Why do you insist on repeating this completely unsupported assertion. Either support your assertion that ID is being systematically repressed, or stop saying it. Please, in the interest of fostering honest discussion, when people tell you that what you’re saying isn’t true, don’t simply dismiss them and keep repeating it; look into the matter and find out if they might be correct. If they are wrong, show them the evidence! If they are correct, stop repeating your error.
… the reality in most situations in human history is that when one viewpoint has become the widely circulated and generally accepted it will be an uphill battle for those who question it or would wish to offer a new view point. This isn’t new to this situation, but it is something that should be recognized and corrected.Teaching and believing in evolution has become almost like the 'gospel" of secular progressives. They would like to believe that everyone agrees with this and no one can question or offer other possibilities, but some have tried. The response has been to stiffle them. Here are some examples I found:
On a website for scientists who do support a more “Creationist” approach to researching the development of life on earth I found this quote about evolution (given by scientists supporting evolution
"Evolution is taken as a fact—and while there might be disagreements about some of the details of how evolution proceeds, there are no disagreements about the idea that it does occur and that it is the explanation for the diversity of life on our planet. Ashtaroth’s claim is exactly the opposite of the truth, which is that “almost no scientist puts any stock in any other attempted explanation for the diversity of life—especially creationism” (
atheism.about.com/b/a/063194.htm. Accessed May 28, 2004, p. 1).
Code:
This view is not an isolated example. The late Ernst Mayr, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, is “one of the most influential evolutionary theorists of our time” (Ferris, 2001, p. 326). Mayr declared that “no educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact” (Mayr, 2001, p. 141). He has been claiming this for over 40 years—in 1967 he wrote that “evolution is accepted by every scientist” and for this reason it is no longer necessary to “enumerate painstakingly the proofs for evolution” Mayr, 1967. p. v). In 1971 Mayr claimed that he did “not know of a single well-informed person who questions the factuality of evolution” (p. 49). Not one person! Mayr defines evolution, which he calls “Darwinism,” as the rejection of “all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as creator or designer” (2001, p. 138).
"Mayr adds that “eliminating God from science made room for strictly scientific explanations of all natural phenomena” (2001, p. 138). Furthermore, Mayr concludes, the “truly outstanding achievement” of Darwinism is that his theory “makes unnecessary the invocation of ‘final causes’—that is, any teleological forces"
The above quote is given on a page that lists a large number of scientist who oppose the Darwin/evolution approach but at the same time the scientists that were willing to put their names on the page had tenure. Other scientists were unwilling to list their positions or where thjey were employed for fear of reprisals.
Here is the statement:
- On my list I have well over 3,000 names including Nobel Prize winners but, unfortunately, a large number of persons that could be added to the public list, including many college professors, did not want their name listed because of real concerns over possible retaliation or harm to their careers. Many of those who did not want their names on the public list are young academics without tenure, or academics who are concerned about if outing them could damage their career. Many on this list are secure tenured professors, teach at Christian Universities that protect their academic freedom to criticize Darwinism, or are in industry, or in a medical field where less antagonism exists to questioning Darwin. Some on this list are now involved full time in speaking and writing on origins, and no longer depend on secular employment to put bread on the family table. Many are also retired, thus no longer face retaliation for their doubts about Darwin. Some consented to include their names only if their current employment was not listed."*
rae.org/darwinskeptics.html
Here is an example of someone fired from a research position
Creationist files lawsuit against Woods Hole
From Boston Globe
The Boston Globe (December 7, 2007) reports that a former researcher at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is suing the research center, claiming that he was fired, in violation of his civil rights, for not accepting evolution. Nathaniel Abraham, who earned a Ph.D. in biology from St. John’s University in 2005, was employed as a post-doctoral researcher in the laboratory of Mark Hahn; according to the Globe, “He was hired by Hahn’s marine biology lab in March 2004 because of his expertise working with zebra fish and in toxicology and developmental biology, according to court documents. He did not tell anyone his creationist views before being hired.”
Abraham’s views become apparent to Hahn in a casual conversation in October 2004, however, and the next month, Hahn asked him in a letter to resign, citing Abraham’s “wish not to work on evolutionary aspects of my grant” and writing, “You have indicated that you do not recognize the concept of biological evolution and you would not agree to include a full discussion of the evolutionary implications and interpretations of our research in any co-authored publications resulting from this work. … This position is incompatible with the work as proposed to NIH and with my own vision of how it should be carried out and interpreted.”
In June 2006, Abraham filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, which ruled against him in April 2007, stating that there was insufficient probable cause to find that Hahn and Woods Hole engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices. Represented by two lawyers, including David C. Gibbs III of the Christian Law Association (which seeks “to provide free legal assistance to Bible-believing churches and Christians who are experiencing legal difficulty in practicing their religious faith”), Abraham then filed suit in federal district court on November 30, 2007, alleging that his rights were violated under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
In his complaint, Abraham claims that acceptance of evolution “was in no way a bona fide occupational qualification of employment, was not previously mentioned or implied as a requisite of hiring, and was never listed among necessary criteria for the advertised position.” In his November 2004 letter to Abraham, however, Hahn wrote, “The research proposed … has as its foundation the orthologous and paralogous (i.e. evolutionary) relationships among aryl hydrocarbon receptor signaling proteins in the various species proposed as models. The importance of these relationships is clearly evident in our previous papers, which were cited in the advertisement for the position, and in the grant proposal itself.”
NCSE’s executive director Eugenie C. Scott told the Globe, “It is inconceivable that someone working in developmental biology at a major research institution would not be expected to deal intimately with evolution. … A flight school hiring instructors wouldn’t ask whether they accepted that the earth was spherical; they would assume it. Similarly, Woods Hole would have assumed that someone hired to work in developmental biology would accept that evolution occurred. It’s part and parcel of the science these days.” And the philosopher Michael Ruse was quoted as asking, “what is a person doing in an evolutionary lab when they don’t believe in evolution … and didn’t tell anybody they didn’t believe in evolution?”
ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/MA/850_creationist_files_lawsuit_agai_12_7_2007.asp
Obviously the Education Community in Public Schools opposes any other view point than evolution:here is one quote to support that:
ncseweb.org/
"The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) defends the teaching of evolution in public schools. We are a nationally-recognized clearinghouse for information and advice to keep evolution in the science classroom and “scientific creationism” out. NCSE is the only national organization to specialize in this issue. We provide:
Reviews of current anti-evolution activity in the United States and around the world Background to the fundamentally creationist and anti-evolution movement known as “Intelligent Design”
Detailed information on the Creation/Evolution controversy from 1859 to the present Resources for parents, teachers, school boards, and the general public Contact NCSE if you need advice, information, or help in defending the teaching of evolution. We also work to increase public understanding of evolution and of the nature of scientific knowledge. "
In other word, the Theory of Evolution is pretty much mandated and to hold any other view or to try to look at things from a different perspective or avenue of research is considered “heresy”
in the secular progressive world of scientific inquistion.
God Bless, maryJohnZ
