YOWUSA.COM Home Page  

The Kolbrin Bible: Glenn Kimball Special Edition

Win-Win Survival Handbook

Radio Free Earth

Feel Better on Your Own

Home Page  | Subscribe  |  Archive: 2000 - 2012   Cut to the Chase Radio  |  Planet X Town Hall
Earth  |  eBooks  |  ET  |  Humanity  |  Nostradamus  |  Planet X  |  SciTech  |  SCP  |  Space  |  War



The Guardians of Dogma: Part 2 – Defenders of the New Religion

YOWUSA.COM, 30-May-04
Dale Caruso

The Guardians of Dogma"The great era of scientific discovery is over Further research may yield no more great revelations of revolutions, but only incremental, diminishing returns," wrote Science journalist John Horgan, in The End of Science (1997). It can also be argued that this approach has also fostered an attitude that cries "We are the keepers of the truth ... We are the dispensers of all that is fit to know ."  As we will discover in part two, according to the "Church of Progress," the American people are incapable of evaluating scientific arguments and evidence for themselves.

In 1925, the world's attention was riveted on Dayton, Tennessee.  At issue was the constitutionality of the "Butler Law," which prohibited the teaching of evolution in the classroom.  Oklahoma, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina and Kentucky already had such laws. 

That was the infamous "Scopes Monkey Trial."  The story is well known by all, as was its outcome.  At the conclusion of that trial, in his last words to the court, 24 year old John T. Scopes, a science teacher and football coach, the man who was reluctant from the start, said, "Your Honor, I feel that I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute.  I will continue in the future ... to oppose this law in any way I can.  Any other action would be in violation of my idea of academic freedom."

In Europe there was total amazement that such a thing as teaching the theory of evolution as one possible alternative in the story of man's creation was even an issue.  The Rev. Frank Ballard, Christian Evidence lecturer for the Wesleyan conference, writes, "The assumptions of fundamentalism are so preposterous ... it is pitifully manifest that both the science and theology of many of those posing as authorities are half a century behind the times.  The notion of the Judge's charge to the Grand Jury beginning with the reading of the First Chapter of Genesis as an account of creation which Tennessee teachers must adopt savors of the sixteenth rather than the twentieth century."

The Scopes trial by no means ended the debate over the teaching of evolution, but it did represent a significant setback for the anti-evolution forces. 

However, rather than it being the dawning of a "new age of enlightenment, and as with the fundamentalists of the 1920's, it is Darwin's theory of evolution that has become the new Genesis.  Once again, we are being told that only one idea about human origins can be taught to the children in the nation's public schools.  That idea is the Darwinist idea, which states that human beings evolved from more primitive apelike creatures by a purely materialistic process.  This comes despite the fact that most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. 

As it was in 1925, today it is the Darwinists that are up in arms over a decision in March of this year by the Ohio State education department, which said that science students in high school should be able to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."  In furtherance of this goal, the state education board approved by a vote of 10-7 a lesson plan for high school biology students called "Critical Analysis of Evolution."

Predictably, fundamentalist Darwinists are threatening to take the issue to the federal courts.  Clarence Darrow once said of the difference between science and religion, "Science gets to the end of its knowledge and, in effect, says, 'I do not know what I do not know,' and keeps on searching.

Religion gets to the end of its knowledge, and in effect, says, 'I know what I do not know,' and stops searching.  Nearly eighty years later, it is science that has become the new religion.

The Darwinian Thought Police

Publicly questioning or debating any issue is one of the many strengths of our society and a tradition that many of us hold near to our hearts.  However, apparently if it is questioning or debating that which has been proclaimed as the doctrine of the Church of Progress, it is not permitted.

In 1996, NBC's decided to broadcast the film Mysterious Origins of Man, made by Emmy-award winning director Bill Cote, in which independent investigators had a rare opportunity to present anomalous evidence of historical geology and mankind's past so that viewers could evaluate this alternative evidence for themselves.

The program proved immensely popular with many viewers, attracting audiences of around 20 million on each of the two occasions when it was shown.  The producers also received dozens of abusive responses, which included virtually no attempts to rebut the scientific issues raised but took the consensus position that students and the public should not be given access to such contradictory evidence.

