on target food for thought. (I think it is most likely that Hitler and co opportunistically exploited an ill-advised violent protest action by a likely half-mad youth IIRC one week before an election was due, to set an agit prop and lawfare juggernaut loose; that is, I don’t accept the perception that the Nazis set the fire themselves as a false flag operation . . . they were however primed to pounce on and use any convenient incident they could frame through narrative and institutional domination. The consequences were horrific.)

  20. 20
    vividbleau says:

    KF
    “Vivid, yes, and isn’t it interesting that the Reichstag Fire crisis isn’t a standard part of our general education package. It almost makes one wonder why it is that the story of how the most universally acknowledged unmitigatedly evil dictator seized absolute power through agit prop and lawfare is somehow pushed to the margins of our common fund of knowledge”

    This is because the vast majority of people think that history starts at the day they were born. Also every, and I mean every major cultural institution ( frightening we now can include the Military and virtually every major Corporation much like fascism)in the US is in the hands of the far left none more so than our educational system which is nothing more than Government run far left indoctrination centers. One ignores the power of propaganda and indoctrination at their peril. How powerful? To paraphrase old Adolph “ You may think you have power but I have your children’s minds”

    How powerful was the indoctrination? When the Allies invaded Germany the ones they feared the most were the Hitler Youth who fought like fanatics because they had digested the full Monty of Hitlers indoctrination courtesy of the Nazis educational system.

    What followed the Reichstag decree? The enabling act.

    Vivid

  21. 21
    kairosfocus says:

    Vivid, yes. Those who refuse to learn from history . . . KF

Leave a Reply