New Zealand Herald columnist John Roughan has some questions to answer after the discovery that he misquoted Ian Wishart in a review of his new book EVE's BITE, by deleting key qualifying words from a quote.
In the review, Roughan wrote:
"This matters to Wishart because 'if you believe that (species can evolve), then you'll believe life is not special and mankind is the master of all her (sic) surveys. You'll believe there is no God and free yourself and your family from any moral code."
The actual quote, on page 40 of the book, reads (with missing words in bold):
"If you believe that, then you'll believe life is not special, and Mankind is the master of all he surveys. You'll believe there is no God (the Darwinists hope), and free yourself and your family from any moral code."
It's full context, and indeed that of the Chapter, is that atheistic scientists are using Darwinism in the classroom to deliberately try and crush students' religious faith: Here's the lead-up to the disputed quote:
The basic issues are these: there is ample evidence to support one element of Darwin's theory - microevolution. This means examples of change within a species. But there is virtually no evidence for macroevolution - the claim that one species can mutate into something else.
Evolutionists often deliberately distort the two issues, using the ample evidence of change within a species (moth colourations/finch beak sizes/bacterial resistance to antibiotics) to argue that evolution as the wider public understands it (pond-slime to space traveler) is therefore true. The problem with their argument is this. A moth that changes colour is still a ...? A bird that has a bigger beak remains a...? A bacteria that becomes resistant to an antibiotic remains a...? A human who becomes immune to a bacteria remains a...?
You know the answers.
And the reason Darwinists desperately want you to sign up to the whole package is because the religious aspect of their package only kicks in if you believe macroevolution - that a monkey can become a man, or a 10 tonne Triceratops can become a turkey. If you believe that, then you'll believe life is not special, and Mankind is the master of all he surveys. You'll believe there is no God (the Darwinists hope), and free yourself and your family from any moral code.
It is patently obvious that by deleting the qualifying comment, John Roughan altered the quote from me setting out the atheistic Darwinist position, to me simply suggesting that people were idiots if they believed "species can evolve". Which is ridiculous, given my assertion just a few paragraphs earlier that there is "ample evidence" in favour of Darwinian microevolution.
His misquotation and deletion of the qualifier also makes it appear that I am saying belief in God and basic human morality are impossible if you accept any part of evolutionary theory, which is also a ridiculous assertion. What I argue in the book is that Darwinism, as it is taught by atheist science teachers, is loaded with anti-Christian baggage deliberately. And it is this widespread approach to pushing Darwinism in this way that has damaged society.
He also divorced the quote from its real context. And in case anyone doubts that leading Darwinists are adopting the position I allege, here are further quotes from the book:
And just in case there are still lingering doubts about the religious aspects of Darwinism, British atheist Richard Dawkins wrote in The Blind Watchmaker that Darwin “made it possible to be an intellectually-fulfilled atheist”. Expressed another way – take away the crutch of evolution and atheism once again loses any claim to have an intelligent or intellectual basis.
Cornell University’s William Provine, another prominent evolutionist and atheist, went even further in print by saying that if Darwinism is true, then there are five inescapable conclusions: there’s no evidence for God; there’s no life after death; there’s no absolute foundation for right and wrong; there’s no ultimate meaning for life; and people don’t really have free will.
When evolutionists go beyond the theory to argue the metaphysical, they then invite a full on, knock-em-down-drag-em-out debate...
...The fact that virtually all the leading lights involved in trying to protect Darwin’s monopoly on school science classes are atheists, indicates to me that schools have been captured by what is effectively a rival religion.
Strong evidence of this is supported by the late Harvard Zoologist Ernst Mayr, one of Darwinism’s most respected defenders, who confesses that when evolutionists all come together to ridicule Intelligent Design, they do so primarily for a religious reason (source: Mayr, Ernst [Emeritus Professor of Zoology, Harvard University], "One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought," Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1991, p.99):
"There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that "the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials" (1985:785), he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed.
“Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. [emphasis added] The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin's theories..."
