Big Brother, in the book, 1984, realized that the key to controlling the future was to control history.  He employed and army of editors to edit all historical documents to eliminate any troublesome facts.  Today, there is an army of editors doing similar work.  We often call them "scholars."  As of this writing, this army is using the philosophy called "Post Modernism" to justify their re-writing of history.  Their work has extended to long before there was a philosophy called "Post Modernism," however.  They call their work, reconstructing history, and they hate those whom they call constructionists.  Constructionists are those who work from evidence.  Deconstructionists, in the final analysis, consider the evidence to useful only when it supports their claims.  They have no problem at all taking words out of context or even making things up.  When any evidence does not support the assumptions of Liberalism, the deconstructionists will use every trick at their disposal to try to make it appear as if the evidence is discredited.  If that doesn't work, which is most of the time, they simply ignore the evidence.

 "It's a common myth that enlightenment atheists gave birth to the scientific era by casting off the darkness of the Christian middle ages and replacing magical arts like alchemy with the scientific experimental method.  Historians of science know better." (source: CREV: read more)

:The ongoing clash of creationism with evolution obscures the fact that Christianity has actually had a far more positive role to play in the history of science than commonly believed.  Indeed, many of the alleged examples of religion holding back scientific progress turn out to be bogus.  For instance, the Church has never taught that the Earth is flat and, in the Middle Ages, no one thought so anyway.  Popes haven't tried to ban zero, human dissection or lightening rods, let alone excommunicate Halley's Comet.  No one, I am pleased to say, was ever burnt at the stake for scientific ideas.  Yet, all these stories are still regularly trotted out as examples of clerical intransigence in the face of scientific progress."... "Hannam's article is a small step in the right direction, but he joined in the tar-and-feather-the-creationists game. He blamed them for the "ongoing clash" today (as if they started it), and blamed them for "persuading the public that Christianity and science are doomed to perpetual antagonism" as if the Dawkins crowd is lily-white innocent in that regard.  He might as well blame the Christians in the Roman arena being attacked by wild animals and crucified for causing the "ongoing clash" with Nero."  (source: CREV: read more)