TSAWTB Section 6 - Interlude - A Miscellany of Items
True Science Agrees with the Bible, Section 6 - Interlude - A Miscellany of Items (pp. 250-288)
True Science Agrees with the Bible, Section 6 - Interlude - A Miscellany of Items (pp. 250-288)
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
256 <strong>Section</strong> 6 - <strong>Interlude</strong><br />
Eakman in her Educating for the New World Order (Eak).<br />
This technique is set out in some Rand research documents, funded by the<br />
American taxpayer, that show how to bring about changes in education. The<br />
method consists <strong>of</strong> inviting the help <strong>of</strong> a “technical assistant” or “facilitator”<br />
usually drawn from the ranks <strong>of</strong> those in the behavioural sciences and<br />
colleges. He first gathers around him people interested in the particular<br />
change proposed, making himself a friend <strong>of</strong> both those for and those against<br />
the idea. The purpose is to get to know their attitudes and reactions, strengths<br />
and weaknesses.<br />
When the time is right, he then sets the “pro” group against the “con” group<br />
and uses the resulting “escalation <strong>of</strong> tension” for his own purposes. The “pro”<br />
group are promoted in importance, whilst the “con” group are made to seem<br />
“ridiculous, unknowledgable, dogmatic or inarticulate” and they are shut out<br />
<strong>of</strong> any publicity given to the subject. Eakman comments:<br />
And the targets rarely, if ever, know they are being manipulated. Or,<br />
if they suspect, they don’t know how (Eak:128).<br />
This technique may not strictly apply to the creation movement, but we can<br />
expect to be infiltrated by those pr<strong>of</strong>essing to be creationists. They may be on<br />
committees and have inside knowledge <strong>of</strong> what creationists intend to do. They<br />
will have much media attention and act as spokesmen, but when there is a<br />
need for speaking out clearly on behalf <strong>of</strong> creationism, they will be found to<br />
suddenly fail. For example, an important court case may be led by them but at<br />
the crucial point they will present the issues so incompetently that the case<br />
will be lost.<br />
Claims such as these may be thought exaggerated, but those who have had<br />
to deal with strong opposition to the creationist cause can tell <strong>of</strong> the<br />
underhand activities that they have been subjected to. The Christian should<br />
always be “as gentle as doves”, but we have been warned that with it we<br />
should also be “as wise as serpents” (Matt. 10:16).<br />
SECTION 6.5<br />
THE BARRIERS TO MASS PUBLICITY<br />
It is evident that the true Christian faith gets not just no publicity but<br />
considerable ridicule on TV and in many major papers and magazines. In<br />
plays, the vicar is <strong>of</strong>ten portrayed as either weak and timid or bold and<br />
bombastic. The only Christian services that are presented are either very highly<br />
emotionally charged or the very orderly high ritual <strong>of</strong> the older denominations.<br />
How many times has the real gospel been presented in any section <strong>of</strong> the<br />
British mass media?<br />
I have been speaking and writing on the subject <strong>of</strong> the scientific evidence<br />
against evolution and for creation since 1969, and occasionally, after giving a<br />
lecture, an enthusiastic young person might come up and say that he had never<br />
heard this evidence before, and that this should be on the TV - “as they have<br />
special programmes for people like you with unusual ideas.”, etc.<br />
My reply is to encourage them to write to the TV company, but I warn them<br />
<strong>of</strong> the response that they will get. They will receive a polite letter explaining<br />
why they do not think that the subject is “appropriate” or they have taken the<br />
advice <strong>of</strong> experts (evolutionists <strong>of</strong> course!) who do not consider the case has<br />
any support from “senior members <strong>of</strong> the pr<strong>of</strong>ession” - or some such excuse.<br />
If the recipient is not satisfied with the reasons given he might write again, but