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.