>"I would be remiss if I failed to enlarge on the failures of our universities. No institution has contributed so extensively to the deracination and diminishment of our humanity as university faculties."
Even if you seriously feel academic institutions of higher learning are in decline, I would find it hard to believe you would liken that any 'damage' they have caused to humanity eclipses the likes of the Holocaust, Pol Pot, bloody 'ethnic cleansing' rampages, the Crusades, the Inquisition, Saddam's death machine, etc....
>"The emerging dominance of an anti-humanist secularism, absent God, gained strength with every passing decade and now, with the exception of those places where Muslim, Christian, and other forms of fundamentalism hold sway, dominates the intellectual climate of the educated in the United States and most parts of the world."
I was not aware that atheism had surpassed fundamentalism in regards to becoming a dominant culture.
>The critical question posed for evolutionists is not about the survival of the fittest but about their arrival. Biologists arguing for evolution have been challenged by critics for more than a hundred years for their failure to offer any scientific explanation for the arrival of the fittest. Supporters of evolution have no explanation beyond their dogmatic assertion that all advances are explained by random mutations and environmental influences over millions of years."
The evidence is overwhelming. The refusal to accept it does not make the claim that there is none valid. The claim that the assertions by evolutionists are 'dogmatic' means either the author doesn't understand the evidence, the definition of 'dogmatic', or is being disingenuous.
You asked for one example; I got a bit carried away. But that should do for now. Let me know if you want me to go through the rest of the article.
Granted that the Holocaust, Pol Pot, ethnic cleansing, etc. were terrible things, they are not teaching the next generation that these are good things. Also, you are mentioning events not present day institutions.
I was not aware that atheism had surpassed fundamentalism in regards to becoming a dominant culture.
You must be kidding. While the American majority still profess belief in God, this is hardly true for the ruling intelligentsia, i.e. the media, academia, the courts, etc.
The evidence is overwhelming. The refusal to accept it does not make the claim that there is none valid. The claim that the assertions by evolutionists are 'dogmatic' means either the author doesn't understand the evidence, the definition of 'dogmatic', or is being disingenuous.
You obviously do not understand the difference between theory and observation. Naturalistic evolution can only posit what might have happened (I am talking here about the why of evolution, not the demonstration that there has been a sequence of species), it cannot show that it actually did. It might very well have happened the way they explain it but evolutionist go beyond the proper limits of sciences to insist that it must have. Where evolution differs from the other sciences is that it is trying to explain what happened in the past rather than what happens now and can be repeated.
I guess your litany of errors was erroneous.