Home » Darwinism, Intellectual freedom, News » Mimivirus discoverer doubts Darwin, banned from publication in France

Mimivirus discoverer doubts Darwin, banned from publication in France

In “Didier Raoult Profile: Sound and Fury in the Microbiology Lab” (Science, 2 March 2012), Catherine Mary reports,

Summary

At 59, Didier Raoult is the most productive and influential microbiologist in France, leading a team of 200 scientists and students at the University of Aix-Marseille. He has discovered or co-discovered dozens of new bacteria, and in 2003, he stunned colleagues with a virus of record size, dubbed Mimivirus, the first member of a family that sheds an intriguing new light on the evolution of viruses and the tree of life.

We know. We covered that here. It’s possible that Mimivirus is a former cell – an example of devolution.

Controversial and outspoken, Raoult last year published a popular science book that flat-out declares that Darwin’s theory of evolution is wrong. And he was temporarily banned from publishing in a dozen leading microbiology journals in 2006. Scientists at Raoult’s lab say they wouldn’t want to work anywhere else. Yet Raoult is also known for his enmities and his disdain for those who disagree with him. (Full text is paywalled.)

Well, we won’t be the judge of people who can’t stand Darwin bores. They’re not exactly pop stars around here either. But we acknowledge that we are mere anglophones.

Meanwhile: Good morning, Vichy Darwinisme! This is the Resistance reporting.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

4 Responses to Mimivirus discoverer doubts Darwin, banned from publication in France

  1. It appears the spirit of Louis Pasteur lives on in French science! Here was another noted French scientist who also found Darwinism ‘flat out wrong’;

    “The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur,,, There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it.” Pierre P. Grasse – past President of the French Academie des Sciences – born on November 27, 1895 in Périgueux (Dordogne) and died on July 9, 1985, was a French zoologist, author of over 300 publications including the influential 52-volume Traité de Zoologie.

    footnote on Pasteur who is remembered for his remarkable breakthroughs in the causes and preventions of diseases.

    Louis Pasteur remained throughout his whole life an ardent Christian, and his son-in-law, in perhaps the most complete biography of Louis Pasteur, writes:
    “Absolute faith in God and in Eternity, and a conviction that the power for good given to us in this world will be continued beyond it, were feelings which pervaded his whole life; the virtues of the gospel had ever been present to him. Full of respect for the form of religion which had been that of his forefathers, he came simply to it and naturally for spiritual help in these last weeks of his life.’

  2. Surely this can’t be right. Is this confirmed?

    So it seems intellectual excommunication is in full swing then; and we have our very own modern day equivalent of “The Church”.

    The Darwin enforcers are performing their task well. Scaremongering, intimidation and group-think rule the day.
    Truth… meh, it’s for fools.

  3. 3
    Michael Servetus

    The truth and fact of the matter becomes clear when one analyzes what has happened with Darwin and his opponents. Darwin was applauded as right by some who made strenuous efforts to ridicule what was at the time easy to think was old obsolete and passing away in religion. Bit the truth is that while Darwin and.his supporters gained a undeserving reputation as being right when they were wrong his opponents gained a reputation for being wrong when they were right. Even those who believe in evolutionism today are quick to point out that Darwin was wrong on all points concerning mechanism but overlook the fact that his opponents and.their reasoning was thus proven to be correct they in essence argued.that it was.impossible and.didn’t make sense and.made cogent arguments.from reason alone and today that.part is overlooked because only the goal of Darwinist ideas was ever the important thing the explanations and hypothetical mechanisms were expendable and best guess expedients that would have to fill the space. This is proven by the fact that the so called evidences of evolutionism are always evolving the past.ose forgotten no credit.or blame assigned. but if one were to really be exact about it id theorists.have always been correct.in pointing.out the weaknesses of.it even.if.they had no better explanations according to a Darwinian view of things.

  4. Here’s an alternate take on why Didier Raoult was banned.

    Scroll down to Post #6 by sandy_mcd for more:

    Non-conspiratorial scientific claim evaluation
    But some scientists grumble that manuscripts out of Raoult’s lab often contain errors, for instance, as a result of unchecked genetic sequences.

    Indeed, problems in a paper about a mouse model for typhus got his lab in hot water in 2006. A reviewer for Infection and Immunity, a journal published by the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), discovered that four figures in a revised manuscript were identical to figures in the original manuscript, even though they were supposed to describe a different experiment.

    In letters to ASM, made available by Raoult, second author Christian Capo and last author Jean-Louis Mège, a group leader, accepted “full responsibility” for the problem, which they said involved only two figures. Capo, in his letter, wrote that he had made an innocent mistake; Mège wrote that Capo had subsequently failed to show the revised manuscript to other authors, who were on vacation, before resubmitting it. But after consulting its ethics panel, ASM banned all five authors, including Raoult, from publishing in its journals for a year. “We are not entirely comfortable with the explanation provided,” ASM officials wrote to M—ge. “Misrepresentation of data … is an affront to the ethical conduct of scientific inquiry.” More

Leave a Reply