Reddit reviews Slaughter of the Dissidents

> Could you point me towards some peer reviewed literature which supports the position of this large group?

I'm sorry for the tardy reply but life happened... There's a plethora of resources that have tallied up evidence against stale evolution science, if that's what you want to call it.

Even Engineering undergrads like Bill Nye have been quoted as saying that science has to be constantly checked against itself or it's not science. That's the point of science. Scientists are still looking at the theory of relativity, string theory, even gravity to see if they can explore new understandings that will advance knowledge. Once you stop looking not only is it not science, it's ignorance.

"Peer reviewed", ipso facto is not evidence of established and proven or validated science, far from it in fact. Science today is all to often manufactured or paid for agenda driven team consensus.

There are SO many articles on this topic - look them up.
https://phys.org/news/2014-11-peer-fraught-problems.html
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/12/problem-peer-review-scientific-publishing.html
However, if that is your understanding of how science establishes fact?

Selected List of Peer-Reviewed Scientific Publications Supportive of Intelligent Design
The list below provides bibliographic information for a selection of the peer-reviewed scientific publications supportive of intelligent design published in scientific journals, conference proceedings, or academic anthologies:

• Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) (HTML).

• Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).

• Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).

• Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).

• William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).

• Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).

• Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).

• Vladimir I. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov, “The ‘Wow! Signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code,” Icarus, Vol. 224 (1): 228-242 (May, 2013).

• Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).

• Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 3047-3053 (October, 2009).

• Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).

• Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).

• David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).

• Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).

• Michael J. Denton, Craig J. Marshall, and Michael Legge, “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 219: 325-342 (2002).

• Stanley L. Jaki, “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987).

• Granville Sewell, “Postscript,” in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (New York: Springer Verlag, 1985).

• A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).

• Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).

• Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).


Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science first appeared in published form not in peer-reviewed scientific journal articles but in scientific books. That includes Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus and Newton’s Principia. Einstein’s original paper on relativity was published in a scientific journal (Annalen der Physik), but did not undergo formal peer-review. Indeed, Darwin’s own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience — his Origin of Species — not in a peer-reviewed paper.

Moreover, important scientific work has not uncommonly been initially rejected by peer-reviewed journals. As a 2001 article in Science observed, “Mention ‘peer review’ and almost every scientist will regale you with stories about referees submitting nasty comments, sitting on a manuscript forever, or rejecting a paper only to repeat the study and steal the glory.” Indeed, an article in the journal Science Communication by Juan Miguel Campanario notes that top journals such as “Science and Nature have also sometimes rejected significant papers,” and in fact “Nature has even rejected work that eventually earned the Nobel Prize.”

Despite the deficiencies in the peer-review system, “peer-review” is increasingly used as a rhetorical weapon, enlisted for the purpose of silencing dissenting, minority scientific viewpoints.
University of Kent sociologist Frank Furedi has explained the alarming rise of what he calls “advocacy science,” which defends itself not by citing data but by advocating the myth of infallible peer-review...

(1) In June 1937, Nature rejected Hans Krebs’s letter describing the citric acid cycle. Krebs won the 953 Nobel prize in physiology or medicine for this discovery.

(2) Nature initially rejected a paper on work for which Harmut Michel won the 1988 Nobel prize for chemistry; it has been identified by the Institute of Scientific Information as a core document and widely cited.

(3) A paper by Michael J. Berridge, rejected in 1983 by Nature, ranks at number 275 in a list of the most-cited papers of all time. It has been cited more than 1,900 times.

When Stephen Hawking submitted to Nature what is generally regarded as his most important paper, the paper on black hole evaporation, the paper was initially rejected.

I have read from his colleagues of his that when Hawking submitted to Physical Review what many people personally regard as his most important paper, his paper showing that a most fundamental law of physics called ‘unitarity’ would be violated in black hole evaporation, it, too, was initially rejected.”

I don't think "peer reviewed" means what you think it does... however the list above is not the complete list, there is more, a lot more should you truly be interested in truth.

>Denying evolution will get you laughed out of every biology department of every good university in the world unless you put up with some evidence. Funnily enough nobody ever presents any...

And they laughed when they said the earth was round. (Oddly, there's lots of strange talk these days about it being flat again.)

There's a really interesting book you might like to read, if you like reading...

It's called "Slaughter of the Dissidents." written by Dr. Jerry Bergman. It's only about 500 pages give or take. Bergman provides detailed accounts of 17 of the over 300 scientists and educators he has interviewed, all of whom have advanced degrees. Though their views range from creation science to intelligent design to evolution, all of them expressed some doubt regarding neo-Darwinism, observing that selection of mutations is not creating life's diversity. And all of them have received some form of discrimination.

Dr. Bergman observed that evolutionary elitists incorrectly lump all "Darwin Doubters" into one group, "creationists," who are then categorically ridiculed. Though highly qualified, these scientists and educators are verbally and physically threatened, lose privileges, lose opportunities for promotion, and lose jobs and whole careers, just for expressing some measure of doubt about the standard evolutionary story.

His book provides ample evidence and citations that "Darwin fundamentalists," are determined to punish others who do not agree with their beliefs. That's probably one reason for all the laughing, close mindedness hardly scientific...

I'd also submit that "good colleges" are not good colleges because they happen to "agree" with individual opinions be they the majority or not...

Is there something specific you can use to qualify Evolution?

I've downvoted this post. Why? Because even if the site didn't agree with the way the movie handled the information, the information is still clearly there.

The whole premise of the movie is that teachers who wished to question Darwinsim were persecuted. This is WELL-ESTABLISHED. While the movie has only underlined 6 teachers who experienced this, there are many more documented in other books. (Slaughter of the Dissidents is part 1 of a 3-volume series that underscores cases where this has happened.) In Guillermo Gonzalez's case, an ID organization has obtained internal emails from that school which specifically state why they denied him tenure-and the school has been sued. Anyone who rejects that this stuff has happened are doing so completely uninformed.

Secondly, I downvoted this post because it is not concerning Christianity. Christianity is the following of Jesus and his relevance to life. Many in the ID movement are not Christian (including Ben Stein), and they are outspokenly opposed to being linked to Christianity or Creationism.

If you repost to another topic, I will consider upvoting you.