Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Evolutionists Panic
I wrote this in response to a newspaper article about the National Academy of Sciences producing a campaign complete with glossy, colorful, helpful materials to encourage high school teachers to teach evolution, as they were apparently being derelict in this duty.
"The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a philosophical necessity. ... Most modern biologists, having viewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing."
- Evolutionist and "Nobel prize-winning biologist of Harvard University, Dr. George Wald", as cited in The Facts on Creation vs. Evolution, Ankerberg and Weldon 15-16, 1993.
To: National Academy of Sciences
Re: Directive to continue indoctrination
I was so glad to read about the upcoming effort to "help" teachers to knuckle under to our desires regarding evolution, although I was somewhat troubled to read that "Many science teachers have been reluctant to teach this central idea," and that they "assume evolution has nothing to do with what we learn about biology today." Are they catching on? This must be investigated.
Someone once said that if a lie is repeated often enough, it will be believed. Of course, we are not lying as such, but we do need to divert attention from the utter confusion that currently reigns in our field, until we can find that ever-so-elusive resolution. This is especially important since our most prominent spokespersons have repeatedly claimed that there is general agreement on the most important points. We must present a united front or risk exposure of the discord in our ranks. The weeding out of the dangerously growing number of these dissenting voices can continue only under the cover of complete unity.
The compartmentalization of the sciences has helped greatly toward this end, and should persist. This is what has enabled each of our fellow scientists to assume that evolution has been proven in other fields, although they may regard the evidence in their own fields as anomalous.
We must also continue to confuse macroevolution - still (unfortunately) largely unexplained apart from those "just-so" stories the public (fortunately) seems to be satisfied with - with microevolution, which even creationists accept (precisely because this flavor, unlike macroevolution, is backed up by proof and observation, yet is so sadly lacking in the explanatory power we need). In the meantime, we must continue to present creationist belief as a monolithic system that insists on a young earth and so on, ignoring those such as Hugh Ross. However, we should be careful not to stray into other areas of scientific inquiry which tend to validate their views! The danger of this cannot be overestimated. We would do well to steer inquiry away from the problems of origins, chemistry, fossil evidence, molecular biology, information theory, and logic, for example. Be wary of invitations to debate experts in these areas!
Although we have not yet solved the problem of inadverdently turning schoolchildren into moral dunces, the "fully compatible with religion" pablum must, regrettably, be continued. As long as Sir Arthur Keith's observation that "evolutionism was basic in all Nazi thought, from beginning to end" is largely unpublicized, we stand a good chance of slipping the implications past the adults as well.
Remember that science must be subverted and even perverted to serve the greater good of ridding us of superstition and opposition. Keep churning out those books and colorful brochures en masse, and we will carry the day.
Your affectionate Uncle,
Screwtape
