From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Subject: Re: Ideology and Indoctrination
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:07:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.120522.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>, kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
|> In article <1k0tpu$5mp@agate.berkeley.edu>, philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson) writes:
|> > 
|> > [main article deleted]
|> >  
|> > Darwinist indoctrination makes its victims incapable of
|> > understanding that the fundamental problem of biological
|> > evolution, or creation,
|> > [blah blah blah]
|> > 
|> > I recognize that this frank talk will cause offense.  My purpose
|> > is not to insult anyone, however, but to free minds.  Many of you
|> > have been indoctrinated not to question assumptions that are
|> > based on ideology rather than evidence.  You can be free of that
|> > indoctrination if you wish to be.
|> 
|>    You were doing all right until you got down to these last two
|> paragraphs.  I don't take offense at what you said in the rest of the
|> article, although I think it's wrong, but in your final conclusions
|> above.  Your assumption that all who support Darwinism are indoctrinated
|> robots and your condescending, I'm-right-and-you're-wrong attitude is 
|> highly insulting to my intelligence and that of the others on the net.
|> 
|>    BTW, posting occasional long articles is *not* discussion.  If you 
|> wish to discuss these matters you will have to respond to followups
|> instead of remaining in your ivory tower complaining that your opinion
|> is suppressed. 
|> 
|> Karl

    Johnson has told us about his impression of this group.  Let me be
so free as to tell about my impression of his postings.  As these are
only my impressions, you may not like the fact that I have gotten these
impressions, and are free to correct them as you will.  I have the
impression that he is intentionally trying to irritate the regulars on
this topic, in order to appear to be rational in the face of irrational 
opposition.  If you will excuse further impressions on my part, I 
should point out that this looks to me like a trick that a lawyer 
would use in court to discredit a witness, when the testimony is 
not going the lawyer's way.  (A friend of mine, who is an engineer,
was called on as an expert witness.  The other side's lawyer asked
him, "You have a Doctor of Philosophy degree.  What does that
mean, that you sit around and philosophize?")

    Let it be pointed out that so far all that Johnson has managed
to say is that there is some doubt in his mind that the standard
mechanism given for evolution, above the level of species, has 
adequate support.  He has not denied that evolution took place, above
or at the level of species; he had not suggested that there is a 
better mechanism known, much less described it; he has not suggested 
that the earth is less than a billion years old; he has not suggested 
that Homo sapiens is not descended from non-human ancestors; he has 
not said anything about God or the Bible or the Creation ...  As far 
as any of us know from Johnson's postings, he could be a materialist, 
a flat-earth-Christian or a Hare Krishna.


-- 
Tom Scharle                |scharle@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
Newsgroups: talk.origins