Bio Prof: "It Is OK to Use Some Inaccuracies Temporarily" to Sell Evolution
Yes, a biology professor really said that. Here is the whole quote. Note that he acknowledges that using the inaccuracies temporarily (whatever he means by that) will not necessarily be so temporary, and he is just fine with that too.
Mr. Campbell knows how tricky this process is. You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students. If a student, like Natalie Wright who I quoted above, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time. If most of the students do not, but those cutesy examples help them accept evolution, then it is OK if they keep some of those little inaccuracies for the rest of their lives. It is perfectly fine if they keep thinking that Mickey Mouse evolved as long as they think evolution is fine and dandy overall. Without Mickey, they may have become Creationist activists instead. Without belief in NOMA they would have never accepted anything, and well, so be it. Better NOMA-believers than Creationists, don't you think?
It is refreshing to see such honesty in a person willing to use false propaganda to persuade students to accept evolutionary theory.
Others obviously share his views, which is why false information about the evolution of horses is still promoted, and Haeckel's fraudulent drawings are still in textbooks.
posted by Lawrence Selden @ 1:50 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Some atheists told me there was an early Christian theologian (or church father?) who was disgusting and despicable for advocating this very same ethic of lying for the greater good. I wish I could remember who it was they were talking about.
Such double standards are typical when dealing with such people, though. It's very unusual to have somebody with some clout actually confess it. The next time I get told that Christians are a bunch of paranoid freaks, etc. etc., all I got to do is pull up the bookmark to this guy's page.
Sounds a lot like James Hanson's rationalization that exaggeration was justified to capture the world's attention regarding climate change.
We're all taught Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is full of inaccuracies--should we stop teaching it and introduce 6th graders to relativity?
Uh, no, Blipey. That's not what's being advocated. This isn't about outdated, disproved scientific ideas. This is about winning people over to the evolutionists' side by using "inaccuracies."
Just like you just tried to so.
"We're all taught Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is full of inaccuracies--should we stop teaching it and introduce 6th graders to relativity?"
Of course we should teach such inaccuracies to help 6th graders - that's why you were taught that luminiferous aether is real all throughout school, right? Then when you took college-level science, you learned that it was an inaccuracy, just like Newtonian physics.
Same thing with the four humours, right? We all knew back in 6th grade that health was maintained by keeping the four humours in balance via diet, exercise, cleanliness, etc. Then in college we learned that there were invisible organisms that could make us sick, and keeping those organisms in check would keep us healthy and that the humours theory was inaccurate.
All the same sort of thing, of course.
We need to keep these inaccuracies in place so that we can counter and subvert the prevailing culture and to break the 6th graders' worldview from their parents' worldview.
John: Some atheists told me there was an early Christian theologian (or church father?) who was disgusting and despicable for advocating this very same ethic of lying for the greater good. I wish I could remember who it was they were talking about.
That sounds like Eusebius. Think he claimed he'd hide or change the truth to further the glory of god.
When being taught about Christianity (in Sunday school and at home one would imagine), are kids told of the anonymity of the gospel authors? Their late dates? The lack of external evidence for most of the events, especially the important ones? The historical inaccuracies and failed prophecies?
Late dates? I've heard that the NT was done by the end of the first century with John's Revelation being the last.
There is inaccuracy like Haeckel's drawings which is a lie, and there is disputed points, and there are cases of idiots disputing what is obvious to the fair-minded. I suspect your allegations fall into the last category.
Just cause you want something to be true don't make it so.
Tennwriter
This is awesoome
Post a Comment
<< Home