Signature in the Cell: Darwinist demands to rewrite product copy

But why should that be a surprise? Of course, Darwinists don't want anyone to read Signature in the Cell. Darwinism is a tax-funded origins cult, especially noxious in countries like the United States and Canada, which do not have and - for good reasons* - do not want established religions.

Yes, I have in my files a recent brownbagged letter, written to Amazon by a Darwinist, demanding that the editorial description of Signature be altered to reflect Darwinist bias.

Some useless flunky actually assured the Darwinist that these changes would indeed be made.

When I protested, I received an insulting e-mail assuring me that the 'Zon guys understand that I might be upset, but that Amazon does not "support or promote hatred or criminal acts."

Upset? That doesn't cover the half of it.

I am a Canadian free speech journalist. A minor one to be sure but we have been kicking butt up and down the country with benighted sons of ditches like him, and their arrogant bosses.

I have had a good relationship with the 'Zon over the years, and sold many books for them. But ... if they cave to some aggrieved Darwin scammer - just another tax burden, really - I am transferring all my business to Barnes & Noble, and I recommend that all good citizens do the same.

It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with me about Darwinism. Why on earth should these people have dictatorial rights over a private company's business?

Oh wait, if you are a Darwinist, maybe you know that you are right, and you should rule, and that no one must be permitted to simply publish a book showing that your theories are inadequate to nature.

Well then, the remaining good citizens must step into the breach.

*For one thing, countries tend to be more religious when the government avoids meddling. That's why religious people here want the government out of religion. Except for Darwinists, who need to impose their unbelievable beliefs by law.

Anika Smith at the Discovery Institute also advises me that Meyer is World Magazine's Daniel of the Year. I'm not sure how helpful that is. Basically, Darwinism is wrong no matter what one's religion, unless it is atheistic materialism - in which case Darwinism is the only game in town, and tax-funded to boot. But re Daniels, I submit to more experienced judgement.

Also, from Evolution News and Views:

The continued success of Signature In The Cell has driven Darwinists crazy. They’re desperately making louder and ever more ridiculous denunciations of the book and anyone who might have the temerity to suggest people read it for themselves.

An interesting and informative back and forth has been taking place on the pages of the Times Literary Supplement, where last month noted atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel recommended SITC as one of the best books of the year. Not surprisingly, he was attacked (he responded, and he was attacked again) by a Darwinist who told people forgo reading SITC and instead just read Wikipedia. Is this what passes for civil discourse on important topics now? Just ignore the arguments you don't like? A pretty pathetic state of affairs if true.

Go here for the rest and for the links.

Never mind what you think of Darwinism. If you think that 'crats are not smart enough to run your life and do all your thinking for you - join the revolution now.

Go here for intellectual freedom news from Canada.

Book News: When upping the ante means uping the anti ...

Stephen Meyer Ups the Ante With Signature in the Cell

As we are ever quick to point out, the case for Darwinian evolution has been crumbling in recent years as scientific research points to design in nature. Now a unique, new argument for intelligent design is about to revolutionize the debate over evolution.

On June 23, Dr. Stephen Meyer's long-awaited Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne) will break open the radical and comprehensive new case, revealing the evidence not merely of individual features of biological complexity but rather of a fundamental constituent of the universe: information.

Learn more about the book at the new website, SignatureInTheCell.com, and look for continuing updates at Evolution News & Views.

A mistake in shorthand?

New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller now thinks that her error in substituting “biblical” for “biological” (when reporting the comments of an ID theorist) was caused by a mistake in reading her own shorthand under deadline pressure.

Fair enough; that can certainly happen, but it also suggests a lack of familiarity with the issues. Bumiller went into the interview expecting to hear that Meyer was trying to ram the Bible into public schools and had not picked up on what he was actually saying, that much biological evidence casts doubt on Darwin’s theory, but it can’t be presented. Meyer should know some of the reasons, based on his own experience. In my view, the Times needs to give its reporters more time to familiarise themselves with the issues. That way, when the Times wants to distort the issues, it can do a professional quality job.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Blog service note: Did you come here looking for any of the following stories?

