‘Even nonscientists can face problems for suggesting that there might be a serious intellectual debate over Darwinism. At Baylor University, philosopher and legal scholar Francis Beckwith was initially denied tenure despite an outstanding record of academic research and publications.1 Although Professor Beckwith was well known for his prolife views, he was most controversial for his law review articles and an academic book defending the constitutionality of teaching about intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinism.2 It is important to note that Beckwith did not advocate that intelligent design should be taught in public schools — only that it was constitutional to teach it in an appropriate manner. But that nuanced position was too much for some of his colleagues, who were defenders of Darwin’s theory. Fortunately for Beckwith, after a public outcry, the president of Baylor later granted him tenure.3
A Dissertation in Limbo
College professors are not the only targets in academia who face discrimination because of their skepticism of Darwinism. Students can be even more vulnerable. Ohio State University doctoral candidate Bryan Leonard had his dissertation defense put in limbo after three pro-Darwin professors filed a spurious complaint attacking Leonard’s dissertation research as “unethical human subject experimentation.” Leonard’s dissertation project looked at how student beliefs changed after students were taught scientific evidence for and against modern evolutionary theory. The complaining professors admitted that they had not actually read Leonard’s dissertation. But they were sure it must be unethical. Why? According to them, there is no valid evidence against evolutionary theory. Thus — by definition — Leonard’s research must be tantamount to child abuse.4
Outside of academia, there have been similar cases of discrimination in government-funded science organizations. David Coppedge was a senior computer systems administrator for the Cassini Mission to Saturn at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab in California. He faced demotion and discharge after he offended his supervisor by occasionally offering to loan colleagues DVDs about intelligent design.5 No one had ever complained to Coppedge about his offers of DVDs, but when the supervisor found out, Coppedge faced a punitive investigation. His employment evaluations, which had been outstanding, suddenly became negative, and ultimately he lost his job. Coppedge’s dismissal was justified as a budgetary reduction unrelated to his views on intelligent design, but that explanation was questionable given the facts of the case.
The Sternberg Case
Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg faced similar retaliation by officials at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) after accepting for publication a peer-reviewed article supportive of intelligent design in a biology journal he edited. A research associate at the museum, Sternberg said that after the article was published, he was told to vacate his office space and was shunned and vilified by colleagues. Efforts were also made by administrators to discover Sternberg’s personal religious and political beliefs.6 Investigators for the U.S. Office of Special Counsel concluded that “it is…clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing [Dr. Sternberg]…out of the [Smithsonian].”7
Smithsonian officials denied any wrongdoing, but Sternberg was demoted from a research associate to a research collaborator without explanation.8 A 17-month investigation by subcommittee staff of the House Committee on Government Reform subsequently confirmed and elaborated on the previous findings of the US Office of Special Counsel. In a detailed report released to the public, subcommittee investigators concluded that they had uncovered “substantial, credible evidence of efforts to abuse and harass Dr. Sternberg, including punitively targeting him for investigation in order to supply a pretext for dismissing him, and applying to him regulations and restrictions not imposed on other researchers.”9
Congressional investigators further accused NMNH officials of conspiring “on government time and using government emails…with the pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE)…to publicly smear and discredit Dr. Sternberg with false and defamatory information.”10 The NCSE even provided a set of “‘talking points’ to…NMNH officials on how to discredit both Sternberg and the Meyer article.” In addition, the NCSE was asked by senior museum administrator Dr. Hans Sues “to monitor Sternberg’s outside activities…The clear purpose of having the NCSE monitor Dr. Sternberg’s outside activities was to find a way to dismiss him.”11 Congressional investigators concluded that “the extent to which NMNH officials colluded on government time and with government resources with the NCSE to publicly discredit Dr. Sternberg’s scientific and professional integrity and investigate opportunities to dismiss him is alarming.”12
When asked about Sternberg’s plight by the Washington Post, Eugenie Scott of the NCSE seemed to suggest that Sternberg was lucky more was not done to get rid of him: “If this was a corporation, and an employee did something that really embarrassed the administration, really blew it, how long do you think that person would be employed?”13
Teachers at Risk
Science teachers in K-12 schools also face challenges if they criticize Darwinian theory. In Minnesota, high school teacher Rodney LeVake was removed from teaching biology after expressing doubts about Darwin’s theory. LeVake, who holds a master’s degree in biology, agreed to teach evolution as required in the district’s curriculum, but said he wanted to “accompany that treatment of evolution with an honest look at the difficulties and inconsistencies of the theory.”14
In Washington State, longtime high school biology teacher Roger DeHart faced continuing harassment from pro-Darwin activists, who succeeded in getting his school district to prohibit him from discussing scientific criticisms of modern Darwinian theory with his students. DeHart was even banned from sharing mainstream science publications with students that corrected textbook errors about evolution. Although DeHart complied with his district’s gag order, ultimately, he was removed from teaching biology. When he took a job in an adjoining school district so that he could continue to teach biology, the harassment continued. He was eventually reassigned from teaching biology in that district as well, even though there were no allegations by his new district that he was not following the prescribed curriculum. DeHart finally was driven from public education altogether.15
See, for example, Francis J. Beckwith, Law, Darwinism, and Public Education: The Establishment Clause and the Challenge of Intelligent Design(Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003); Francis J. Beckwith, “Science and Religion Twenty Years After McLean v. Arkansas: Evolution, Public Education, and the New Challenge of Intelligent Design,” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 26 (Spring 2003), 455-499; Francis J. Beckwith, “Public Education, Religious Establishment, and the Challenge of Intelligent Design,” Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, & Public Policy 17 (2003), 461-519; Francis J. Beckwith, “A Liberty Not Fully Evolved?: The Case of Rodney LeVake and the Right of Public School Teachers to Criticize Darwinism,” San Diego Law Review 39 (November/December 2002), 1311-1325.
For information about the Bryan Leonard case, see Catherine Candinsky, “Evolution debate re-emerges: Doctoral student’s work was possibly unethical, OSU professors argue,” The Columbus Dispatch (June 9, 2005); “Attack on OSU Graduate Student Endangers Academic Freedom,” Discovery Institute (April 18, 2005), https://www.discovery.org/a/2661/ (accessed November 24, 2020); “Professors Defend Ohio Grad Student Under Attack by Darwinists,” Discovery Institute (July 11, 2005), https://www.discovery.org/a/2715/ (accessed November 24, 2020).
For information and documentation about the Coppedge case, see Robert Crowther, “Trial to Begin in Intelligent Design Discrimination Lawsuit against NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab,” Evolution News and Views (March 5, 2012), https://evolutionnews.org/2012/03/trial_to_begin_/ (accessed November 24, 2020); “Facts of the Coppedge Lawsuit Contradict the Spin from Jet Propulsion Lab and National Center for Science Education,” Evolution News and Views, March 12, 2012, https://evolutionnews.org/2012/03/facts_of_the_co/ (accessed November 24, 2020); Joshua Youngkin, “Why Did NASA’s JPL Discriminate Against David Coppedge and Why Does It Matter?” Evolution News and Views (November 22, 2011), https://evolutionnews.org/2011/11/what_happened_t/ (accessed November 24, 2020).
Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian: Smithsonian’s Top Officials Permit the Demotion and Harassment of Scientist Skeptical of Darwinian Evolution, Staff Report Prepared for the Hon. Mark Souder, Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources (Washington, DC: US House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, December 11, 2006), 3, 20-21, https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2020/11/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf (accessed November 26, 2020).
Intolerance and the Politicization of Science At the Smithsonian, 4.
Intolerance and the Politicization of Science At the Smithsonian, 5-6.
Intolerance and the Politicization of Science At the Smithsonian, 22, emphasis in original. The congressional report further explained, “Dr. Sues hoped that the NCSE could unearth evidence that Dr. Sternberg had misrepresented himself as a Smithsonian employee, which would have been grounds for his dismissal as a Research Associate: ‘As a Research Associate, Sternberg is not allowed to represent himself as an employee of the Smithsonian Institution, and, if he were to do so, he would forfeit his appointment.’”
Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian, 23, emphasis in original.
Quoted in Michael Powell, “Editor Explains Reasons for ‘Intelligent Design’ Article,” TheWashington Post (August 19, 2005), A19.
