Creation Science, Free Speech, and Censorship

Censorship brings to mind governmental bodies restricting speech and refusing to allow criticism of leaders, removal of books from libraries that do not fit the views of the rulings parties, controlling the media, and so forth. However, censorship is being used to describe ways in which people besides government bureaucrats restrict speech.

There were times when (generally speaking but not always) contrary viewpoints were discussed and debated instead of suppressed. People would think. Science thrives on challenges instead of maintaining a consensus.

Original image sources: Freeimages / vangeldere (left), Pexels / Francesco (right)

It may surprise some people, but censorship is necessary to some extent. For example, platforms promoting free speech like MeWe, Parler, Gab, and others have rules where the user cannot break laws, engage in harassment, and so on.

Censorship in found in numerous forms. Although biblical creationists and Intelligent Design proponents can publish in secular peer-reviewed journals, questioning evolution is streng verboten. Questioning or raising objections to evolution often results in censure and loss of employment for those who do not toe the line. Evolution doubters are not allowed to sit at the table with the bigwigs — even though we are not the ones using incomplete research, fake science, storytelling, and even fraud to hoodwink people into accepting our point of view unchallenged.

Radio talk show host Chris Plante often tells listeners that the most insidious power of the media is the power to ignore. Most of the mainstream news outlets are on the political, cultural, and religious left, so it is no wonder that the only way people learn important things is through alternative media; leftist media gave them little to no coverage.

Less formal methods of censorship include coercion, ridicule, and fear. There are numerous views contrary to scientific facts (especially related to sexual preferences and gender manipulation) that may go mostly unchalleged because of self-censorship — people fear repercussions and various personal attacks.

For that matter, I believe a quiet, insidious form of censorship happened to The Question Evolution Project on Facebook: the shadowban. Even though the Page has many "likes" and quite a few regular visitors, it was throttled. Not showing up on people's timelines, so they couldn't see those true science-affirming posts. Interestingly, the shadowban also happened on Twitter at the same time. Not suspicious at all.

When promoting Question Evolution Day, fundamentalist evolutionists were on the prod, ridiculing with inane statements like, "How about a day for questioning gravity?" and "You have a day celebrating your stupidity." Although one aspect of QED is to promote free speech, atheists and other anti-creationists did not even want us to have a contrary view, let alone, to express it. (I suspect that some professing creationists didn't support the day as much as they could have because they censored themselves out of fear.) Secularists protect their creation mythology since it cannot withstand honest scientific scrutiny.

Isn't it interesting that those who censor the speech of Conservatives, Christians, ID proponents, and biblical creationists think they have the moral high ground? Somehow, civil rights do not apply to us. Because reasons.

In the past month, I have lectured to close to 500 persons. One common question raised in the Q&A sessions is, given the overwhelming evidence against Darwinian evolution, why do over half the population now accept this worldview?

My answer is simple: censorship. One of the worst forms of censorship is self-censorship. For instance, one of my colleagues recently completed his Ph.D. in herpetology, specifically focusing on snakes. About this time I was writing a paper on snake evolution and, since he had a Ph.D. in this area and I do not, I asked him to critique it. He said he did not want to waste his time . . . He was adamant; snakes evolved;  end of story. And he did not want to discuss it.

To read the entire article and see the author's own struggles with the subject, see "Censorship Strikes Again."