Intelligent Design

Evolution Professor: Every Year I Give My Students “The Talk”

Spread the love

Well it’s fall again and the beginning of a new school year. That means evolution professors will be warming up their religious indoctrination messages for their unsuspecting students. A cynical and unfair criticism? No, actually, metaphysical and value-laden messages, sometimes explicit and sometimes implicit, are rampant in the life sciences. In fact evolutionists are certain they area right and so make no attempt to hide their absurdities. Consider David Barash, evolution professor paid by your tax dollars at the University of Washington. Barash gives a special lecture each fall to indoctrinate his young charges. He calls it “The Talk” (yes, evolutionists really are that pompous and condescending) and he happily tells the world about it today in the New York Times.  Read more

54 Replies to “Evolution Professor: Every Year I Give My Students “The Talk”

  1. 1
    Mapou says:

    Barash is just your typical butt-kissing Darwinist/atheist in the grand tradition of the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne. IOW, he’s an accomplished weaver of lies and deception. I hope they enjoy their time in the limelight. It will come to an end much sooner than they suspect.

  2. 2
    ppolish says:

    At least they get to talk about Religion in Bio classes. Many schools don’t allow that.

  3. 3
    mortiz says:

    I sent this to the professor today:

    Dear Prof. Barash:

    You do a fine job of advancing what is known as “scientism”, which has nothing to do with the noble profession of science that seeks to understand how the world works and how that working can help us in various ways.

    I ask:

    1. Have you read anything of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Etienne Gilson, Jacques Maritain, or Benedict XVI?

    2. How can you use the scientific method to prove your following statement: “The more we know of evolution, the more unavoidable is the conclusion that living things, including human beings, are produced by a natural, totally amoral process, with no indication of a benevolent, controlling creator” ?

    Indeed, such a “conclusion” no scientific method in the world could ever vinidicate. Why? Because it is a philosophical statement.

    3. Do you know the difference between philosophy and science?

    4. Do you love those closest to you? Parents? Children? If so, can you prove it? If not, is it, after all, illusion?

    Respectfully,

  4. 4
    RodW says:

    Mapou said

    It will come to an end much sooner than they suspect.

    How and when do you think it will come to an end?

  5. 5
    JDH says:

    If people are just bags of chemicals, why does it matter whether students get the talk or not? What purpose does it serve? These are questions that Dr.Barash can not answer.

  6. 6
    CLAVDIVS says:

    mortiz @ 3

    What’s the problem with a professor making a philosophical statement?

  7. 7
    tjguy says:

    JDH asks:

    If people are just bags of chemicals, why does it matter whether students get the talk or not? What purpose does it serve?

    Exactly. If they were just bags of chemicals, they would have no say in what they actually believe. It would all be determined for them.

    But, the good professor is betrayed by his actions. No matter what he says, he really doesn’t believe this part of his own worldview because he is treating these students as if they can make up their own mind about what they believe – as if they have free will and as if the chemical reactions in their brain that causes their thoughts can be influenced by the thoughts produced by the chemical reactions in his brain.

    He is a hypocrite.

  8. 8
    CLAVDIVS says:

    tjguy @ 7

    With a trivial bit of research you would not have made a statement that so obviously misrepresents Prof Barash, who states:

    Q. Do you believe that human behaviour is determined by our evolution and our genes?
    No. It seems clear that humans beings are the most flexible and adaptable creatures on earth, capable of choosing their own destiny.

  9. 9

    RodW at #4:

    How and when do you think it will come to an end?

    Please have a pick:

    * Because the truth have a nasty habit to get to be known sooner or later

    * Because – using Mapou’s famous phrase – it is going to become evident sooner or later that evolutionsts are “dirt worshipers” and the evolution is just a “dirt worshipping” cheap religion that has nothing to do with real science and in particular with biology.

  10. 10
    Querius says:

    CLAVDIVS,

    What’s the problem with a professor making a philosophical statement?

    Would there be a problem with a professor making a political statement in class? How about something like, “I believe that the presidency of Barack Obama has done more to harm scientific progress than any president before him. Let me tell you why . . .”

    Or how about a sociological one concerning the professor’s views of homosexuality and Darwinism?

    How about a professor who makes a statement about his views on Islam and science? Would there potentially be any problem with that?

    A professor has a position of authority over the class. If the professor is not teaching a philosophy class, then the professor is not qualified to make such statements in class.

    -Q

  11. 11
    Mapou says:

    RodW @4:

    How and when do you think it will come to an end?

    I don’t know exactly when it will happen but I know it’s almost here. As far as the how is concerned, suffice it to say that I happen to be privy to certain secrets that I cannot divulge at this time. I would be wrong to say that it will come as a big surprise. That would not do it justice. The word ‘upheaval’ comes to mind. Wait for it.

  12. 12

    CLAVDIVS at #6

    What’s the problem with a professor making a philosophical statement?

    In this particular case the philosophical statement is an attempt to induce some untrained and naïve minds into the cult of Darwin.

    Indoctrinating the young minds with superstitions that life was created by matter (dirt), that errors named random mutations and natural selection can create new organisms goes clearly against real science.

