Re: The science educators' Vietnam

Susan B (
Sun, 29 Aug 1999 10:15:38 -0500 (CDT)

>>SJ>My point was that "*Darwinists* have used Darwinian evolution as a
>>>vehicle to disseminate their materialist-naturalist philosophy in public
>>>Whether the Pope believes in evolution does not change that fact one iota.
>SB>my point (which you seem to have missed entirely) is that evolution
*can* >>be taught without any sinister motive...
>Who said anything about "sinister motive"? I assume that the Darwinists
>use "Darwinian evolution as a vehicle to disseminate their materialist-
>naturalist philosophy in public schools" for the very best of motives from
>perspective, namely they really believe it is *true*:

you are correct. Obviously the Pope and the Jesuits also believe it's true.
Why? Certainly they would not teach anything that contradicted their
religion. Perhaps it's because they have seen the *evidence* for evolution
and are persuaded by it. Perhaps they are sharp enough to understand that
science, religion, and gods, if any, all must exist together in the same

Johnson speaks:
>"But of course the naturalists do not leave theistic enclaves alone nor
>should they. A naturalistic government that regulates everything else does
>not hesitate to reward theistic educational institutions with their own tax
>money if they agree to accept "diversity" standards.

what theistic eductional institutions receive federal tax money?

>Secular academic
>societies understandably withhold their approval from faculties that do not
>meet secular standards of rationality....

duh. Neither you nor I want "crystal power" taught in science class.

>people who
>believe what they are saying tend to be persuasive in arguments with
>people who suspect deep down that what they have been taught to believe
>is only a comforting fantasy..."

it's even more persuasive when it's not just propaganda, but backed with
hard evidence.

Quoting Birch & Ehrlich, who wrote in 1967:
>"Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which
>cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable
>observation can be fitted into it. It is thus `outside of empirical
science' but
>not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it.

Creationists love Popper. At least they did for a while. He later realized
his mistake and recanted in 1978. That, of course, is never quoted.

Peace is not the absence of conflict--it is the presence of justice.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please visit my website: