Posted on 10/17/2001 5:24:59 AM PDT by ThinkPlease
911 RANG AGAIN - A REVIEW OF THE PBS VIDEO SERIES "EVOLUTION"
Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology
It was about 10 a.m. in the morning of September 11, 2001 when Barbara Olson called her husband Tom from a cell phone on board American Airlines flight 77 to tell him, "We've been hijacked!"1 Tom told her in turn that he saw on TV along with millions of others that two airliners already had crashed into the World Trade Center an hour earlier. In one grand wakeup call, America heard the cry for "help" from thousands of civilians victimized by Osama bin Laden's god-squad.
Only 13 days later on Public Broadcasting Stations, a seven-part, eight-hour event of grave importance was also witnessed by millions of Americans, but the pall of New York City, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania airline crashes overshadowed all other news. PBS with the aid of WGBH in Boston and Clear Blue Sky Productions televised one of the boldest assaults yet against our public schools and the millions of innocent victims - our school children.2
Both events have much in common. The public was unaware of the deliberate preparation that was schemed over the past few years to lead to these events. And while the public now understands from President Bush that "We're at War"3 with religious fanatics around the world, they don't have a clue that America is being attacked from within through its public schools by a militant religious movement called Darwinists.
"Come on!" you might exclaim. "You're blowing a whistle on American scientists, the very cream of human genius. What evidence do you have for such an outrageous accusation?" To which I say, let this blatant video series speak for it. And let its support documents tell you of mind control beyond anything yet seen in public education. "Evolution" is PBS's assault that's coming to your children's classroom - not soon but now.
The teaching of evolution in public schools isn't new. It was the focus of the "Monkey Trial" in 1925 when John Scopes was found guilty of violating the law by supposedly teaching evolution in a state school.4 Evolution as a philosophy went underground until the advent of Russia's launch of Sputnik in 1945 as the 7th episode points out. This space event opened the schoolyard to the first wave of ideological attack in the form of the Biological Science BSCS science texts for public schools. In 1958 the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study was dedicated to the improvement of biological education and is "generally credited with introducing extensive presentation of evolution while excluding scientific evidence for creation."5
A major theme and some threads for "Evolution" came from the philosophical fantasy of Daniel C. Dennett, Professor at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts entitled "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" published in 1995. (6) Dennett imagines a dollop of "universal acid" that is so powerful that it can't be contained by any known vessel. It is a childhood concoction of his much like a chemical Godzilla that best explains what he thinks has happened since 1859. "Darwin's dangerous idea is that Design can emerge from mere Order via an algorithmic process that makes no use of pre-existing Mind." Put in more simple terms, Darwin imagined that instead of God creating all things because His Mind was sufficient to make it all happen from the top down, chaos created all things from the bottom up to man in a miraculous cosmic pyramid.
How could this be? It can be, writes Dennett because nature selects the best from the past and those survivors have an accumulated advantage to keep on creating new inventions from the lottery of innovations in each generation that can modify life, improve life, and even produce an evolving mind like unto the Mind of the mystical God, only this great and ever advancing mind is in man. Such an idea is at the heart of humanism.7 This "universal acid" then is Darwinism, an idea that can't be contained and is destroying all of the pre-Darwinian concepts (cause and effect, religion, morality, ethics, etc.) much the same way that the Copernican revolution totally changed the way man viewed the heavens. But is Darwinism really a religious idea?
Darwin died on April 21, 1882 and as the video narrator explains in Episode 7. His friends prevailed upon the Royal Society, House of Commons, and Dean of Westminster Abbey to bury him in the floor of that cathedral. These supporters wanted a state occasion with special anthem celebrating the vast social transformation that England was undergoing.
"Darwin's body was enshrined to the greater glory of these new professionals. For, he had naturalized creation and delivered human nature and human destiny into their hands. Society would never be the same. Darwin's vision of nature was, I believe, fundamentally a religious vision with which he ended his most famous work, On the Origin of Species."
Do you see any small parallel to the death of Darwin and that of Jesus? Darwin set the captives free from Biblical interpretation and turned them over to human hands (humanism) to perfect his legacy. And just what was that legacy? God didn't create man, but nature did so by means of amoeba to man evolution by way of the "Tree of Life."
