Slaughter Of The Dissidents – No Blood, No Guts, Just Whining…
31 January 2010 by KA
Pursuant to a thread at Pharyngula, a particular book was mentioned. So Googling it up, I found this wonderful bit of folderol:
By now you’ve probably heard about that infamous movie so many people are talking about called EXPELLED, starring Ben Stein. No? OK, so if you haven’t seen it yet, you should. This film played for a limited engagement in theatres across the USA in 2008 (but don’t go rushing out to buy the video until you’ve visited the offers from our partners at the "Order Online" tab above). If you missed the movie (or just want to read up on what others are saying about it) you can check out another movie trailer here, and read some reviews and commentary about it here.
‘Limited engagement’ actually translates to ‘invitation only’ across a limited amount of showings, and I’m sure we’re all up on this non-issue that Stein tried to stoke a non-fire in the intellectual underbrush. So why am I even mentioning this movie? Because the book Slaughter of the Dissidents (SOD) picks up where the movie "Expelled" leaves off. If you thought Expelled was mind-blowing, then this book will educate you even further about this important issue of repression of freedom and discrimination currently playing in academia today, along with many case studies of expelled scientists and educators (some of the SOD case studies also focus on some of the "Expelles" introduced in the movie). I thought it was mind-blowing that Stein imagined he even had a controversy, let alone a point. "Expelled" has taken many Americans by surprise. Suddenly, a growing number of people are wondering: what is this discrimination against Darwin skeptics all about? What do you mean we kick people out of academia just for asking questions about evolution! Is this really true? And just how bad is it really. Like all empty incendiary rhetoric, it’s really not all that bad. Nobody’s been ‘slaughtered’, either physically or metaphorically. It’s simply scare-mongering, is what it is. Well, in a word, the treatment of Darwin skeptics in our culture (scientists, educators, and students) is very poor. Many of them endure incredible humilation and eventual loss of their jobs. But even worse, being a Darwin skeptic for many of these people is a complete career-ender. Of course, there are many who try to argue against such claims, as you can see by visiting sites like "Expelled Exposed." We plan to provide some rebuttals to those arguments at some point in the future. But for now… SOD will serve as a starting point. You won’t believe some of the reasons many educators have lost their jobs, and how they often get blackballed from academia, or why some students failed to get an otherwise earned degree. This pernicious form of discrimination is not only widespread in the U.S. but is also nauseating to most Americans. SOD goes into great detail about how and why it occurs, and provides you with scores of actual case studies. As you read this book you’ll discover that one of the most precious things we own is at risk, right here in America. What is that? In a word, FREEDOM The price you pay for going against the scientific consensus (and especially on a topic that has been proven up and down and sideways to Muskogee) is…well, ridicule is something you’ll have to endure, especially when you don the martyr’s cap and cry ‘poor me!’ when you propound twaddle. Freedom to disagree about some aspects of evolution without losing your job or being denied an earned degree. Freedom to tell people you dare to question any aspect of evolution on scientific grounds – without referencing any religious text. Either the author doesn’t understand the definition of ‘aspect’, which is: 1. appearance to the eye or mind; look: the physical aspect of the country, 2. nature; quality; character: the superficial aspect of the situation, 3. a way in which a thing may be viewed or regarded; interpretation; view: both aspects of a decision. 4. part; feature; phase: That is the aspect of the problem that interests me most. 5. facial expression; countenance: He wore an aspect of gloom. Hers was an aspect of happy optimism. 