Deconstructing the creation

In this post I want to compare the Darwinist 'reading' of creation with our PC professors and their (deconstructionist) readings of literature. If you want a name for it, you might call it deconstructing Darwin.

Quotes and comments;

A. I was listening to a lecture on Shakespeare's 'The Tempest' and the person giving the lecture mentioned some of the strange new interpretations of the play. As an example; a Stephen Greenblatt claimed the Tempest was all about colonialism; this despite the fact the island in question has no natives (not really) and is located a few miles off the coast of Italy. In other words, professor Greenblatt has fabricated a PC version of the play for some political reason or other. He clearly doesn't care what the text said or what it was about. [1]

In my opinion Darwinists do the same kind of thing. i.e. they're determined to read 'nature' in the way they want... for reasons that have nothing to do with the living forms they're dealing with. I see little evidence they care anything about the truth, or being honest to what we might call the text. This doesn't stop them from pretending that they, of all people, are reading the 'nature' right. (Our professors do the same. Though they don't care what the text says, they usually pretend to be getting at its 'real' meaning... a meaning only the 'expert' can understand. A plain reading is just too naive and simplistic, it misses what's really going on.)

- I think we can see that if an author's (e.g. William Shakespeare) intended meaning (we might call it design) can be ignored, or given an interpretation foreign to his intent, how nature can be even more easily ignored. It's a 'dumb' text that can be used to dump whatever one wants onto it. (As an example of what I mean; they can look at the punctuated data of the fossil record and still teach a gradualist model of evolution.)

- We know that life only comes from life, but the Darwinists deny this truism and tell us life 'emerged' from inert matter once upon a time.
- Darwinists are well aware of the limits to change exhibited by living organisms (e.g. that a fruit fly remains a fruit fly no matter what you do to it) but yet they claim animals transformed themselves from one kind to another. (e.g.some mythical land animal became a whale, reptiles became mammals and so on.) In other words they deny the text and the Author and concoct whatever story they want.

This kind of deliberate 'misreading' of things is rampant on campus. The examples are numerous. We can see the same thing with what feminists say; they look at men and women, (deny the data) and claim men and women are exactly the same. You wonder how anyone can come to such an absurd conclusion; but their politics and worldview demands it, and so the data is ignored or twisted.

Let's not forget our PC theologians, as they play the same game. They can honestly (or so they claim) look at the Bible and declare that it says nothing against homosexuality; they say it says nothing about people going to Hell; they say Christians are under no commandment to obey God's law; deny the divinity and work of Christ and so on. (They also claim the bible teaches evolution, or at the least says nothing against it.) They claim that anyone who doesn't share their modernist views is misreading the text.

- Our professors make a career out of denying obvious truth. They make outrageous claims like; man has no mind; man is no different than an animal; there is no truth; God doesn't exist; Jesus didn't exist; Christianity is responsible for most of the evil in the world; (and on and on the denials go) I don't know why anyone should believe them when it comes to origins then, as they've shown they have no respect for the truth, and indeed care nothing for it. (The Bible tells us, "No one seeketh the truth, no not one." Some claim that this is an exaggeration, but it comes close enough to the mark.) [2.]

Men can be neutral (or near enough) when it comes to objects and inert things for the simple reason man isn't a thing (he transcends things, he's greater than they are), but he cannot be neutral when he looks at man, because he can't transcend himself. (Not only can't he be objective about himself, he can't even see himself as he is.)

- I could go on and on here, but clearly truth isn't a high priority for our academic elite. Few of them care about truth, and in fact a great many deny such a thing exists. I'll leave you with a question; do you think people who deny truth exists are going to tell the public the truth about Origins?

Notes;
1. lecture on Tempest [TTC: Shakespeare, Word and Action]
- I think the Greenblatt essay was 'Learning to curse' or somesuch. [The above are my comments about Greenblatt, not the lecturer. To avoid confusion I'm not giving his name.]
- The connection with the play is interesting in that Prospero is a great magician who uses books and words to control nature (etc.) So the Darwinist uses words to cast spells on people, to get them to believe they're not seeing design.. but merely seeing matter in motion. [We don't see design Richard Dawkins says; we only see the appearance of design.] Words are a form of power for the professor of our day (and self-consciously so). They use words to fight their political and social battles. They might not look like it, but they're modern magicians, hardly different in spirit from the magicians of the Renaissance.
2. What Paul is referring to here (and quoting an old testament passage) is that no one seeks the Truth with a capital T. i.e. no one is interested in the truth that God created the world and placed man on it. (The whole truth of the Bible is what Paul is referring to.) Men claim to want to know the truth, but they deny everything biblical Christianity teaches. (i.e. the one thing man claims to know, the most certain truth he possesses, is that biblical Christianity is not true. If truth exist, it most certainly is not biblical.