A couple of years into this project I was conversing with someone in the self-publishing business. Before we could talk contract, I had to give them the first thirty pages of the manuscript so they could showcase their editing skills. Much to my surprise, the would be editor sent a note letting me know that while he subscribed to my position on religion, I had to change everything I wrote about evolution. Evolution was fact, he said, my book was making the case for the theory of evolution being a fallacy, and even though I was the one paying for the service they were not going to publish that.
My response was, I am not the only one seeing the things the way I do. Based on an abundance of evidence presented in the book this is how things actually are, and the reason why I was writing this book was precisely to tell what was provably the real story. There are bona fide scientists out there that have reached the same conclusion I did, and I mentioned the Scientific Dissent on Darwinism signed by thousands of men and women of science. His reaction was, there are a lot more scientists supporting evolution than scientists that are against it, and he referenced something I had never heard about before called Project Steve. Needless to say, there was no deal and no contract. Who would want to pay for a book with his name on it conveying to the public a message that was demonstrably false.
Everything happens for a good reason. When I looked into what Project Steve was and what it did, I found out about the shocking amount of deceit associated with the propagandistic support for evolution expressed by what in reality is a difficult to gage size-wise segment of the scientific community. Based on that I began to see the creation v. evolution orchestrated debate in a different light, and would I dedicate an entire subchapter to Project Steve. The following is a small excerpt from this subchapter.
"Project Steve was named after Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002), a prominent and at the same time controversial American evolutionary biologists. A frequent major flip-flapper, Gould was an on again, off again supporter of evolution, reason why most of the time unofficially and on occasion quite openly the rest of the evolutionary lot was quite angry with him. Among others, Gould is on record stating that falsely claiming total unity among scientists in their support for evolution did not benefit progress in science.
Concocted by a group of scientists of dubious ethics and analytic abilities acting as if they were the supreme authority in the matter, Project Steve represents indisputable evidence evolutionists do not want to be put in a situation where they have to respond publicly to the pertinent criticism of Darwin’s theory issued by other scientists. To draw attention away from that, they decided that unlike in the case of the Dissent issued by Discovery Institute, only scientists named Steve or whose name was similar to Steve were allowed to sign under their proclamation.
And how is natural selection “a major mechanism in its occurrence” when even the most vocal among the supporters of evolution had to admit natural selection is not a real player. Ironically, as you are going to see, no other than Project Steve’s patron, Stephen Jay Gould, made it very clear, before he would contradict himself, again, natural selection is a figment of an evolutionist’s imagination.
Then why is intelligent design “creationist pseudo-science” when one of the leading scientists making the case for design, Michael Behe, is a university professor, a molecular biologist who happens to be a declared rejector of creationism. In Darwin’s Black Box he builds a solid case for intelligent design with the help of an abundance of certified scientific data anyone could look at and analyze, and not once is he making references to something that could even remotely be construed as religion. Intelligent design is not religion because some religious leaders decided to use it, before they recanted on their argument, to make the case for a designer god. After all, for pure political reasons many churches have also decided these days to endorse evolution. Does that make evolution religion? It does not, and yet, since the pro-evolution argument is actually entirely based on belief, for many out there this is precisely what evolutionism is.
Last but not the least Project Steve statement says that to debate over the validity of the theory of evolution would be “pedagogically irresponsible.” According to NCSE, doubting Lady Evolution to her face in science class is bad manners and a scientific debate over the premises for the conclusions reached by Darwin would be “inappropriate.” Who knew Evolution was so thin-skinned, and that the only ones to be allowed to enter debates should be individuals that have similar opinions on the topic debated over? Of course, claiming criticism of evolution is "pedagogically irresponsible" and "inappropriate" was about evolutionists covering up for the many false claims made in support of evolution and about the academia disallowing dissenting voices to be heard in schools and universities in order to protect the status quo.
Their attitude is similar to religious cults forbidding an internal debate over the religious dogma. There is also a not so subtle threat of excommunication and of experiencing all sorts of dire consequences when found guilty of apostasy."
In a May 1981 Discover Magazine issue, Stephen Gould was warning fellow evolutionists that it was not good for science, or for the scientific community to pretend such monolithic support existed when, in reality, the claim that biological and genetic transmutations by the way of natural selection had once occurred in nature during an alleged process of adaptation was an idea arduously debated over. “For if we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature,” he wrote, “to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost.” (“Evolution as Fact and Theory, By Stephen Gould)
In other words, the one chosen by NCSE to be the patron of a Project Steve intended, among others, as a way of demonstrating all scientists agreed evolution was fact was not so sure there was any conclusive evidence evolution was fact. As a result, what the NCSE did when it chose Stephen Jay Gould to be its patron was basically what the bishops of the Christian church did in the case of Jesus. To keep the masses in the dark about the fact that he was teaching against religion, they made him into a god that was to be worshiped at a church its founders were falsely claiming was established on Jesus's teachings, teachings they had actually abandoned from the moment they set up shop in the Roman Empire.
So, what is this Project Steve anyway? Project Steve is a ruse created by diehard evolutionists to help them hide from the public the fact that the actual evidence is stacked against evolution, the actual reason why to this day they continue to refuse to accept the challenge issued in the text of the Scientific Dissent on Darwinism. In other words, their response to that invitation to having an honest debate on evolution in a public forum was a propaganda device meant to cover up for their inability to address the many problems with Darwin's theory.
