Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 83849

If you doubt the Gestapo tactics of the Darwin lobby, consider that just last week another case was uncovered about how they routinely block academic papers that criticize Darwin's evolution theory from being published. Writer Casey Luskin recalled a meeting with Wesley Elsberry, a long-time activist for the Darwin lobby and former staff member at the National Center for Science Education, who literally rejoiced whenever Intelligent Design scientists had their papers rejected from journals. Furthermore, Elsberry had the gall to criticize Intelligent Design proponents for not publishing in the mainstream scientific literature (an untrue charge).

Ellis Washington, World Net Daily 66 Comments [9/19/2011 3:08:12 AM]
Fundie Index: 78
Submitted By: Night Jaguar
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
Night Jaguar

Yes, the Gestapo are best known for turning down academic papers for publication. *eyeroll*

9/19/2011 3:14:10 AM

Armchair Academic

Yeah, I totally agree with you. They would not publish my paper either. Even though it was totally based on facts. It wouldn't even have taken up much of their space. It said "God did it and I can prove it because it says so in the bible".

Censorship is so wrong (when aimed at my side)!

9/19/2011 3:22:55 AM

Mudak

If you Google Casey Luskin, this is the first entry you will find:

http://www.discovery.org/p/188

Without going past this page and checking any of the links provided, please advise what someone whose scientific discipline is "earth science" can possibly say about evolution other than question the fossil record? And even at that, if the word "intermediate" appears anywhere in this context the entire article loses all credibility.

Also, how can a critique of the Kitzmiller ruling be both "comprehensive and concise"?

9/19/2011 3:35:56 AM

anevilmeme

Evolutionary Biology: science supported by evidence
I D: theology not supported by evidence

How hard is that for people to understand?

9/19/2011 3:37:30 AM

snowjohnson

Blocked is not equal to unable to stand against peer review. On the plus side, you can publish your papers. In the fiction section where they belong.

9/19/2011 3:58:51 AM



If creationist papers cannot meet the scientific standards on data, analysis, and intellectual integrity, then they don't deserve to get printed in scientific literature.

9/19/2011 4:05:08 AM

aaa

Just another whiner who can't stand it when somebody points out the flaws in his hogwash. Tell me, are you doing this out of malice or ignorance?

9/19/2011 4:14:05 AM

snowjohnson

On second thought. You mad bro.

9/19/2011 4:20:13 AM

meh

If I were them, I too, would be rejoicing that ID had their drivel rejected. Though, it could be because that ID papers don't present any evidence, or do any of the work scientists are supposed to do.

9/19/2011 4:35:45 AM

Yownanymous

Because Christians have never censored or blocked anything.

9/19/2011 4:38:14 AM

Mister Spak

"If you doubt the Gestapo tactics of the Darwin lobby"

Hitler's Table Talk, July 25, l942:

'From where do we get the right to believe, that from the
very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at
Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals
changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a
kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump,
as Man must supposedly have made, if he has
developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.'

Looks like the swastika is on the other arm.

9/19/2011 4:43:21 AM



Casey is just mad that their Wedge Strategy isn't working. They are persecution fantasists like all the rest of the fundies. Casey is no scientist, and not qualified to speak on the validity of any work of science, be it mainstream science or that produced by ID proponents*.

*Which is not good science, as evidenced by the fact that it is mostly not published in journals because it can't pass peer review. They resort to bullying publishers and accusing them of free speech violations, but still their work doesn't stand.

9/19/2011 5:15:24 AM

Matante

Did he rejoice or break into hysteric laugher at his expense?

9/19/2011 5:39:51 AM

TGRwulf

Godwin and lying for Jeebus. You sir, are a true fundie.

9/19/2011 5:46:45 AM



From world net daily. Reason enough not to take it seriously.

9/19/2011 5:56:17 AM

dionysus

Yes, it is a veritable holocaust against creationism. Seriously though, stop comparing everything to the Nazis. It's really offensive and annoying. It trivializes the death of millions of people all for some stupid political point. As for the rest of your bullshit, creationist (and don't try that "it's not creationism, it's intelligent design" bullshit; the Dover trial showed everyone the wolf under the sheep's clothing) papers are rejected because all they ever do is 1) attack ToE and 2) find a "mystery" or "complexity" and assert that it must have been designed. That's NOT how you validate a hypothesis. Real scientific theories bring new insight and new applications and can stand on their own merits. In fact, I have yet to find a scientific paper on evolution that relies on attacking creationism and if such a paper even exists, it's certainly not typical.

