Darwinist Indoctrination

Surfing around the other day, I came across a good reference on Darwinian indoctrination.  They make some good points.  I’ve compiled a small sampling, but you really should have a look at the whole thing.

2. Begin pushing the envelope toward the real goal: belief in naturalism instead of God.

For the Darwinists, it’s not about science, but about their materialistic worldview.

7. Vilify resistance to the agenda.

Bryan, a prominent politician and lawyer, did not serve as lead counsel because the prosecution recognized that the media viewed him as the lightning rod for Biblical values. Not unlike Christian activists today, Bryan became the subject of media mischaracterization—if not persecution.

Mencken, in covering the trial for the Baltimore Sun, depicted Bryan, as well as the people of Dayton, as backward and ignorant.16 However, Bryan was a man of accomplishment as well as of faith. He had served as U.S. Secretary of State and run three times for president. Although more than 200 journalists covered the trial, Mencken’s mischaracterizations stuck.

This has been a staple of the materialist’s arsenal for a long time.  Even on this blog, there are numerous examples of Darwinists villifying the opposition instead of supporting their theory or rebutting contrary views through evidence and logic based reasoning.

Darrow’s real agenda was not to prevent Christians from controlling education but to ensure that atheists and humanists would.

How true.

Advertisements

14 responses to “Darwinist Indoctrination

  1. As a counter to the article you cite, here is another article that might provide some much-needed balance:

    The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name: The Case Against Intelligent Design
    Jerry Coyne

    http://pondside.uchicago.edu/cluster/pdf/coyne/New_Republic_ID.pdf

  2. I have nothing against Jerry Coyne except that I think he is misguided.

  3. professorsmith // January 4, 2008 at 11:48 pm

    I have nothing against Jerry Coyne except that I think he is misguided.

    ————–

    Do you have any evidence that he is incorrect?

    The evidence on ID seems quite clear: it is simply creation “science” relabeled following the Edwards v. Aguillard decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The Wedge Strategy lays out the entire process that the Discovery Institute has been following since the early 1990s.

    The Kitzmiller v. Dover case was the chance for creationists to make their case, but many of them chickened out, even one who had been salivating at the chance to ask questions of “Darwinists” under oath.

    And, ID was firmly linked to creationism during the trial by a lot of evidence, including the cut-and-pastes made to the “Pandas and People” book, changing “creation” to “design” but otherwise staying the same.

    You claim Coyne is misguided. I think he is seeing the dishonest morphing of creation “science” into ID quite clearly. Perhaps you are the one who is misguided?

  4. I’m sorry, but is Jerry Coyne correct in everything unless I can prove differently or something? That seems rather odd to say the least.

    If he wants to say that evolution is true then he must prove it. If he contends that ID is creationism, then he must prove it. I don’t have to disprove those things.

    The Wedge document has been well accounted for, you might want to look it up sometime.

    In KvD, who “chickened out”? That’s laughable. There were problems with the ID side of the case and the DI never fully backed it to begin with, or weren’t you paying attention. I believe I even talked about that in an earlier post. Your other objection has also been handled.

    Coyne is misguided because he thinks that NDE is scientific with it’s claims that evolution is purposeless and unguided. That is beyond the realm of science and purely from the materialistic worldview.

  5. “look it up”, “see these links”. I hope this isn’t how you teach your classes, Professor Smith!

  6. Professor Smith. Rich is a troll. No matter what you present or link to he will ignore it, not bother to read it and respond with the predictable childish retorts.

  7. Agreed, which is why I’ve moderated him. If he has something worthwhile to say I will let it through.

  8. I’ve changed my mind and allowed Rich’s latest missive to go through because I think an important point needs to be made here.

    1) Blogs are not classrooms. I would not treat my classroom as a blog just as I’m not treating my blog as a classroom.

    2) But, more importantly, I do to some extent want my students to look things up, to see for themselves. I want my students to learn critical thinking (they certainly don’t get it in high school biology) and not to simply take in whatever they are told as fact. That is the key difference here. The Darwinist gets upset when asked to do a little work or to look things up. The Darwinist already knows the answer as specified by her worldview. The Darwinist has no need for studying the problem or getting information from multiple sources. The Darwinist gets upset when I tell her to go look at a link and actually read it. The Darwinist is unscientific. The Darwinist would rather I teach my class some dogmatic, uncritical pablum and present it as fact.

    So, to answer your question, Rich, yes and no. I do encourage my students to look things up and see for themselves. I do encourage my students to explore links and read more thoroughly on the subject. It’s a shame that you think expanding your knowledge is a bad thing.

  9. Darth Piglet

    I bet the Darwinists will ignore this too:

    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2006/01/02/false_judge_makes_mockery_of_case_for_intelligent_design?page=1

    I still think censoring alternate theories is no way to do good science.

  10. Darth Piglet: I still think censoring alternate theories is no way to do good science.

    ——–

    You can have magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff.

    Thanks. I’ll stick with science.

  11. Then perhaps you should stray from evolution, considering that it makes some quite unscientific claims, like purposelessness and unguidedness. It’s a little funny to have a Darwinist chastize someone else in this manner because it’s all a bad case of projection.

  12. Professor Smith. You are no scientist, you are arguing to consequences. Please note, evolution could be God’s mechanism, the Catholic church seem to hold that position.

    Please have the intellectual honesty to publish this comment.

  13. Rich, there are many problems with your statement.

    1) I am not a scientist because you feel I am using a logical fallacy? Are scientists immune to logical fallacy? Is science done by logical fallacy? You might want to consult with your fellow Darwinist Oleg Tchernyshyov who tried to chastize me not too long ago for his misperception that I was saying exactly what you are now saying.

    2) Am I arguing to consequences? Coyote claims that (s)he sticks with science, yet holds to some rather unscientific tenets. Is it arguing to consequences to point out this contradiction?

    3) Nowhere have I said that evolution could not be god’s mechanism. The Catholic church has admitted as much, this much is true, although you left out the part where they outright reject the idea that evolution is unguided and purposeless. Never-the-less, is that a scientific argument? Of course it isn’t. You can claim that god guides evolution, but it is not any more scientific than saying that evolution is unguided.

    4) What does intellectual honesty have to do with whether I allow trolls to comment here or not? The only reason I allowed this comment to go through is because I have a point to make. You have blatantly disregarded and violated the moderation policy and I have been gracious enough to allow it up to a point, but there’s a reason that you are on moderation and it is because you violated the stated moderation policy. That policy is there for all commenters to follow. So, you see it has nothing at all to do with intellectual honesty.

  14. Darth Piglet

    Coyote:

    “You can have magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff.”

    You missed evolution in there.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s