    An honest biology professor should get busy with presenting the young minds with the incredible marvelous landscape of unimaginable complex mechanisms of biological life, the exquisite complexity of living organisms. A complexity that surpasses significantly on many dimensions and design know how the most advanced achievements of the human engineers. A complexity whose layers are unaccounted and perplexes any healthy human mind that gets acquainted with its manifestations.

    To preach to the students in the 21st century that life (even if you constrain yourself to biological life) is the creation of the matter is just an ugly superstition, a myth and a lie on a lower level of credibility than the belief of an African shaman that spirits need to be persuaded with animal sacrifice to bring rain on the fields.

    Trying to induce some of the college students into the cult of Darwin is a shameful activism that promote scientific and cultural obscurantism.

    Obscurantism is an effort to take out the light of truth and knowledge from human understanding. And both professor (e.m.) Barash and New Your Times are just plain promoters of obscurantism.

  13. 13
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Querius @ 10

    This is a university class, and the students are adults.

    What are you suggesting – professors should be banned from making any comments in class outside a pre-defined curriculum? Ridiculous.

    “Higher-education teaching personnel are entitled to the maintaining of academic freedom, that is to say, the right without constriction by prescribed doctrine, to freedom of teaching and discussion, freedom in carrying out research and disseminating and publishing the results thereof, freedom to express freely their opinion about the institution or system in which they work, freedom from institutional censorship and freedom to participate in professional or representative academic bodies. All higher-education teaching personnel should have the right to fulfill their functions without discrimination of any kind and without fear of repression by the state or any other source.”
    UNESCO, Recommendation Concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, 1997

  14. 14
    CLAVDIVS says:

    InVivoVeritas @ 12

    Now you’re just spreading unsourced, unjustified smears against Barash. Give a citation for anywhere he claimed that life is solely the creation of matter.

    And read my post to Querius @ 13, and ponder it.

  15. 15
    melvinvines says:

    Food find! I wrote this for the professor: DAVID P. BARASH

    I read your article about “The Talk”. I was raised in a very devout Christian and creationist family like the ones you challenge.

    Interestingly, my dad warned me about “a professor with a grey beard who would talk about how we came from apes”. When I got into my first paleo class at USC, there he was. Exactly as my dad had predicted. A professor with a grey beard that looked just like you! And who gave the same exact lecture, just like you did in your “The Talk”.

    Amazing how my experience so many years ago parallels exactly what your MO is now. My bearded professor asked those students who believed that Adam and Eve were the first two humans on Earth to raise their hands. I did, even though I wasn’t convinced. I had become pretty much a doubter and good actor for my family by this time. He told us he would ask again in a week. He confidently knew he would convince us all that evolution was the way things happened. After he gave The Talk, he unrolled that huge poster with that famous series of drawings showing how we went from primate to hominid to man. And he thoroughly convinced me. I was completely sold. Finally something made sense. When he took his next poll, I didn’t raise my hand, nor did any other student. We were all sold. I became an avid fan of Darwin and evolution. (I have always loved science.) I read books on the subject, watched TV documentaries, and loved my new science. I lightly argued with non-believers and creationists. Then came a reversal.

    My son was in med school in Chicago. While visiting him there in 2001, I went to the Field Museum because they have one of the best fossil collections in the world.  I was dying to see all of the new fossil finds that would certainly prove evolution even more than I ever could imagine. I was excited. I walked into the main room where Sue, the famous T. rex was displayed. The placard said T. rex’s roamed North America for 3 million years. The thought struck me, why didn’t T. rex’s tiny forearms evolve into larger and more useful models? Wouldn’t the best grapplers be the winners? Ergo, the ones with longer arms should be selected for. But T. rex had no evolution to show. Then I went into the other fossil rooms, where I saw zero evolution. Trilobites over 300 million years with nary a change. Nautilus over 500 MY with none. Frogs for 250 MY with none. You know the list. There is no evolution. That “Talk” you give in your classrooms is pure fantasy. A fantasy that I fell for when my bearded professor gave the same Talk. 

    You say: “Just as many Americans don’t grasp the fact that evolution is not merely a “theory,” but the underpinning of all biological science, a substantial minority of my students are troubled to discover that their beliefs conflict with the course material.”

    Reality is, that evolution is a religion just like any. It has its own trinity – RM, NS, and TIME, just like Christianity. Jesus walked on water – NS, RM, and TIME turned bacteria into humans. Which miracle is more astounding? Your trinity can’t do any more than the Bible’s trinity. There is no more evidence for evolution than there is evidence for a 6 day creation. Reality is, mankind has absolutely no idea how life came to be, what it is, how the first cells formed, how protein synthesis came to be, or the Krebs cycle, or sexual procreation, or human consciousness, or…. Evolution can’t even account for a “simple” tube like a blood vessel or duct. Can you concoct even an imaginary stepwise  process for the evolution of blood vessels, of which there are 65,000 miles worth is a human baby? If you really are a valid professor, and not fooled by this fable yourself, you would give that lecture as evidence if you are so certain that you are right. You cannot. No person can. Your “Talk” is composed of demeaning religious beliefs, which is your MO for “proving” evolution and its validity. Reality is that both are fables. Disproving one doesn’t prove the other. They should both be tossed out and the real “theory” taught: That humanity has absolutely no idea how living nature formed. You are what I call an evo-illusionist, just as my grey bearded professor was. You perform illusions to fool your students into believing that you “know”, when in reality you have no idea. The truth of the matter is, the more science has advanced, the further  it is from figuring out this daunting Puzzle. Protein synthesis, the Krebs, glycolysis, eukaryotes (from prokaryotes), cell division… have all turned evolution into just another fable that attempts to explain the inexplicable. The more we learn the farther the solution to the puzzle of origins gets.

    I went on to start a blog on this subject, (www.evoillusion.org) , made some YouTube videos on the subject with challenges for evolution, and wrote a book: “Evo-Illusion” which sells on Amazon. All expose what a scientific fable evolution really is. I know you wouldn’t read my book, so this isn’t a sales pitch. But I would love a classroom of biology students to give it a read and discussion, and try to shred what I have to say. It cannot be done. Again, I know that’s a pipe dream. I wrote you because your paper on “the Talk” , and your appearance, is exactly what happened to me. Reading your “ The Talk” paper was like a form of deja vu for me. The first chapter of my book describes “The Talk” that I received, describes my grey bearded professor, and my experience leaving religion behind for evolution. Now I am in a sort of neverland. Not religious, and not gullible enough to believe small “foxes” evolved into 400,000 lb. whales, and little T. rex’s evolved into woodpeckers and hummingbirds. I wonder how you can believe that, with all of the education and intelligence you certainly have. You know cell biology too well to think it could have been constructed by NS, RM and TIME. 

    Regards
    Stephen T. Blume DDS  ?

  16. 16
    Upright BiPed says:

    What’s the problem with a professor making a philosophical statement?

    It’s interesting that you remove all the context from the question in order to ask it.

    You mean to ask “What’s the problem with a biology professor making a philosophical statement at the start of a new class of students to inform them that – quote – ”Since Darwin, however, we have come to understand that an entirely natural and undirected process, namely random variation plus natural selection, contains all that is needed to generate extraordinary levels of non-randomness. Living things are indeed wonderfully complex, but altogether within the range of a statistically powerful, entirely mechanical phenomenon.”

    The problem is that this statement is demonstrable false. A demonstrably false statement is made each year to each new class of students in the empirical sciences.

    That’s the problem.

  17. 17
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Upright BiPed @ 16

    Actually, UB, I missed that comment:

    … an entirely natural and undirected process, namely random variation plus natural selection, contains all that is needed to generate extraordinary levels of non-randomness.

    — Maybe true

    Living things are indeed wonderfully complex, but altogether within the range of a statistically powerful, entirely mechanical phenomenon.

    Contradicts his own website; not demonstrably true or false, because its really a philosophical statement.

    I don’t like this statement any more than I bet you do, but I don’t want to gag any university professors.

    Do you?

  18. 18
    Querius says:

    CLAVDIVS @ 13 wrote:

    This is a university class, and the students are adults.

    Sorta like porn, right? A UNESCO quote on “academic freedom” followed. LOL

    But you didn’t answer my questions, did you?

    Here they are again:

    Would there be a problem with a professor making a political statement in class? How about something like, “I believe that the presidency of Barack Obama has done more to harm scientific progress than any president before him. Let me tell you why . . .”

    Or how about a sociological one concerning the professor’s views of homosexuality and Darwinism?

    How about a professor who makes a statement about his views on Islam and science? Would there potentially be any problem with that?

    A professor has a position of authority over the class. If the professor is not teaching a philosophy class, then the professor is not qualified to make such statements in class.

    And a UNESCO statement won’t magically make them qualified, nor will it stop protestors from disrupting the class, nor will it stop a dissenting university professor from being removed under a pretext.

    -Q

  19. 19
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Querius @ 18

    Would there be a problem with a professor making a political statement in class?
    No

    Or how about a sociological one concerning the professor’s views of homosexuality and Darwinism?
    No

    How about a professor who makes a statement about his views on Islam and science?
    No

    I suppose you’d prefer a system where university professors are banned from saying something unless they’re ‘qualified’.

    No thank you …. we’ve seen where that kind of system leads.

  20. 20
    DavidD says:

    LOL

    Querius posted

    “CLAVDIVS @ 13 wrote:

    This is a university class, and the students are adults.

    Sorta like porn, right? A UNESCO quote on “academic freedom” followed. LOL

    More like the “We’re all consenting adults here” which is the default answer for excusing any questionable behavior they may be called on the carpet for.

  21. 21
    DavidD says:

    Clavdivs

    ” . . . but I don’t want to gag any university professors.

    Do you?”

    Funny, if this were a conventional religious Professor as others have already suggested, you’d be one of the first in line at the Court House filing a Gag Order

    Wouldn’t you?

