The real problem with Darwinism in the public school classroom is that it is often taught in an atheist way. Textbooks by biologists like William Provine and Richard Dawkins routinely assert that evolution has done away with the need for God. The claim is that chance and natural selection have demonstrated that we can have design--or the appearance of design--without a designer. In this sense Darwinism becomes propaganda for atheism.
Typically evangelical Christians seek to counter this atheism by trying to expose the flaws in the Darwinian account of evolution. This explains the appeal of "creation science" and the "intelligent design" (ID) movement. These critiques, however, have not made any headway in the scientific community and they have also failed whenever they have been tried in the courts. Fortunately there is a better way.
Consider this: the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits public schools from teaching or promoting atheism in any way. How do I know this? Well, the religion clauses of the First Amendment protect the "free exercise" of religion and at the same time forbid the "establishment" of religion. Courts have routinely held that the free exercise clause protects not only religious beliefs but also the absence of religious beliefs. If you are fired from your government job because you are an atheist, your First Amendment rights have been violated. In other words, the term "religion" means not only "religion" but also "atheism."
Yet if the free exercise clause defines religion in a way that includes atheism, then the no-establishment clause must define religion in the same way. So the agencies of government are prohibited from "establishing" not only religion but also atheism. This means that just as a public school teacher cannot advocate Christianity or hand out Bibles to his students, so too public school textbooks and science teachers cannot advocate atheism.
I'd like to see Christian legal groups suing school districts for promoting atheism in the biology classroom. No need to produce creationist or ID critiques of Darwinism. All that is necessary is to parade the atheist claims that have made their way into the biology textbooks and biology lectures. The issue isn't the scientific inadequacy of evolution but the way in which it is being used to undermine religious belief and promote unbelief. If the case can be made that atheism is being advocated in any way, then the textbooks would have to be rewritten and classroom presentations changed to remove the offending material. Schools would be on notice that they cannot use scientific facts to draw metaphysical conclusions in favor of atheism.
In this way Darwinism in the public schools would no longer be a threat to religion in general or Christianity in particular.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 68)
1. http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
FORMER ATHEIST at 10:27AM on Apr 2nd 2008
2. http://atheistsareimaginary.blogspot.com
AN ATHEIST NO MORE at 10:27AM on Apr 2nd 2008
3. THE UGLY TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM AND THOSE WHO DEFEND IT.
The Movie:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781&q
Escape_Islam at 10:31AM on Apr 2nd 2008
4. Irreducible Complexity is just one of many examples for how unrealistic and dishonest Darwinism really is. The same biochemical limitations in one organism may be advantageous within a genetically different organism that appears morphologically similar. These scientist uses this slight of hand technique to deceive a gullible self-absorbed public as they merely cherry pick those organisms that appear similar even through they have NO biochemical relationship with one another. Yet in the same instance scientists want us to believe that random mutations just following the SEX acts of organisms was the eventual result of every single life-form on this planet from common ancestors.
Ultimately when people get around the ambiguous language, double-thought and double-talk of Darwinists, we discover “science of the Gaps” at the end. They talk about how natural processes on this earth can explain the existence and development of all life without being able to fully demonstrate it within a laboratory. On the other hand, we can count millions and millions of examples every day for how everything that appears designed comes from a rational source - from the practical, biological, all the way to the molecular.
How does a designed universe and ecosystem mindlessly set the pre-programmed intricate first “highly improbable” or few “outrageously unrealistic” DNA and RNA molecules when even Miller Experiment and recent reducing atmosphere experiments invalidated such notions? But let’s not stop there. Within each cell there are quality control mechanisms that prevent mutations. We would have thought that mutations ought to be naturally uninhibited, but they are in fact restricted. Even the Nylon-eating Bacteria example used by Darwinists fundamentally supports intelligent design.
Natural selection does not produce new genes; it only selects from pre-existing ones. They claim that mutations from radiation not only contributed to the development of life (in all its harmony within the complexity) but when they say “natural selection” they expect the listener to believe that small variations are the missing links to future life forms with completely different structures. But if one asks for the evidence of mutational advance were by which one life form develops into a different structure from reproduction or mutations,
1. they many times want to change the subject;
2. they’ll just say that it is happening more often but they never show evidence for it;
3. they try to backup and try to disown irreducible complexity or say that natural selection has nothing to with the complexity of life, as a result they invalidate Darwinism themselves;
4. they submit an scientifically antiquated and outdated links from the talkorigins website about speciation that mostly deals with plants and three unrelated fruit fly examples that has absolutely NOTHING to do with Mutational ADVANCE.
5. Others just rehearse arrogantly how unreligious they are and commence firing “random” obscenities at all those who “dare defy the great prophet Charles Darwin," founder of the RELIGION of Darwinism, venerated by Atheists and the Secular Humanists around the world.
The point is that they themselves cannot demonstrate it.
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
FORMER ATHEIST at 10:32AM on Apr 2nd 2008
5. shannon,
you are mistaken. atheism is most certainly a religion. you have your dogma,you have your shared view, you have your practice,especially the hatred of other religions specifically christianity. yes its true
brian at 11:14AM on Apr 2nd 2008
6. Former Atheist, I'm shocked and amazed that you posted something other than links to your websites. Thanks for finally contributing to the conversation after months of spam.
