Richard Milton

Note by Kevin Wirth: A widely respected and published science writer, Richard Milton wrote a book challenging Darwinism titled "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism." In the introduction of his book, he relates the treatment he received by members of the scientific community, and makes some key observations worth noting. What happened to Richard Milton is another example of how dissent over Darwin is not only not allowed, but is instead viewed as scientific sacrilege, and is brutally attacked by many in the scientific establishment who are incredibly intolerant of views that challenge the reigning paradigm of biology.

Here are some excerpts from the introduction of Milton's book, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Park Street Press, 1992, 1997):

...according to a review by Darwinist Richard Dawkins, the book is "loony," "stupid," "drivel," and its author is a "harmless fuitcake" who "needs psychiatric help." ...

I didn't expect science to welcome an inquisitive reporter, but I did expect the controversy to be conducted at a rational level, that people would rightly demand to inspect my evidence more closely and question me on the correctness of this or that fact. To my horror, I found that instead of challenging me, orthodox scientists simply set about seeing me off "their" property...

It is not just outsiders who cannot be heard, it is dissenting members of the scientific professions themselves (empahsis added).

Read the review of Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Dawkins here.

But the story of what happened to Richard doesn't end here...evidently Dawkins continued to hound Milton.

An article was commissioned in February 1995 by the British weekly newspaper, "Times Higher Education Supplement" to appear in their March 1995 issue. The article, titled Neo-Darwinism: time to reconsider, was censored (ie, not printed) because it challenges, scientifically, the empirical foundations of the neo-Darwinist theory of evolution. The reason the article was not printed is alleged by Milton to be the direct result, at least in part, of the efforts of Dawkins to kill the article. Fortunately, in the interest of academic freedom and freedom of the press, this article has been posted online, and you can read it here.