Smoky the bear vs. the creationists

Training Park Interpreters: Some Guests are Less Welcome than Others (CSSHS Journal)

Quotes and comments;

1. 'In a sad commentary on intolerance in our society, parks personnel in Canada and the United States have identified some citizens from these two countries as unwelcome influences. An article with suggestions on how to handle these unwelcome "guests" was printed in the Newsletter of interpretation Canada (Alberta Section): vol.10, no.3, November 1989, p.7. It was based on a United States National Parks training paper. The message of the article was that parks' interpreters must never lose the upper hand in dealing with creationists.'
- this is so bizarre it's almost impossible for me to believe.
- the greatest enemies of Christianity (and creation in general) are people who work within the socialist government structure. They apparently see the State as the major weapon in trying to destroy Christianity. (And our socialist seminary professors say nothing; but only heap ever more praise on the collectivist model of politics. )
- one wonders what this has to do with government. (One thing you find with socialists is that they never tell you what they think the limits of the State are. I get the distinct impression they don't think there are any.

2. 'A naturalist, when faced with someone who objects to his/her remarks about dinosaurs, or the age of rocks, is advised not to say that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. No, No! That is too conciliatory. The interpreter is rather to "evaluate" the creationist. Is the person a "gentle, soft-spoken" type who is easily cowed? The article recommends that the interpreter allow this person to speak at the end of the proceedings, when most of the crowd will have dispersed and will not hear him/her.'
- yes people; these are your tax dollars hard at work.

3 'If, alternatively, the creationist is an "aggressive shouting bully who is looking for a fight," then the interpreter is to be more aggressive too. The "bully" is to be told firmly that he must be quiet. If that does not work, the creationist is to be pushed into agreeing to some compromising definitions. Try to get him to define religion in general the article advises: "With a bit of prompting, you can get something like 'a person's concept of the Order of the Universe and his place within it, based on the written or spoken word of other people.'"
- we see a clear example here of how the war against Christianity relies very heavily upon playing the definition game. (All definition must be taken away from Christianity; i.e. all things must be redefined in terms of secular Humanism... if at all possible. We see in all this the clear substitution of one religion (C.) with another; namely evolutionary Humanism.)

4. 'Then prompt the audience to define science, the article recommends, in terms like: "Science is a concept of the Order of the Universe, and one's place within it, based on observation, experiment, and closely controlled logic."
- there are many things wrong with this bit of bumper sticker philosophy.
a. there is no such thing as a generic science.
b. there is no agreed upon definition of science.
c. science here is personified; science is word, it's an activity engaged in by different sorts of people... it is not a person.
d. science is something people do, far more than it is a concept.
e. the idea science is a concept of one's place in the universe is rather unusual one. Few people would say this.
f. science is based on observation; but clearly this definition of science wasn't... so it refutes itself. You don't see definitions of science buried in rock layers or hanging from trees.
g. we might ask if this definition of science was formulated on the basis of experiments. Obviously it was not.
h. 'closely controlled logic' - hmm... I wonder what that means. But if man's thoughts are just chemical reactions, and he has no mind, what is logic? Obviously if that's all that is, logic evaporates. If thought is just chemical reaction then thoughts can't be true or false... and there can be no logic.
i. this statement obviously has little to do with doing science; what it really is is a definition of materialism; what we have here is a definition from metaphysics, not a statement of what science is.

5. 'If the creationist persists in his remarks, the interpreter is advised to call the police to "protect the group."
- that's a remarkable and frightening statement. Unbelievable.
- the police wouldn't be called in to defend the group (please) but to protect the e. guide from being made a fool of. (And why is it all park guides must worship at the altar of Darwin? This is so bizarre it boggles the mind.)
- what we see here is that to give most people political power is to ruin them. It goes to their head and makes them act in vile and repressive ways.
- have these people NO sense of fairness? Apparently not.

Summary;
- this article is important because we get an inside glimpse of how government really works; of how the state has been re-envisioned as a tool of evolutionary Humanism. We don't usually get glimpses like this, as great pains are taken to hide what the political elite do... and what methods they use. We see the great stress on redefining all terms to make them conform to e. materialism... we see the deliberate, premeditated attack on Christians. We see the deliberate attempt to bully and silence all opponents of evolution. (And you pay for all of this folks.) What we see is the great evil caused by socialism. The more powerful the state becomes the more Christians will be persecuted. (And still our seminary professors heap endless praise on socialism. Kind of makes you wonder whose side they're on.)

Notes;
1. Editor's Note: Reprinted from Creation Science Dialogue, Vol. 17, No. 1
("Spring Dialogue," March 1990),
p.3, published by Creation Science Association of Alberta, Box 9075, Station E, Edmonton, Alberta T5P 4K1, Canada.
2. Newsletter of Interpretation? (Shades of Orwell.)
3. the parallels with communism are eerie; how in the old USSR people weren't allowed to question communism. (The ussr was sometimes referred to as the Bear.)
4. I don't know if the situation is still the same; as far as I know it is... if not worse.
5. I would like to get my hands on all these 'memos' that are sent out by bureaucrats, telling them how to wage war on Christians.
6. This attack on creationism has nothing to do with the legitimate functions of the state. What we see here is people usurping the resources of the state to fight a cultural battle.