Dear Mr. Stueber:
I just read your essay on Dr. Hovind's web site, Inside the Darwinian Propaganda Machine. I'd say its an excellent thesis overall. I would add a few of my own observations.
Isn't the propaganda machine you discuss simply a euphemism for Orwell's Ministry of Truth?
Your thesis hints at the propaganda machine's role in creating a new age of enlightenment, alluding that "humanists and atheists have reasons for preferring an evolutionary explanation for existence." I agree that these individuals seek social justification but I submit that there is far more to be gained by the proffering of such a theory. Evolution is an apologetic and dogmatic belief system that, despite its many short comings, has been specifically designed to force social change. It is a marriage of material science and religion structured to appeal to one's intellectualism and garner the support of those it seeks to socially engineer, without the unpleasant upheaval usually associated with radical social change.
Once you accept the evolutionary premise then it follows that government and its laws rest on nothing more substantial than ancient religious myths and now there is a rationalized vehicle to invoke change. Evolution is a benighted ideology that turns a familiar phrase "with {evolution} all things are possible" in to behavior that could never be accepted by a society linked to moral absolute. It is a social order where the farming of body parts to the euthanizing of the undesirable becomes common place. It is the fulfillment of the world dream of the Eugenics society.
JFK said it best, "I dream of things that never were, and say, why not?"
Allen Williams
professional engineer
Kansas
Jeff replies:
I thank Allan Williams for his replies to me praising my essay Inside the Darwinian Propaganda Machine. It's interesting that he suggested a link to Orwell's ministry of truth, because in another essay I wrote on how evolutionists fool the public (www.globaldialog.com/~jstueber/foolsus.htm), I began with a mention of Orwell's book and Newspeak. The essay he read was actually a sequel to this other essay and I suggested he check this one out as well.
I wouldn't say the propaganda machine is used to create a new era of enlightenment although I do agree it is advocated in order to force social change. Humanist Manifesto I certainly was clear about its desire for social change with evolution undergirding it. I do think that the euthanasia movement will probably benefit from evolutionist-based morals because it destroys the Judeo-Christian life ethic that is at the basis for our civilization. Atheist Peter Singer has complained about this Christian ethic in an issue of Pediatrics. Singer, of course, backs abortion and infanticide. Wesley Smith, conservative author of Forced Exit, can be consulted with great profit as far as euthanasia and assisted-suicide.
Again, thanks for the letter.
[the following is a fictional letter from an atheist named "Joe Atheist." It represents a response I believe an atheist might write.]
Joe Atheist:
Greetings to Mr. Stueber. I recently read your article on how evolutionists are fooling everybody. I can honestly say it's one of the best essays I've ever read, but sadly it's horribly wrong on so many points. First of all, I notice your use of experts and commentators. You include Shandon Guthrie, a non-biologist you list as having some knowledge of where evolution is defective. Later you include comments by Steve Allen, a comedian, and Phil Donahue, a talk show host. You do have some interesting scientific references, but your essay is tainted by the use of non-specialists. What next? Are you going to write an essay on evolution including comments by, perhaps, Steve Martin with a concluding and decisive rebuttal to evolution by Bill O'Reilly? How about a rant on Darwin from the entire Saturday Night Live cast?
You, like most Christians, seem to think the whole world is engaged in some conspiracy to unseat Christianity, much like Pat Robertson seems to claim. You say you're not really claiming evolutionists are conspiring to fool the public, yet your essay seems to suggest this. And you can't seem to understand the difference between collusion and disagreement. For instance, you have Michael Ruse taking a limited view of what science is and then you quote others as having a broader view. Does this reveal a conspiracy? No, it only means Ruse and those other writers disagree. Then you seem to have Ruse disagreeing with himself. But its obvious why, at the Arkansas creationist trial, he said science appeals to creating testable models of what you would expect even though you can't test your theory in a lab. Ruse thinks appealing to God as a cause is futile since you can just say "God did it" and that's all. Where's the testability? Any creationist scientist would not last long in such a scientific culture.
So Stephen Gould uses anthropomorphic language to describe evolution? Big deal. Do you not know that people often use figurative language to describe things or ideas. The so-called "wall of separation between church and state" is not a wall, for instance. Do you actually picture a brick wall between the state and some church out there? It doesn't mean these evolutionists really think some god created everything and it certainly doesn't mean they are fooling the public.
You seem to think theistic evolutionists are fooling us. Chris Roth is fooling us. So is Michael Tooley and, I suppose, the editors of Discover magazine. Stop with the conspiracy stories already Evolution is proven and there are no conspiracies, so get on with you life and please write about something more useful, like how evolution works.
Joe Atheist.
Jeff Stueber responds:
I thank Joe Atheist for reading my essay and I have the feeling he only superficially read my it. My essay asked the question whether evolutionists are fooling us. I should define what one must be doing to be fooling another. One must be deliberately misrepresenting the facts and have knowledge or common sense to know one is misrepresenting the facts. Michael Ruse knows that there is more to science than what he claims for it and has said as much during the creationist trial. Not all science concerns itself with testing a natural law because science involves testing end-products of intelligent creations. I suspect Ruse knows this and he gives the impression that there is no testability to creationist speculations despite this not being true. Evolutionists have always known and claimed there is testability to creationist speculations. The "argument from evil" makes use of this very presupposition. Ruse, I believe, knows this and his attempt to write as if he doesn't is, I believe, an attempt to fool us.
You couldn't have used a worse example to rebut my comment about the anthropomorphic language used by evolutionists. I don't for a minute believe there is a brick wall between church and state, but I do believe there is supposed to be (according to its advocates) an impassible barrier between the two. When evolutionists use anthropomorphic language to describe evolution, I believe they are unconsciously aware that the creation of life owes its origins to such an anthropomorphic being, but they act as if this isn't true. That's because they can't, for a minute, admit it.
I quote Shandon Guthrie because he seems a very intelligent fellow and capable of commentating on and knowing the issues. He can defend himself from your barbs hereafter. Phil Donahue is a talk show host, still today. I quote him because his theistic evolutionist philosophy is typical of theistic evolutionists. I could as well cited any other theistic evolutionist, especially the ones I debated on www.arn.org. The point about Steve Allen is the fact his opinions about evolution are listed in an atheist publication when creationists are constantly told only biologists are capable of speaking successfully on evolution. Prometheus Books lets Allen get away with commenting on a subject he knows nothing about without a word from Prometheus Books regarding his lack of ability to speak on this issue. Meanwhile, Phillip Johnson gets more heat than Allen does for speaking on evolution.
I didn't claim Michael Tooley was fooling us. I do not claim everybody I cite is fooling us. However, the editors of Discover magazine are letting in their magazine an article that confuses different conceptions of evolution. There are differences between things created to evolve and problem solve and those originating without conscious creation. One cannot create a process or thing that changes itself and call that change evolution while describing a change in life that came about by chance evolution.