Quoted in Rodney LeVake vs. Independent School District #656, State of Minnesota Court of Appeals, C8-00-1613 (May 8, 2001); https://web.archive.org/web/20130314100547/http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0105/c8001613.htm (accessed November 24, 2020). Additional information on the LeVake case can be found in James Kilpatrick, “Case of Scientific Heresy is Doomed,” Augusta Chronicle (December 23, 2001), A4. The Minnesota Court of Appeals found that the school district’s interest in maintaining its curriculum overrode LeVake’s First Amendment interest in teaching material critical of Darwinian evolution.
The following statement was recently made in an online political article. ‘New arrivals to the region will have a chance to embrace the world’s oldest continuing culture through a series of events being supported by the NSW Government.’https://dugaldsaunders.com.au/funding-to-bring-cultures-together-on-country/
Is that statement really true concerning the aboriginal culture? The majority of the world has swallowed the evolutionary tale which is diametrically opposed to the Biblical teaching. The following is from Creation Ministries International which I trust you will read with an open mind.
‘Today’s feedback from Chris B. of Australia, concerns media reports about when Aboriginal people settled Australia. It’s answered by CMI’s Dr Tas Walker.
Example of ideas (ref. 1) about how Aborigines settled Australia.
Hello,
In recent years the media has reported ever increasing ages that the Aboriginal Australians have inhabited the continent, and progressively, figures of 10, 20 and up to 40 and 50 thousand years have been given. The evidence of these dates mostly come from artefacts like cave painting or rock engraving. Recently, however, these sorts of dates have been claimed to arise from comparing DNA of Australian Aboriginals with that of the people indigenous to the Highlands of New Guinea. The theory is that at one time they had the same genome, but, genetic drift over time can be seen by comparing the DNA, thus “counting back” to when they were one people.
Is this technique of genome comparison a valid way to date how long Aboriginal people have been living in Australia, or does the technique contain certain evolutionary assumptions? Does CMI have any information refuting such DNA based dating that you can kindly refer me to?
The dating technique you mention is called a ‘molecular clock’. It involves very sophisticated laboratory techniques for comparing DNA sequences. However, like all ‘scientific’ clocks, a date cannot be calculated without making a number of unprovable assumptions about the past (see Fatal flaw). The reason the technique gives long ages is because the rate of genetic change is calibrated to provide results consistent with the standard evolutionary long-age timescale. However, when the rate of genetic change is ‘calibrated’ against the rate actually measured in organisms at the present time the timescales are much shorter—consistent with the biblical timescale.
The article Evolutionary molecular genetic clocks—a perpetual exercise in futility and failure explains the principles of the molecular clock and discusses the problem with the method. In summary, genetic clock methods assume evolution and deep-time by calibrating against the paleontological timescale. In addition, the methods have multiple problems: 1) different genes/sequences give widely different evolutionary rates, 2) different taxa exhibit different rates for homologous (similar) sequences, and 3) divergence dates commonly disagree with paleontology despite being calibrated by it. And finally, the molecular clock idea is directly tied to the neutral model theory of evolution, which assumes mutations occur in the so-called junk DNA. However, recent discoveries undermine the idea of pervasive junk DNA, thus negating its foundational premise.
The article Empirical genetic clocks give biblical timelines shows that when measured rates of genetic change are applied, ‘molecular clocks’ yield ages consistent with the biblical timescale. The article concludes, “A straightforward empirical approach constricted to analyses within a single taxa, typically yields dates of not more than about 5,000 to 10,000 years. Thus, when the hypothetical evolutionary constraints are removed, and the data is analyzed empirically, biblical timelines are achieved.”
One recent media article about the dating of Aboriginal occupation of Australia was reported in Science Daily,1 based on research published in Nature.2 This analysed hair samples collected from Aboriginal people across Australia. The genetic relationships between people within Australia and outside Australia from this analysis are likely to be reasonable. All people on earth today are descended from the eight people who were on Noah’s Ark that came to rest in the Middle East, and so the emigration paths described in the paper would be compatible with the biblical account. However, the multi-thousand-year dates are not, for the reasons outlined above.