They included terms such as; 'horrible,' 'atrocious,' 'garbage,' 'anti-intellectual trash,' 'evil,' 'deliberate, fraudulent misinformation,' 'claptrap,' 'utter rubbish,' 'nonsense,' A bunch of hooey,' 'unadulterated hogwash,' 'bullshit,' 'A piece of junk,' 'crap,' 'shame on you, liars and opportunists' and "Frankly, you are either morons or liars."

These were not the words of "kooks" or religious fanatics; they were, in fact, the words of senior scientists and academics (including several professors) from Yale, University of California at Berkeley, State University of New York, University of Texas at Austin, Wisconsin, New Mexico State, Colorado, Northwestern and other universities.

Two such academics were so upset by the broadcast they injudiciously let the cat out of the bag completely:

"Thanks largely to the efforts of people like yourself, the American public is generally not capable of evaluating the "arguments" and "evidence" you present," fulminated one. 

Another was even more candid.  "You should be banned from the airwaves."

I think that, from these two most interesting points, we can deduce that, according to the Church of Progress, the American people are incapable of evaluating scientific arguments and evidence for themselves.  Additionally, if you attempt to provide evidence or arguments that contradict the accepted view you should be banned from broadcasting, the print medium, or even have your right to exist revoked.

Someone once said that he who criticizes the loudest is the one least likely to accept criticism.  When that "he" is mainstream science, the results can down right vindictive and devastating for the person who has the audacity to bring forth new ideas.

Two particular cases documented in Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson's book, Forbidden Archeology, best illustrate this point.

In the early 1950s, Thomas E. Lee of the National Museum of Canada found advanced stone tools in glacial deposits at Sheguiandah, on Manitoulin Island in northern Lake Huron.  Geologist John Sanford of Wayne State University argued that the oldest Sheguiandah tools were at least 65,000 years old and might be as much as 125,000 years old. 

For those adhering to standard views on North American prehistory, such ages were unacceptable. 

Thomas E. Lee complained: "The site's discoverer [Lee] was hounded from his Civil Service position into prolonged unemployment; publication outlets were cut off; the evidence was misrepresented by several prominent authors  ; the tons of artifacts vanished into storage bins of the National Museum of Canada; for refusing to fire the discoverer, the Director of the National Museum, who had proposed having a monograph on the site published, was himself fired and driven into exile; official positions of prestige and power were exercised in an effort to gain control over just six Sheguiandah specimens that had not gone under cover; and the site has been turned into a tourist resort Sheguiandah would have forced embarrassing admissions that the Brahmins did not know everything.  It would have forced the rewriting of almost every book in the business.  It had to be killed.  It was killed."

The treatment received by Lee is not an isolated case.  In the 1960s, anthropologists uncovered advanced stone tools at Hueyatlaco, Mexico.  Geologist Virginia Steen-McIntyre and other members of a U.S. Geological Survey team obtained an age of about 250,000 years for the sites implement-bearing layers.  This challenged not only standard views of New World anthropology, but also the whole standard picture of human origins.  Humans capable of making the kind of tools found at Hueyatlaco are not thought to have come into existence until around 100,000 years ago in Africa.

According to Cremo and Thompson, Virginia Steen-McIntyre experienced difficulty in getting her dating study on Hueyatlaco published.  "The problem as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco," she wrote to Estella Leopold, associate editor of Quaternary Research.  "It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought through the suppression of 'Enigmatic Data,' data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking.  Hueyatlaco certainly does that!  Not being an anthropologist, I didn't realize the full significance of our dates back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human evolution has become.  Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory, period."

This pattern of data suppression has a long history.  Again from Forbidden Archeology, "In 1880, J. D. Whitney, the state geologist of California, published a lengthy review of advanced stone tools found in California gold mines.  The implements, including spear points and stone mortars and pestles, were found deep in mine shafts, underneath thick, undisturbed layers of lava, in formations that geologists now say are from 9 million to over 55 million years old.  W. H. Holmes of the Smithsonian Institution, one of the most vocal nineteenth-century critics of the California finds, wrote: "Perhaps if Professor Whitney had fully appreciated the story of human evolution as it is understood today, he would have hesitated to announce the conclusions formulated [that humans existed in very ancient times in North America], notwithstanding the imposing array of testimony with which he was confronted."  In other words, if the facts do not agree with the favored theory, then such facts, even an imposing array of them, must be discarded.