Recently I read an article interview in a college news magazine that featured a professor that I had personally had an encounter with concerning Darwinian evolution. My encounter took place some four years ago at this particular college, and I was so disturbed by the events that transpired as a result of our dialogue, that I had planned to write about it. But my opportunity to do so did not arise until recently. In the interview, this same professor was promoting his same agenda that prompted our dialogue four years ago, only this time it was in the public forum of a college magazine. This gave me the opportunity to reply publically, which I attempted to do by contacting the magazine’s editors and moderator. I sent them a written response top their cover story article and requested that it be published. I was promptly contacted by one of the editors and was sent a list of questions to answer as part of an interview that they said would be printed in the next issue of their magazine. I replied and in keeping with their word, my interview and my article response was published in their online version to their magazine. I was notified via email that the article was published and provided a link where I could view it. But to my surprise, when I attempted to view the article, it had been removed from their site. When I contacted their moderator who had removed it to enquire why, he emailed me back saying that it was libelous and he was attempting to avoid any label charges. I then requested clarity as to what part of the article/interview constituted libel, and never received a reply. It was clear to me that I was being censored and that he was using libel as the excuse to do so. So I decided to request permission from the author of my interview to publish all of the material minus use of names so as to avoid any retaliation against the magazine editors or writers. The following is that material.
An Interview with Danzil Monk: A Call for Recognition in the Science Community
Danzil Monk, a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ is concerned about bias censorship in the debate over evolution.
Monk is "a Christian who believes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. But I am also a lover of science..."
He is well read in scientific debates involving religion and evolution.
He has interviewed scientists on both sides of the subject of evolution, is in direct contact with several scientists and science educators, studied countless debates and is currently working on a book and a documentary about the evolution/creation/I.D debate.
This debate is a controversial topic in the science community and Mr. Monk said that both sides were not being represented equally classroom in publics school or in colleges around our nation.
"I have had several students to come to me and complain about how their faith was being attacked in their science and history classes by their professors”.
"Some years ago, I had issues with a college library director throwing out 6 DVD’s by PhD creationist scientists worth $130.00 that I had donated to a college. The excuse he gave was that they did not need them.”
“I have also had issues with evolutionist gatekeepers at colleges who protect evolutionist professors from any kind of public scrutiny about their evolution views, while allowing them the freedom of expressing their evolution views even when they were wrong.”
So I set up an interview to give Danzil Monk the chance to voice his thoughts.
We reached out to Monk with the following questions about his cause:
XL: What is the overall message you’d like to communicate?
DM-"My concern, is that Darwinian evolution is taught everywhere, and on most school levels, with little or nothing being said about its errors or weaknesses, it is in most all science textbooks, and it is dominant on major networks like CNN, MSNBC, BBC, PBS, the History Channel, The Science Channel and all secular news and talk shows. It is even dominant in sitcoms, movies and comic books. And yet even non-science professors seem to think that a special helping is needed even in non-science classes. I am wondering why, and why is there no representation of scientific perspectives that counter Darwinian evolution, such as creation science or Intelligent Design in most classrooms?”
"Since nearly all of the major fields of science were started by people of faith, and since science is in fact impossible without God, and considering the fact that there are brilliant scientists, past and present, who have done just fine without Darwinian evolution, both in teaching and in science discovery, I fail to see a legitimate reason why Darwinian evolution is given such a prominent place with no balance of perspective. Especially given the fact that it is largely responsible for destroying the faith of some former believers like Richard Dawkins by their own admission.”
"One student that I was talking to several years ago assured me that he was an evolutionist and could defend his views, so I treated him to lunch and gave him an opportunity to convince me, after I refuted all of his evolution arguments and explained to him why God was the only alternative, he began to cry and he told me how his professor had shown his class science films proving evolution was true and that God was not necessary for life. He then told me that he was no longer a Catholic and had stopped going to church and that his life was a mess. And he asked me if I would please provide him with all the information he needed to refute evolution. I agreed and I did. Several weeks later this young man came to me with a big smile on his face and informed me that he was going to church again and thanked me for my help. I can tell you of many stories like this that I have experienced.”