So, what is this Project Steve anyway? Project Steve is a ruse created by diehard evolutionists to help them hide from the public the fact that the actual evidence is stacked against evolution, the actual reason why to this day they continue to refuse to accept the challenge issued in the text of the Scientific Dissent on Darwinism. In other words, their response to that invitation to having an honest debate on evolution in a public forum was a propaganda device meant to cover up for their inability to address the many problems with Darwin's theory.
Concocted by a group of scientists of dubious ethics and analytic abilities acting as if they were the supreme authority in the matter, Project Steve represents indisputable evidence evolutionists do not want to be put in a situation where they have to respond publicly to the pertinent criticism of Darwin’s theory issued by other scientists. To draw attention away from that, they decided that unlike in the case of the Dissent issued by Discovery Institute, only scientists named Steve or whose name was similar to Steve were allowed to sign under their proclamation.
NCSE wanted to prove that even when handicapped pro-evolution activists would have no problem getting a lot more signatures in support of evolution than the promoters of the Dissent did. It is worth repeating it, though, in matters of science it is completely irrelevant how many supporters or critics a theory has. The only thing that matters is that the argument is proven true by real facts and a rational logical interpretation of them. By playing the numbers game, they were hoping the public would not pay attention to the content of their argument, or to the fact that the Project Steve statement was a collection of false claims and of statements afflicted with a serious case of defective logic.
This was the NCSE’s Project Steve response to the Scientific Dissent on Darwinism:
The first question one would need to ask NCSE is why call evolution fact when according to your Project Steve “there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution.” In other words, on what basis do they claim “there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred” when they admit scientists cannot even agree on how evolution works? For if you don’t know what “patterns and processes” are associated with evolution, common sense says when you state that “evolution occurred,” this is an assumption, not a scientific fact.
Secondly, if “the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry,” where is the common ancestor? Why one hundred and sixty years after Darwin published a book deceptively titled On the Origin of Species no one has figured out yet the identity of that alleged common ancestor? Contrary to what NCSE’s Project Steve claims, otherwise a well-known fact even among evolutionists, overwhelming scientific evidence leads to the conclusion that same as the six-day creation in the Bible, common ancestry is another unproven evolutionary assumption based on the assumption that biological gradualism, for which we have zero real evidence, is how we got our millions of species.
This was the NCSE’s Project Steve response to the Scientific Dissent on Darwinism:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools. (Project Steve, ncse.com)
The first question one would need to ask NCSE is why call evolution fact when according to your Project Steve “there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution.” In other words, on what basis do they claim “there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred” when they admit scientists cannot even agree on how evolution works? For if you don’t know what “patterns and processes” are associated with evolution, common sense says when you state that “evolution occurred,” this is an assumption, not a scientific fact.
Secondly, if “the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry,” where is the common ancestor? Why one hundred and sixty years after Darwin published a book deceptively titled On the Origin of Species no one has figured out yet the identity of that alleged common ancestor? Contrary to what NCSE’s Project Steve claims, otherwise a well-known fact even among evolutionists, overwhelming scientific evidence leads to the conclusion that same as the six-day creation in the Bible, common ancestry is another unproven evolutionary assumption based on the assumption that biological gradualism, for which we have zero real evidence, is how we got our millions of species.
And how is natural selection “a major mechanism in its occurrence” when even the most vocal among the supporters of evolution had to admit natural selection is not a real player. Ironically, as you are going to see, no other than Project Steve’s patron, Stephen Jay Gould, made it very clear, before he would contradict himself, again, natural selection is a figment of an evolutionist’s imagination.
Then why is intelligent design “creationist pseudo-science” when one of the leading scientists making the case for design, Michael Behe, is a university professor, a molecular biologist who happens to be a declared rejector of creationism. In Darwin’s Black Box he builds a solid case for intelligent design with the help of an abundance of certified scientific data anyone could look at and analyze, and not once is he making references to something that could even remotely be construed as religion. Intelligent design is not religion because some religious leaders decided to use it, before they recanted on their argument, to make the case for a designer god. After all, for pure political reasons many churches have also decided these days to endorse evolution. Does that make evolution religion? It does not, and yet, since the pro-evolution argument is actually entirely based on belief, for many out there this is precisely what evolutionism is.
Last but not the least Project Steve statement says that to debate over the validity of the theory of evolution would be “pedagogically irresponsible.” According to NCSE, doubting Lady Evolution to her face in science class is bad manners and a scientific debate over the premises for the conclusions reached by Darwin would be “inappropriate.” Who knew Evolution was so thin-skinned, and that the only ones to be allowed to enter debates should be individuals that have similar opinions on the topic debated over? Of course, claiming criticism of evolution is "pedagogically irresponsible" and "inappropriate" was about evolutionists covering up for the many false claims made in support of evolution and about the academia disallowing dissenting voices to be heard in schools and universities in order to protect the status quo.
Their attitude is similar to religious cults forbidding an internal debate over the religious dogma. There is also a not so subtle threat of excommunication and of experiencing all sorts of dire consequences when found guilty of apostasy."
A Time of Change, Volume 2, Chapter 13
A Time of Change is an ample, under current circumstances underground book of knowledge. At this time the author intends to make it available here and possibly on other Internet platforms free of charge. The first of the tree volumes of the book should be released sometime this year. That will be followed by the individual release of the other two volumes over a span of twelve months. To know when the first volume comes out, enter your email address in the window provided on the home page. An announcement will be made at the time of its release.
