evolutionists = "MANKIND IN AMNESIA" --- Velikovsky

A few choice tidbits
from the book, "Mankind in Amnesia,"
by the late, great Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky:


"But he (Charles Darwin) saw these animals,
their bones splintered, heaped in the strangest
assemlages -- giant sloths and mastodons together
with birds and mice.

He had to forget these pictures of disaster in order
to invent a theory of a peaceful earth unshaken in its
entirety . . . (but) he could not pass over it in silence
in 'Origin of Species'.

"He wrote: 'The extinction of species has been involved
in the most gratuitous mystery . . . No one can have
marvelled more than I have done at the extinction
of the species.'

"Darwin concluded: 'Certainly, no fact in the long history
of the world is so startling as the wide and repeated
extermination of its inhabitants'."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Quoting Eisely, when at the University of Kansas in 1943,
quoting an observer of an awe-inspiring scene spread all
over Alaska:

"... in certain regions of Alaska the bones of these extinct
animals lie so thickly scattered that there can be no question
of human handiwork involved.

"Though man was on the scene of the final perishing,
his was not, then, the appetite nor the capacity for such
giant slaughter."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"These remains were obviously heaped together in single
actions of nature . . . Alfred Russel Wallace, who
simultaneously with Darwin announced the theory
of natural selection, in puzzlement drew the attention
of the scientific world to the Siwalik hills, at the foot
of the Himalayas, their several hundred miles of length
practically packed with bones of animals . . .

"It seems impossible to attribute the phenomenon
to the unaided efforts of man. In this great carnage
are myriads of animals, limb torn from limb, in great
heaps, over tens of miles, mixed with splintered trees."


In 1963, the editors of American Behavioral Scientist
magazine were convinced of the merits of Dr. Immanuel
Velikovsky's science -- contained in "Worlds in Collision"
and "Earth in Upheaval," published in the early 1950s --
and were aware of the mushroom cloud of denial that had
been generated from within the scientific community.

The editors considered these events to be of major
mportance to the history of science.

Therefore, they displayed tremendous courage by devoting
their September 1963 issue to defending Velikovsky.

It contained three papers dealing with the Velikovsky
controversy -- by Ralph Juergens, Livio Stecchini and
publisher Alfred de Grazia, as well as a paper submitted
by Velikovsky himself.

Three years later -- in 1966 -- this edition of American
Behavioral Scientist wound up as a hard-cover book entitled
"The Velikovsky Affair: The Warfare of Science and Scientism,"
edited by de Grazia and published by University Books Inc.,
New Hyde Park, N.Y.

~~~~

"THE VELIKOVSKY AFFAIR"
Foreward
(By Alfred de Grazia)

In 1950, a book called Worlds in Collision, by Dr.
Immanuel Velikovsky, gave rise to a controversy in
scientific and intellectual circles about scientific
theories and the sociology of science.

Dr. Velikovsky's historical and cosmological concepts,
bolstered by his acknowledged scholarship, constituted
a formidable assault on certain established theories
of astronomy, geology and historical biology, and on
the heroes of those sciences.

Newton, himself, and Darwin were being challenged, and
indeed the general orthodoxy of an ordered universe.

The substance of Velikovsky's ideas is briefly presented
in the first chapter of this book.

What must be called the scientific establishment rose in
arms, not only against the new Velikovsky theories but
against the man himself.

Efforts were made to block dissemination of Dr. Velikovsky's
ideas, and even to punish supporters of his investigations.

Universities, scientific societies, publishing houses,
the popular press were approached and threatened; social
pressures and professional sanctions were invoked
to control public opinion.

There is no doubt that in a totalitarian society, not only
would Dr. Velikovsky's reputation have been at stake, but
also his right to pursue his inquiry, and perhaps his own
personal safety.

As it was, the "establishment" succeeded in building a wall
of unfavorable sentiment around him: to thousands of scholars
the name of Velikovsky bears the taint of fantasy,
science-fiction and publicity.

He could not be suppressed entirely. In the next few years
he published three more books. He carried on a large
correspondence. And he was helped by friends and by
a large general public composed of persons outside of the
establishments of science.

The probings of spacecraft tended to confirm -- never to disprove --
his arguments.

Eventually, the venomous aspects of the controversy,
the efforts at suppression, the campaign of vilification
loomed almost as large, in their consequences to science,
as the original issue.

Social scientists, who had been generally aware of Dr. Velikovsky's
work, now found themselves in the thick of the conflict.
The involvement of the social and behavioral sciences in the
scientific theories of Velikovsky was higher than had been earlier
appreciated.

The social sciences are the basis of Velikvsky's work: despite his
proficiency in the natural sciences, it is by the use of the
methodology of social science that Velikovsky launched his challenge
to accepted cosmological theories.

No one pretends that this method is adequate. New forms of
interdisciplinary research are needed to wed, for example, the study
of myth with the study of meteorities.

Nor does one have to agree that Velikovsky is the greatest technician
of mythology, even while granting his great conceptual and
synthesizing powers.

Whatever the scientific substance, the controversy inself could not
be avoided or dismissed by behavioral science.

The problem of sicence is one of the agitating problems
of the twentieth century. The issues are clear: Who determines
scientific truth: Who are its high priests, and what is their
warrant? How do they establish their canons? What effects
do they have on the freedom of inquiry, and on public interest?

In the end, some judgment must be passed upon the behavior of the
scientific world and, if adverse, some remedies must be proposed . . .

It is our hope that the publication of these papers in the present
volume (a revised and enlarged version) will make it less easy for
Velikovsky's new work to be suppressed, or lightly dismissed.

We hope, too, that they will help scientists and interested laymen
everywhere to rehearse the problems and to reform the errors
of the vast enterprise of science.

Ed Conrad
http://www.edconrad,com