"The Brain Police" and "The Big Lie"

Any time you allege a conspiracy is afoot, especially in the field of science, you are treading on thin ice.
We tend to be very sceptical about conspiracies--unless the Mafia or some Muslim radicals are behind the
alleged plot. But the evidence is overwhelming and the irony is that much of it is in plain view.

The good news is that the players are obvious. Their game plan and even their play-by-play tactics are
transparent, once you learn to spot them. However, it is not so easy to penetrate through the smokescreen
of propaganda and disinformation to get to their underlying motives and goals. It would be convenient if
we could point to a plumber's unit and a boldface liar like Richard Nixon, but this is a more subtle operation.

The bad news: the conspiracy is global and there are many vested interest groups. A cursory investigation
yields the usual suspects: scientists with a theoretical axe to grind, careers to further and the status quo to
maintain. Their modus operandi is "The Big Lie"--and the bigger and more widely publicised, the better.
They rely on invoking their academic credentials to support their arguments, and the presumption is that
no one has the right to question their authoritarian pronouncements that:

1. there is no mystery about who built the Great Pyramid or what the methods of
construction were, and the Sphinx shows no signs of water damage;
2. there were no humans in the Americas before 20,000 BC;
3. the first civilisation dates back no further than 6000 BC;
4. there are no documented anomalous, unexplained or enigmatic data to take into account;
5. there are no lost or unaccounted-for civilisations.

Let the evidence to the contrary be damned!

http://www.unitedearth.com.au/forbidden.ht...

Stormtroopers For Darwinism

The public does not seem at all aware of the fact that the scientific establishment has a double standard
when it comes to the free flow of information. In essence, it goes like this... Scientists are highly educated,
well trained and intellectually capable of processing all types of information, and they can make the correct
critical distinctions between fact and fiction, reality and fantasy. The unwashed public is simply incapable
of functioning on this high mental plane.

The noble ideal of the scientist as a highly trained, impartial, apolitical observer and assembler of
established facts into a useful body of knowledge seems to have been shredded under the pressures and
demands of the real world. Science has produced many positive benefits for society; but we should know
by now that science has a dark, negative side. Didn't those meek fellows in the clean lab coats give us
nuclear bombs and biological weapons? The age of innocence ended in World War II.

That the scientific community has an attitude of intellectual superiority is thinly veiled under a carefully
orchestrated public relations guise. We always see Science and Progress walking hand in hand. Science as
an institution in a democratic society has to function in the same way as the society at large; it should be
open to debate, argument and counter-argument. There is no place for unquestioned authoritarianism. Is
modern science meeting these standards?

In the Fall of 2001, PBS aired a seven-part series, titled Evolution. Taken at face value,
that seems harmless enough. However, while the program was presented as pure, objective,
investigative science journalism, it completely failed to meet even minimum standards of
impartial reporting. The series was heavily weighted towards the view that the theory
of evolution is "a science fact" that is accepted by "virtually all reputable scientists
in the world", and not a theory that has weaknesses and strong scientific critics.

The series did not even bother to interview scientists who have criticisms of Darwinism: not "creationists"
but bona fide scientists. To correct this deficiency, a group of 100 dissenting scientists felt compelled to
issue a press release, "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism", on the day the first program was scheduled to
go 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. (...)

http://www.unitedearth.com.au/forbidden.ht...