The Intolerant World Of “Scientists”
- Back To The Dark Ages -
Secular Scientists Of 2008 Ban Thought
Contrary To The Theory Of Evolution
Have Modern Scientists Become The Medieval High Priests Of Intolerance?
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men (John 1:1-4).
May 04, 2008
Galileo
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
Cristiano Banti's 1857 painting depicts Galileo facing the Roman Inquisition defending his thoughts about the biblical references Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30. Including texts stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same tradition, Psalm 104:5 says, "the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place, etc. Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. The writers of these Scriptures wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, and from that vantage point the sun does rise and set. In fact, it is the earth's rotation which gives the impression of the sun in motion across the sky. By 1616 the attacks on Galileo had reached a head, and he went to Rome to try to persuade the “church” authorities not to ban his ideas. In the end, Cardinal Bellarmine, acting on directives from the Inquisition, delivered him an order not to "hold or defend" the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the centre. The decree did not prevent Galileo from discussing heliocentrism hypothetically.
For the next several years Galileo stayed well away from the controversy. He revived his project of writing a book on the subject, encouraged by the election of Cardinal Barberini as Pope Urban VIII in 1623. Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. Simplicius, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. This fact made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book; an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defense of the Copernican theory. Galileo put the words of Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicius. The Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the blatant bias. Galileo was called to Rome to defend his writings.
With the loss of many of his defenders in Rome, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts: Galileo was required to abjure the opinion that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, and that the Earth is not at its centre and moves; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as "formally heretical." He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest. His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.
Texas Demands Faith In Darwinism
Regulators Reject Teaching From Team Of Ph.D's
May 01, 2008
Texas Demands Faith In Darwinism
Regulators Reject Teaching From Team Of Ph.Ds
WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63103
The state of Texas has decided that a graduate school with a faculty sporting Ph.Ds from UCLA, Penn State, the University of Montana, Colorado State, Case Western and Indiana University, with a few lowly Ed.D. degrees thrown it, isn't qualified to grant master's degrees because it teaches students to evaluate thoroughly the pluses – and minuses – of evolution and creation. The verdict came just a week ago from the Texas Higher Education Consulting Board, which rejected an application from the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School for a Certificate of Authority to grant degrees. The rejection came on the recommendation of Commissioner Raymund Paredes despite earlier approval recommendations from a site team dispatched by the state agency to evaluate the education offerings as well as the agency's advisory committee.
"This is the second time in 18 years that a state's top educational authority has attempted to thwart the Institute for Creation Research's ability to offer master's degrees in science and science education," said a statement from the Answers in Genesis organization. "Such a setback for a school – which has several qualified Ph.D. scientists on its faculty – merely confirms what the just-released film 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' has been exposing: academia will not tolerate any challenge to evolutionist orthodoxy and will suppress the liberties of Darwin-doubters," AIG said. ICR has been issuing master's degrees in California since 1981. In 1990 it overcame a challenge from state educational officials who tried to deny the school the opportunity to offer degrees. "ICR eventually won approval in a federal court," Answers in Genesis said. "Due to its recent move to Texas, ICR had to apply to the THECB for similar authorization… and once again found itself running another educational gauntlet." According to the Dallas Morning News, Henry Morris III, the chief executive officer for the ICRGS, said the school prepares students to "understand both sides of the scientific perspective, although we do favor the creationist view."
According to Answers in Genesis: "ICR has argued that its quality faculty and rigorous program – presented in a creationist framework – (teaches) students to become effective science teachers. Paredes has claimed that what ICR teaches is contrary to what is required in Texas's public schools, and that because ICR's program insists on accepting the biblical account of creation, it inadequately covers science. ICR counters with the observation that its students learn all about evolution, the scientific method, etc. – but that they are also exposed to the scientific problems with evolution." Among the 13 faculty members listed by the ICRGS, 10 have earned Ph.Ds in their fields of expertise, another is a doctor of veterinary medicine and two more have doctorates in education. Going into the hearing, officials from ICRGS said they had revamped their offerings "to meet, and in some areas to exceed, virtually all of the AAAS Project 2061 Benchmarks (in science, mathematics, technology, etc.) and the National Science Education Standards." However, it had a level of concern "about whether its public viewpoints have or will become the subject of unequal (or otherwise improper) discriminatory treatment in conjunction with the processing of ICRGS's application." "The ICRGS is concerned that educational politics may unduly influence the processing of ICRGS's application in a manner that chills free speech, and thus dampens postsecondary education diversity, perhaps facilitating the promotion of a postsecondary education market 'monopoly,'" the organization said.
'Expelled' Makers Go On Offensive Against 'Thought Police'
April 16, 2008
'Expelled' Makers Go On Offensive Against 'Thought Police'
By Bob Unruh
WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61776
A court challenge to the new movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," by Ben Stein is nothing more than an attempt on the part of the pro-evolution believers in the science community to stifle the free expression and debate of ideas, movie officials say. "We are not surprised that opponents of our film are attempting to interfere with its important message," said Executive Producer Logan Craft. "As the movie documents, similar tactics are being used across the country against many of the researchers, scientists, and professors who want to engage in free debate within science but have inadequate resources to challenge the Establishment." Craft, who also is chairman of Premise Media, continued, "However, we do have the platform to confront the 'thought police,' and we will work tirelessly to open the doors of free speech and inquiry." But it is facing an allegation of "unfounded copyright infringement" from representatives of XVIVO, LLC, a scientific animation company, over the movie's use of "original animation Premise Media created for the documentary."