- the California Academy of Sciences agreeing to correct potentially libellous statements about attorney Larry Caldwell, who thinks that students should know about weaknesses as well as strengths of Darwinian evolution theory, click on the posted link and check the current daily post for any updates. UPDATED!: The retraction and Caldwell’s response have now been published in California Wild.

- The op-ed by Catholic Cardinal Schonborn in the New York Times? Note also the Times's story on the subject, some interesting quotes from major Darwinists to compare with the Catholic Church's view, as expressed by the Cardinal, and an example of the kind of problem with Darwinian philosophy that the Cardinal is talking about.

- the Privileged Planet film shown at the Smithsonian, go here for an extended review. Please do not raise cain about an "anti-evolution" film without seeing it. If your doctor forbids you to see the film, in case you get too excited, at least read my detailed log of the actual subjects of the film. If you were one of the people who raised cain, ask yourself why you should continue to believe the people who so misled you about the film's actual content ...

- the showing of Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian, go here and here to start, and then this one and this one will bring you up to date.

Blog policy note: This blog does not intentionally accept fully anonymous Comments, Comments with language unsuited to an intellectual discussion, URLs posted without comment, or defamatory statements. Defamatory statement: A statement that would be actionable if anyone took the author seriously. For example, someone may say "O’Leary is a crummy journalist"; that’s a matter of opinion and I don’t know who would care. But if they say, "O’Leary was convicted of grand theft auto in 1983," well that’s just plain false, and probably actionable, if the author were taken seriously. Also, due to time constraints, the moderator rarely responds to comments, and usually only about blog service issues.

The spin cycle: New York Times changes “biological” to “biblical”

As reported over at Evolution News & Views, a Discovery Institute blog,
a New York Times story, "Bush Remarks Roil Debate Over Teaching of Evolution",
" mangled a quote from Steve Meyer, who said,

We interpret this as the president using his bully pulpit to support freedom of inquiry and free speech about the issue of biological origins.

and was reported as saying,

We interpret this as the president using his bully pulpit to support freedom of inquiry and free speech about the issue of biblical origins.

The Times has indicated that it would post a correction, but the site is rejecting my password so I can't get into it to find out just now. I'll update this when I can.

Some have asked whether these errors are accidental. Well, yes and no.

Every newspaper is governed by a mind set, and there are certain stories that it "wants." Liberal papers want different stories from conservative papers and religious papers want different stories from secular ones.

In any event, journalists know when they are writing a story the editor really wants - and when they aren't. I've written plenty of both types, and have sometimes been dumped for writing the second kind when no facts I reported were disputed. So it is quite possible that Bumiller thought that she heard "Biblical" for "biological." Her bosses' voices are ever humming in her ears, and she knows that they desperately want Meyer to have said "biblical".

We can guess as much from the headline of the news article itself: "Bush Remarks Roil Debate Over Teaching of Evolution." The assumption is that Bush is only causing trouble by expressing the view that students should hear both sides and learn to think for themselves.

It tells you everything you need to know about the Times and the Darwinists that Bush's opinion would be controversial. Like most good card players, Bush allows people to snooker themselves.

Incidentally, Meyer is the author of the paper discussing the Cambrian explosion in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington that caused the Darwin lobby to launch a persecution of both author Meyer and editor Sternberg.

(Note: If this is not the story you were looking for, see the stories listed in the sidebar. )

Is there any scientific controversy about Darwinism?

I have received a note from Steve Meyer, the author of the recent, controversial, ID-friendly paper in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington: “CNBC will broadcast a ten minute or so debate between Kenneth Miller (of Brown U.) and me sometime Sunday between 8:00-11:00PM. The program carrying the debate is TOPIC A with Tina Brown. The debate was taped Thursday and focused on the Kansas hearings and whether or there is any scientific controversy about Darwinism.” Naturally, Meyer hopes lots of people will tune in.

I must say, I love the irony! Asking the guy whose journal paper resulted in his editor having to appeal for protection to the Office of Special Counsel of the U.S. government whether there is a scientific controversy over Darwinism ... ?

The people who claim there isn’t a controversy would probably be working for the Politburo, if it still existed ...