The article The dating game discusses various efforts to date Aboriginal remains, in particular the individuals dubbed Mungo Man and Mungo Woman, found in sand dunes in south-western New South Wales. This article was published in 2003 but is still relevant. It describes how published dates, based on a range of different methods, progressively rose higher and higher. In 1999, when researchers at Australian National University in Canberra published a date of 62,000 years, other evolutionary researchers objected. It created an international problem for theories of human evolution. Such an early occupation of Australia by Aborigines would require the whole out-of-Africa theory of human origins to be rewritten.
However, the new molecular clock researchers are not so ambitious, citing dates of 50,000 years. Perhaps some sort of a compromise is being sought by settling on a number that won’t run afoul of the out-of-Africa scenario but still have very old dates for Australian Aborigines.
These scenarios for Aboriginal occupation of Australia are based on evolutionary assumptions, and these contradict biblical history. Especially they ignore Noah’s global Flood. However, the Bible provides a solid interpretive framework for scientific investigations into human origins. The first Aboriginal settlers to Australia were descended from people as intelligent and inventive as all other people alive at that time. Like everyone else, they were descended from Noah, who built and managed the Ark, and from a people who developed an advanced civilization around the Tower of Babel. So, as the DNA research reveals, the Australian Aborigines were related to other people groups, including those in India and Papua New Guinea. This aspect of the DNA research fits nicely with the biblical account.
However, the idea that the Aboriginal people of Australia are a primitive culture that had not evolved as much as people from other cultures is wrong. It’s evolutionary racism. Rather, they lost some of their technological know-how when they reached Australia. This can happen in a generation if parents do not pass their culture onto their children, or if small populations become isolated. Perhaps it was this isolation and the pressure to cope with a worsening climate as the continent dried out after the post-Flood Ice Age. But, they, like all other peoples, are made ‘in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:26), to have a relationship with God.
In summary, the dates produced by the ‘molecular clock’ are not valid because it begins with an incorrect calibration and has numerous fatal problems. However, if measured mutation rates are used as calibration then dates consistent with biblical timescales are obtained. But the method still has problems, which is why scientists do not rely on the dates it produces until they have checked other research to decide which dates to accept. On the other hand, the genetic relationships between people groups revealed by DNA comparisons are likely to be reasonably sound, and may help sort out migration routes of people since disembarking from Noah’s Ark in the Middle East about 4,500 years ago.
Ray Tobler, Adam Rohrlach, Julien Soubrier, Pere Bover, Bastien Llamas, Jonathan Tuke, Nigel Bean, Ali Abdullah-Highfold, Shane Agius, Amy O’Donoghue, Isabel O’Loughlin, Peter Sutton, Fran Zilio, Keryn Walshe, Alan N. Williams, Chris S. M. Turney, Matthew Williams, Stephen M. Richards, Robert J. Mitchell, Emma Kowal, John R. Stephen, Lesley Williams, Wolfgang Haak, Alan Cooper. Aboriginal mitogenomes reveal 50,000 years of regionalism in Australia, Nature, 2017; DOI: 10.1038/nature21416.’https://creation.com/dna-research-australian-aborigines-50000-years-ago
Theistic evolutionist ‘Dr. Francis Collins, former director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and founder of the evolutionary creation advocacy group BioLogos, has become a lightning rod within evangelicalism for promoting vaccines for COVID-19, especially among pastors and other faith leaders.
In a BioLogos-sponsored webinar last week, Collins chided many of his fellow white evangelicals for not getting the vaccine and alleged “the culture war is literally killing people.”
Yet in a recent Daily Wire article that’s been widely circulated, conservative writer Megan Basham questioned why evangelicals haven’t interrogated Collins more rigorously before sharing their platform with the federal official she called “Caesar’s agent.”
Citing news reports, Basham accused Collins of trying to suppress questions surrounding the source of COVID-19 and the efficacy of the federal COVID-19 response. She also accused Collins himself of being “willing to compromise transparency and truth for PR considerations.”
Basham also questioned whether it was appropriate for Collins to recruit evangelical leaders like Wheaton College dean Ed Stetzer to help him spread the government’s preferred narratives about COVID-19.
On a podcast with Stetzer in September, Collins said, “I want pastors once again to try to use your credibility with your flock to put forward the public health measures that we know can work.”