Does that sound like balanced science of the kind you’d find in a biology class, or the transcript of discussion at the annual Satanists Picnic? I would have thought that “Nothing was more essential than finding the truth.” Apparently not. The real aim of Darwinism in science is to promote the “death of God” movement. Are you comfortable that you received an honest science education, or that your kids are receiving one, when these are the confessions of what motivates “scientists”?
If there is no overwhelming scientific reason to teach Darwinism in schools, then the motivation for some of these people must indeed be religious: Dawkins and others are already on the public record linking Darwinism as a foundation pillar of their faith in the non-existence of God. Ernst Mayr agrees that Darwinism is the key to social change in the Western world:
"The truth of the matter is that unless a person is still an adherent of creationism and believes in the literal truth of every word in the Bible, every modern thinker - any modern person who has a worldview - is in the last analysis a Darwinian. The rejection of special creation, the inclusion of man into the realm of the living world (the elimination of the special position of man versus the animals), and various other beliefs of every enlightened modern person are ultimately all based on the consequences of the theories contained in the Origin of Species."
In other words, by teaching what Ann Coulter calls “the Liberals’ creation myth” in schools, scientists reckon they have successfully brainwashed an entire generation of Westerners. And scientists have the cheek to complain about religion?
Atheism, along with its cousins rationalism and secular humanism, is a religion. The existence or non-existence of God cannot be proven on current knowledge scientifically, therefore belief or disbelief are flipsides of the same religious coin. They are “faith” decisions.
The New Zealand Herald now needs to explain its justification for altering a direct quote without acknowledging the edit in any way - a clear breach of journalistic ethics.
Ian, did you get your manuscript checked by scientists (in this case a biologist)? There are plenty of non-Darwinist ones you could have turned to for guidance.
What raises my alarm:
"there is ample evidence to support...microevolution. This means examples of change within a species. But there is virtually no evidence for macroevolution - the claim that one species can mutate into something else."
If you are using the scientific meaning of species, then there is ample evidence of one species developing into another, without human intervention. Do you believe sheep and goats are different species?
Additionally most Creation-Scientists (I mean the nutty young-earth people) believe in transmutation/development/evolution across the species line, it's how they explain most of the different animals since Noah's Flood. They believe microevolution is more powerful than Darwinists do! (I will provide quotes privately if you'd like.)
I’m sure your Mayr quote is accurate but HE was misrepresenting the historical record somewhat.
The “moth colouration” evidence has fallen into disfavour due to some unethical activities by it’s main proponent. You may know that, as I haven’t read your book yet.
I DO agree with you that atheistic Darwinists (the “Darwinist mafia”) shouldn’t be allowed the free hand for evangelising with State funds as they do at the moment.
Posted by: N. Curnow | May 07, 2007 at 03:11 AM
Good question N Curnow! The old question about sorting the sheep from the goats - yet in reality a single species?
Ian says:
"It's full context, and indeed that of the Chapter, is that atheistic scientists are using Darwinism in the classroom to deliberately try and crush students' religious faith:"
But surely this assumes that the child or youth has a religious faith to start with! At that age I see no reason for them to have made that commitment.
Ian says:
"The basic issues are these: there is ample evidence to support one element of Darwin's theory - microevolution. This means examples of change within a species. But there is virtually no evidence for macroevolution - the claim that one species can mutate into something else."
Nonsense Ian. Macro-evolution is nothing but a concatenation of micro-evolutionary steps. You should know that.
Here is a typical Ian snippet in answering Roughan.
"Which is ridiculous, given my assertion just a few paragraphs earlier that there is "ample evidence" in favour of Darwinian microevolution."
Ian .. just because you assert something, it does not make it true! And crossreferencing your own assertion is just lazy stuff.
Ian goes on to say:
"What I argue in the book is that Darwinism, as it is taught by atheist science teachers, is loaded with anti-Christian baggage deliberately. And it is this widespread approach to pushing Darwinism in this way that has damaged society."
