Gunter Bechly: Decline of science? Imaged in a single paragraph
|December 3, 2017||Posted by News under academic freedom, Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design|
From Tyler O’Neil at PJ Media:
Last month, Wikipedia removed the entry on German insect paleontologist Günter Bechly, seemingly due to his position on intelligent design (ID), the scientific movement considering evidence for design behind nature — a movement opposed to Darwinian evolution. While editors claimed Bechly was not “notable” enough to warrant an entry, others with fewer career accomplishments have long pages on Wikipedia, and Bechly has a distinguished career.
When Wikipedia editors discussed deleting Bechly’s page, the scientist posted his own credentials. He provided links to press, TV, and radio segments mentioning his work, exhibitions he designed, and a few articles from the BBC and Scientific American.
“Add to that three described new insect orders, more than 160 described species, and insect family Bechlyidae, a genus and 8 species named after me, 2 edited books and numerous book chapters, 1 book in German about me, and a ResearchGate score that is higher than 85% of ResearchGate members,” Bechly wrote.
So far, this is just Darwinists hard at work, attempting to destroy competent scientists’ careers in order to protect their miserable orthodoxy as a job creation program for their supporters. But here’s the single paragraph that images the decline:
Bechly publicly announced his sympathy for ID in 2015, and the retaliation proved instantaneous. First, he met with strange smiles, icy faces, and gossip. His applications to acquire new fossil material were suddenly blocked. A position he relied on, his amber preparator, was proposed to go unfilled after the last employee retired. More.
So comparative mediocrities, who have never known what it is to think fo oneself, helped force out a gifted scientist because, on reflection, he thinks the universe shows evidence of design. In other words, orthodoxy beats achievement.
Mediocrities inflate their value when they become witch hunters. They keep their own jobs while diminishing the value of the disciplines they represent.
And anyone who doesn’t think this is a good direction must “hate science.”
See also: Who controls Whom in science and what it means for new thinking and new discoveries. Within any particular field, a certain amount of criticism is allowed from PhD critics in that same field, because otherwise, there could be no progress at all. But the nature of the criticism has narrow de facto limits, such that nothing discrediting is said of the intellect of any of the elders, only modifications based (supposedly) on newly-discovered evidence, enabled by better experimental instruments than the elders had had available to them.
Maybe we should all hate science. Alternatively, ask troubled disciplines to shape up. Especially the tax-funded ones.