Strados at 11:18AM on Apr 2nd 2008
7. When discussing evolution in the classroom, we were presented with some scientific facts, presented with possibilities and encouraged to ponder and question the information we were given. Never once was it suggested that evolution was proof that God did not exist.
In church, we were taught that creation was the only way, and we were forbidden to question that.
Which is more conducive to producing intelligent, thoughtful, productive human beings?
Or is that not the goal here?
Which is more productive to a childs development?
tay at 11:18AM on Apr 2nd 2008
8. DoubleD, you are now the legal jesuit creating a wedge to defeat Darwinism in the courts. Hopefully we will not see a new anti-reformation that you are espousing.
You seem to be very fearful of science. If Darwin is such a threat to your religion, christianity isn't as great as you would like us to believe.
JefFlyingV at 11:24AM on Apr 2nd 2008
9. brian: "atheism is most certainly a religion. you have your dogma,you have your shared view, you have your practice,especially the hatred of other religions specifically christianity."
You do not believe Muhammad was God's Prophet, but I wouldn't call that a dogma. I don't believe that the Biblical God is real, and that's not dogma either. I don't worship at the altar of Charles Darwin, although I feel his work has merit. The view I share with other atheists is that there is no supernatural being. On other issues, I may disagree strongly. I am not a liberal, I'm libertarian, although I would say the majority of atheists are liberals. So, brian, what part of that is a "religion"? The reason that people like DD and you think evolution is taught in an atheistic way is because ALL science is atheistic. It never relies on faith. Every time science takes a step forward, religion retreats. Christians are drawing the battle lines on the evolution issue because they are losing the struggle for people's minds. People are often too damn smart these days to just blindly accept something on faith.
AndrewV at 11:26AM on Apr 2nd 2008
10. Shannon,
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
re·li·gion Audio Help /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
By those various unbiased definitions of the word, atheism is in fact a religion. Having beliefs that there is no God and having ethics/morals dictated as such is still following a set of beliefs, and adhering to the specifics as such.
But you could use the other definition not in the dictionary. Since a religion can be tax-exempt, and the last I checked there wasn't any group of atheists allowed to be tax-exempt, then atheism is NOT a religion that can be promoted.
I guess it depends on your point of view. But strictly speaking by definition, believing in a lack of something is still a belief.
Strados at 11:26AM on Apr 2nd 2008
11. Ok Dinesh, there is simply no way you are serious about this. Firstly, science texbooks teach science, not atheism. And you well know that no science textbook is going to make reference to a god or gods. Evolution in biology texts don't teach that god is dead, they teach evolution by natural selection. To say that a biology text is a "threat" to religion because it doesn't include the god you happen to believe in is a bit like saying math class is a threat for the same reason.
What are you suggesting here, rather disingenuously I think, is that the the absence of religion material in science books constitutes a violation of the establishment clause. This is utterly ridiculous. What you are suggesting is that any text book that doesn't contain religion - specifically Christianity - is promoting atheism and therefore a school board should be sued. Frankly, I took your for being a little brighter than to use the tepid and dishonest arguments of the Discovery Institute set.
Should atheism, as a philosophy, be taught in a science class. No. That is not even the place for it. What you do it teach science, which by its very nature, as you well known Dinesh, doesn't discuss god. That doesn't mean a science class is promoting atheism over religion, it means its just teaching what science is.
Grant LaFleche at 11:27AM on Apr 2nd 2008
12. ". shannon,
you are mistaken. atheism is most certainly a religion. you have your dogma,you have your shared view, you have your practice,especially the hatred of other religions specifically christianity. yes its true"
Really? Ok Shannon, please tell us what the "dogma" of atheism is. Please tell us what the atheist "practice" exactly.
Grant LaFleche at 11:30AM on Apr 2nd 2008
13. Interesting. What I remember from biology class (both in high school and in college) is that Darwin's name only came up once or twice. As in, "In 'The Origin of Species' by Charles Darwin...". Never once did anyone hint that believing in (or studying) evolution was promoting atheism.
Also:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I don't see anthing in there that says that you're not free to NOT practice religion. That's where the 'free exercise' part comes in.
X at 11:39AM on Apr 2nd 2008
14. I just had this KARAYZEE idea! Social Studies classes can teach us about demographics and what their values are, and Science class can teach... SCIENCE!
Mokele-Mobembe at 11:41AM on Apr 2nd 2008
15. I'd like to quote a web author by the name of Akusai, who basically says atheism is being proclaimed a religion because a lot of atheists are acting that way.
"Need I remind anyone that atheism is an unposition held by an individual independently of other beliefs or ideas? To continue defying the "atheism is another religion" canard, atheists have to stop acting like it fucking is one. There is no "we" or "us." There are no permanent shared goals, no communal mindset."
The whole article is here:
http://actionskeptics.blogspot.com/2007/04/atheist-labelling.html
Strados at 11:42AM on Apr 2nd 2008