Yes evolution does negate a lot of Christian teaching, but the search for truth should not be beholden to holy cows. The opinion that this has damaged society is totally subjective. But I for one would prefer to be living on Earth now, than prior to the time of Darwin!
More strange stuff from Ian:
"Expressed another way – take away the crutch of evolution and atheism once again loses any claim to have an intelligent or intellectual basis."
There is no basis for this statement. But there is no need to dipense with evolution since it is true.
Then Ian quotes some guy:
'Cornell University’s William Provine, another prominent evolutionist and atheist, went even further in print by saying that if Darwinism is true, then there are five inescapable conclusions: there’s no evidence for God; there’s no life after death; there’s no absolute foundation for right and wrong; there’s no ultimate meaning for life; and people don’t really have free will.'
Nutty stuff. Take the conclusion on free will for example!
And calling atheism a religion is nutty too. Atheism is a rejection of religion. It is a pity in some ways that atheists are not organised into "churches" so that they can blow this rot out of the water in a more systematic way!
Ian asks:
'Are you comfortable that you received an honest science education, or that your kids are receiving one, when these are the confessions of what motivates “scientists”?'
I AM satisfied that our kids are receiving an honest science education, free from the propaganda of career believers who want to create a constituency for themselves with the sponsorship of the state!
I like the quote of Mayr:
'The truth of the matter is that unless a person is still an adherent of creationism and believes in the literal truth of every word in the Bible, every modern thinker - any modern person who has a worldview - is in the last analysis a Darwinian.'
This surely underlines the huge impact that Darwin has had .. he brought fundamentalist Christianity to its knees, didn't he!
Further:
'The rejection of special creation, the inclusion of man into the realm of the living world (the elimination of the special position of man versus the animals), and various other beliefs of every enlightened modern person are ultimately all based on the consequences of the theories contained in the Origin of Species.'
Career believers continue to flatter prospective leisure time believers into thinking that human species is so important, and that they are important too. There are no barriers to being an amateur believer - other than you PAY for the privilege, rather than getting paid as the career believers are!
I see nothing in Eve's bite that would distinguish it from a collection of copies of Investigate which I already have.
Posted by: peter | May 07, 2007 at 03:42 AM
Peter Jellyfish froths "The old question about sorting the sheep from the goats"
No wonder that they say that ninety percent of everything is crap , but do keep trying Mr Hellacious silly goat, as you might get your own way in the delusional end.Bah, bah, bah said the lamb - and I understand it takes you a long time to understand nothing ?
Posted by: dad4justice | May 07, 2007 at 07:04 AM
Thanks Peter.
I ran a cat over the other day and took the carcase home for a decent burial. I presume if I ran you over I wouldn't have to do anything different (bigger hole though I guess) as you aren't anything special, just another animal whose carcase I would treat with a certain respect so kids didn't find it lying in the gutter.
I guess Darwin made it OK for 2 year olds to be shot while asleep then? Just another animal?
What crap. Even you are special, you just don't realise it.
Posted by: John Boy | May 07, 2007 at 08:11 AM
Peter...you miss the point of the post.
It is a major breach of journalistic ethics to edit someone else's quote to change the meaning, and without any sign "..." that words have been excised.
Whilst journalists often "..." for the sake of getting to the point faster, it is bordering on criminal for any journalist to knowingly remove words that qualify the answer, without covering that off somewhere in the paraphrasing of the quote.
If the Herald get into that routine they're heading down the track of the embarrassments suffered by the Washington Post and New York Times.
Furthermore, imagine the flack I would have got if in my work I did that? National Radio, TV and the Herald would have been all over me.
Posted by: Ian | May 07, 2007 at 08:58 AM
Ian
I will jump to your support regarding the NZ Herald!
What is the circulation of this newspaper?
I would not wish to single out John Roughan here, but I have noticed surprising sloppiness at times of various reporters - for a paper of its stature and circulation.
Good example - for Letters to the Editor they would never accept an anonymous contribution. Yet at other times they seem to be happy to attribute material to people that they will not name, or who do not say who they are. Has anyone else noticed that?
