There is a new movie out. It is called EXPELLED. Ben Stein stars in this expose of how modern science covers up for Darwinism and promotes it as dogma. One of the biggest coverups in history involves a conspiracy by elitists within the scientific community to silence any questioning of Darwinism from any source.Any scientist who dares speak against the Darwinist orthodoxy risks the ruin of his or her career, being branded as a heretic.

One of the worst cases of persecution of scientists was of one named Dr Richard Sternberg. Sternberg is an Evolutionary Biologist (i.e. evoloutionist) He was editor of a Magazine called Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.This magazine was affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution. He approved the publication of paper titled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer. Sternberg discusses the process at length on the homepage of his website

The Meyer paper underwent a standard peer review process by three qualified scientists, all of whom are evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions. The reviewers provided substantial criticism and feedback to Dr. Meyer, who then made significant changes to the paper in response. Subsequently, after the controversy arose, Dr. Roy McDiarmid, President of the Council of the BSW, reviewed the peer-review file and concluded that all was in order. As Dr. McDiarmid informed me in an email message on August 25th, 2004, “Finally, I got the [peer] reviews and agree that they are in support of your decision [to publish the article].”

You have a case of an evolutionist who approve publication that was peer reviewed by other evolutionist simply because it challenges Darwinism, because a paper that made the case that evolution could occur by means of an intelligent design passed the peer review process.

Some of Sternberg’s fellows at the Smithsonian wanted to stack the deck so that articles that agree with Intelligent Design are automatically dismissed without review of any evidence.

Pressured to reveal peer reviewers and to engage in improper peer review. I was repeatedly pressured to reveal the names of the peer-reviewers of the Meyer article, contrary to professional ethics. I was also told repeatedly that I should have found peer reviewers who would reject the article out-of-hand, in direct violation of professional ethics which require editors to find peer reviewers who are not prejudiced or hostile to a particular author or his/her ideas.