But Basham asked, “(I)s it truly the pastor’s job to tell church members to ‘trust the science?’”
Spokespeople for the NIH and BioLogos didn’t immediately reply when The Roys Report reached out asking for a response to the Daily Wire piece. TheDaily Wire didn’t receive a response when it reached out to Stetzer, public theologian Russell Moore, and other high-profile evangelicals mentioned in the piece.
‘Misinformation . . . and conspiracies’
Collins regularly cites his faith in BioLogos podcasts and elsewhere, sometimes comparing his path to Christ to that of C.S. Lewis. Collins, who headed the Human Genome Project, is author of the best-selling book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, which won a Christianity Today Book Award.
Because of his substantial scientific credentials and professed Christian belief, The Washington Post described Collins as being in an “unusual position to address people of faith.”
In last week’s BioLogos webinar, Collins said he was surprised by how much his shared faith mattered to Christians. Researchers, he said, have found that “unless that truth comes at you from somebody you trust, you’re not going to call it truth at all.”
Collins also highlighted how white evangelicals were somewhat less likely than average to have gotten vaccinated for COVID-19.
About two-thirds of white evangelical Protestants had gotten at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine when Pew Research polled Americans in late August. At the time, 70% of black Protestants had done so, and almost three-quarters of Americans in general.
Collins told RNS he blamed “misinformation and lies and conspiracies” for part of white evangelicals’ hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccination. He also thought his messaging about the pandemic could have been better.
Credibility as an evangelical
However, Basham called Collins’ credibility with evangelicals into question.
Under Collins’ watch, she wrote, the NIH has funded research using abortion-derived fetal tissue and factored in diversity criteria when awarding grants. NIH funding has also gone to research on “sexual and gender minorities,” she wrote.
According to Pew Research, only about a third of evangelicals think humans evolved and a majority oppose abortion and same-sex marriage.
Basham suggested Collins gained his credibility from “character witnesses” like Stetzer and former Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore, who praised Collins’ “Christian humility.”
After the article’s publication, Basham noted on Twitter that BioLogos suddenly canceled an interview she had scheduled with Collins on a different topic. When she asked why, an organization spokesperson replied that “the tone and claims” of her article were “inconsistence” with BioLogos’ aims.
Responses Mixed
Responses to the controversy have been mixed.
Jay Richards, a research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, urged pastors and religious leaders to apologize for “this naïve propagandizing for Collins.”
Kelley Owens, a kids director at a church in Indianapolis, tweeted: “If nothing else, this pandemic has served to increase my discernment and give me pause before I uncritically accept any position . . . Even if it comes from someone I have previously trusted.”
However, a medical doctor noted on social media that Collins was “far from the only medical doctor urging, masking, vaccination, and reasonable public health interventions. In fact there have been doctors and nurses in churches all across the country giving the same message to evangelicals.”
One reader likened the pushback against Collins to how Christians interacted with former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop.
Erick Erickson, a conservative Christian pundit, initially said he was “disturbed” by Basham’s article. But later, he published a blog post calling for an end to what he characterized as “infighting” among Christians trying to bolster their own credibility.
If you have read this far Collins is wrong in both his belief on how God created and on the effectiveness of the Covid vaccines. Genesis 1:31 ¶ And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day and THERE IS NO WAY OF GETTING THEISTIC EVOLUTION out of that!
I attended a public high school and thank the Lord I had a biology teacher that spent only one hour in seeking to explain evolution. However, I do remember when she was sick for several days and we had students from the University of Iowa substitute and they sought to push the evolutionary theory during those few days. Now, I wasn’t a real knowledgeable student in creation science or the Bible back then but I did ask questions which made the substitute teachers just a little upset. Anyway, as I grew in my faith and researched things I became more and more convinced that in the beginning God….
Here’s another video from Search For The Truth. ‘As a kid, did you ever dream of being a superhero who could become invisible to defeat the bad guys? Well, God shows us how that dream plays out in His creation!’
Psalm 78:45 “He sent divers sorts of flies among them, which devoured them; and frogs, which destroyed them.”