They have a social responsibility for balance and fairness. It surprises me that you may have been a target - or was it accidental?
Of course you did have that little problem with them in the week before the last General Election. But I would not suggest bias on that basis would I.
Posted by: peter | May 07, 2007 at 10:31 AM
Ian
I will jump to your support regarding the NZ Herald!
What is the circulation of this newspaper?
I would not wish to single out John Roughan here, but I have noticed surprising sloppiness at times of various reporters - for a paper of its stature and circulation.
Good example - for Letters to the Editor they would never accept an anonymous contribution. Yet at other times they seem to be happy to attribute material to people that they will not name, or who do not say who they are. Has anyone else noticed that?
They have a social responsibility for balance and fairness. It surprises me that you may have been a target - or was it accidental?
Of course you did have that little problem with them in the week before the last General Election. But I would not suggest bias on that basis would I.
Posted by: peter | May 07, 2007 at 10:31 AM
Peter says:
"And calling atheism a religion is nutty too. Atheism is a rejection of religion."
Semantics Pete. Atheism is a smokescreen to hide your true worldview. Without God atheism turns out to be humanism, marxism, or nihilism (or all 3). The outcome of state-sanctioned nihilism was all too clear this weekend in Christchurch, as 500 teenagers went rioting, and two 16 year old girls killed.
"With no revelation the people cast off restraint"
Posted by: peasant | May 07, 2007 at 10:41 AM
John Boy
What you do with a dead body of any kind will be of no benefit to the dead person or animal.
In our case, I feel funerals etc are really for the families and friends of the family - part of the grieving process where support is found.
But hang on there's more. There are cases in Christianity of unmarked mass graves, no death certificates. I was just reading about this example the other day:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/08/sunday/main567365.shtml
On the other hand, cemeteries and memorials exist for much loved pet cats, dogs, etc.
As for you Peasant.
I find CHRISTIANITY can also be a smokescreen to hide your true worldview. Christianity can turn out to be humanism, marxism, Marxism, materialism, control freakism, homophobia, a business networking opportunity, a profit-making vehicle.
What evidence do you have that the events of Chch were the outcome of state-sanctioned nihilism? What is the betting that there will be at least one funeral in a Christian church?
Posted by: peter | May 07, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Peter, when young nihilists run wild they are acting in logical accord with their philosophy. They have been subjected to secular brainwashing for their whole lives.. ie humanism, marxism, materialism, authoritarianism, perpetrated by the mass media and education system.
Atheism represents either Man's attempt to become God, or to become a soulless beast
Posted by: peasant | May 07, 2007 at 01:52 PM
Peasant
This is where we part company.
The default position is that we are all atheists. A blank canvas. It is entirely our choice whether to overlay the canvas with traditions, myths and legends.
Atheists don't think of God and they don't think like the Christian God.
And in any case, there are countless alternatives to the Christian God in the mythical world.
On a beautiful sunny Sunday like yesterday, I prefer to leave church rituals to the career believers and the devout leisure-time attendees.
Posted by: peter | May 07, 2007 at 04:15 PM
In any case, there are countless alternatives to the Christian God in the mythical world.
Yes Peter, thousands..that is why He said, He would have not other gods before Him.
Posted by: Paula Wagstaff | May 07, 2007 at 04:34 PM
Peter
"The default position is that we are all atheists."
Appearances can be decieving. In NZ this may appear to be the case because atheism is prevalent among the political and media elites. But God tends to reveal himself only to the humble.
"A blank canvas."
In "The Blank Slate", Harvard neuroscientist Stephen Pinker demolishes that myth.
Posted by: peasant | May 07, 2007 at 06:01 PM
Let me clarify for the more slow subscribers to this thread.
When a child is born, he or she in the first weeks of life is not screaming for a bible, a believer (amateur or professional!), a chistening or any other religious artifact. All this stuff is inculcated by their parents, who in turn went through the same process.
