The field of science is plagued with political agenda and falsehood. Naturalists have monopolized the education system and implemented censorship, propaganda, and intimidation to control how people think and what teachers teach about creation. The creation-evolution debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham highlights the employment of these less than scientific tactics.
In an interview with the Huffington Post, Nye said the economy is threatened by teaching creation science because high tech companies, “would not be able to find competent engineers to come up with new ideas and create new products.” In other words, students should not be taught how to think. According to him, encouraging students to think honestly and critically about origins and age of the earth threatens the economy and technology. Nye and others like him believe that it is better to educate students by force feeding them propaganda while discouraging critical thinking.
The evolution dogma of naturalists has so guided the scientific community that it has blinded many in the field of discovery from seeing the unscientific control over education. How is it that Nye and others in the field of science and technology have become so anti-science about education?
Ecology and evolution professor Dr. Jerry Coyne, at the University of Chicago, called the Ham and Nye debate, “pointless and counterproductive” in an article posted on his blog, Why Evolution Is True. “If Nye wants to further acceptance of evolution, he should just continue to write and talk about the issue on his own, and not debate creationists.” “By so doing, he gives them credibility simply by appearing beside them on the platform.” However, debate is healthy in science, and until questions about evolution theory’s short-comings are answered intelligently and honestly in open forum for everyone to evaluate, the controversy will not go away regardless of the censorship, propaganda, and intimidation tactics employed.
Former managing editor for the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Richard Sternberg describes his personal experience of blatant suppression of research and information that involved censorship and intimidation. Sternberg writes in his blog, “In 2004, in my capacity as editor of The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, I authorized “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” by Dr. Stephen Meyer to be published in the journal after passing peer-review. Because Dr. Meyer’s article presented scientific evidence for intelligent design in biology, I faced retaliation, defamation, harassment, and a hostile work environment at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History that was designed to force me out as a Research Associate there. These actions were taken by federal government employees acting in concert with an outside advocacy group, the National Center for Science Education. Efforts were also made to get me fired from my job as a staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information.”
The propaganda surrounding the less than scientific Nazi response to Sternberg has led to misinformation, confusion, and denial that Sternberg was credible or mistreated. However, Sternberg writes to set the record straight saying, “Subsequently, there were two federal investigations of my mistreatment, one by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel in 2005 , and the other by subcommittee staff of the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform in 2006. Both investigations unearthed clear evidence that my rights had been repeatedly violated. Because there has been so much misinformation spread about what actually happened to me, I have decided to make available the relevant documents here for those who would like to know the truth.”
Contrary to Nye’s hypocritical accusation, politics, censorship, intimidation, and propaganda in one area of science does not harm scientific investigation in all areas. The obvious non-science practiced by naturalists favoring censorship in science is a good example. My own story involves the threat of being denied my Ph.D. because of my position on creation. However, most of the faculty agreed with my comment that my views on creation would not affect research in immunology and infectious diseases. Contrary to Nye’s mistaken opinion, many scientific discoveries are made by scientists with agendas. And to further contradict Nye’s assertion, the origin of western science and its creative insights is because of scientists who were creationists. And to the chagrin of the naturalists, Creationists continue to contribute to discovery and advancement of technology.
In fact, acceptance of creation science for its scientific merit is evident in the scientific community. A short list of biographies of scientists in support of creation over evolution, and articles on the unscientific discrimination against scientists who hold that position, can be found at Answers in Genesis. Other lists can be found at Creation Ministries International and Creation Information. An example of a current, world-renowned expert in science who is a creationist includes geophysicist Dr. John Baumgartner who was reported by US News and World Report in 1988 to be “the world’s pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection.”
As for the Ham and Nye debate, Dr. David DeWitt, director of the Center for Creation Studies at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., wrote, “This will be a very well watched debate, and I think there will be people surprised at how much evidence there really is that supports creation.”