Borneo is home to some strange creatures. We are familiar with the orangutan, widely considered to be the creature that gave rise to the myth of the Wild Man of Borneo. Another very strange animal from Borneo is the Bornean flat-headed frog (Barbourula kalimantanensis). It is not the flat head that makes it unusual, but rather the fact that it has no lungs. Other internal organs occupy the space where the lungs would normally have been in the 2-inch-long creature, and the result is that the frog is flatter than most other frogs. The frog is able to “breathe” by absorbing air through its skin. Most frogs do this anyway, in addition to using lungs.
Evolutionary scientists have suggested that the flat-headed frog has evolved that way in order to adapt to the cold, rapidly flowing streams in which it lives, to avoid being swept away. But there are other frogs that live in cold, rapidly growing streams. Why have these frogs not similarly evolved lunglessness if this is seen as an evolutionary advantage in Borneo?
My wife and I will not take those China virus vaccine’s that use aborted (murdered) baby parts. Dr. Harnett speaks out on this and other important issues in this article so I have put the whole article here.
‘Someone asked me about my current relationship with Creation Ministries International (CMI) because he no longer saw any new articles written by me appearing on their platform (creation.com).
I explained that I no longer contribute articles or work with them. This situation came about through the organisation’s stance on fetal cells used in vaccines.
For a long time I felt that the leadership had an unacceptable element of biased editorial control. CMI says that they promote a biblical creation (not evolution) message and provide the opportunity for peer-review science publications that are free of the secular bias against such writings. But they have adopted certain corporate positions, which seems to fly in the face of free debate even within the biblical creation discussion space.
When some article is submitted that doesn’t fit their current corporate positions it will not be considered. Or if it is marginal it may be discussed in the Journal of Creation but the article would not be displayed on the website front page but in a journal index, and possibly later as a pdf, but not promoted.
Jason Lisle and Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC)
One of very important issues to the biblical creation community (distant starlight in a young vast universe) has been treated this way since 2001. We will just refer to it as the ASC model. You can find many articles on it on this website. Search “ASC model” or “conventionality thesis” in the search box.
I published many papers on the subject over at least 10 years ending in 2018 when I last published in the Journal of Creation. All my articles on the subject were ever only allowed in the Journal of Creation and never online (which is the much wider audience). See my post Can we see into the past? for an easy-to-understand Powerpoint presentation on the subject.
Jason Lisle originated the answer to the starlight-travel-time problem when he was still a graduate student. His paper was only accepted to be published in the Journal of Creation on this when he first proposed it in 2001 (under a pseudonym Newton, R., Distant starlight and Genesis: Conventions of time measurement, J. Creation 15(1):80–85, 2001 ) because I reviewed the paper and strongly supported its publication. This happened despite the fact that Jonathan Sarfati also reviewed it and rejected it. He didn’t/doesn’t like the idea and the only online web article on it on creation.com is written by Sarfati. He doesn’t understand it and used a strawman argument against it. No matter how much I and others have written on the subject it does not seem to have changed any views of the CMI editorial team.
I was told new ideas are canvassed and discussed in the Journal of Creation and later they may go on the web as they gain acceptance. But this never happened with the ASC model of Jason Lisle. Several of my Journal of Creation papers on it are now available as pdfs on the web but they were never promoted as holding a real answer. In my view, it is the only viable answer to the creationist starlight travel-time problem. I have written on why that is the case.
My own cosmological model, which I developed using Carmeli’s cosmology, has too many problems and I have since abandoned it. Even so it is still promoted as a viable model, even in their premier publication, see chapter 5 of the Creation Answers Book. But Jason Lisle’s model is not mentioned at all. That book may have been last reviewed 10 years after Lisle’s first article.
In January 2019 I wrote to the Australian CEO asking why their is no promotion of Lisle’s ASC model on their website, except one article by Sarfati unjustly critical of it, and why don’t any CMI speakers present it as a viable idea. It had been 18 years since the first publication about it and many other papers (by me) had followed but always only in the Journal of Creation. The CEO told me that he would get back to me on that. One year later I had not heard anything and wrote again in January 2020 asking the same question. Again he said he would find out and get back to me. But alas, crickets.
I have to conclude that CMI is not a free academic clearing house. They are as biased within their own set of decided positions as much as an evolution-promoting secular journal might be within its own position (i.e the evolution must always be represented as a fact). CMI is really a PR organisation not an academic institution open to free debate, even within the context of the biblical worldview.
