CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by Viss1:
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
The scientific priesthood that has authority to interpret the official creation story gains immense cultural influence thereby, which it might lose if the story were called into question at the most basic levels.
With all due respect, I must say this viewpoint departs from purely rational observation and approaches paranoia.
You may not like the wording used, but the underlying truth you cannot argue with. Any major organization attempting to promote it's ideology inherently knows that the best and most successful way to do so is to have their ideology taught to the next generation of society that is unable to logically break down what they are learning during formative schooling years, i.e. public education. You can look at any major ideological group, whether it be scientific naturalists, alternative lifestyle/homosexual organizations, the food industry, and the list goes on. Indoctrination into ideologies is best accomplished with children at young ages when they are too young to resist or understand the consequences of the beliefs they are being subjected to. Of course, parents play an invaluable role, but increasingly public education is becoming a function of parenting as single parenting, divorce, etc., become more prevalent in society. In this light, were scientific naturalism/neodarwinism to be refuted and/or proven to be based not upon good empirical sciences, but rather on philosophy and deepseated prejudicial beliefs, the movement would of course lose it's forward momentum as the basis of modern culture. Yes, there is a lot at stake, make no mistake about it, and those who are leaders in each camp know this truth all too well, which is why they go to such lengths as forming organizations like the NCSE to protect their interests and to further their penetration into public education institutions.
Originally posted by Viss1:
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
The colored glasses phenomenon has been at work within the scientific naturalist community for decades now, it's not a question of the last 10-20 years.
If this is the case, why did it not have an effect on what we were taught in school? And if it didn't then, why would it now?
In short, it did. I can pretty much guarantee you that when Darwinism is taught in any public education institution that the empirical scientific data that clearly conflicts with much of the theory is not presented side by side so that each student can make their own judgement call. Evolution is largely presented with such significant false evidence of proof that effectively it's no longer a theory, it's an assumed fact, because the falsifying evidence is discluded purposefully. You either present all of the data, or none of it IMHO. Only then can any rational human being make an educated decision on what to believe, why to believe, and how to believe. Understand I am NOT talking about teaching creationism in any way. I am speaking strictly about teaching about the truth when it comes to the origins of life as we best understand it at the current point in time. Effectively, I'm saying let's stick to what we sware in court, "do you solemnly sware to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth..."
|
