BBC reports, 20 February 2010, the President of the US National Academy of Sciences saying that the recent controversies surrounding climate research have damaged the image of science as a whole.
“There is some evidence that the distrust has spread,” Dr Cicerone told BBC News. “There is a feeling that scientists are suppressing dissent, stifling their competitors through conspiracies.”
It’s not just a feeling. That is what they have been doing—big time.
It has been endemic for a long time and not just with climate research. The public have only now become aware of how corrupted the scientific establishment has become.
Those who have been following the creation-evolution controversy would already know about the problem. That is what the movie Expelled is all about, but it was mocked and denied by the likes of Oxford Professor Dawkins, the public face of the scientific establishment. The book The Slaughter of the Dissidents documents the chilling reality of censorship, intimidation and termination. The Geological Society of London, as does the Geological Society of Australia, aggressively censor views they do not like, as Earth Science Ireland also tried to do.
“People expect us to do things more in the public light and we just have to get used to that,” he said. “Just as science itself improves and self-corrects, I think our processes have to improve and self-correct.”
I don’t hold out much hope that the changes he has in mind are anything more than cosmetic. I may be wrong. But I will be prepared to acknowledge that there has been a substantive change when Science and Nature regularly publish papers critical of evolution and supportive of Intelligent Design. I will change my mind when the Smithsonian includes creationist interpretations of their fossil displays. I’ll admit I was wrong when the Geological Society of America, Australia and London allow creationist geologists to present ideas about Flood geology at their meetings.
I won’t hold my breath.
Dave McK
Oh, do hold your breath.
Kill 2 birds with one stone.
Tas Walker
Hi Dave, Thank you for your illustration of my point.
Give me a break
Tas, try to understand. Creationism died more than one hundred years ago. In your own way, you are a living fossil in that you are still maintaining these beliefs.
There is NO evidence for creationism and enough evidence proving evolution to take a dedicated reader fifty lifetimes to read. It really is that huge. It is not a conspiracy by those ‘evil scientists’ it is real. Had you actuallly studied it in uni you would have seen the evidence first hand and been exposed to the sheer volume of it. including but not limited to – around one billion fossils all appearing in a coherent stratiographical order and clearly showing evolutionary development, not one fossil out of step. The statistical strength of this is mind blowing.
Tas Walker
Hi Give me a break,
This is clearly a very personal issue for you, as it is for me. But why do you make so many obviously-wrong statements?
Creationism is obviously NOT dead, as you say. You would LIKE it to be dead. But it is very much alive which is why you are making so many posts on this blog—posts that I think are not very helpful. The opinion polls confirm that 40% + people (in the US, more in some other countries) believe that God created in the last 10,000 years.
You talk about all the evidence. Creationists have the same evidence. The argument is not about evidence but how it is interpreted.
I can understand your concern because your strident opposition to God is a very precarious position to adopt. But why do you think you can oppose God and win? You should learn from other people who tried.
The good news is that it is not too late to change sides. Acknowledge your sin, turn from it, give up your rebellion and believe the gospel.
Ian Burrell
Give me a break.
The many like myself who are reasonably well educated don’t like to be insulted by believers in evolution who cannot have an intelligent conversation about the facts. In fact the evolutionists who think they are on the right side of the argument never bring anything to the conversation except their very unprofessional level of prejudice.
It’s nice then to find Ian Plimer on the right side of the argument about “climate change” and bringing very reasonable arguments too, Though I doubt the wisdom of his association with Lord Monkton. But’s a refreshing change, would that Mr Plimer would bring he same level of argument to the creation evolution debate.
Winston Broad
Hey GIVE ME A BREAK, you would have seen how one of your main men, Prof Dawkins, answers the simplest and most basic question from Creationists: Can you give one example of a genetic mutation which actually added some information to the genome?
http://www.youtube.com/user/creationclips#p/u/14/YddmGJofbL0
Even with a break off-camera he doesn’t/can’t answer it. Still can’t! It really is immaterial how many truckloads of writing you mound up about the evolutionary theory if the theory itself has fallen over.
That’s why an increasing number of us are Creationists – your “living fossils” with a theory the real evidence of science fits into, than evolutionists still waiting (after more than your 100 years) for the first basic shreds of evidence to back up your theory to be found.
FRANK SHERWIN
This is a brief reply to that emergency room nurse (Give Me a Break).
As a student of biology, I was routinely taught the party line of macroevolution, but was never told how it actually occurred. Editor Michael Allaby stated, *there is no agreement as to whether macroevolution results from the accumulation of small changes due to microevolution, or whether macroevolution is uncoupled from microevolution* (The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Zoology, 1992). We used the 1974 edition of Integrated Principles of Zoology by Hickman, Hickman and Hickman in college. Not a single fact of macroevolution was listed in those pages. Interestingly, the 1997 edition of Integrated Principles of Zoology by Hickman, Roberts and Larson seems to have even less to say in regard to macroevolution –
*The origin of the ciliates [e.g. the Paramecium] is somewhat obscure.* – p. 235
*Unraveling the origin of the multicellular animals (metazoans) has presented many problems for zoologists.* – p. 240
*. . . one of the most intriguing questions is the place of mesozoans in the evolutionary picture.* – p. 242
*The origin of the cnidarians and ctenophores [comb jellies] is obscure.* – p. 275.