Fetal cells in vaccines
I tolerated a lot of editorial control (one example explained above) until the issue of fetal cells in vaccines was added to their “vaccine position”.
You may not know but they kept their vaccine position paper non-searchable for many years and the link was only shared if someone asked. Probably because they thought it so divisive that they could lose people over it.
In May 2020 I read a Jonathan Sarfati authored vaccine letter (Vaccines and Abortion, 2012) online at creation.com, which discussed the use of fetal cells as acceptable in making vaccines. I don’t know why I had not noticed that earlier. The acceptance of the practice really flawed me and I could not sleep that whole night. I just couldn’t get the idea out of my head.
Dr Sarfati wrote another article on vaccines in June 2020 and included the same argument. He compared it to organ donations. He wrote: “Would we refuse a life-saving organ that was from a victim of a drunk driver for example who listed “Organ Donor” on the driver’s license, because he was killed in a sinful way?” I could see so many problems with that comparison.
So I researched and wrote an article titled “Using Aborted Babies For Vaccines Is Never Justified“. I sent my paper to the Australian CEO at the Australian CMI office and asked for comment and possibly consideration for publication. After about 3 weeks I had heard nothing. When pressed weeks later on it the CEO said he would respond point by point but he never did. No one at CMI ever responded to me on the issues I raised in that paper. I did have a private email discussion with the former CEO on the issue of the supply of fetal cell lines running low as the reason why new cell lines are needed and that the Chinese in 2015 developed a new cell line. But otherwise no one addressed my points made in the paper.
As a result I published it on my own blog site 1 June 2020. The reason the issue caused me to lose a lot of sleep is because I could not understand a Christian movement condoning use of murdered baby parts for any purpose, vaccine or medicine development. Possibly CMI would also apply their same reasoning to all the recombinant DNA drugs in development (>80) using aborted baby parts under the label of “life saving”. I don’t know.
The world cannot be trusted
It would seem that the editors of CMI publications have bought into the illusion of the global elites’ veracity and trustworthiness. That is, even though we live in a sin-cursed world with the heart of man desperately wicked, they trust in the establishment pronouncements.
They make the point that they are not anti-establishment per se. I agree, we should not be. But when the evidence piles up on the dangers of vaccines, some from the mainstream media but mostly from alternative news sites, due to the massive censorship, we should be more circumspect. We should look “under the hood” and see who is making the medical agents and question their motives.
In a commentary published in journal Nature in 2012, scientists from biotech company Amgen found that findings in 90 per cent of the important cancer papers published in significant medical journals could not be replicated, even with the help of original scientists.
In another review, scientists at the pharmaceutical company Bayer looked back at 67 scientific projects, covering the majority of Bayer’s work in oncology, women’s health and cardiovascular medicine over the past four years. Of these, they found results from internal experiments matched up with the published findings in only 14 projects, but were highly inconsistent in 43 (in a further 10 projects, claims were rated as mostly reproducible, partially reproducible or not applicable.)
“People take for granted what they see published,” John Ioannidis, an expert on data reproducibility at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California wrote in Nature in Sep 2011. “But this and other studies are raising deep questions about whether we can really believe the literature, or whether we have to go back and do everything on our own.”
While some of the un-reproducable results could be due to sloppy research, it appears that much of it is a result of deliberate misconduct. This was clear from a paper published last year.
Dr Ferris C Fang conducted a detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012. It revealed that only 21.3 per cent of retractions were attributable to error.
There was the now famous paper, on a study involving 96 ,032 hospitalised patients and 81,114 controls, alleging to disprove the use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as an effective treatment for COVID-19 disease, published May 2020 in the number one medical journal TheLancet. It turned out to be completely fabricated, a total fraud. It is now retracted. There was never any such study ever done.
You might ask, how could the world’s leading medical journal with stringent peer-review not reject such a fraud? How could the Editors approve the fraud? Just look at the journal’s strong links to Big Pharma. Much of its financial support comes from the pharmaceutical industry. Many of the journal editorial team have links via research to Big Pharma. This is a big concern for objective independence. See here for much more on the conflicts of interest and corruption in the medical industrial complex.
