Richard Milton: Scientific Censorship and Evolution
Posted by invizweb on September 2, 2009
Richard Milton wrote this commentary, posted it on Laura Lee’s site as well as the letter originally sent to Times Higher Education Supplement. He also posted the article to have been printed. Note I, Alan Lee, do not support the tenets of creationism, so don’t even try trolls~!The article below was commissioned in February 1995 by the British weekly newspaper, “Times Higher Education Supplement” to appear in March 1995. It has been censored because it challenges, scientifically, the empirical foundations of the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution.
The article was “spiked” by the THES Following a campaign against it by Richard Dawkins, of Oxford University.
In the interests of freedom of speech, and so that such attempts at censorship cannot succeed, I am placing the article in the public domain without copyright restriction and am posting it as widely as possible on the Internet. I also attach a copy of my letter to the editor of the Times Higher Education Supplement saying why I believe this article should be published.
I believe there is an issue of scientific censorship involved here that affects us all equally — even if you disagree with the conclusions in my article.
Times Higher Education Supplement
66-68 East Smithfield
London E1 9XY
16 March 1995
Dear Ms Stevens,
I know that my article on the decline of the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution has caused some controversy and is bound, if published, to cause even more. May I draw your attention to two points that I believe are important?
The first is that it has been said, by some scientists, that I am a secret creationist opposed to neo-Darwinism for religious reasons. I am not a creationist and my criticisms of the neo- Darwinist mechanism are purely scientific objections — as any reading of the article itself clearly shows.
The second point is far more important. I believe that the great strength of science and the scientific method is its openness to debate. Science is strong because errors are exposed through the process of open argument and counter-argument. Science does not need vigilante scientists to guard the gates against heretics. If the heresy is true it will become accepted. If false, it will be shown to be false, by rational discourse.
In his “The Open Society and its Enemies” Sir Karl Popper says that the great value of the scientific method is that it saves us from “The tyranny of opinion”. If neo-Darwinists can counter the evidence I present, let them do so. If they seek to prevent my writing being published because they don’t like it, then it is not just I that fall victim to the “tyranny of opinion”, it is all of us.
If this article were about any other subject — finance, politics, the economy — I know it would be welcomed as well- written and thought-provoking even if its claims were controversial. It is only because it is about neo-Darwinism, a subject on which some biologists feel insecure and ultra- sensitive, that doubts have been raised about it.