  22. 22
    CLAVDIVS says:

    DavidD @ 21

    Funny, if this were a conventional religious Professor as others have already suggested, you’d be one of the first in line at the Court House filing a Gag Order

    Wouldn’t you?

    Nope.

  23. 23
    Upright BiPed says:

    Claudius, the statement is demonstrably false.

    I don’t like this statement any more than I bet you do, but I don’t want to gag any university professors.

    Do you?

    Biology professors are not on the doorstep of being gagged, so we can do away with the histrionics.

  24. 24
    gpuccio says:

    CLAVDIVS:

    I don’t like that statement because it is a lie.

    I don’t want to gag any university professor telling lies, it is a very common event, and lies after all are part of life.

    But it is perfectly correct, and I would say dutiful, to call a lie a lie, and to call the professor who tells it a liar. A professor liar, but a liar just the same.

  25. 25
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Upright BiPed @ 23

    Claudius, the statement is demonstrably false.

    You mean: “Living things are indeed wonderfully complex, but altogether within the range of a statistically powerful, entirely mechanical phenomenon.” ?

    Considering 57% of professional philosophers are ontological physicalists, I simply don’t accept that you can demonstrate the falsity of physicalism. The fact that I agree with you on this is neither here nor there; the professor is entitled to his philosophical opinions.

    Biology professors are not on the doorstep of being gagged, so we can do away with the histrionics.

    Querius says he’s “not qualified” to teach his philosophy; InVivoVeritas says its dishonest and “shameful activism”; you say its demonstrably false.

    Do all of you support the continued teaching of dishonest, shamefully activist falsehoods?

  26. 26
    CLAVDIVS says:

    gpuccio @ 24

    Hi gpuccio – It’s not a lie if you believe it.

    See my comment to UB @ 25. I really don’t think its helpful to the ID cause to be calling someone a liar for espousing physicalism. The reasons for this should be obvious.

    Glad to hear you’re not in favour of gagging university professors. That’s a step in the right direction. Avoiding accusations of lying might be a good follow up …

  27. 27
    Dr JDD says:

    What about if a professor taught a class on evolution and took the Stephen Meyer approach in discussing the Cambrian explosion, threw in Dembski, Behe et al’s criticism of the mathematical likelihood or possibility of complex proteins arising through mere unguided chance, and concluded that intelligent design was a rational alternative explanation to unguided evolution?

    Do you think that should be allowed in the classroom?

    Well, it largely is not.

  28. 28
    gpuccio says:

    CLAVDIVS:

    Do you know why I call it a lie? Because it is a statement made in the name of science, as an absolute truth, from a person in a position of scientific authority to persons who should learn from him, and is presented neither as a scientific theory nor as a personal philosophical position.

    Those who have a formal role to teach others cannot just say “what they believe” as though it were an absolute scientific truth. They have a definite responsibility.

    By the way, I refer especially to the following statement:

    “Living things are indeed wonderfully complex, but altogether within the range of a statistically powerful, entirely mechanical phenomenon.”

  29. 29
    Upright BiPed says:

    Claudius,

    I simply don’t accept that you can demonstrate the falsity of physicalism.

    Physicalism is an assumption, and cannot be falsified (so it must be assumed).

    As for his comment: Darwinian evolution doesn’t exist until there is translated information, consequently, it is not the source of translation. From this intractable fact, we have most certainly not “come to understand” “since Darwin” that “living things are altogether within the range” of a “statistically powerful, entirely mechanical phenomenon”, “namely random variation plus natural selection.”

    His claim is false. And its based on a non-falsifiable assumption.

  30. 30
    mortiz says:

    The problem is that he is sneaking in philosophical assumptions under the guise of science. There are, of course, more problems, but that’s a huge one.

  31. 31
    Joe says:

    This “talk” clearly violates the establishment clause. Why doesn’t any student stand up for their rights?

  32. 32
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Upright BiPed @ 29

    But if the assumption of physicalism is true, then the claim “life is within the range of a mechanical phenomenon” must also be true.

    Since physicalism may be true (because it cannot be falsified as you note) then the claim about life may also be true. To state, as you do, that the claim about life is absolutely false is simply illogical.

  33. 33
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Joe @ 31

    I don’t think its that simple, Joe.

    University classes are not compulsory, like public primary/high school, and accordingly the academic freedom of professors is given much more weight by the US courts. Courts have been highly reluctant to find establishment clause violations in higher education settings, instead deferring to college governors as to whether the conduct in question is academically appropriate.

  34. 34
    Joe says:

    CLAVDIVS- Just take a look at how pro-ID professors are treated. Ball State bowed to atheistic spewage and lies when they (the atheists) found out about a class that dared to have an open discussion wrt origins.

    That said, if a student brought forth the charge and it wasn’t heard, that would just prove that double-standards apply.

  35. 35
    CLAVDIVS says:

    gpuccio @ 28

    o you know why I call it a lie? Because it is a statement made in the name of science, as an absolute truth, from a person in a position of scientific authority to persons who should learn from him, and is presented neither as a scientific theory nor as a personal philosophical position.

    Those who have a formal role to teach others cannot just say “what they believe” as though it were an absolute scientific truth. They have a definite responsibility.

    Calling it a lie is simply offensive, for no good reason I can see.

    I am absolutely dead against gagging academic discussion in universities, even when it’s professors teaching first years. They’re all adults, and aren’t compelled to be there. By all means email your strongest arguments against this professor’s approach to him and the university – you may be surprised at the response.

    But let’s drop these hints of stifling academic freedom; that is a dark road to tread down.

  36. 36
    CLAVDIVS says:

    Joe @ 34

    That’s because ID is seen as a fringe concept with many supporters that are anti-science extremists.

    Philosophical materialism is mainstream, like it or not. Some 40% of scientists are materialists and some 57% of philosophers are too.

    If ID is to make headway against materialism in the sciences it must first stop its supporters aggressing against well-established science like common ancestry, old earth etc. which are not actually the problem. The problem is materialistic philosophy masquerading as science – as mortiz pointed out.

  37. 37
    Joe says:

    CLAVDIVS:

    That’s because ID is seen as a fringe concept with many supporters that are anti-science extremists.

    That is why ID needs to be openly presented and discuused.

    Philosophical materialism is mainstream, like it or not. Some 40% of scientists are materialists and some 57% of philosophers are too.

    It is a failed philosophy that obviously adds nothing.

    If ID is to make headway against materialism in the sciences it must first stop its supporters aggressing against well-established science like common ancestry

    Except common ancestry is not well established. It can’t even be tested. As for the age of the earth, well that all depends on how it was formed.

  38. 38
    bornagain77 says:

    “But let’s drop these hints of stifling academic freedom;”

    You bet, no subtle ‘hints’ are needed when the censorship is in your face obvious

    “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

    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.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....50451.html

    Censor of the Year: Who Will It Be? – David Klinghoffer January 17, 2014
    Excerpt: Charles Darwin himself, whose birthday is commemorated on the day bearing his name, insisted that getting at the truth, sorting true from false, requires an unimpeded airing of views: “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” Ironically, it is his latter-day advocates and defenders who are the most eager to muffle dissenting opinions, and the most unashamed about doing so. And again, not just unashamed, but proud. A victory in shutting down a college class, punishing a teacher, thwarting a law intended to protect educators from administrative reprisals, intimidating a publisher into a canceling a book contract, erasing words from the wall of a public museum — such things are not merely done, they are candidly, brazenly bragged about.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....81261.html

    EXPELLED – Starring Ben Stein – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-BDc3wu81U

    Slaughter of Dissidents – Book
    “If folks liked Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” they will be blown away by “Slaughter of the Dissidents.” – Russ Miller
    http://www.amazon.com/Slaughte.....0981873405

    Origins – Slaughter of the Dissidents with Dr. Jerry Bergman – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6rzaM_BxBk

    If Chemistry Can Be Wrong, How Much More Evolutionary Theory? January 3, 2014
    Excerpt: …In recent years, major problems have surfaced in evolutionary theory: the overthrow of “junk DNA,” the discovery of codes within codes, the intransigence of the Cambrian enigma to name a few. Yet its advocates continue to bully anyone who doesn’t toe the line. Darwinism acts like a religion, not science. If Darwinists were proper scientists, they would embrace the new discoveries that break their rules. They would gladly follow the mounting evidence that points in a new direction for the biology of the 21st century — intelligent design.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....80711.html

    Casey Luskin points out that the following anti-ID philosopher even goes so far as to publish a paper saying that the bullying tactics of neo-Darwinists are justified since many ID proponents are Christian:

    Anti-ID Philosopher: “Ad hominem” Arguments “Justified” When Attacking Intelligent Design Proponents – Casey Luskin – June 4, 2012
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....60381.html

    Even atheists themselves, who break ranks with the Darwinian ‘consensus’ party line, are severely castigated by Darwinian atheists. There was even a peer-reviewed paper in a philosophy journal by a materialist/atheist that sought to ostracize, and limit the free speech of, a fellow materialist/atheist (Jerry Fodor) who had had the audacity, in public, to dare to question the sufficiency of natural selection to be the true explanation for how all life on earth came to be.

    Darwinian Philosophy: “Darwinian Natural Selection is the Only Process that could Produce the Appearance of Purpose” – Casey Luskin – August, 2012
    Excerpt: In any case, this tarring and feathering of Fodor is just the latest frustrated attempt by hardline Darwinians to discourage people from using design terminology. It’s a hopeless effort, because try as they might to impose speech codes on each another, they can’t change the fact that nature is infused with purpose, which readily lends itself to, as Rosenberg calls it “teleosemantics.”
    per ENV

    The Altenberg 16, a book written by Suzan Mazur, who is agnostic as far as I know, is also very good for exposing the Orwellian tactics used by Darwinists, on fellow Atheists (or anyone else), to try to keep Darwinism from every being publicly questioned:

    The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry – book
    Excerpt: This book takes a look at the rivalry in science today surrounding attempts to discover the elusive process of evolution. In one camp are the faithful followers of the long-standing theory of natural selection promulgated by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago. This “survival of the fittest” theory, according to author Suzan Mazur, is no longer the scientific cornerstone of biology and has been challenged for decades. In the other camp are those challengers who want to steer evolutionary science in a more honest, scientifically accurate direction. However, the Darwinian theory has become a political powerhouse brand that is hard to unseat because of the money and power associated with it.
    The Altenberg 16 is about a group of evolution scientists who met in 2008 in Austria to discuss and attempt to tell the truth about this “brand.”,,,
    http://books.google.com/books/.....2FfQQ_DmsC

    As well, an esteemed Philosophy professor, who is also an atheist, suffered much the same fate as Fodor. Thomas, and the Altenberg 16 from the hands of Darwinian atheists for daring to question the sufficiency of Darwinism to account for consciousness (which is his specific specialty of study):

    The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....07692.html

    etc.. etc..

  39. 39
    bornagain77 says:

    Here are several examples of atheists violating the establishment clause of the first amendment by openly proselytizing their own atheistic religion in the classroom:

    “Proselytizing for Darwin’s God in the Classroom” (from 2008): John G. West – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEajEwzYwHg

  40. 40
    bornagain77 says:

    corrected link:

    “Proselytizing for Darwin’s God in the Classroom” (from 2008): John G. West – video
    http://www.discovery.org/v/40/2

  41. 41
    RodW says:

    Mapou,

    Any chance you could write to me about this upheaval? Even a hint would be nice. My screename is Lantog on aol. Yes, yes I know – I’m the last person on earth who still uses aol. You’ve probably guessed I’m a bit old – so I cant wait for the upheaval!

    I have to say, I read the primary scientific literature and see no sign of an upheaval

  42. 42
    Tim says:

    Clavdivs,
    Your first point concerning, shall we say, “facts not in evidence” was refuted which you acknowledged,

    “Actually, UB, I missed that comment

    so thank you for that.
    Your second point was phrased as a vague question:

    “What’s the problem with a professor making a philosophical statement?

    . . .so we are left to guess exactly what it was, but it seems to be, based on your following posts, something like this: A professor can say whatever he/she wants. One effort to counter this point was to show the numerous counterexamples where such freedom does not exist, and you generously offered a comment to the effect that they should be allowed to make such comments — all of this under a vague umbrella of academic freedom. Here, I think you missed the point that it is not about your generosity, and convictions toward academic freedom, but the reality of the double standard. You sort of confirmed this with your “we’re-all-adults-here”, and the “not-forced-to-take-a-class” in higher education tropes which both fell under the trampling of common sense responses that deal with the realities of actual university life.

    Finally,
    You cited UNESCO, here it is again:

    Higher-education teaching personnel are entitled to the maintaining of academic freedom, that is to say, the right without constriction by prescribed doctrine, to freedom of teaching and discussion, freedom in carrying out research and disseminating and publishing the results thereof, freedom to express freely their opinion about the institution or system in which they work, freedom from institutional censorship and freedom to participate in professional or representative academic bodies. All higher-education teaching personnel should have the right to fulfill their functions without discrimination of any kind and without fear of repression by the state or any other source.”
    UNESCO, Recommendation Concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, 1997

    Read it very carefully and you will see that it does not defend, in any way, the professor’s right to give his “talk”.

    The statement is about academic freedom (opening statement). Thus, is it about the academician, the work, the institution, and ultimately dissemination of the work, but that’s it.

    There is no prescribed doctrine limiting his work in biology. His comments are not about the institution where he works, the institute is not censoring him, he is free to participate in any academic body, and he is free to fulfill his function.

    The problem is this: He does not know what his function is.
    I add this only as food for thought, please consider your response. How can this professor defend the “talk” against the claim that it is simply a waste of valuable time that could otherwise be used to teach biology? If it is outlined in three points, merits an entire lecture and is featured in a news article, obviously, it is not merely a throw-away comment. Again, we are not talking about censorship, just plain old “do your job.”

    What I mean by “consider your response” is this: Please don’t hit us with the “It is the job of any professor to challenge students”. Nope, not going to work. It is the job of this professor to teach biology, and in teaching it well, letting the (possibly)new world of biology challenge (some of) the students.

  43. 43
    Querius says:

    CLAVDIVS,

    Joe@34 observed

    Just take a look at how pro-ID professors are treated. Ball State bowed to atheistic spewage and lies when they (the atheists) found out about a class that dared to have an open discussion wrt origins.

    To which you replied @ 36 with

    That’s because ID is seen as a fringe concept with many supporters that are anti-science extremists.

    So, it seems that the academic freedom you cherish does not extend to minority opinions, does it? It only extends to those who hold opinions within certain bounds. Hmmm.

    Ok, let’s try an experiment.

    A hypothetical student asks the following question in a hypothetical Biology class. “Professor Clavdivs, in light of the continual adaptations provided by evolution, how would you characterize homosexuality? Is it something that’s selected against? I’ve heard that it’s genetic, so how did it evolve, or do you think it’s an aberration?”