6. bearing; air; mien: warlike in aspect. (6 will do for now), or he’s being deliberately misleading about the ‘any aspect’ phrasing. Either one wouldn’t be a surprise. And also the freedom to let others know what you personally believe outside of science without having such an utterance turn into a rabid witch hunt. That’s utter nonsense, otherwise notables such as Ken Miller and Francis Collins would be pilloried in accordance with this ‘logic’. Do you know it has reached the point in America where, on this subject at least, if you are an educator and you opine that you have reservations about any aspect of evolution based on scientific evidence, you are often immediately labeled as "religious" (whether you really are or not), and you are (often) immediately determined to be ‘unfit’ to teach science or get a science degree? Unmitigated crap. Maybe a biology degree, but this ‘any aspect’ accusation is ridiculous. And speaking of religion, it looks like we live in an era where freedom OF religion has been twisted to mean freedom FROM religion. Some groups supporting this type of discrimination proclaim that "Freedom depends on free thinkers," unless, of course, you happen to be ‘religious’. I don’t think I need to go any further with this. Of course, you can’t have freedom OF religion unless you have freedom FROM religion. This isn’t ‘discrimination’ – this is fact. It’s an equal playing field now – and this is the standard argument from martyrdom, except that we are all now familiar with the lies the Christians tell us, the lies they believe and will fight for, against all odds and evidence. In addition, I might add that this execratory bit of work has an introduction by none other than “Dr.” D. James Kennedy. For those of you unfamiliar with this particular fuckwit, he was that same idiot who made the repugnant ‘documentary’ titled Darwin’s Deadly Legacy, which has been debunked and repudiated (but is still for sale!). Also, a hardcore theonomist. One can only hope that this disorder we term religion will wilt away, that the human race can move onwards to greener pastures. Till the next post, then.
31 January 2010, on 12:01 pm
I can’t wait for the follow up on math teachers, whose careers have been cut short, because they exercise their god given right to divide by zero.
31 January 2010, on 1:16 pm
I love what gets left out here. Simply saying ‘gawddidit’ advances nothing in academics. Although I tend to avoid placing things in either/or scenarios, people who reject Darwinian theories of evolution typically do so because they are content to say things are exactly how their vision of god made them and to challenge or question this is wrong. Obviously, that viewpoint cannot possibly lead to any advancements. So, when they argue that those holding anti-Darwin views in higher education are persecuted, maybe the problem is that what they’re doing hardly belongs within the auspices of academics to begin with. Discoveries and advancements are made in the quest to answer fundamental questions about how things work. If one feels no need to ask these questions, what work can they possibly accomplish? Nothing new equals no reason to be in academics, but of course it’s much easier to enter into the usual persecution narrative.
31 January 2010, on 6:15 pm
“Do you know it has reached the point in America where, on this subject at least, if you are an educator and you opine that you have reservations about any aspect of evolution based on scientific evidence, you are often immediately labeled as “religious” (whether you really are or not), and you are (often) immediately determined to be ‘unfit’ to teach science or get a science degree?”
A disingenious bit of falderol, considering that the author has made it quite clear, particularly with the paragraph that follows this one, that they are not really all the concerned with science or scientific integrity. This is science conflicting with thier mythology. Voicing a “concern” for science, particularly when the author clearly has a poor understanding of the scientific process, is patently dishonest.
“Of course, you can’t have freedom OF religion unless you have freedom FROM religion.”
Of course, but people like this have a very poor understanding of “Freedom of Religion,” twisting it to mean protection of their particular religious beliefs, even to the extent of protecting their “right” to prostelize on the taxpayer dollar. The only reason the rabidly religous tolerate other faiths is because they realize it’s easier to convert a person of another religion to their particular brand of delusion than it is a free-thinker.
1 February 2010, on 3:00 pm
I dunno guys…
It seems that requiring science teachers to teach… science is pretty inflexible. No wonder Ben Stein and his friends are all pissed off. Now I suppose you’re going to tell me that we’re going to expel people from medical school just because they oppose William Harvey’s theory of the circulation of blood?
1 February 2010, on 8:30 pm
# Brooklyn Boy:
1 February 2010, on 3:00 pm
I dunno guys…
It seems that requiring science teachers to teach… science is pretty inflexible. No wonder Ben Stein and his friends are all pissed off. Now I suppose you’re going to tell me that we’re going to expel people from medical school just because they oppose William Harvey’s theory of the circulation of blood?