"The evidence that refutes Darwinian evolution should also be fairly and honestly presented."
XL: What is Creation Science and Intelligent Design?
DM: "Creation science is simply an approach to all science that acknowledges that the laws of science mandates a law giver, and that the existence of life and the design and order in nature, and the type of complexity in nature requires a creator. This approach to science does not prevent or hinder science as evolutionists falsely claim, but was in fact what made the development of science possible. It also acknowledges that everything we see in nature and in the universe supports the necessity of the creator.”
"Intelligent Design (ID) differs from Creation Science mainly in its determination to avoid the discussion of “who” the designer is. ID seeks to remove the religious distractions that evolutionists seek to make the focus of the debate to avoid dealing with the arguments against evolution."
XL: What is the difference between the Creation Science/Intelligent Design side and the Darwinian evolution?
DM: "What separates Creation science and Intelligent Design, from Darwinian evolution, is mainly their starting points, based on their worldviews and on their interpretations of the same data.
"Creation Science and ID, starts with God/Intelligence, creating the first original creatures with the genetic capacity to adapt and speciate, giving rise to all the various “species” within each group kind we see, and that have gone extinct over long periods of time. They interpret what they see from the perspective that it could not occur on its own from a single or several simple life forms, by natural undirected processes over long periods of time, no matter how much time you give it.”
"Darwinian evolution starts with Atheism [According to Monk] and belief that the first simple single life form formed from non-living chemicals, then over millions or billions of years through natural selection and mutations (and perhaps something else), developed into millions of different life forms. In their view, God is not necessary for life and should not be mentioned when dealing with science matters.
“There are variables within these views, there are some Creationists (theistic evolutionists), and ID believers who accept that God used evolution after His initial creation, so that over millions of years evolution caused all of the many life forms we see. The view is called Old Earth creationism."
One extremely interesting story Mr. Monk shared with me concerned the college professor who was promoting the Darwinian course, he said that he contacted the professor to enquire about his view on evolution and the purpose of the Darwin course, and to his surprise he discovered that the professor was not well informed about evolution or Darwin.
The more they dialogued via email about the subject, he said the clearer it became to him that the professor, though claiming in their email dialogue to be a Christian, was just another Darwinist who was seeking to indoctrinate students in Darwinism. (Mr. Monk thinks that the professor might have received a large financial grant to promote evolution, as that has been going on for some time).
This became even clearer to Mr. Monk when he found out that in spite of their non-confrontational dialogue, the professor secretly filed a complaint against him to the college’s provost. The provost, who was a friend of Mr. Monk, never contacted Mr. Monk about the matter, so he decided not to confront the professor about it.
Yet, a full month after their email dialogue, Mr. Monk said that while approaching this same professor’s office to see if the Darwin flyers were still on his office door, he overheard the professor complaining to another colleague about their email dialogue that occurred a month earlier, the professor was even reading out loud some of Mr. Monk’s comments in the email to them and then shouting, “Who does he think he is!”.
Mr. Monk said that he did not go in the office and never confronted the professor about that event, and the professor does not know till this day that he was outside his office and heard what he said about him.
Said Mr. Monk, “It was divine providence that had me approach his office at the very moment that he was talking about me.”
What was even more disturbing to Mr. Monk was the fact that the professor has seen him on numerous occasions around the college and has never once indicated to him directly that he had any problem with him. He always greeted Mr. Monk as if they were still friends.
That all happened four years ago, but recently the college’s magazine did a cover story interview with this same professor, discussing his Darwinian evolution course. When Mr. Monk read it, he was amazed that the professor had the nerve to go so public with the course, and so he wrote a response to the interview and sent it to the college’s magazine. That response is reproduced below minus the names, as it is not our intention to expose the people involved, but only to spotlight the bias and censorship that is being practiced in many colleges and schools around the nation.
