Nexus - 0903 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

otter. When he inquired if he could take the fragment to a foren- sic anthropologist, the Chinese scientist asked whether he "would e able to tell if the potter was a white man". Allen said he was not sure, and the official pocketed the fragment and quietly walked away. It appears that many things get in the way of scien- tific discovery and disclosure. The existence of the Olmec culture in Old Mexico has always osed a problem. Where did the Negroid people depicted on the colossal heads come from? Why are there Caucasians carved on the stele in what is Mexico's seed civilisation? What is worse, why aren't the indigenous Mexican people found on the Olmec artifacts? Recently a Mexican archaeologist solved the problem y making a fantastic claim: that the Olmec heads—which gener- ations of people of all ethnic groups have agreed bear a striking resemblance to Africans—were really representations of the local tribe. to air. Nobel nominee Henry "Fritz" Schaefer was among them. He encouraged open public debate of Darwin's theory: Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances. The existence of the Olmec culture in Old Mexico has always We have seen this same "unscientific" approach applied to posed a problem. Where did the Negroid people depicted on the —_ archaeology and anthropology, where "scientists" simply refuse to colossal heads come from? Why are there Caucasians carved on _ prove their theories yet appoint themselves as the final arbiters of the stele in what is Mexico's seed civilisation? What is worse, "the facts". It would be naive to think that the scientists who why aren't the indigenous Mexican people found on the Olmec cooperated in the production of the series were unaware that there artifacts? Recently a Mexican archaeologist solved the problem —_ would be no counter-balancing presentation by critics of Darwin's by making a fantastic claim: that the Olmec heads—which gener- theory. ations of people of all ethnic groups have agreed bear a striking Richard Milton is a science journalist. He had been an ardent resemblance to Africans—were really representations of the local true believer in Darwinian doctrine until his investigative instincts tribe. kicked in one day. After 20 years of studying and writing about evolution, he suddenly realised that there were many disconcert- STORMTROOPERS FOR DARWINISM ing holes in the theory. He decided to try to allay his doubts and The public does not seem at all aware of the fact that the scien- prove the theory to himself by using the standard methods of tific establishment has a double standard when it comes to the free _ investigative journalism. flow of information. In essence, it Milton became a regular visitor to goes like this... Scientists are highly . London's famed Natural History educated, well trained and intellectu- We have seen this same Museum. He painstakingly put every ally capable of processing all types of "unscientific" approach applied main tenet and classic proof of information, and they can make the Darwinism to the test. The results correct critical distinctions between to archaeology and shocked him. He found that the fact and fiction, reality and fantasy. anthropology, where "scientists" theory could not even stand up to the The unwashed public is simply inca- rigours of routine investigative able of functioning on this high simply refuse to prove their journalism. mental plane. 5 9 The veteran science writer took a The noble ideal of the scientist as a theories yet appoint themselves bold step and published a book titled ighly trained, impartial, apolitical as the final arbiters of The Facts of Life: Shattering the observer and assembler of established "the facts" Myths of Darwinism. It is clear that facts into a useful body of knowledge the Darwinian myth had been shat- seems to have been shredded under tered for him, but many more myths the pressures and demands of the real about science would also be crushed world. Science has produced many positive benefits for society; after his book came out. Milton says: ut we should know by now that science has a dark, negative side. I experienced the witch-hunting activity of the Darwinist Didn't those meek fellows in the clean lab coats give us nuclear police at first hand...it was deeply disappointing to find jombs and biological weapons? The age of innocence ended in myself being described by a prominent Oxford zoologist World War II. [Richard Dawkins] as "loony", "stupid" and "in need of psy- That the scientific community has an attitude of intellectual chiatric help" in response to purely scientific reporting. superiority is thinly veiled under a carefully orchestrated public relations guise. We always see Science and Progress walking (Does this sound like stories that came out of the Soviet Union and in hand. Science as an institution in a democratic society 20 years ago when dissident scientists there started speaking out?) as to function in the same way as the society at large; it should Dawkins launched a letter-writing campaign to newspaper edi- open to debate, argument and counter-argument. There is no tors, implying that Milton was a "mole" creationist whose work lace for unquestioned authoritarianism. Is modern science meet- should be dismissed. Anyone at all familiar with politics will ing these standards? i i standard Machiavellian by-the-book "character In the Fall of 2001, PBS aired a seven-part series, titled assassination" tactic. Dawkins is a highly respected scientist, Evolution. Taken at face value, that seems harmless enough. whose reputation and standing in the scientific community carry a However, while the program was presented as pure, objective, great deal of weight. investigative science journalism, it completely failed to meet even According to Milton, the process came to a head when the minimum standards of impartial reporting. The series was heavily London Times Higher Education Supplement commissioned him weighted towards the view that the theory of evolution is "a _to write a critique of Darwinism. The publication foreshadowed science fact" that is accepted by "virtually all reputable scientists his coming piece: "Next Week: Darwinism - Richard Milton in the world", and not a theory that has weaknesses and strong goes on the attack". Dawkins caught wind of this and wasted no scientific critics. time in nipping this heresy in the bud. He contacted the editor, The series did not even bother to interview scientists who have Auriol Stevens, and accused Milton of being a "creationist", and criticisms of Darwinism: not "creationists" but bona fide scien- prevailed upon Stevens to pull the plug on the article. Milton tists. To correct this deficiency, a group of 100 dissenting scien- learned of this behind-the-scenes backstabbing and wrote a letter tists felt compelled to issue a press release, "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism", on the day the first program was scheduled to go inued on page 84 "the facts". (Does this sound like stories that came out of the Soviet Union 20 years ago when dissident scientists there started speaking out?) Dawkins launched a letter- writing campaign to newspaper edi- tors, implying that Milton was a "mole" creationist whose work should be dismissed. Anyone at all familiar with politics will recognise this as a standard Machiavellian by-the-book "character assassination" tactic. Dawkins is a highly respected scientist, whose reputation and standing in the scientific community carry a great deal of weight. According to Milton, the process came to a head when the London Times Higher Education Supplement commissioned him to write a critique of Darwinism. The publication foreshadowed his coming piece: "Next Week: Darwinism - Richard Milton goes on the attack". Dawkins caught wind of this and wasted no time in nipping this heresy in the bud. He contacted the editor, Auriol Stevens, and accused Milton of being a "creationist", and prevailed upon Stevens to pull the plug on the article. Milton learned of this behind-the-scenes backstabbing and wrote a letter 64 ¢ NEXUS APRIL — MAY 2002 Continued on page 84 WWW.NeXU smagazi ne.com