Your right Brooklyn Boy to infer that in order to teach science one must understand, and be involved in the latest and most advanced aspects of the science being taught. If not, ideally you shouldn’t be teaching. I am familiar with the fact that there are scientists (biological scientists) that don’t appreciate the facts of evolution and in my opinion they have missed their calling; they should have been priests or ministers of the Gospel. Darwinian evolution by natural selection is without doubt enough of a proven theory to be considered a fact; there should be no ifs or buts.
1 February 2010, on 9:00 pm
Looks like I’ve got a live one.
1 February 2010, on 9:15 pm
I might add that “Francis Sellers Collins (born April 14, 1950), M.D., Ph.D., is an American physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP) and described by the Endocrine Society as “one of the most accomplished scientists of our time”.[1] [2] He currently serves as Director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Openly Christian, Collins wrote a book about his faith and founded and was president of the BioLogos Foundation before accepting the nomination to lead the NIH. On October 14, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Francis Collins to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,” is a good example of an “ifs or buts” scientist. He doesn’t be the Director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland.
“During a debate with the biologist Richard Dawkins, Collins stated that God is the explanation of those features of the universe that science finds difficult to explain (such as the values of certain physical constants favoring life), and that God himself does not need an explanation since he is beyond the universe.” But that is almost a prehistoric thought for God has always been mans answer when science has not discovered the answer. ” “Dawkins called this “the mother and father of all cop-outs” and “an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain.”" Collins responded with the same argument that whenever there is something science can’t explain we call on God as the answer. He may be a brilliant geneticists but one has to wonder what such a mind is doing in the position of responsibility he is presently occupied with. And it doesn’t say much for Obama who selected him for that position, except maybe that they are both Evangelical Christians.
2 February 2010, on 1:12 am
Just as a reminder of what Dawkins thinks about Francis Collins, here’s his first interview on Bill Maher’s “Real Time”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tRpbkpNpgw
Also, here’s Richard Dawkins, at U.C., Berkeley (10/7/09), talking about his latest book: “The Greatest Show on Earth”; and answering questions about Evolution.
[at Hulu.com - Full Episode 1:19:30]
http://www.hulu.com/watch/108633/foratv-science-richard-dawkins-the-evidence-for-evolution
3 February 2010, on 1:26 am
As a truly out of the closet Atheist I think that it is time to address the illusions of theists precisely as they would address you, if you said you were going to pray to the Spaghetti Monster; your invisible creator in the sky. “If you think you can pray for a cure than why do you have millions of dollars worth of hospital equipment and personnel at your side?” It seems illogical to pray for a cure when according to your religious logic, God has created you this way and man is the one you should be praying to. And again according to your religious logic if your surgery happens not to be as successful as what you prayed for, your answer will be, “it must just be part of Gods plan.” Which begs the answer, than if it is your Gods plan why waste time praying to change the plan? Can you imagine a universe where God has to change his plans every time some one prays for something. So praying to the Spaghetti Monster will result in the same result you will get by praying to your God; a bad result about 50% of the time and a good result 50% of the time and if your not satisfied with the result you are of course going to respond, “it must be Gods plan.” By the time you explain all this to the patient, she/he, will probably hate you but it is time to be as positive and proactive about these things as the Theists usually are.
3 February 2010, on 12:42 pm
“During a debate with the biologist Richard Dawkins, Collins stated that God is the explanation of those features of the universe that science finds difficult to explain (such as the values of certain physical constants favoring life), and that God himself does not need an explanation since he is beyond the universe.”
I hate that type of cop out. Why would someone calling himself a scientist feel the need to turn to that type of response instead of the more honest answer: “science has yet to provide a satisfactory answer to [x], yet this is not to say it is incapable of doing so.” All that does is feed into the fundie style of arguing which says “since science hasn’t proven this yet, it proves god did it.” He’s simply helping religion lift any burden of proof from itself. What an asshat.