The Evolutionary Studies Collaborative: Comments, thoughts and concerns
By Danzil Monk Sr.
(Note: This was written by me to the college’s magazine editor. All names are removed to prevent any retaliation on the student writer who interviewed me and published my article response along with her interview of me, and who gave me permission to publish it. Her moderator removed the article from the college’s website and told me that it was basically libelous, but he never replied to my request for clarity as to just want in the article constituted libel. I had written to him about my article several times before I submitted it to the magazine and he did not reply. The third time I cc’d his supervisor, and like magic he suddenly had the time to reply to me. He seems to me to be just another of those liberals on the left who seek to silence anyone on the right or any conservative who seeks to expose any lie that the left values).
This is the article:
For four years I have patiently waited to write this article. I was unable to until I read your February 2018 (27) cover story “The Evolutionary Studies Collaborative: A discussion with Professor XXX”, a nicely written article by X.
Four years ago on April 29, 2013, I also had a discussion with Professor XXX about his Evolutionary Studies Collaborative, (ESC). After reading the flyer posted around the campus about the ESC, that appeared to be a promotion of Darwinism, I was concerned, and decided to contact Professor XXX via email, to get more information about his course, and clarity as to what he meant by “evolution”.
Over the years I had been getting complaints from students who were from religious backgrounds, (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Muslim), about how their religious beliefs were being trashed by their professors in their classes.
I have read a number of books on the subject of evolution and I have written many reviews for them. I have also done many interviews, many dialogues and even debates with science professionals and educators on the subject. So I know first-hand, just how problematic Darwinian evolution can be.
When I contacted Professor XXX with my questions and concerns about his ESC, he was gracious to answer some of my questions, but none of my concerns. There were comments that he simply did not reply to, and they have now resurfaced in your February 2018 issue of XxxX.
On page 2 it states:
“professor XXX- added that a large portion of The Evolutionary Studies Collaborative is centered on morality and noted that, when we study other species, we can determine that “there are similarities in […] what we call moral behaviors.”
But for any creature of the animal kingdom to exhibit “morality” as defined by what we humans call morality, they would have to have our level and kind of intelligence. This has never been demonstrated. So I am curious as to why there is a need to connect human morality to that of animal behavior. Other than the evolutionary claim that we humans are “animals”, a view that is not taught in the Bible.
The next paragraph states:
“The goal of the course, along with others like it, is to give students “more variety [and] more of a choice” in their curriculum according to professor XXX”
But if that is true, why was evolution chosen as the primary focus, and not a hundred other possible topics, including Intelligent Design and even Creation Science? Are they not worthy areas of study? If not, why?
Note the next paragraph:
“Even if the Evolutionary Studies course does not run, there are six different independent studies offered by Professor XXX:”
What followed is a list that seems to promote Darwinism.
Now when I asked professor XXX about his stated goal for the ESC, he assured me that there was “no agenda here”, though I had not suggested that there was. And yet, there does seems to be a lot of Darwinian evolution everywhere and no God anywhere. In fact, there seems to be an anti-creationist theme, though professor XXX is a professing Christian.
The article stated the following on pg.3:
“Regarding personal beliefs within The Evolutionary Studies Collaborative, Professor XXX stated that, while he welcomes everyone to hold their own opinion on the origin of humankind, he firmly believes in Evolution in all its dimensions while still a practicing Christian”
I have always found this combination to be oxymoronic in the least, though many believe that the two are compatible. To believe in evolution in “all its dimensions” would include the denial of divine creation, since one “dimension” of evolution is supposed to have begun with the first life coming somehow from non-living chemicals. Another “dimension” of evolution is the claim that all different life forms originated from a single (or now they say, several) original life form, and over billions of years produced all life we see now. None of which has or can be proven by science, and it is a direct contradiction of what the Bible teaches. (Genesis 1:11-12, 20-27).
