Tom Shipley
Exposé #1: Richard Dawkins
I believe it can be confidently stated that the average person, including the typical college-educated graduate, has not the faintest idea of the vast extent to which the Great Darwinian Propaganda Machine operates. The Great Darwinian Propaganda Machine operates in totalitarian Stalinistic fashion in academia and in related media and government institutions (the Smithsonian Institution comes to mind) to suppress and repress any and all information contrary to the atheistic, evolutionary faith. (We will revisit the Smithsonian in a future article.)
In point of fact, censorship, repression of information, and even tyrannical and maniacal persecution of dissidents is rampant and pervasive at every level of academia, especially at the university and graduate levels. (If you don’t believe me, just ask Mark Armitage or David Coppedge or Jerry Bergman.) It is unfortunate that exposing and countering the Machiavellian machinations of the Darwinian persecutors is not a higher priority among creationists. I know of no one except Jerry Bergman who has made this a top priority (follow the links above). And until it is addressed and remedied, it does not matter how right and correct creationists are—the atheistic Darwinists will maintain their bigoted dictatorship, their persecution of Darwin doubters and continue their suppression of the flow of information.
Creationists do not lack for very excellent, top-notch work by top-caliber scientists either in quality or quantity. Very high-quality creationist articles, books, videos and scientific research all abound in great quantity and are easy to find if one but looks. The problem in the creation – evolution struggle is not a lack of high-quality material or expert creationist scientists. As crucial as this is, the main problem is that the Darwinian academicians and the pertinent media and government institutions have erected a veritable army of self-appointed, Orwellian, Big Brother thought police who labor ceaselessly to brainwash the population and limit the public’s exposure to any and all information that casts doubt upon orthodox Darwinian faith. They have no interest at all in any open inquiry. In this and subsequent articles I shall present several characteristic examples of this.
Exposé #1: Richard Dawkins
In his book, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, agnostic science journalist Richard Milton cites several examples of characteristic Darwinist censorship, including the repression of Melvin Cook’s detailed manuscript regarding atmospheric helium which was a follow up to a 1957 article in the Journal Nature (and yielded results indicative of a young age of the earth); the (sadly) successful blacklisting of biologist Warwick Collins by evolutionist Maynard Smith; the attempt to block publications by science journalist Forrest Mims by Jonathan Piel, New York editor of the Scientific American; and, my focus here, the attempt by famous atheist Richard Dawkins to censor, slander and blacklist Milton himself.
Richard Milton’s reporting here is autobiographical, so obviously he is intimately acquainted with what happened.
Says Milton:
“I experienced this kind of witch-hunting activity by the Darwinist police when I first published Shattering the Myths of Darwinism and found myself subjected to a campaign of vilification…it was disappointing to find myself being described by a prominent academic, Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, as ‘loony,’ ‘stupid,’ and ‘in need of psychiatric help,’ in response to purely scientific reporting.”—pg. 268
Why would an atheistic Darwinist of Richard Dawkins’ stature risk his own reputation by resorting to such infantile name-calling? You would think he would be eager to take the moral high ground and leave such vilification to lower-level academicians. There is, of course, only one answer to this, namely, Dawkins recognizes that the nature of the information conveyed persuasively casts doubt upon evolution. This hysterical shrillness (which is characteristic of the new breed of modern atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) is, in fact, a very calculated hysteria. It is meant to distract attention away from the facts, and cause sympathetic readers and listeners to get carried away in a wave of outraged emotion. It is, in essence, a tacit admission of the recognition of the falsehood of Darwinism.
Milton continues:
“(B)ehind my back, Dawkins was writing letters to newspaper editors alleging that I am a secret creationist and hence not to be believed…Dawkins contacted the editor [of Times Higher Educational Supplement], Auriol Stevens, falsely alleged that I am a secret creationist, and covertly lobbied against publication of my article, although he had not seen it…the editor of the paper gave in to this bullying and suppressed my article.”—pg. 268
Obviously, for an atheist like Richard Dawkins, even the honest agnosticism of Richard Milton is too much to tolerate. What indication is there in Dawkins’ behavior that he has any respect at all for open inquiry and debate? Who is guilty of dishonesty in this affair, Milton or Dawkins? And in the light of his deceptive and shameful behavior, how can we have any certainty at all in the integrity of Dawkins’ argumentation in his publications? How can we have any confidence that the things he writes are not deliberate deceit? Dawkins has disgraced and discredited himself by such behavior.
Milton comments:
“I found this kind of bullying, bad faith, and intellectual dishonesty in prominent academics both depressing and a little disturbing. It is like lifting a corner of the veil of civilized behavior and finding something like intellectual fascism hiding underneath…(T)here is little sign of it on the surface unless, like me, you begin to ask controversial questions…
“For anyone, anywhere, to say that I am a creationist, a secret creationist, a ‘creationist ally,’ or any other such weasel-word formulation, is an act of intellectual dishonesty by those who have no other answer to the scientific objections I have raised publicly. —pg. 269 emph. supp.
And that is the point, is it not? Dawkins has no convincing answer to objections to, and criticism of, evolution.
The reader with naïve faith in the academic establishment might object that such incidents must be merely anecdotal in nature and not characteristic of the evolutionary academic establishment in general. I reply simply that I would not have even broached this subject if that were true. I am not interested in anecdotes. The sad truth is that Dawkins’ behavior and malicious treatment of Richard Milton is very much typical of the Great Darwinian Propaganda Machine.
In our next article, we shall look at the great cover-up and disinformation campaign of that American bastion of evolution, The Smithsonian Institution, and Charles DiPeso, regarding the dinosaur figurines of Acámbaro, Mexico.
Featured Image: Portrait of Machiavelli by Santi di Tito
