Wikipedia Erases Scientist from Website for Supporting Intelligent Design

Günter Bechly
Günter Bechly censored by Wikipedia

Wikipedia has deleted a paleontologist’s page because he weighed Darwinism in the balances and found it wanting.

In 2006, Günter Bechly, a highly respected and well-known paleontologist, devised a clever plan to show the public that scientific evidence clearly weighs heavily in Charles Darwin’s favor. In preparation for a worldwide celebration commemorating the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, Bechly carefully designed an exhibit in which he placed a balance scale piled high on one side with books advocating creationism and intelligent design. The other side held only a lone copy of Darwin’s book. Of course he rigged the scale so Darwin’s manual weighed its side down while the books on the other side appeared featherlight. The message was clear: Darwin’s scientific evidence far outweighed any arguments skeptics could pose.

But then, a funny thing happened on Bechly’s way to the celebration. He read some of the books he had placed on the light side of the scale, and they opened his eyes to the incongruencies and impossibilities of Darwinian theory.

Nine years later, Bechly committed an unforgivable sin in the world of secular academia: He publicly criticized neo-Darwinism and proclaimed his support for intelligent design. Soon after, the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany, pushed him out of his job as curator. Bechly then became a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, but that wasn’t the end of his censorship story.

Despite Bechly’s numerous professional accomplishments, including a sizable list of scientific publications and the notoriety of having numerous species named after him, a group of anonymous editors at Wikipedia decided to erase his page from the internet encyclopedia because he is not “notable” enough.

“His turn to fringe creationist views does not seem to be notable at all, and cannot be covered without mainstream sources giving it an adequately neutral point of view,” one of the editors wrote on a Wikipedia discussion page. Other editors who tried to defend Bechly clearly understood the maneuver as censorship, noting “if he hadn’t changed his stance this wouldn’t even be an issue. The ones shouting ‘delete’ are just out to censor anyone who thinks differently.”

David Klinghoffer, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, noted that people commonly think Wikipedia disseminates objective information, but the expertise and fairness of the anonymous editors remains questionable. For example, one of the editors most influential in the decision to erase Bechly’s page identifies himself as 24-year-old Jo-Jo Eumerus, who also goes by “Septimus Heap,” after the popular juvenile fantasy series.

“It’s a mad world, a funhouse world, where the notability of a paleontologist of Günter Bechly’s stature is uncontested one day but, following his admission of finding ID persuasive, suddenly and furiously contested,” Klinghoffer wrote. “Such is the alternative reality of Wikipedia.”


Read Original Article Here


Algae Asphyxiates Evolution Principle

In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin cast his theory of evolution centred on a “struggle for life” principle – coined as the “war of nature” or the “survival of the fittest” in 1859.  This principle is presented in the complete title of his legionary book – On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

This competitive “struggle for life,” Darwin had argued, occurs between the new and the original species. With the emergence of new species, they were imagined to compete even against their own parents:

“The principle of competition [is] between organism and organism, between child and parent… supplant[ing] the old and unimproved forms.”

Competition increases with increasing similarity. “As the species of the same genus,” Darwin argued, “the struggle will generally be more severe between them, if they come into competition with each other, than between the species of distinct genera.” Since then, however, the evidence directly challenges Darwin’s principle of evolution.

In the Laboratory 

To test this hypothesis, a research team headed by Bradley Cardinale, of the University of Michigan, performing experiments on 60 species of fresh water green algae “failed to support Darwin’s theory,” according to Marlene Cions of the National Science Foundation.

“It was completely unexpected,” Cardinale said in an interview with Cions. “We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?”

“Researchers were more than shaken to find that their experiments of fresh water algae failed to support Darwin’s theory,” Cions lamented in the LiveScience article entitled “Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists.”

Cardinale’s research team included Charles Delwiche, professor of cell biology and molecular genetics at the University of Maryland, and Todd Oakley, a professor in the department of ecology, evolution and marine biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

In an interview with Cions, Cardinale explained that they were so uncomfortable with the results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.

“The hypothesis is so intuitive that it was hard for us to give it up, but we are becoming more and more convinced that he wasn’t right about the organisms we’ve been studying,” Cardinale says.

Strangely enough, the research was not intended to test the validity of Darwin’s theory. “The hypothesis is so intuitive,” or so it seemed Cardinale reasoned. The intention of the research, supported with $2 million grant from the National Science Foundation in 2010, was to prioritize future conservation campaigns.

The original intention of the research was to gain insights into the mechanisms of extinction target. “Many biologists have argued that we should prioritize for conservation those species that are genetically unique, and focus less on those species that are genetically more similar,” Cardinale explained. “The thinking is that you might be able to tolerate the loss of species that are redundant. In other words, if you lost a redundant species, you might not see a change.”

“We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists,” Cardinale said. “When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn’t right, we were completely baffled.”

“If Darwin had been right, the older, more genetically unique species should have unique niches, and should compete less strongly, while the ones closely related should be ecologically similar and compete much more strongly — but that’s not what happened,” Cardinale declared. “We didn’t see any evidence of that at all. We found this to be so in field experiments, lab experiments and surveys in 1,200 lakes in North America where evolution cannot tell us which species co-exist in lakes in nature.

“If Darwin was right, we should’ve seen species that are genetically different and ecologically unique, doing unique things and not competing with other species,” Cardindale adds. “But we didn’t.”

“Evolution does not appear to predict which species have good traits and bad traits,” he told Cions. “We should be able to look at the Tree of Life, and evolution should make it clear who will win in competition and who will lose. But the traits that regulate competition can’t be predicted from the Tree of Life.”

Darwin Wrong

Darwin “was obsessed with competition,” Cardinale opined. “He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don’t grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected… Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.”

Even the simplistic instinctive behaviors of algae asphyxiates Darwin’s guiding principle of evolution and the industry cult — evolutionism.

Evolution was once a theory in crisis, now evolution is in crisis without a theory.

Biological evolution exists only as a philosophical fact, not as a scientific fact.

Read original article here