But what I found even more disturbing was the next few comments by professor XXX:
“professor XXX also said that other theories, such as Intelligent Design and Creationism, can be difficult to fit into the curriculum of a science classroom.”
I would ask why? When there are many science articles defending ID and creation science purely from the science data, and that make no mention of God. ID and creation science is being discussed in science journals and in peer reviews, as creation.com, answersingenesis.com and the discovery.org all document. So “Why” should they be excluded?
His next comment was truly surprising:
“When asked about the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate, Professor XXX compared it to the Round Earth vs. Flat Earth theories.”
Now this comment even I find offensive. I am an Intelligent Design and creation science defender and I see no connection to, or comparison to Flat Earth theories. It is apparent to me that one can only hold this opinion if they have either been shielded from the robust science material available from the best ID and Creation Science camps, or if one has a personal bias against Creation science and Intelligent Design. Is he saying that ID and Creation science are like the unprovable Flat Earth theories, and Darwinian Evolution is like the provable round earth? If so, I would be interested in hearing how he would defend such a claim.
On page 3 column 2 another professor at the college is mentioned, it states:
“Dr. XXXX a new professor at XxxxX….went on the say that “the biggest questions we know how to ask tends to be questions no one discipline can handle alone or monopolize.” “Individuals commit “methodological oversights” when they proceed independently of other scholars in adjacent disciplines.”
I agree, but that is also true if they proceed without including Intelligent Design and Creationist scientists who are also degreed professionals in science and education. Why are such people excluded from the leadership of the studies, and their material ignored?
It goes on to say:
“Dr. XXXX concluded by stating that the work in The Evolutionary Studies Collaborative challenges People “to understand the world [and] to integrate it in the broadest possible terms.”
But how could it, if it neglects whole areas of scientific studies that counter evolution?
I am amazed at how easily evolutionists ignore creation science and ID as if they are not relevant to science, or an understanding of our world. And having personally debated such people, I know first hand how ineffective they are at defending their evolutionary views scientifically. And so their tendency to dismiss creation science and ID is not only premature, but also inappropriate, and in fact condescending towards their degreed colleagues who strongly disagree with them on the subject of Darwinian evolution.
Further down the page yet another professor is mentioned, it states:
“Dr. XX also mentioned that Dr. XXX’s input is both thorough and trustworthy”
But if it does not include ID or creation science, how can it be either?
In column 4 it states:
“Evolution and Human Culture” largely follows professor XXX’s description of nature in accordance with his acceptance of evolution.”
I would like to know what role if any does God play in this course? Darwinian evolution as taught of science today, is mostly anti-theistic and metaphysical, and I cannot see how an anti-theistic philosophy in science can best teach us about the world we live in. In fact, I do not see how science could possibly make any sense without God in the equation.
In that same column is says:
“He [professor XXX] suggested Bio majors to take the 'On the Origin of Species' at any time.”
But to what end? “On the Origin of Species” is known to be fatally flawed scientifically, and has literally very little scientific value. His dependence on natural selection as the “possible” mechanism of evolution’s diversification of life on earth was known to be insufficient back in 1859. And just about everything in “On the Origin of Species” is rejected today as false. So why is that book necessary?
I look forward to hearing answers to these questions.
DM-I wish that I could report to you that my questions were all answered, but I cannot, because they have all avoided me. That is why I pushed to get permission to publish this information here. We are living in a time when liberals and even some so called conservatives, are bypassing the proper way of settling disagreements, by fair pubic debates, and they have stooped so low as to block as much as possible, any exposure of intelligent claims that counter their claims. Or they will intentionally misrepresent those claims so that they seem silly to the public.
May God help the true Christians to wake up and start being the witness that God called us to be.
This concludes Mr. Monk’s response to the magazine. I hope this information has been edifying and informative. I certainly gained quite an education about the whole matter.