Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,789
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 89:
Line 89: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Evolutionary Position Gradually Losing Public Support
In addition, atheistic [[communism|communist]] countries [http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Atheism_and_Communism have used violent means to suppress theism].
In addition, atheistic [[communism|communist]] countries [http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Atheism_and_Communism have used violent means to suppress theism].
== James Randi and deception ==
The ''Daily Grail'' declared about the atheist [[James Randi]]:
{{Cquote|Just a few months later, the previously Teflon-coated James 'The Amazing' Randi was caught at the center of his own scandal when his partner of more than two decades, Jose Alvarez, was caught and pleaded guilty [http://dailygrail.com/Skepticism/2011/9/Randis-Partner-Arrested-Identity-Theft to identity theft], after overstaying his visa in the 1980s. Though many felt sympathy for both Randi and his partner's dilemma, there were also questions over how much Randi knew or was involved in the crime - a not-particularly-good look for the much celebrated champion of truth and honesty.
Randi's credibility devolved further earlier this year when Will Storr's book The Heretics brought Randi's [[Social Darwinism|Social Darwinist]]-like philosophies into the spotlight, as well as Randi's own confession that he sometimes lies to win his arguments.<ref>[http://www.dailygrail.com/Skepticism/2013/8/Is-the-Week-Organized-Skepticism-Imploded Is This the Week that Organized Skepticism Imploded?]</ref>}}
According to ''The Daily Telegraph'':
{{Cquote|Following a burst of publicity for [Dr. Rupert] Sheldrake, Randi told a journalist, “We at JREF have tested these claims. They fail.” But when I met Sheldrake, at his Hampstead home, he made a serious charge. “Randi’s a liar and a cheat,” he said. “When I asked him for the data, he had to admit he hadn’t done any tests.”
According to Sheldrake, his direct requests for data were twice ignored. After appealing to others at the JREF, Randi eventually wrote back, explaining that he couldn’t supply the data because it got washed away in a flood and that the dogs he tested are now in Mexico and their owner was “tragically killed last year in a dreadful accident.”
Unusually for Randi, he was polite. “I over-stated my case for doubting the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I obtained,” he wrote. “It was rash and improper of me to do so. I apologise sincerely.”
But, publicly, Randi then attacked Sheldrake. Of his own failure to provide the data he wrote, “A search of our site would have supplied [Sheldrake] with all the details he could possibly wish. Alternately, I could have supplied them, if only he had issued a request. That’s what we do at the JREF.”
In 2011, I travelled to Las Vegas to Randi’s annual fan convention, The Amaz!ng Meeting, to ask him about several of these claims of dishonesty. He countered most either with denials or appeals to the fact that the events happened a long time ago. When it came to Sheldrake he said, “What specific experiments are you referring to?”
“The ones you told Dog World magazine you’d done,” I said. “In New York. The owner was killed, the dogs are in Mexico and you lost the files in a flood.”
“That was one of the hurricane floods,” he nodded
So what prompted these tests?
“I must admit to you that I don’t recall having said that these tests were even done. But I’m willing to see the evidence for it.”
I handed him the emails Sheldrake provided.
“Oh,” he said.
Pressed about his treatment of Sheldrake, he insisted he didn’t lie because when he made the offer to send the data it hadn’t yet been destroyed by Hurricane Wilma. It was only after our meeting I realised Wilma took place four years before he stated that the data was available. But before we parted, I told him my research painted a picture of a clever man who is often right, but who has a certain element to his personality which leads him to overstate.
“Oh I agree,” he said.
“And sometimes lie. Get carried away.”
“Oh I agree. No question of that. I don’t know whether the lies are conscious lies all the time,” he said. “But there can be untruths.”<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/11270453/James-Randi-debunking-the-king-of-the-debunkers.html James Randi: debunking the king of the debunkers], ''The Telegraph''</ref>}}
==Evolutionary Position Gradually Losing Public Support==
==Evolutionary Position Gradually Losing Public Support==
There is [http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Deceit_of_Evolutionists_and_the_Public evidence to suggest that the evolutionary position is gradually losing public support.]
There is [http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Deceit_of_Evolutionists_and_the_Public evidence to suggest that the evolutionary position is gradually losing public support.]
==Folly and fruit of atheistic evolutionary deception==
==Folly and fruit of atheistic evolutionary deception==
Currently, the are a [[theories of evolution|number of untenable "theories" of evolution]] and the evolutionary community currently [[theory of evolution and little consensus|is in disarray and lacking any real consensus on how evolution allegedly occurred]].
Currently, the are a [[theories of evolution|number of untenable "theories" of evolution]] and the evolutionary community currently [[theory of evolution and little consensus|is in disarray and lacking any real consensus on how evolution allegedly occurred]].