*Any ancestral or other related groups that would shed a clue to the [evolutionary] relationships of the Acanthocephala is probably long since extinct.* – p. 317
*The primitive ancestral mollusk [snails, clams, squids] was probably a more or less wormlike organism . . .* – p. 346
*The phylogenetic position of placozoans is uncertain . . .* – p. 242 (this phylum is now supposedly *the closest living thing to the ancestor of all animals* – New Scientist 1/09)
*No truly satisfactory explanation has yet been given for the origins of metamerism [segmentation] and the coelom [a fluid-filled cavity], although the subject has stimulated much speculation and debate over the years.* – p. 365
*What can we infer about the common ancestor of the annelids [clam worms, earthworms]? This has been the subject of a long and continuing debate.* – p. 365
*Controversy on [evolution] within the Chelicerata [arthropod] also exists . . .* – p. 379
*The relationship of the crustaceans to other arthropods has long been a puzzle.* – p. 399
*The [evolutionary] affinities of the Pentastomida are uncertain.* – p. 439
*The [evolutionary] position of the lophophorates [invertebrates] has been the subject of much controversy and debate.* – p. 447
*Despite the excellent fossil record, the origin and early evolution of the echinoderms [sea stars] are still obscure.* – p. 450
*Despite the existence of an extensive fossil record, there have been numerous contesting hypotheses on echinoderm [evolution].* – p. 465
*Hemichordate [evolution] has long been puzzling.* – p. 476
* . . zoologists have debated the question of vertebrate origins. It has been very difficult to reconstruct lines of descent because the earliest protochordates were in all probability soft-bodied creatures that stood little chance of being preserved as fossils even under the most ideal conditions.* – p. 485 [In other words, there is no evidence for their evolution]
*However, the exact [evolutionary] position of the chordates within the animal kingdom is unclear.* – p. 480
*The evolutionary origin of insect wings has long been a puzzle.* – p. 429 [*Nobody knows where caterpillars came from* – retired zoologist Donald Williamson, U of Liverpool, New Scientist Aug., 29, ’09 p. 12]
*The fishes are of ancient ancestry, having descended from an unknown free-swimming protochordate [a tunicate or lancelet] ancestor.* – p. 499
Trilobites (subphylum Schizoramia – at least 56 families) are fascinating creatures found in the Cambrian and Ordovician rocks and disappearing at the end of the Permian. One multimedia encyclopedia (Navify) stated, *When trilobites first appeared they were already highly diverse and geographically dispersed* as predicted by creation science. Evolutionist David Raup said the trilobites* … used an optical design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today … ” (Raup, 1979). See also *Trilobites — The Eyes Have It* by Sherwin & Armitage, 2003 Creation Research Society. CRSQ—Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 3
Kenneth Acushla
Are you aware it was not Charles Darwin but his grandfather Erasmus Darwin who wrote The Theory of Evolution.? Erasmus, family and friends taught that the Family of Man with the white races at the top with the black races at the bottom. Today this is termed racist but Dawkins and others do not talk about this. Yet it was part of the Theory of Evolution. They taught it. Regarding Climategate it is on public record, statements by the president of EU and SG of the UN that the goal of Global Warming Climate Change is to bring about Global Governance. So they have made it into a religion with Al Gore as its high priest. When Al Gore got his Noble Prize there was articles saying summers would be hotter with winters becoming warmer. When the opposite happened those articles were taken away. Also when scientists disagreed saying that GW CC was not caused by human beings they were threatened with losing their careers and Research Funds. So it was obvious who was telling the TRUTH for why would they be threatened? When the Freezing Winter Weather ends in the Northern Hemisphere whatever year it ends the SUN will become scorching blazing hot. It has happened in the past.
Daniel
@ Frank, thanks for being brief 😉
@ Give me a break, the only place any fossils appear in perfect stratigraphical order is in evolutionary textbooks.
Val
I am always facinated by the Creation/Evolution debate (there’s no contest as far as I can see) However, I would love to see Christian ‘fossils’ around the world continually pray for Richard Dawkins that ‘the scales might fall from his eyes’. Here’s a quote I found interesting,from the co-discoverer of DNA:-
“What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events… An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle… (Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, codiscoverer of DNA)
Tas Walker
Hi Val,
Yes, at Creation Ministries where I work we do pray for those who oppose us, including Richard Dawkins, every Tuesday, even when it seems like a hopeless cause. But Jesus said we should pray for our enemies and the Bible makes it clear that even the worst enemy of Christ can have a change of heart. It is interesting that we have at least four ex-atheists on staff, all of whom are passionately involved in speaking and writing. It will be amazing to see Richard submit to the Lord Jesus Christ, our Creator and Saviour, and use his many amazing gifts in the service of His cause.
Kenneth Acushla
What would Dawkins do in a country governed by Shariah law, where he would have to accept the moon god Allah?
Laurie Appleton
It is encouraging to learn that some significant advocates of climate change are starting to realise that they have blundered. Congratulations to those who have been exposing the poor scientific reasoning of this whole dangerous proposition.
Rusty
Can someone explain to me how mankind evolved, as a genetically diverse race from two people – who did Adam and Eves children pro-create with, how did Noah manage to load two of every animal on earth including dinosaurs (apparently)and then how did they manage to procreate into genetically diverse populations with sub species etc from two original descendants. And thirdly why are Religious people so keen to tear down science over global warming, I am assuming scince with its basis of facts and not faith are the natural enemy, so kick them when they stumble. This is pretty simple stuff so a logical answer shouldn,t be to hard> Thanks Russ
Tas Walker
Hi Rusty,
That’s a question that has puzzled many but it has a simple answer. See Chapter 18 of the Answers book.