Instead of waiting, Premise Media went to court this week in a pre-emptive effort to get the issue resolved. Its lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeks a declaratory judgment that there is no copyright or other infringement. The action resulted from "unfounded claims recently made by representatives of XVIVO. These claims have received wide distribution as part of an ongoing campaign attempting to discredit the film and its producers," the Premise announcement said. "Premise Media has also learned of grassroot efforts that are under way to try to influence the ranking of Internet searches regarding 'EXPELLED' by those wanting to learn about the film. Their stated goal is an attempt to counter-site those searchers to other websites that criticize the themes in the movie," the company said.
"Said Executive Producer Walt Ruloff. "It is interesting that these efforts are made less than 10 days before the movie was to debuts and involve those who continually seek to thwart open debate. "While bullying tactics may work against some individuals who are trying to explore the origins of life, it will not work against us. We certainly will not allow a small group of self-appointed gatekeepers to infringe our rights of free speech and our obligation to expose them for what they are -- namely, intellectual thugs unwilling to accept any dissent from Darwinian orthodoxy," he said. Stein said it was unlikely he'd pull his punches about the movie based on such claims, either. "I came to this project unsure what I would find," said Stein, "I am now amazed at the intolerance of many academic elites. I feel that it is my mission to speak out on behalf of targeted dissenters and fight for their freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry."
"Expelled" covers the following key questions:
• Were we designed or are we simply products of random chance, mutations and evolution occurring without any plan over billions of years?
• Is the debate over origins settled?
• How should science deal with what appears to be evidence of design?
• What should be taught to children and college students about our origins?
• Is there any room for dissent from the evolutionary point of view?
• Is it appropriate for eminent scientists who depart from strict evolutionary dogma to be fired and blacklisted, as is occurring in academia today?
• Should government schools and other institutions be engaged in promoting the secular, materialistic worldview to the total exclusion of differing points of view?
• Is science so advanced and so certain that it should be exempt from the societal norms of open dialogue and free debate?
• Why is it simply inconceivable and unacceptable for some evolutionists to consider the possibility – no matter how remote – that our world might actually have a Creator?
'Expelled' To Yoko Ono: Imagine There's A Constitution
Makers Of Intelligent Design Film Respond To Lawsuit Over Brief Use Of 1970's Anthem
April 24, 2008
'Expelled' To Yoko Ono: Imagine There's A Constitution
Makers Of Intelligent Design Film Respond To Lawsuit Over Brief Use Of 1970s Anthem
WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62489
The makers of Ben Stein's "Expelled" movie, which opened at No. 10 nationwide and already has become one of the top 25 documentaries of all time, say the U.S. Constitution will be their defense against a lawsuit filed by Yoko Ono. Ono and the sons of "Imagine" songwriter John Lennon, Sean Ono Lennon and Julian Lennon, are suing the documentary makers for using a brief clip of the popular song in the film. Lennon's 1971 song, which suggests an evolutionary utopia without heaven or hell, has been ranked No. 3 by Rolling Stone magazine on its list of the 500 greatest songs. The action, brought in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, demands the filmmakers and their distributors remove "Imagine" from the film. The makers of "Expelled," however, contended today they are protected by the fair use doctrine, which allows presentation of brief segments of copyrighted material for commentary. They called the suit just another attack on freedom in the U.S., a focal point of the movie that contends opponents of the Darwinian theory of evolution are being censored.
The new claim by Ono, however, opens up a new front "in the culture wars," the company said. "Yoko Ono and others have now filed lawsuits challenging the film's use and critique of John Lennon's song 'Imagine.' One of the suits seeks to ban free speech through preliminary injunctive relief, which essentially means that they are trying to expel 'Expelled' as it is now being shown in theaters," the company said in a statement released to WND. "If you really listen to the lyrics of 'Imagine' then you realize that it represents everything that the Neo-Darwinists want. 'Imagine there's no Heaven… No hell below us….
Premise Media Chairman Logan Craft said, "The fair use doctrine is a well established principle that gives the public the right to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism. While some may not like what we have to say or how we say it, we have the free speech right to do so – just as other political and social commentators have been doing for years." Officials said the company did not ask for a license to use the song, because there was no obligation to do so. "Unbiased viewers of the film will see that the 'Imagine' clip was used as part of a social commentary in the exercise of free speech. The brief clip – consisting of a mere 10 words – was used to contrast the messages in the documentary and was not used as an endorsement of 'Expelled,'" the company said.
Ben Stein, himself, weighed in on the controversy. "So Yoko Ono is suing over the brief constitutionally protected use of a song that wants us to 'Imagine no possessions'?" he asked. "Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time trying to silence a documentary she should give the song to the world for free. After all, 'imagine all the people sharing all the world… You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us and the World can live as one.'"
