fusion

proach to Biology" yet, although a
cursory look at it seems to show a
leaning towards evolutionism, macroevolutionism,
rather. Here, we disagree.
.. .
Thank you, though, for showing
enough courage to reject Darwinism,
in the face of a conformistic tide
which remains strong and forceful.
Thomas C. Karter, Jr.
Portland, Oregon
To the Editor:
My first subscription copy of Fusion
(Feb. 1980) contained a blue ribbon
article, which is Mary Gilbertson's first
installment, "The National Science
Foundation: Taking the Science Out
of Education." I thank you for that
article, not as an educator in science,
but as an older-generation practicing
(previously brainwashed) geologistobserver
of the passing parade.
It is not shocking to me that NSF is
undermining science and math studies
in public schools. Some 20 years
of antiestablishment geological study
has led me to believe that the weed
of destruction of 20th century American
scientific excellence (NSF) has its
roots in certain "common sense" extrapolations
(the poisoned ground) of
19th century geologists and biologists.
Thanks to the influences of the likes
of Charles Darwin (self-taught biologist)
and Charles Lyell (self-taught geologist),
the world body has been led
to accept two myths as truth. These
myths are: historical geology, where
geological periods follow one another,
and evolution, where unicellular
ancestors "jest growed" into
Homo sapiens during these geological
periods. . . .
Any geologist who would honestly
and objectively research 20th century
geological (stratigraphic) data could
conclude that Darwin and Lyell were
bedtime story-tellers. . . .
The Editor replies:
William Waisgerber
Sepulveda, Calif.
Darwin, No; Evolution, Yes!
Although Mary Gilbertson's article
on the National Science Foundation
and science education did not directly
go into the question of the teaching
of Darwinian evolution in the publ c
schools, the writers are quite right o
make the connection. Unfortunately,
they have apparently opted for a "B g
Bang" version of Creation and tl e
origin of humankind instead. The e
are three reasons that this is unfortu l-
ate: the practical, the factual, and tl e
fundamental issue involved.
First, conservative and fundame >-
talist Christian religious groups especially
have been targeted by the ne )-
Malthusian movement. For examp e,
radical environmentalist Jeremy R f-
kin is approaching fundamental st
groups to solicit their agreement wi h
abandoning the call in the Book jf
Genesis for man to exert dominie >n
over nature. Ironically, this is exac ly
the situation—reducing man to a tal