Est. May 2008

07 July, 2013

Totalitarian Censorship

When you read about totalitarian regimes, one of the things that invariably comes up is the censorship of any ideas which run contrary to the totalitarian dogma.  History has plenty of tales of this, from the Inquisition to Nazi book-burnings, to the old Soviet Union to modern Cuba and Venezuela and some Middle Eastern countries to global warming to today’s topic: the Ball State assistant professor of physics who’s under fire from our old friends at the Freedom From Religion Foundation for having the temerity to mention Intelligent Design in the elective class he teaches titled, ‘The Boundaries of Science’.

The FFRF, as is their wont, is screaming ‘separation of church and state’ and is demanding that the assistant professor be stopped from teaching anything contrary to Darwinian evolutionary theory; at present, the university seems to be standing its ground against the anti-religious group:
“The syllabus published was approved by our department Curriculum and Assessment Committee,” he (Thomas Robertson, the chief of the Department of Physics and Astronomy, ed.) said. “We review faculty performance regularly through student and peer/chair evaluations. I receive complaints and concerns from students familiar with faculty performance in their classes and investigate when appropriate. Given the totality of information available to me at this time, I do not share the opinions expressed on the websites cited below. We will continue to monitor our faculty and their course materials and practices and take appropriate action when deemed necessary.”
In hindsight, when looking at the practice of censorship, it’s usually invoked when the prevailing dogma is incapable of withstanding analysis and scrutiny; rather than argue the merits of the dogma against opposition, it’s simply easier to silence (or at least to attempt to) those who would question the dogma.  As an example, the ‘global warming’ ‘science’, which we’ve been told is ‘settled science’, is turning out to be anything but settled, yet attempts at censorship keep occurring (calling people ‘deniers’, for instance, in an attempt to discredit and hopefully shut them up).

This type of scientific censorship is stunning; after all, science is based on testing hypotheses in order to determine how well they explain things: if a hypothesis fails, it’s replaced by a different hypothesis.  This process goes on and on until the hypothesis – after as much testing as is humanly possible – either ‘holds its own’ or is shown to be false.  Then the process starts over again.  Not so, it seems, when it comes to Darwinian evolution – alternate hypotheses can’t even get through to door.

And I think I know why: Darwinian evolutionists know their theory has holes they can’t plug, and they fear that, should it be challenged by another hypothesis it is likely to fail.


No comments: