JERRY BERGMAN Much is in the news lately about the University of California at Berkeley, where riots have prevented planned guest speakers from appearing. The university claimed in an email about their decision to cancel a talk by Ann Coulter that they uphold the First Amendment, but canceled her talk out of “safety concerns”. As evidence, they referred to the recent riots at colleges over conservative speakers, such as a talk by Milo Yiannopoulos that was canceled in February. Coulter is a strong supporter of creation as documented in her book, Godless.
Much is in the news lately about the University of California at Berkeley, where riots have prevented planned guest speakers from appearing.[i] The university claimed in an email about their decision to cancel a talk by Ann Coulter that they uphold the First Amendment, but canceled her talk out of “safety concerns”. As evidence, they referred to the recent riots at colleges over conservative speakers, such as a talk by Milo Yiannopoulos that was canceled in February. Coulter is a strong supporter of creation as documented in her book, Godless. [ii]
In another case, when Ben Shapiro was scheduled to speak at several colleges, demonstrations rose up to stop him. Benjamin Aaron Shapiro (born January 15, 1984) comes from a Jewish family, partially from Russia. He is a conservative Republican, and a creationist.[iii] And yet the absurd reason they gave for preventing him from speaking is the claim that “Orthodox Jew Ben Shapiro Is A ‘White Supremacist’” and a “Fascist”. It’s becoming increasingly common for protestors to use ad hominem tactics to block a variety of guests from speaking at college campuses, especially creationists. [iv]
To stop the censorship, an Academic Freedom bill of Rights has been proposed in various American states and in several other countries, in order to rectify the loss of freedom in many colleges and universities. Most young people today look forward to attending college. Few, though, are aware of the trends at universities that have resulted from the “political correctness” movement. Since I have been a professor at various colleges and universities for over forty years now, I am very attuned to issues related to censorship in the academic environment.
Abridgement of speech—as part of the political correctness movement—is now epidemic at universities. Historical attempts by universities to block the freedom of speech of professors have been well documented, but never before have they been so blatant as recently. Colleges have even established what are called “free speech zones,” and only in these places is freedom of speech allowed!
A classic example, becoming all too typical, was the case of University of New Hampshire sophomore Timothy Garneau. On September 3, 2000, 17 years ago, Garneau posted flyers in the elevator of Stoke Hall Dormitory making light of common frustrations that students experience in riding elevators. The elevators tend to be overcrowded because, instead of taking the stairs, many students take the elevator to go up only one or two floors.
In a hastily produced flyer, corrected here for grammar, he said, “nine out of ten freshmen girls gain ten to fifteen pounds. But there is something you can do about it. If you live below the sixth floor, take the stairs. Not only will you feel better, but you will also be saving time and will look better.” This comment was deemed by some to be both “sexist” and “discriminatory” toward obese people (one of the latest of many “victim” groups in our society that the government has ruled deserving of special rights.)
Garneau was confronted about his message. He become fearful that he would be punished for his expression of free speech. His fear turned out to be valid. At first, he tried to deny his involvement, but was eventually forced to admit his “mistake” of having expressed a politically incorrect opinion. Charged with violation of “affirmative action” policies, harassment, and “conduct which (sic) is disorderly and lewd,” Garneau was expelled from student housing, given extended disciplinary probation, required to meet with a psychologist to discuss “his problem,” write a three-thousand-word reflection paper, and to publish an apology in the newspaper. Forced out of student housing, he was then compelled to live in his 1994 Ford Contour for three weeks.
Garneau appealed his punishment within the university, but lost. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) took his case, claiming that the university violated his constitutionally protected free speech rights. FIRE attorneys argued that the university had no business investigating constitutionally protected free speech in the first place. Thanks to FIRE and their aggressive stand against the university (and FIRE’s long record for winning scores of similar cases when universities attempt to deny free speech as they often do nowadays), Garneau was eventually allowed to move back into a dormitory – but a different one, because it was deemed that someone so insensitive to the “rights of minorities” must be relocated.
Ironically, many universities tend to ignore behavior that many of us common folk regard as inappropriate—such as foul language or sexual immorality, and focus instead on what most people regard as trivial. My guess is, after this experience, Mr. Garneau will be afraid to say almost anything to anybody around the university.
The problem is so great that the President of the Study of Popular Culture, David Horowitz, has drafted a bill titled “Academic Bill of Rights” to defend the basic constitutional rights of students and faculty. While not a perfect bill, it will go a long way to ensure that the freedom most Americans take for granted in our daily life will also exist in our colleges. Unfortunately, since this 17-year-old case, things have only gotten worse, much worse, in America today.
Dr. Jim Nelson Black, in his 2012 book Freefall of the American University: How Our Colleges are Corrupting the Minds and Morals of the Next Generation, says that a major problem now is that “faculty members take great pains to exclude not just conservative ideas but also religion” from the college environment.[v] The substance of his concern is that students are not allowed to “articulate a point of view that might be considered by another party as exclusivist.” Black argues that the liberal view concludes that “we have no grounds for determining what is true; therefore, any claim to truth must be discounted and disavowed. This means, of course, that religious beliefs which rely on revelation and absolute standards of truth, have no home in the academy.”
Expressing hesitation about Darwin is considered irretrievable intellectual suicide, the unthinkable doubt, the unpardonable sin of academia. —Richard Halvorsen
In an article for the Harvard Crimson, Richard Halvorson expressed the same concern, namely that “bias against conservative religious beliefs on campus, and particularly the bias against any view that does not support the reigning Darwinian orthodoxy” is a major problem.[vi] In his critique, Halvorson said, “intellectual honesty requires rationally examining our fundamental premises—yet expressing hesitation about Darwin is considered irretrievable intellectual suicide, the unthinkable doubt, the unpardonable sin of academia.”[vii]
He went on to conclude that, “Although the postmodern era questions everything else—the possibility of knowledge, basic morality, and reality itself—critical discussion of Darwin is taboo … the basic premise of evolution remains a scientific Holy of Holies, despite our absurd skepticism in other areas.” The university, which has made a fetish of skewering sacred cows, is now in the position of giving what Black calls “an unproven theory of origins by uncertain nineteenth-century students of natural history the status of Holy Writ. The modern university has no religion but Darwinism.” Halvorson concluded that, “We must reject intellectual excommunication as a valid form of dealing with criticism: the most important question for any society to ask is the one that is forbidden.” That’s exactly what liberals used to believe 50 years ago.
In a study done before the 2016 elections, five people were interviewed. One,
Kaylee, a structural biologist at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, stays quiet when her colleagues talk about politics and religion. As a Catholic with conservative tendencies, she feels that her beliefs are unwelcome in academic institutions, where liberal views often prevail. The strain is particularly acute this year: Kaylee favors Donald Trump for US president.[viii]
The problem Kaylee feared (with good reason, it turns out) is that “supporting Trump could harm her job prospects.” For this reason, Kaylee—a postdoc—asked Nature to refer to her by a pseudonym. Her fears do not surprise Colby College (Waterville, Maine) sociologist Neil Gross, because surveys have documented
that conservative faculty members are a minority in US universities, although the proportion varies by field. “My sense is that the candidacy of Donald Trump has really intensified disputes that were there already in academic life,” Gross says. “If Republicans in academia and science felt uncomfortable before, I think the candidacy of Mr. Trump has made them all the more uncomfortable.”[ix]
Another scientist agrees. “‘The current status quo seems like it’s not working for a lot of Americans,’ says one Trump-supporting chemist at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, who asked for anonymity. ‘I’m hopeful for a modest improvement, and that’s about as much as I can hope.’”[x] In short, as the November 8th, 2016 election drew near, some “scientists who support Trump worry that political discussions in the lab will not only harm their careers in the long term, but also hinder current collaborations with colleagues, and waste time.”[xi]
The basic premise of evolution remains a scientific Holy of Holies, despite our absurd skepticism in other areas…. The modern university has no religion but Darwinism. —Halvorsen
[i] Holly Epstein Ojalvo. Do controversial figures have a right to speak at public universities? 2017. USA Today College Edition.
[iii] Behold the mental gymnastics: Ben Shapiro On the Creation Story Vs The Big Bang Theory. Reddit.com https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/54ffzh/behold_the_mental_gymnastics_ben_shapiro_on_the/
[iv]Berkeley Agitators Say Orthodox Jew Ben Shapiro Is A ‘White Supremacist’. The Daily Caller, 9/10/17. http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/10/berkeley-agitators-say-orthodox-jew-ben-shapiro-is-a-white-supremacist/
[v] Dr. Jim Nelson Black, Freefall of the American University: How Our Colleges are Corrupting the Minds and Morals of the Next Generation (2012), p. 230.
[vi] Halvorson, Richard. 2003. “Confessions of a Skeptic.” The Harvard Crimson, April 7, 2003, p. 4.
[vii] Halvorson, p. 4.
[viii] Sara Reardon. 2016. The scientists who support Donald Trump Science policy fades into background for many who back Republican candidate in US presidential race. Nature. 298(538):298-299, 2016, p. 298.
[ix] Reardon, 2016, p. 298
[x] Reardon, 2016, p. 299.
[xi] Reardon, 2016, p. 299.
JERRY BERGMAN To our chagrin, mosquitoes can and do fly, even though scientists have said they can’t. Our response is understandably, “I wish science was true in this case! No one likes mosquitoes.” Actually, scientists have just recently figured out how they are able to fly, and now realize that it involves a very complex designed system.
To our chagrin, mosquitoes can and do fly, even though scientists have said they can’t. Our response is understandably, “I wish science was true in this case! No one likes mosquitoes.” Actually, scientists have just recently figured out how they are able to fly, and now realize that it involves a very complex designed system. Solving this problem is important because it could have major applications to many other areas of technology, such as designs for micro-scale flying devices. An example is quadcopters, commonly called drones. To produce small micro-drones to fly into very small spaces looking for life, such as in buildings toppled by earthquakes, we need to understand how mosquitoes fly. This technology can then be used to produce micro-drones.
Many animals rely on the Bernoulli effect in order to be able to fly. The Bernoulli effect is the law that fluid pressure falls as the velocity of the fluid movement increases. Thus, the fluid pressure is inversely related to the velocity of the fluid. The Wright brothers discovered this effect by extensive experiments with birds and wind tunnels. They then used what they learned to build their first heavier-than-air flying machine powered by an onboard engine.
Airplane wings are shaped to force air to move faster over the top of the wing, causing the air pressure on the top of the wing to decrease. As a result, the pressure on the top of the wing is less than that on the bottom of the wing. The difference in pressure creates lift that literally pushes the airplane upward, at least enough to counter the effects of gravity.
This mechanism is used by not only airplanes, helicopters, and birds, but also by most insects – but not mosquitoes, surprisingly. Mosquitoes have small nearly flat planar wings, thus they produce very little lift. For this reason, how they were able to fly has for decades mystified entomologists (biologists who study insects).
Scientists solved the mystery of mosquito flight by using both super high-speed cameras and computer analysis.[i] They were then able to “understand the unique mechanisms the insect uses to stay airborne.”[ii] It is only now that science has been able to “explain how mosquitoes managed to flap their wings through such a short angle and still produce enough lift.”[iii] Mosquitoes move their wings around an arc of only about 40 degrees, lower than any other insect group.
Imaging a small creature with large antennae and legs that mask the view of its wings flapping at 800 beats per second, 4 times faster than many other insects of a similar size, was a great challenge. The solution was to use infra-red LEDs, a custom lighting rig, and eight cameras shooting at 10,000 frames per second. The eight cameras were set at difference angles to produce 3-dimensional pictures to help remove the blocking caused by the insects’ antennae and legs.
The researchers found that mosquitoes use three aerodynamic techniques to fly.[iv] The first is the leading edge vortex that is also used by most other insects. The second and third are a trailing edge vortex and rotational drag, both which, as far as is known, are novel to mosquitoes. Both of these mechanisms rely on subtle, but very precise, wing rotations. The trailing-edge vortex is a type of ‘wake capture’, that requires mosquitoes to align their wings with the air flows they created during the previous wingbeat. The result is they can exploit energy that would normally be lost. For this complex system to function requires not only the hardware, including the wing and neuromuscular design, but also the software, in this case the brain. A major problem for evolution is that, until the entire system was designed and built, mosquitoes could not fly. Consequently, they could not reach their food, which is plant nectar, and, in the case of female mosquitoes that are ready to breed and lay eggs, proteins and lipids—both of which are obtained in animal blood.
The common reason mosquitoes bite humans is because when their preferred food source, small mammals, is in short supply, humans are often a target. Mosquitoes become aware of the presence of humans by sensing carbon dioxide (CO2), and the average human exhales more CO2 than most all small mammals. Thus, humans make a bigger impression on a hungry female mosquito’s senses and an easier overall target. The human body also produces strong odor chemicals that, while unpleasant or undetectable to us, are very detectable to female mosquitoes.
The design of just the system that allows a small insect to fly is a wonder to behold. It took some of our brightest Oxford University scientists, and the latest technology, to unlock its secret. Nature awaits us with a seemingly endless supply of other wonders yet to be discovered.
[i] Richard J. Bomphrey, Toshiyuki Nakata, Nathan Phillips, Simon M. Walker. 2017. Smart wing rotation and trailing-edge vortices enable high frequency mosquito flight. Nature. 544(6):92-95.
[iii] Siciliano, 2017.
ADNAN OKTAR From the day it was brought forward by Darwin, the theory of evolution has remained perhaps the most hotly debated topic in the world. In fact, this debate goes on across the world not only in the field of biology, but on philosophical, political, sociological and even artistic platforms as well.
Never before has a "factual" scientific theory been a matter of such controversy and polemic in so many fields related and unrelated, direct and indirect.
As it is known, the emergence of new supporting evidence in time renders a theory stronger and helps it gain recognition. When refuting evidence surfaces, on the other hand, the theory in question is abandoned and classified as "invalid and insubstantial."
However, this standard procedure has never been employed for Darwinism, a compilation of fallacies that lack scientific evidence and are based on illogical postulates, for Darwinism has always been favored and defended at all costs by academic, ideological and political circles, where an atheistic-materialistic world view reigns supreme. Those who rejected the theory were declared anti-scientific, ignorant, fanatical and outdated, because keeping the theory of evolution alive was a factor vital for the survival of the atheistic-materialistic worldview.
Yet, since its introduction by Darwin, the theory of evolution has been refuted by all related fields of science:
— The branches of science such as biomathematics and statistics proved the improbability of even the smallest protein molecule comprising a cell, the building block of life, forming "by itself" under natural conditions.
— Paleontology brought to light more than 700 million ancient fossils, many of them tens of millions of years old, revealing that at no point of history did life forms evolve. The entire fossil record unearthed so far shows that since their first appearance on earth to date, life forms did not undergo any evolutionary processes.
— The imaginary transitional forms - interconnecting species claimed to have existed by evolutionists - have yet to turn up in any fossil record. On top of that, all of the life forms that have been presented as transitional forms to keep the theory alive have since been proven to be perfect living beings with complex anatomies and systems that have existed at certain points in history before going extinct. As a matter of fact, Darwin himself admitted this predicament that renders his theory utterly invalid in his book as follows:
Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?… Innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?... Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?... and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 172, 280)
— On the other hand, observations not only revealed that mutations, which are claimed to be one of the two so-called driving mechanisms behind the evolution, are completely incapable of transforming and improving species, but that the only clear impact they have on organisms is simply to bring about permanent damage and devastation. The definition of the laws of inheritance resulted in the revelation that it is scientifically impossible for natural selection, the second so-called evolutionary mechanism, to bring about new species.
In short, when normal scientific standards are followed, Darwinism is nothing but a fallacy that should have been discarded decades ago, as a requisite of rationality, logic and common sense. In other words, Darwinism is the greatest and most organized scientific hoax in the history of science.
But this truth is covered up by the ideological powers behind the scenes. In an attempt to keep the atheistic-materialistic philosophy alive, they resort to unimaginable methods to conceal the debacles of Darwinism and to give it a scientific veneer. Yet this entity, too, is getting weaker with each passing day -due in no small part to the confessions Darwinists have had to make themselves.
Particularly, the scientific activities we have carried out since the early 2000’s to the present day that unmask and lay bare the scientific predicaments of the theory of evolution have proved most effective in this regard. The information showing the invalidity of Darwinism that originated from Turkey - and spread throughout the world - has helped humanity wake up from this mass hypnosis. During these years, hundreds of books have been written and translated into numerous languages, revealing the invalidity of Darwinism with the help of scientific fields such as microbiology, paleontology and genetics. Hundreds of scientific conferences have been held worldwide, and about 100 documentary films have been prepared, featuring top-quality visuals and striking scientific data. Through the fossil exhibits held in numerous countries from the USA to the UK, from Holland to Hong Kong, people have witnessed the scientific basis of creation. In a dark environment, our endeavors pulled the curtain aside and let the light of knowledge shine on people, helping them know for certain that "the sun exists."
This fact can also be verified via several surveys conducted in the Western world in recent years. For example, according to a survey carried out in previous years, 50% of the Britons stated that they are either STRONGLY opposed to the theory or are confused about it. Among the rest, only 25% believe in evolution while the remaining 25% expressed doubts about the theory, saying that the theory is "probably true." For Britain, a country regarded as the cradle of Darwinism, these statistics are quite striking. The issue also found its way into the September issue of the well-known evolutionist science magazine New Scientist under the title "A third of UK adults question evolution.” The news article notes the followings, "Nearly 30% of adults in the UK say evolution can’t explain the origin of humans” “Unexpectedly, 44% (UK adults) felt that evolutionary processes cannot explain the existence of human consciousness." According to the survey, even those who express their belief in evolution state that evolution fails to account for the soul.
The recent public opinion polls conducted by Pew and Gallup revealed that almost half of the citizens of the USA do not believe in evolution.
A US-based news channel reported in August, 2017 the news that 99% of the Muslim Turkish people do not believe in Darwinism, but rather believe in Creation.
Similar research and surveys show a gradual decline on the rates of belief in Darwinism among Western societies, particularly in the last 10 years whereas the rates of belief in God are seen to be on the rise worldwide. Researches and statistics explicitly reveal an indisputable truth that cannot be covered up by demagogueries: People no longer believe in evolution. An increasing number of people reject evolution because they believe in science, clearly see the scientific evidence, and act on rationality and conscience. The more they are enlightened and obtain extensive knowledge on the subject, the more they come to realize that Darwinism is the greatest scientific hoax in the history of the world. Humanity has now begun to awaken from a century long deep hypnosis.
Adnan Oktar's piece in BERNAMA (Maleysia):