"There is grandeur in this view of life with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."8
Don't be deceived by that "breathed by the creator" phrase. At this point in his life (1859 and later), Darwin's atheism was under severe attack by the church of his day so he threw in a sop to his readers as if he somehow thought that God was still involved. He really didn't think so.9
In one eulogistic monolog, narrator Moore now elevates Darwin even higher than Jesus for He has no role in man's salvation but the creation in the form of "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" does it for Him. Too bad Jesus, you died for nothing. Can there be any doubt that this is an evolutionary moment when the Great High Prophet of the Humanistic Religion assumes his office, receives homage, and passes his vision on to the evangelists who proselytize those millions of victims that can't protect themselves and whose parents don't understand that another, quiet religious war has been declared on America from within.
Undermining Faith
Lest you think that this isn't a religious war of humanism against theism, let's now look at Episode 7. "What About God?" The narrator puts the sacrifice on the altar: "The majesty of our birth, the beauty of life. Are they the result of a natural process called evolution or the work of a divine creator? This question is at the heart of a struggle that threatened to tear our nation apart," says the narrator. Ken Ham appears on the scene to say, "I think it is a war. It is a real battle between world views." After panning his church seminar in Canton, Ohio and making him look like a huckster through editorial license, the producer unfolds two staged case studies that purport to be objective inquiry into the whole topic of Darwinism but in reality are examples of proselytizing and blocking in action.
Right before your eyes, you can see the destructive "universal acid" at work in undermining both a Christian University and three of its students because the students don't believe that the Bible is literally true and haven't been taught the true nature of humanism.
Wheaton College invited the attack by encouraging a double-minded professor to speak to their students. His message was that there is no problem in being both an orthodox Christian and Darwinist. Dr. Keith Miller, a Geology Professor from Kansas State University was asked to give the keynote address at a symposium on the fossil record and geological history. To no one's surprise he advocates the teaching of evolution and the centrality of evolution as a unifying theory of origins. He didn't find any conflict; he doesn't understand the facts underlying these two opposing religions. There are lots of transitional forms he declares. Some of the silent audience ask, name one and prove that it is. The narrator acknowledges that some students are still troubled after this one-sided presentation. Three students are followed in their developmental thought over time on this challenge to their faith. All three are swayed to an insecure position and acceptance of the propaganda. At least that is the edited version of the video that millions of Americans watched; such editing is seldom trustworthy.
In a second case, students at Jefferson High School in Lafayette, Indiana petitioned their school board to have special creation added to their science curriculum. Over half the student body and 35 members of the faculty supported their petition. "Teach us the facts and let us choose," they asked. They claimed that complex biological structures could not have arisen through natural selection at all, but had to be created by some higher intelligence. After three hours of deliberations, the board decided that creation science couldn't be taught under biology but possibly under the humanities. The religion of Darwinism doesn't violate separation of church and state but creation science does.
Behind the scenes, Dr. Eugenie Scott, Director of the National Center for Science Education (formerly the Committees of Correspondence on Evolution)10 was Available to help the Lafayette students' teacher, Steve Randek, fight off the petition. This is what Scott likes to do - defend evolution. Scott said that Justice Brennan wrote "that alternatives for evolution could be taught, if they have a scientific basis. So that they [creationists] could duck under the first amendment." Darwinists practice their religion in the schools under the first amendment. Since when does a scientific theory of any merit need a body guard to protect it from open inquiry? If the theory has substance, then it should be open to falsifiability and not duck under any amendment.
911 rang again. Did you pick up on it?
References
1. Cantlupe, Joe, "Author calls spouse from doomed plane", San Diego Tribune, September 12, 2001, A13.
2. Hutton, Richard, Executive Producer, The Evolution project, WGBH Boston, September 24-27, 2001
3. Thomas, Evan and Mark Hosenball, Bush: 'We're At War' Newsweek, September 24, 2001, 26.
4. Taylor, Ian T., In the Minds of Men, (Toronto: TFE Publishing, 1991), 232.
5. Bird, Wendell R., The Origin of Species Revisited, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1991), vol. II, 356.
6. Dennett, Daniel C., Darwin's Dangerous Idea, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), 83.
7. American Humanist Association, "Humanist Manifesto II," The Humanist, vol.33 (September/October 1973), 4-9.
8. Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species, (Philadelphia: David McKay, Publisher), Sixth edition, 474'.
9. Taylor, Ian T., In the Minds of Men, (Toronto: TFE Publishing, 1991), 126.
10. Bird, Wendell R., The Origin of Species Revisited, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1991), vol. II, 352.
Got any examples of that?
Good catch.
Sloppy "facts" are a sign of sloppy thinking.