Famous Intolerant Darwinists Opposing Views Other Than Theirs.
Are They Any Better Than Papal Scientists And Inquisitors?
Yoko Ono:
Ono first met John Lennon when he visited a preview of an exhibition of Ono's at the Indica Gallery in London on November 9, 1966. Lennon's first personal encounter with Ono involved her passing him a card that read simply "Breathe." He was taken with the positivity, humor, and interactivity of her work, such as a ladder leading up to a black canvas with a spyglass on a chain allowing John to read the word "Yes" written on the canvas along with a real apple displayed with a card reading "APPLE." When John was told the price of the apple was £200 (approximately £2300 or $4600 in 2007 money), he later reported he thought "This is a joke, this is pretty funny." Another display was a white board with nails in it with a sign inviting visitors to hammer a nail into its surface. Since the show was not beginning until the following day, Ono refused to allow Lennon to hammer in a nail. The gallery owner whisked her away, saying, "Don't you know who that is? He's a millionaire!" Upon returning to John, she said he could hammer in a nail for five shillings. Lennon replied, "I'll give you an imaginary five shillings if you let me hammer in an imaginary nail." They began an affair approximately two years later, eventually resulting in Lennon divorcing his first wife, Cynthia Lennon.
Montreal Star, June, 1969 Reporter: Where do you get your strength?
John Lennon: From Hare Krsna.
Yoko: That's where we get it from, you know. We're not denying it.
After the Beatles disbanded, Lennon and Ono cohabitated in London and then in New York. They were arrested for possession of cannabis resin on October 18, 1968. The arrest would be significant to their future together. Their relationship was very strained as Lennon faced near-certain deportation from the United States based on the British drug charges and Ono was separated from her daughter, who would have remained behind if she followed Lennon back to England. Lennon began drinking heavily and Ono buried herself in her work. The marriage had soured by 1973 and the two began living separate lives, Ono pursuing her career in New York and Lennon living in Los Angeles with personal assistant May Pang. In 1975, the couple reconciled. Their son, Sean, was born on Lennon's 35th birthday, October 9, 1975. After Sean's birth, the couple lived in relative seclusion at the Dakota in New York. Lennon retired from music to become a house-husband caring for their child, until shortly before his murder in December 1980.
In 2004, Ono remade her song "Everyman... Everywoman..." to support same-sex marriage, releasing remixes that included "Every Man Has a Man Who Loves Him" and "Every Woman Has a Woman Who Loves Her." Ono remained outspoken in her support of feminism.
Adolph Hitler:
In his chapter entitled "Nation and Race," from Mein Kampf he said, "The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable." A few pages later, he said, "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.” The success in breeding cattle, dogs and other animals with certain desired characteristics gave empirical support to the concept of racial breeding as advocated by eugenicists and later Hitler and others.
Hitler exterminated over 273,000 people even before the Holocaust! "The first to be killed were the aged [those who are an economic burden, who detract from the happiness of society as a whole], the infirm, the senile, the mentally retarded, and defective children [that included epileptics]. Then there were WW I veterans - amputees - still in hospitals. Their reward for giving an arm or leg for Germany was extermination as 'undesirable.' Even bed-wetters and children with badly modeled ears were put to death - all part of the euthanasia project of Germany."
Margaret Sanger:
Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood was a proponent of eugenics, a social philosophy that gained strong support in the United States in the early 20th century. The philosophy claimed that human hereditary traits can be improved through social intervention. Methods of social intervention (targeted at those seen as "genetically unfit") advocated by eugenists have included selective breeding, sterilization and euthanasia. In "A Plan for Peace" (1932), for example, Sanger argued for:
A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring. Her fist pamphlet read: It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization. For upon the foundation of an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge.
Sanger promoted the idea of "race hygiene" through "negative eugenics," an attempt to reduce the fertility of "dysgenic" groups. Sanger considered the unchecked multiplication of the "unfit" to be "the greatest present menace to civilization." She suggested Congress set up a special department to study population problems and appoint a "Parliament of Population." One of the main objectives of the "Population Congress" would be "to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population."
Richard Dawkins:
Dawkins is an atheist, a freethinker, secular humanist, skeptic, scientific rationalist, and supporter of the Brights movement. He has widely been referred to in the media as "Darwin's Rottweiler," by analogy with English biologist T. H. Huxley, who was known as "Darwin's Bulldog" for his advocacy of natural selection. In his 2006 book The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that religious faith qualifies as a delusion—as a fixed false belief. Dawkins stated that "evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." ??? That is about as scientific as you can get, right?
Dawkins has ardently opposed the inclusion of intelligent design in science education, describing it as "not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one." He has been a strong critic of the British organization Truth in Science, which promotes the teaching of creationism in state schools, and he plans—through the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science—to subsidize the delivering of books, DVDs, and pamphlets to schools, in order to counteract what he has described as an "educational scandal." Our question to Dawkins is if you are so sure of your theory you should have nothing to be afraid of, right? Why is your view the right one even though you cannot observe it?
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.
(II Tim. 3:1-9)