I have just finished reading a book from which I quote below called Heretic. The timing of my read coincided with one of the most public and harmful indictments upon the scientific community that the world has seen in recent memory: the Coronavirus Wuhan lab hoax. Both the news and the book present a perspective that only a few years ago I had very little awareness of; namely that there is a collusion and corruption that is at work which undermines the credibility of the mainstream science community as a whole. I use the word mainstream very intentionally here, because the same indictment could similarly be levelled against the media establishment. Let me explain.

The common denominator in both the media and science spheres is that neither is any longer invested in truth seeking. Outcomes, whether conceived in laboratories or newsrooms, are predetermined and pre-approved. They are pursued and then judged, not on the basis of fact, but primarily for two reasons: to support ideology or guarantee ongoing profitability. Facts in these worlds are either massaged to align themselves with narratives that are uncompromisingly adhered to, or suppressed and ignored when they are considered to be a departure from “orthodoxy”. And this is not a passive stand. Truth can be so inconvenient that it can be deemed a threat, leaving these communities with a penchant for maligning and perverting truth when it gets in their way.

So two cases in point which are windows into these corrupt practices are the Steele Dossier which was carefully crafted then coordinated with other “partners” to give the false impression that there was corroboration of the story when there was none (the same could be said of the Nick Sandmann/Covington School narrative and many, many others); and there is the spate of emails being released about Dr Fauci and other science “experts” in their campaign to cover up the evidence pointing to coronavirus being genetically altered.

These perversions can poison elections (which in turn affect everything that occurs afterwards) as was the fallout from the media/big tech cabal’s scandalous meddling; or they can poison the whole range of scientific research and enquiry, as is the case with mafia-like stranglehold that evolutionists have on “heretics” like Leisola, Witt, Behe, Meyers, and so many others who are outstanding intellects in their disciplines. Tragically, though their research truly follows the science, by challenging the blatantly false and irrational tenets of the zealots in the science establishment, they are left out standing in their fields (pun intended)–stigmatized, patronized and unfunded.

Heretic was the perfect name for this book. One gets the feeling the “bishops” on the evolution side would not hesitate to tar-and-feather ID (Intelligent Design) scum if they could find a way to do it without getting caught. Still, their shamings and banishments and lynchings outside lecture halls have kept “detractors” mostly hamstrung until now. This despite the mountain of evident in support of ID proponent’s theories and a landslide of contradictions and blackholes directed at their own. Leisola represents an existential threat to their (money) vaulted resistance. From institutes to institutions, educators and even education itself, there is a multiverse of people who stand to lose from the slightest admission that what is Undeniable (see book by Douglas Axe) as evidence is in fact true.

Worldview Footprint?

Scientists do not function without worldview commitments, and their worldview easily affects the interpretation of their research results. These interpretations can and often will influence the worldviews of the members of the society. Viktor Frankl was a professor in the medical faculty of Vienna. As a Jew he was sent to one of Nazi Germany’s concentration camps, Auschwitz, but survived. Frankl was “absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.” The Nazi regime did not force scientists to work for them but “many scientists voluntarily oriented their work to fit the regime’s policies—as a way of getting money… Most researchers, it turns out, seem to have regarded the regime not as a threat, but as an opportunity for their research ambitions” (“Uncomfortable Truths,” Nature 434, no. 7034). Professor Ernst Haeckel had already, before the First World War, laid the foundation for the Nazis’ racist views, which were generally accepted by the science community. The father of Finnish genetics, Harry Federley, corresponded with Haeckel. He embraced racism and lectured in the world’s first Eugenics Institute in Sweden. In Finland Federley pushed through the sterilization laws for criminals and the mentally handicapped. The laws were in force till 1970.
Haeckel and Federley were monists (matter is the only reality) and had an enormous influence on society (Jahresbuch Europäisches Wissenschaftskultur 2005, 1:1). The shadow of their worldview hangs still above our culture. It was recently expressed in the school shootings (Kauhava and Jokela) where the motive was the principle of natural selection to eliminate the despised. The shooters were victims of the teachings of our culture. Young people tend to be more radical (the word comes from Latin and means going to the root) and function on the basis of their beliefs. Luckily, not all naturalists are that consistent. We rarely think that as university teachers we have to bear the responsibility of the worldview we communicate to students. But the university law obliges us to educate the youth to serve homeland and humanity. Therefore we teachers should recognize the faith commitments of our own worldviews and be careful how we communicate them to students. Fifteen years ago a teacher gave me an essay of a 15-year-old boy: “I studied science journals and formulated a solid worldview for myself. There is no God, no spirit, no meaning. It does not matter if I die now or after fifty years.” It is frightening to think that my own teaching might leave this kind of a footprint and even more frightening to think where it might lead.

Leisola, Matti; Witt, Jonathan. Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design (pp. 214-215). Discovery Institute Press. Kindle Edition.