Kristoff in Times Op Ed, on religious right and evolution

It is worth noting the remarks on evolution is this op ed piece by Kristoff, 
which I find both appalling and morbidly fascinating. One of the things that 
strikes me in the Darwin debate is the obtuseness of the self-styled 
scientific group, in their lemming-like persistence in reductionist regimes 
of theoretical idiocy which they apparently find a sign of their high 
intelligence and whose only  outcome, given the domination of the entire 
Humanities elite, in addition to the scientific, is the failsafe resurgence 
of Creationist resistance. Why is it that a writer like Philip Johnson, 
starting with Darwin on Trial, managed to trigger the inexorable dialectical 
debate on evolution, with the entire academic and cultural crowd paralyzed at 
all points in what should have been a no brained, the flaws in Darwin's 
theory? This could result in a cultural catastrophe, the discredit of science 
I need hardly point out that the critics of ideology, e.g. the Marxists, 
totally failed in its mission here, and like a guard dog that wouldn't bark 
has to look grimly at the prospect of the (philosophic) dog pound. 
 The Scientific momentum of opinion can be intimidating especially when so 
much good science is mixed with ideology. At least figure out your 
non-obligation in scientific terms to submit to this constellation of science 
Currently trained intellectuals in the Dawkins generation seem incapable of 
grasping how they are fighting a losing battle with this unrealistic 
Darwinism. Dawkins has done enough harm.

>>>For a theoretical self-defense toolkit, check my site: <A HREF=""></A>
It is awfully easy to demostrate the inappropriate character of Darwinism in 
history, and the descent of man. 

March 4, Op Ed, Times
God, Satan and the Media
<A HREF=""></A>


Claims that the news media form a vast liberal conspiracy strike me as 
utterly unconvincing, but there's one area where accusations of institutional 
bias have merit: nearly all of us in the news business are completely out of 
touch with a group that includes 46 percent of Americans.That's the 
proportion who described themselves in a Gallup poll in December as 
evangelical or born-again Christians. Evangelicals have moved from the fringe 
to the mainstream, and that is particularly evident in this administration. 
It's impossible to understand President Bush without acknowledging the 
centrality of his faith. Indeed, there may be an element of messianic vision 
in the plan to invade Iraq and "remake" the Middle East.Robert Fogel of the 
University of Chicago argues that America is now experiencing a fourth Great 
Awakening, like the religious revivals that have periodically swept America 
in the last 300 years. Yet offhand, I can't think of a single evangelical 
working for a major news organization.Evangelicals are increasingly important 
in every aspect of American culture. Among the best-selling books in America 
are Tim LaHaye's Christian "left behind" series about the apocalypse; about 
50 million copies have been sold. One of America's most prominent television 
personalities is Benny Hinn, watched in 190 countries, but few of us have 
heard of him because he is an evangelist. President Bush has said that he 
doesn't believe in evolution (he thinks the jury is still out). President 
Ronald Reagan felt the same way, and such views are typically American. A new 
Gallup poll shows that 48 percent of Americans believe in creationism, and 
only 28 percent in evolution (most of the rest aren't sure or lean toward 
creationism). According to recent Gallup Tuesday briefings, Americans are 
more than twice as likely to believe in the devil (68 percent) as in 
evolution.In its approach to evangelicals, the national news media are 
generally reflective of the educated elite, particularly in the Northeast. 
It's expected at New York dinner parties to link crime to deprived childhoods 
— conversation would stop abruptly if someone mentioned Satan.I tend to 
disagree with evangelicals on almost everything, and I see no problem with 
aggressively pointing out the dismal consequences of this increasing 
religious influence. For example, evangelicals' discomfort with condoms and 
sex education has led the administration to policies that are likely to lead 
to more people dying of AIDS at home and abroad, not to mention more 
pregnancies and abortions.But liberal critiques sometimes seem not just 
filled with outrage at evangelical-backed policies, which is fair, but also 
to have a sneering tone about conservative Christianity itself. Such mockery 
of religious faith is inexcusable. And liberals sometimes show more 
intellectual curiosity about the religion of Afghanistan than that of 
Alabama, and more interest in reading the Upanishads than in reading the Book 
of Revelation.I care about this issue partly because I grew up near Yamhill, 
Ore., which has 790 people and five churches. My science teacher at Yamhill 
Grade School taught that evolution was false, and a high school girlfriend 
attended a church where people spoke in tongues (contrary to stereotypes, she 
was an ace student, smarter than many people fluent in more conventional 
tongues, like French and Spanish). In the evangelical tinge to its faith, 
Yamhill is emblematic of a huge chunk of Middle America that we in the 
Northeast are out of tune with.Moreover, it is increasingly not just Middle 
America, but Middle World. As Professor Philip Jenkins notes in a new book, 
fundamentalist Christianity is racing through the developing world. The 
number of African Christians has soared over the last century, to 360 million 
from 10 million, and the boom is not among tweedy Presbyterians but among 
charismatic Pentecostalists. One of the deepest divides in America today is 
the gulf of mutual suspicion that separates evangelicals from secular 
society, and policy battles over abortion and judicial appointments will 
aggravate these tensions further in coming months. Both sides need to reach 
out, drop the contempt and display some of the inclusive wisdom of Einstein, 
who wrote in his memoir: "Science without religion is lame, religion without 
science is blind."   


John Landon
Website for
World History and the Eonic Effect