9/19/2011 5:59:06 AM

John

Many ID proponents have published in mainstream science literature. They just haven't published about ID. ID papers are rejected because they are always "arguments from ignorance" (I don't see how evolution can be true, therefore it isn't), false dichotomies (evolution is false therefore ID must be true) and lack original research.

9/19/2011 6:05:32 AM

Doubting Thomas

It's probably because there's absolutely no science in "Intelligent Design." If I submitted a paper claiming that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created humans, I'm sure it would be rejected as well.

The main reason is probably because all arguments in favor of Intelligent Design are either attacks on evolutionary theory, in effect making the argument that if evolutionary theory is false, it proves that ID is true; or some vague "things look designed, therefore there has to be some cosmic, all-powerful deity which made everything and which just happens to be the same god I believe in" argument. Neither of which are real science.

9/19/2011 6:20:08 AM

N. De Plume

Maybe the reason articles critical of evolution are rejected is because such articles are routinely nonscientific crap.

Just maybe.

9/19/2011 6:21:44 AM

Raised by Horses

Hey, it's not our fault that real scientists find the notion of Creationism laughable.

9/19/2011 6:27:18 AM

Leliel

Nazi Censorship:

"You have not sufficiently praised the Furher! YOU MUST DIE!"

The Censorship Ellis Is Actually Talking About:

"WTF is this garbage!? GO HOME AND DO SOME ACTUAL RESEARCH, IDIOT!"

Notice a difference?

9/19/2011 6:30:37 AM

Horsefeathers

"If you doubt the Gestapo tactics of the Darwin lobby, consider that just last week another case was uncovered about how they routinely block academic papers that criticize Darwin's evolution theory from being published."

Refusing to publish something that lacks scientific merit, experimental evidence or even a basis in reality is not some sort of conspiracy. It's how science works.

"Writer Casey Luskin recalled a meeting with Wesley Elsberry, a long-time activist for the Darwin lobby and former staff member at the National Center for Science Education, who literally rejoiced whenever Intelligent Design scientists had their papers rejected from journals."

As do I, and I'm not even a scientist.

"Furthermore, Elsberry had the gall to criticize Intelligent Design proponents for not publishing in the mainstream scientific literature (an untrue charge)."

No, it's not an untrue charge. You show me a scientifically valid paper written by an "Intelligent Design scientist" on the topic of ID in a legitimate scientific journal.

I don't want something by Behe or someone else who has legitimate scientific credentials publishing something using standard science ideas; I want to see where Behe or others have written on the topic of ID and successfully had it published in a respected scientific journal.

Good luck.

9/19/2011 6:50:00 AM

tmarcl

So, scientists routinely break into people's houses and kidnap them at gunpoint for torture and execution? I totally didn't know that.

9/19/2011 6:56:39 AM

Swede

Are these papers that just aim at critizing scientific theories, but don't come with new evidence-based science?
I thought the whole idea about science was to come with something new, some valuable addition to already existing knowledge.


9/19/2011 7:12:06 AM

Anon-e-moose

"If you doubt the Gestapo tactics of the Darwin lobby, consider that just last week another case was uncovered about how they routinely block academic papers that criticize Darwin's evolution theory from being published."

If you doubt the Gestapo tactics of the God lobby, consider that just six years ago, another case was uncovered about how they routinely try to enforce Creationism in US schools, as part of their agenda to eliminate anything that criticises Genesis in the Bible.

Fortunately, said God Lobby's own educational agenda fucked up in Kitzmiller vs. Dover, and their case fell apart. Teaching Creationism (by Stealth, via so-called 'Intelligent Design') was made illegal and unconstitutional by the ruling of Judge John E. Jones III. A Christian Conservative.

Evolution is fact. Creationism is lies. The law says so. And your own Scripture - Romans 13:1-5 - orders you to obey the law.

Deal with it.

9/19/2011 7:21:53 AM
1 2 3