Hey I just thought of something! That is why sons and daughters of Christians are more likely to be Christians than Moslems.
Posted by: peter | May 07, 2007 at 06:58 PM
The natural state of man is to worship something, athiesm is a rarity throughout history. Every culture has gods, even ours as science was not designed to "kill" God but to reveal his creation. Children are not blank slates and peasent rightly quotes Pinker. How about Chomsky? Hardly a believer in God and yet sets a foundation for sociolinguistics by suggesting every human being is biologically pre-wired to learn and use language. Did the ability of all children to master grammar without instruction by the age of five evolve? Every human likewise is pre-loaded to ask questions about where they came from and the answer like the answer to the first question is not from the evolutionary material that came before. Sure children of Christians may hold a biased rather than a belief but certainly that finger could be pointed at any group.
Posted by: sittingbull | May 07, 2007 at 09:28 PM
My replies to Sitting Bull:
"Did the ability of all children to master grammar without instruction by the age of five evolve?"
Yes I would think so.
"Every human likewise is pre-loaded to ask questions about where they came from and the answer like the answer to the first question is not from the evolutionary material that came before."
Quick survey around workmates would suggest that this is false. Kids are entitled to take their existence for granted, and typically they do. Their existence is out of their control after all, it is a given that carries no obligations. It is generally the adults that pose the rhetorical questions!
"Sure children of Christians may hold a biased rather than a belief but certainly that finger could be pointed at any group."
I agree with this. But sometimes it most honest to admit you don't know what you don't know. Nobody could ever criticise you for that.
Posted by: peter | May 08, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Sure kids are to busy too reflect on the bigger questions, who wants to be thinking about 'why am I here' when all your friends are playing bullrush. But, usually there does come a period in peoples lives (late teens) when these questions become important. Heaps of folk from christian families start asking the hard questions during this time and likewise folk from athiestic families become quite open minded. Unless of course they are forced by their peers to pick a viewpoint and defend it to the death. I bet (don't know) that the highest selling books are books concerning the origin and purpose of life. Maybe its not the sort of thing you bring up in the lunch room but people tend to want these questions answered. I wonder if the polerisation of every topic under the sun into two distinct camps has robbed us of the ability to chew on ideas over time rather than having to ram a stake in the ground and say this is the 'truth'.
Regarding blank slates, a good arguement can be put up for the pre-existence of language and strange as it sounds a universal 'moral code'. A moral code that is not socially constructed but rather tapped into.
Posted by: sittingbull | May 08, 2007 at 01:02 PM
Moral codes are learned, truly. Some morals make sense for pragmatic saftey reasons. But there are exceptions. For example "love your enemies" is a counter-intuitive concept, something we have to learn.
Teenagers are still at the invincible stage where they believe they will live for ever! The meaning of life never mattered to me at that age, even though I had served time in Sunday Schools, Churches etc.
Languages are diverse among cultures so the child has to learn from scratch the one being spoken in their home.
Posted by: peter | May 08, 2007 at 01:26 PM
Sorry, just a note on language acquisition. If language use between individuals is a social construction (which an evolutionary view point would posit)then how do we end up with the biological capability to learn it. It just doest follow. The language acquisition devise must be in place before language can be used and yet the use of language necessitates the change? It can't be a result of natural selection because there is nothing to select from. We possess the biology to use and learn language that is far greater than any level of language we use. If anyone can provide an explaination of evolution could accomplish this, i'd be interested to read it.
Posted by: sittingbull | May 08, 2007 at 01:28 PM
I don't really follow this. We have eyes to see, ears to hear, voices to speak, brains to store information.
In the case of languages, living languages like English expand to include new concepts, tangible and intangible.
I suppose the way we USE our voices would influence the way the vocal chords etc evolve.
But I think the question you ask is this. If you need language to structure knowledge, would you not need language before all else? The answer is no. Babies have no language initially, and they build language from the close and tangible to the more remote and complex.
Posted by: peter_w | May 08, 2007 at 02:15 PM