Caucasian, the highest form of man.
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.
Re Galileo: No, the Catholic church did NOT "try to outlaw the solar system."
Galileo's trial was the culmination of a long series of events that had more to do with academic jealousy than religious faith.
The Church was in fact sympathetic to and interested in the Copernican view, up to the point where Galileo's rival academics --who had a vested interest in continuing to teach the Aristotelian system-- forced the issue. His trial was in some ways similar to the phoney put-up job that was the Scopes trial.
Your link shows clearly that Hitler's notions of of God and Christ, however he might have used those names in his speeches, were in no way Christian. Saved me a lot of time!
Gotta get back to work now.
Caucasian, the highest form of man.
But no one could have put the job up at all unless Tennessee had outlawed the teaching of evolution.
So it seems to me that I've answered your request for "examples of FReepers' posts illustrating fundamentalist Protestant desires to 'outlaw anything that contradicts their orthodoxy' or to 'force' their views on others."
As we all know, five months later, Hitler broke his Munich promises (that the Sudetenland was to be his last territorial ambition) and invaded the remainder of Czechoslovakia. And six months after that, the most horrific war in human history began.
In the middle of the 1800s, that was a most unremarkable opinion. From the viewpoint of an Englishman, surveying the world, what other conclusion could he have reached? In any event, the theory of evolution says nothing about the genocidal activities which Hitler later practiced. Hitler was making up his own rules, and was certainly no biologist interested in the inter-relatedness of all living things.
Nice spin. You might wish it so, but that was not the reality of the situation.
Heresy charges against Galileo and Galileo's confession.
That may be due to the fact that Origins was just recently released (1859) and the assertions were not sufficiently supported to be included in a textbook. However, I agree with you that the concept of "best/highest" was not hatched by Darwin (at least that has not been attributed to him yet)
I'm sorry but the book was the one used by Scopes and dated 1914. It came from your Scopes site. If you are apologizing for the views held by Darwin, then the same should apply for Herr Shickelgruber.
See my post 72 for the PatrickHenry get out of jail free card ® TM for unpopular/wrongheaded concepts.
Darwin wrote in the mid 1800s. Of course his book is still in print. Plato is still in print, and you should read what he said about everyone who wasn't Greek. The "point" you are making is poorly made. You want to blame Darwin for Hitler? Blame Plato too. Better still, why not blame Hitler for Hitler? Doesn't that make more sense?
And you have to learn to read.
Making the distinction between the mainstream religion and the extremist fanatical fundamentalists who proclaim they are acting in accordance with that religion is EXACTLY what I've been doing here. My remarks have been on the subject of the excesses that extremist fanatic fundamentalists are capable of committing. Nowhere in MY remarks did I suggest that these acts are representative of each religion as practiced by its non-extremist, non-fanatical followers.
You are defending against an attack that was not made.
I think we are 180° out of phase. The caucasion statement was derived from what was contained in the book that my image link portrayed(which came from your link). That book was the textbook used by Scopes in 1920. It was using the "progression" illustration as support for the lesson of evolution.
And blame Taliban for Taliban (actually Osama, the poor Afghanis have no concept of why they are being bombed into dust)
Don't try to blame the Bible for silly human sins, the ancient Chinese and Japanese (non-whites I think) had the same concepts and they didn't know Ham from mutton.
Human beings began to be capable of storing more information in their brains than was encoded in their genomes more than two million years ago. Clearly the information stored in the brain serves as an instruction set for determining behavior. When the brain is infected with a mind virus (all religions qualify) the brain can be constrained to attempt to make more copies of the virus in other uninfected minds. That's what proselytizing is all about. I am not saying that Cumming, for example, has an organic disfunction or a chemical imbalance. I am saying that he has an instruction set to which he is subservient and that he is unable to override the control it imposes upon him.
"Again, what possible meaning can be assigned to notions of "subverting human physical existence" and "nefarious purposes" in a universe that has a purely natural, non-purposeful origin?" -- Diamond
Each human individual "creates" the universe in its entirety by his mere awareness of it. "Zorba, the Greek" describes this concept completely with this statement, "When I die, the entire Zorbatic universe will cease to exist." The individual is thus his own highest purpose. To serve an ideology or an organization in such a way that it takes from you more than it gives in return in this life (the only life) is to be subverted. And yes, the organization or idea does have a purpose -- its own existence. Some ideas are purely useful to us and augment and preserve human existence. Other ideas are pernicious infections of the mind that create collectives of men whose purpose becomes the dissemination of the idea and the destruction of competing ideas. Its easy to sort them out.
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.