On Saturday, Feb. 19, I presented a brief two-hour summary of a six-hour seminar with a 300-slide power point at The Chapel on the Campus LSU. The seminar emphasizes conclusions from world-renowned scientists who because of new evidence now reject macroevolution via mutations. Two dramatically different Reveille staff articles were written in response: “Creationist lecturer argues Bible more rational than evolution” by Matthew Albright and “Shockingly Simple: Creationists should never have left the ark” by Andrew Shockey. Albright’s article was fair and accurate. Shockey’s article, in contrast, reflected today’s typical “shock-value” tabloid journalism.
Shockey, who did not attend the seminar and said he only read the power point online, wrote a piece that was grossly inaccurate in both its implicit message and its explicit claims. The implicit message, common from anti-ID and anti-creation authors, is conveyed by the intentional omission of the many world-renowned scientists and historians quoted in the seminar and whose research, evidence, inferences and conclusions are covered in the power point. Shockey’s explicit claims have been thoroughly challenged by world-class astrophysicists, geophysicists, geneticists and biologists, including Dr. Sanford of Cornell University, inventor of the Gene Gun, and Dr. Damadian, inventor of the MRI. For example, Shockey’s claim regarding “lactose tolerance in humans” as evidence of evolution has been specifically and thoroughly countered by numerous scientists mentioned in the seminar, including the authors of a new European book, Should Christians Embrace Evolution, edited by Dr. Norman Nevin. He is professor emeritus of medical genetics at Queen’s University in Belfast and head of the Northern Regional Genetics Service. It is quite telling when anti-creationists like Shockey avoid addressing the research, reasoning and conclusions of scientists like Nevin – and therefore pretend that these scientists do not exist. Such deliberate omission is neither journalistic honesty nor critical thinking. Shockey’s exclusive focus on me, a mere “reporter/translator” of the scientists, as if the views presented are only my own, was not an oversight by him. It is a common tactic. Since he says he read my power point, then he cannot claim ignorance regarding these scientists. Please note Dr. Nevin’s further credentials are available on the internet – possibly why Shockey, a sophomore bioengineering student, avoided mentioning him.
I made it clear that the seminar is primarily the reporting of what I have gleaned from these respected scientists through personal dialogue with them, as well as careful study of their materials in addition to those of evolutionary scientists. When authors like Shockey intentionally hide not only the opposing statements and evidence, but also the very existence of these world-class scientists, the result is science-censorship.
Too often, that which is claimed as critical thinking in academia is actually consensus thinking. The result is that the “authority” upon which beliefs are based becomes the “majority,” instead of a careful analysis of evidence from the best scholarly sources. Truly critical (logikos) thinking requires uncensored science.
Sid Galloway, BS, M.Div.
 
____
Contact The Daily Reveille’s opinion staff at [email protected]