I wrote an article a few years ago (2015) that discussed some medical errors of the past and highlighted a new flu vaccine that was given to children in Australia making many very sick. This came about because the company rushed the safety trials to get it to market. See Science the new religion. My paper was more about not trusting too much in the science or those who use the science for financial gain. But CMI would not publish it. It was not part of the controlled narrative that suggests that at least some vaccines are dangerous.
Where I make my stand
My position is to stand against everything that is biblically and ethically wrong. It does not matter what the consequences. There can be no pragmatic view in the realm of abortion, eugenics, euthanasia, and that is what these experimental COVID mRNA injections involve. We must stand only on the Word of God and biblical morality.
But Sarfati of CMI has said that there is no mention of vaccines in the Bible. That is true. Yet we are told that eating the flesh of humans is an abomination to God (Ezekiel 5:7-11, Leviticus 26:27-30, Lamentations 2:16-21, Deuteronomy 28:52-57 are a few references). Injecting another humans cell fragments or DNA seems to be pretty close to cannibalism to me.
Acceptance of fetal cells in vaccines could easily lead to accepting cloned human flesh as a food source. See Salami made from human flesh of famous Hollywood actors. Produced by BiteLabs, who have to be a bunch of the mentally insane. No humans are deliberately killed to make that cloned meat either. Isn’t that also an abomination to God. It certainly is preparing people to accept human flesh, even if lab grown, as normal. What’s next? Soylent green?
This is nothing short of demonic practice. Vampirism! The so-called civilised Western countries have been aborting their unborn children at unprecedented rates. 1.4 million per year in the US and at least 100,000 per year in Australia. And now they are passing laws to murder them right up to full term. Even passing laws to not medical assist the child if born alive in a botched abortion. How heartless and how demon inspired the once Christian West has become.
Satanists also are giving instructions to mothers on the satanic chant to make as they are aborting their babies in the abortion clinics.
CMI claims only a few babies were aborted to make the cell lines used for vaccine development. That is quite disingenuous. Depending on the vaccine, dozens of murdered babies were used.
In 1962 the Wistar Institute, developed their cell line WI-38 from the 32nd abortion in their development process. That abortion was performed in Sweden and shipped to Wistar Institute, Philadelphia. They used lung tissue from the 3 months gestation, Caucasian female baby.
The attenuated rubella virus, clinically named RA273 (R=Rubella, A=Abortus, 27=27th fetus, 3=3rd tissue explant), was cultivated on the WI-38 aborted fetal cell line. Isolated by Dr. Stanley Plotkin. And 40 more elective abortions were used for rubella virus isolation by T.H. Chang (67 in total).
Therefore 67 abortions were required to produce rubella virus plus an additional 32 abortions to produce the cell line for cultivation which means there was a total of at least 99 elective abortions to create the rubella vaccine alone. The cell line was used also in development of MMR vaccines. See here for more details on other fetal cell lines.
Stanley Plotkin is probably the most famous developer of vaccines; pioneer and father of many vaccines, which used murdered baby parts. Watch this short 2-minute video segment recorded in 2018, where Plotkin is unrepentant and admits he is happy to go to hell for his deeds. The full 9-hour deposition is available on Bitchute.com
There are other arguments here also relating to the environment of using baby parts for any medical experimentation or drug development which most countries now are doing. The sale of fetal parts by Planned Parenthood is a prime example. Where does it end?
1 Corinthians 15:22 “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”
‘One of the most frequently asked questions when I appear on a radio phone-in program is whether there is a gap between the first and second verses of Genesis chapter 1. Some people have been taught that a gap of millions of years between the original creation of the Earth and the Earth we know today can explain the fossil record and the millions of years proposed by evolution.
Also called the ruin-reconstruction theory, this idea says that an earlier creation existed that was judged by God. Those who believe in this theory usually place Satan’s fall, dinosaurs and so-called “cave men” into this earlier creation.
The gap theory was first proposed about two centuries ago by Rev. Thomas Chalmers as a response to the growing popularity of long evolutionary ages. It was widely spread among Christians in the notes that first appeared in the Scofield Reference Bible of 1917.
