Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolution New’s Top 2020 story: Demand for government censorship of ID

Denyse O'Leary
January 5, 2021
Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
arroba Email

In the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, this really happened at BioEssays:

With videos and other disfavored material being suppressed by YouTube and other social media platforms, where most Americans get our news, it was only a matter of time before would-be Internet censors turned their gaze on us. Speijer submitted his article on February 29, as, incidentally, the U.S. moved to stop travel from Iran and urged citizens to avoid visiting South Korea and Italy. But again, Speijer’s focus was on other perils. Here is the gist of what he wrote. From “Bad Faith Reasoning, Predictable Chaos, and the Truth”: …

His proposal: “[S]earch engines could have mandatory color coded banners warning of consistent factual errors or unscientific content, masquerading as science.” And what if major technology companies shy from censorship? Then the government should take aggressive action: “Make them.” Let this sink in: the peer-reviewed journal BioEssays published an editorial pushing for government censorship policies to decide which websites the tech giants should be forced to take action against, diminishing the reputation and accessibility of those websites. Specifically, the scientists at BioEssays want to censor intelligent design websites like Evolution News.

There are a number of ironies here. One is that BioEssays calls for censorship while having the chutzpah to quote from Thomas Paine, a foremost spokesman for free speech in Western democracy. (Originally published May 14, 2020)

Evolution News, “Happy New Year! #1 Story of 2020: Biology Journal Demands Government Censorship of ID” at Evolution News and Science Today

Having run out of even interesting ideas, let alone good ones, Darwinists want to stop other people from publishing any. We’ll be hearing plenty from their ilk in years ahead.

Comments
It is important to note that Washington was the RICHEST man in America. So it's rather odd that the English didn't spend more energy trying find a way to get Washington to be happy with some amended version of English rule in the colonies. But it is generally ignored that any number of ENGLISH cities did NOT have representation in Parliament. Parliament was composed of traditional locales that got to send representatives to London. I think there were representatives for voting districts as small as 15 people (i.e., male Protestants). mahuna
Enjoy this website during the time which remains. Blastus
John Adams read Paine's, 'Common Sense' many times over. At first, he felt the fire of revolution many others had from the pamphlet. After reading through it several times, Adams realized there was a problem with the revolutionary words. The entire pamphlet was about tearing down. It had nothing to do with building up anything. That is the great flaw of most revolutions. They tear everything down leaving a vacuum to be filled by the likes of Robespierre. One tyrant replaces another after almost every successful revolution in history. The only successful revolution that did not replace one tyrant with another was the American Revolution. Most of the Founders were not revolutionary, including Washington, who was considered a moderate in the Virginia legislature prior to becoming Commander-in-Chief of the newly formed American military. The Founders needed the revolutionaries to win, but most were pushed to the side when it came time to form a government. BobRyan
Paine was the perfect Libertarian, the direct ancestor and role model of Soros and Bezos. He agitated for "rights" and then helped the French Revolution to establish the harshest tyranny in the world at that time. "Rights" always lead to genocide. polistra

Leave a Reply