    The students all lean forward. Some actually start taking notes. You don’t have tenure. You begin . . .

    After your answer, another student–one of several in your class who have middle eastern names–asks, “In Islam we believe that Allah created everything, not evolution, and that homosexuality is an abomination to Allah. What is your view of Islam and science?” You take another deep breath and say . . .

    A few days later, your department chair wants to see you.

    -Q

  44. 44
    Mapou says:

    RodW:

    I have to say, I read the primary scientific literature and see no sign of an upheaval

    Rod, I can only tell you that, even though it’s about science, it’s not coming from the scientific community. I’m talking about the kind of science that will dramatically transform the world virtually overnight. Materialists and Darwinists will be totally discredited and will disappear into the woodwork they crawled out of. The other organized religions will also wither into oblivion but Judaism and Christianity will meld into one. This is all I can say for now. Just keep your ears and eyes open.

  45. 45
    bornagain77 says:

    What They Really Teach Students In A Evolutionary Biology Class – cartoon
    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-96cp.....e%2BNo.jpg

  46. 46
    Box says:

    BA77 #45 🙂

  47. 47
    Mung says:

    lol.

    This one deserves to be remembered:

    “This is a university class, and the students are adults.”

    So why is this professor treating the student like children? My guess is he doesn’t think their adults.

  48. 48
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: In Endorsing Intelligent Design, Novelist Stephen King Joins a Distinguished List of Stereotype-Shattering Free Thinkers – Sept. 29, 2014
    Excerpt: you can add him (Stephen King) to the list of other stereotype-shattering free thinkers — whether of the ID-sympathizing or Darwin-doubting variety — from Vladimir Nabokov to John Lennon, from celebrated atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel to the Dalai Lama. As a design-advocate he also joins Dean Koontz, his colleague in the horror-novel genre, who warmly endorsed Stephen Meyer’s book Darwin’s Doubt.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90101.html
    Is it just me, or has the definition of ‘free-thinker’ changed since I was a kid?

    free·think·er – noun
    “a person who rejects accepted opinions, especially those concerning religious belief.”

    I guess the term free-thinker is now appropriate since Darwinism has in essense become the official state religion. That Theists should be considered ‘rebels’ does have its charm though! 🙂

    Of note:

    A DEFENSE OF THE (Divine) REVELATION AGAINST THE OBJECTIONS OF FREETHINKERS, BY MR. EULER
    Excerpt: “The freethinkers (atheists) have yet to produce any objections that have not long been refuted most thoroughly. But since they are not motivated by the love of truth, and since they have an entirely different point of view, we should not be surprised that the best refutations count for nothing and that the weakest and most ridiculous reasoning, which has so often been shown to be baseless, is continuously repeated. If these people maintained the slightest rigor, the slightest taste for the truth, it would be quite easy to steer them away from their errors; but their tendency towards stubbornness makes this completely impossible.”
    http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/.....2trans.pdf

    Leonhard Euler, the son of a Christian pastor, and a fervent Christian all his life, is considered a giant in the history of mathematics, and author of “the most famous of all formulas” in mathematics,,,

    God by the Numbers – Connecting the constants
    Excerpt: The final number comes from theoretical mathematics. It is Euler’s (pronounced “Oiler’s”) number: e^pi*i. This number is equal to -1, so when the formula is written e^pi*i+1 = 0, it connects the five most important constants in mathematics (e, pi, i, 0, and 1) along with three of the most important mathematical operations (addition, multiplication, and exponentiation). These five constants symbolize the four major branches of classical mathematics: arithmetic, represented by 1 and 0; algebra, by i; geometry, by pi; and analysis, by e, the base of the natural log. e^pi*i+1 = 0 has been called “the most famous of all formulas,” because, as one textbook says, “It appeals equally to the mystic, the scientist, the philosopher, and the mathematician.”,,,
    The discovery of this number gave mathematicians the same sense of delight and wonder that would come from the discovery that three broken pieces of pottery, each made in different countries, could be fitted together to make a perfect sphere. It seemed to argue that there was a plan where no plan should be.,,,
    Today, numbers from astronomy, biology, and theoretical mathematics point to a rational mind behind the universe.,,, The apostle John prepared the way for this conclusion when he used the word for logic, reason, and rationality—logos—to describe Christ at the beginning of his Gospel: “In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God, and the logos was God.” When we think logically, which is the goal of mathematics, we are led to think of God.
    http://www.christianitytoday.c.....ml?start=3
    (of note; Euler’s Number (equation) is more properly called Euler’s Identity in math circles.)

    A Tribute to Euler – Harvard Lecture – William Dunham – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEWj93XjON0

  49. 49
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Down The Rabbit Hole – Re-Release! (New interviews and animations) – September 29, 2014
    http://www.whatthebleep.com/do.....e-release/

  50. 50
    Upright BiPed says:

    Good grief Claudius, is #32 supposed to be a joke?

    C’mon.

    The guy makes a specific claim, which is demonstrably false; I then state that it’s demonstrably false, and you start doing cartwheels and singing backflips in order to save him by putting a different claim in the poor man’s mouth? Why? Do you not think the teaching of biology should reflect reality?