A distintion without a difference.
Witch-hunting has historically been a religious avocation. I know of no instances of Atheists burning Witches at the stake, etc.
Salem, MA, like most communities in that area and era were Puritan communities, with all aspect of life there suffused with the prevailing religious views, including the secular officials and the laws they enforced.
That members of the church sought to end the madness is very much to their credit, and I freely applauded them for it. But one cannot pretend that the Witch-hunts were not religiously motivated. Outside of religion, there was no basis for Witch-hunting in the first place.
My examples are not intended as a reflection on all of Christianity, any more than the Taliban is representative of all of Islam. But they are illustrative of the excesses that some radical extremist fundy movements are capable of, which is what I was addressing.
Don't confuse the issue with "facts". If you hold to any other belief than that espoused by your opponents you are considered to be an uneducated yahoo holding a burning fagot(double entendre intended) in preparation for barbecuing an innocent virgin BOD(believer of Darwin).
Not so. There are now, and were then, many cults (and cults are not religions) who regularly do awful things, just for fun.
If you look into modern-day equivalents of witch hangings, you will find that youth gangs, practitioners of Santaria, etc. are responsible for 'ritual' murders and mutilations.
If you study early Salem, you will find the population in general -- and the secular authorities in particular -- were not homogeneously "Puritan." (Indeed, there were few Puritans there. The Pilgrims and their fellow religionists were Separatists, not Puritans. The Separatists wanted to be left alone to practice their religion; they were not particularly interested in "imposing" it on others.)
Well, that's a whole 'nuther thing! This thread isn't about the war on terrorism or its many spin-off subjects --it's about evolution.
You said...
"When it comes to scientific understanding most fundamentalist Protestant Christians are indistinguishable from fundamentalist Moslems -- the only difference being the latter are willing to slaughter people to get their point across, whereas the former would simply like to outlaw anything which might contradict orthodoxy."
You were talking about "fundamentalist Protestant" Christians expressed willingness to "slaughter" those who disagree over "scientific understanding." Your later post merely tempered "slaughter" to "force."
I requested examples of THAT.
I agree, because it is among the replies that follow, especially post #10.
Still waiting to see examples of FReepers' posts illustrating fundamentalist Protestant desires to "outlaw anything that contradicts their orthodoxy" or to "force" their views on others.
Are those really differences? Religions are viral infections of the mind converting the hapless victim into a mere constituent cell of a massive superorganism. There are many of these superorganisms operating on the human mental plane and subverting human physical existence to a myriad of nefarious purposes. The more virulent forms of religion tend to become benign over time (just like a real virus) as the mind virus is attenuated and the host population develops resistance (i.e., in order for the religion to survive the followers must continue to reproduce and not all can be suicide bombers). When immunity is weakened a virulent form can rise and spread again as fundamentalist Islam has done.
Knowledge is the antidote but by no means guarantees a cure. Cumming's infection, for example, is obviously fatal and even his PhD provided no relief. He will go to his grave without recognizing that his faith requires him to act and think as he does and that he has no freedom to do otherwise. He probably took up the study of biology motivated by a desire to revolutionize the field with monumental discoveries validating biblical creation myths. He got his PhD about 42 years ago and he still hasn't given up his quest. Clearly a hopeless case.
Nonetheless he recognizes that an infection exists but he mistakenly ascribes the disease to his largely uninfected adversary, the scientific community. Even more astonishing is the underlying assumption that his own condition is the normal state.
I seem to recall several years ago a certain atheist with a funny moustache killing about six million people. If I am mistaken about this, consider a certain short Chinese guy named Mao and what he did to his people. Or that Russian guy. And so on.
Say what you will, people. You can't stereotype "fundamentalists" as also being "violent" or "intolerant", whether they be Christian, Islamic, atheistic, agnostic, or apathetic. Some people are evil, regardless of religious affiliation.
How many times did his shadow grace the entryway of a church or cathedral? Anyway if he is not an atheist to your liking, substitute Stalin or Pol Pot they certainly weren't theists.
How about YOU check? Source please.
It never starts out this way, especially when a radical religion lacks the power to force their beliefs on the masses. The problems start when they do have the power. When this happens, anyone who dares to talk about ideas that are contrary to the religious doctrine become immediately branded as blasphemous or worse by the enforcers of the religion. One needs to only examine what the Islamic fundamentalists have wrought in the Middle East for an inkling of what is possible in any society when Religious Zealots take over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.