    Truly, materialists make the absolute worst materialists.

    The professor said that since the time of Darwin, we’ve come to know that life can be reduced to the powers of variation and selection. That is utter bunk. ‘Variation and selection’ doesn’t even occur – can not occur – without an set of physical conditions that would not rise again on earth until the recording of human language and mathematics. It’s a set of physical conditions – a specific identifiable organization – that must incorporate a local independence from physical determinism in order for the system to even function. That fact is incontrovertible regardless of your metaphysical position.

    Claudius, you’ve been here a while – how many times has the topic come up that “evolution doesn’t explain the origin of life”? Evolution, we are told, was never even intended to provide such an explanation. Is it an equivocation then, for a professor to say that living things are “altogether within the range of a statistically powerful, entirely mechanical phenomenon”?

    Of course it is. Blatantly so.

    And what if this professor willfully produces this deformity in logic each year as a first step with the new recruits? In generous reflection on the value and meaning of producing science, do you really think its okay for the professor to bullshit his students like this? Or are you simply playing the race card against ID at each opportunity and at every turn, regardless? Is it true in your opinion that a scientist/professor making demonstrably false statements about science to his students is actually okay in this particular instance because “they’re adults”?

    Good grief.

    And the real grief of it Claudius, is that neither you, nor virtually anyone else on the ID critic side, will clearly acknowledge this obvious abuse. You won’t, Mark Frank wouldn’t, RB wouldn’t, Elizabeth Liddle wouldn’t, Kantian wouldn’t. None of you will. In fact, just me mentioning these names would likely provide the peanut gallery with an opportunity for each one to come up with their own little special justification – just like yours. “They’re adults, so it’s okay to flat out lie to them in science class and call it philosophy”. We can all delude ourselves that the good professor’s precious little opinion is about doing good science science rather than his religious priors.

    No thanks.

  51. 51
    melvinvines says:

    From David Barash:

    My friend, your ignorance of basic evolutionary biology is so vast that I don’t know where to begin! There is, for example, abundant evidence for and explanations of why certain traits evolve rapidly and others slowly. But something tells me that disputing with you won’t avail anything.

    Me:

    I do appreciate your response. So you aren’t going to answer even one of my questions? Because I am ignorant? I would expect more from a very educated and respected person such as yourself. That is a typical characteristic of an evo-illusionist: demean anyone who questions.

    I certainly hope you don’t call your students who might challenge you ignorant. You cannot dispute me scientifically since no person on Earth can. All you would have to do is deliver a stepwise evolutionary timeline for the simplest of natural entities: a blood vessel. If you can do only that I will take my book offline and off-sales, and shut down my blog and videos. I am 100% confident you cannot, so you will distract from and block out the blood vessel challenge.

    You confuse the evolution of traits with the evolutionary formation of biological systems and species. I KNOW you know the difference between the two. You are far too intelligent not to. So you attempt to work your evo-illusion on me and it fails. You will continue being the grey bearded professor like the one I had at USC. You will continue indoctrinating your students with “The Talk” as I was indoctrinated; and you were as well.

    I do hope sometime you will give evolution a real objective and critical look. Tally up which has more miracles: the Bible, or evo. I say evo is the winner big time.I realize you can’t though; even if you wanted to. You would be canned. I also hope you do make an attempt to answer even my simplest of questions. I WILL give it a good and objective read if you do. Someone who is so sure of his science should find tube evolution an easy challenge since tubes are so prevalent and basic.

    I truly wish evolution was the answer; or there were some scientific answer that made sense. But the origin of living nature is way too far above the abilities of humanity’s thought processes right now. So we continue making fables; like “God did it in 6 days”, and “RM NS and TIME did it in millions of years”. And we argue and argue about which fable is right!

    Again, thanks for the reply. It was very interesting running into you and your stuff on your site. It brought back a lot of memories.

    Regards, Steve

    David:
    Because I don’t deal with insults and willful ignorance.

    Me:

    Tubes, David. T-U-B-E-S. I am ignorant about how they came to be. So are you. I admit it. You fake it.
    Willful ignorance? Gad. You really are programmed with evo-lingo.

    You respond with insults but you don’t DEAL with insults? Good for you.

    Somehow from your picture and your CV I expected more.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHWrzzdItT0

  52. 52
    Querius says:

    Haha! Love the video, melvinvines! Thanks for sharing it.

    -Q

  53. 53
    CandiceC says:

    From my own experience I can say that students deserve to be heard. Otherwise they may end up turning to Essay Online Service feeling forgotten and lots. Just let them talk, hear what on their mind, give it a little discussion and this will give them of a great feeling. They will feel important and will try even harder to study better. Small things always form big ones. I like this idea of letting them talk…express what on their mind

  54. 54
    Querius says:

    Yes, I agree CandiceC.

    Better yet, avoid indoctrinating or bullying them but instead help them to find and examine evidence for and against a theory, learning disciplined scientific rigor in the process.

    Education shouldn’t be limited to memorizing things.

    -Q

Leave a Reply