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 2 of 68)
16. 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
17. 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
18. Science is indifferent to religion. Can this indifference be labelled atheistic?
JefFlyingV at 11:47AM on Apr 2nd 2008
19. Guys, Shannon said Atheism is NOT a religion. And, by Strados' multiple definitions in #11, "Atheism" is most definitely NOT a religion. Purpose of creation?
Oh, and Strados? A Former Atheist just cut and pasted that post. He's done that before. He didn't write that. I don't think he can write anything.
Linda at 11:47AM on Apr 2nd 2008
20. Any explanation of the origin of the universe is cannot be conclusively argued for or against using science. Or of the origin of man. Or of anything else!
Darwinism, ID, creationism, etc. don't belong in science class. Period.
Again I'll state, scientists (especially) and others need to recognize the limitations of their field. A musician cannot expect to apply even the most complex and sound music theory to define the workings of an e-mail system of a multi-national corporation.
Chris G. at 11:49AM on Apr 2nd 2008
21. DD at will changes the definition of Darwinism between atheism and evolution. Evolution is a theory, and a belief if you choose it. Darwinist evolution is not atheism, but completely agnostic (i.e. independent, mutually exclusive) to deism. It neither proves nor disproves deism. To label it as a strictly atheist dogma to fashion it into a religious tenet is completely deliberate and disingenuous.
Mokele-Mobembe at 11:52AM on Apr 2nd 2008
22. I agree, all people are stupid. Raised stupid, then profess they are right, just to be proven wrong. It's called chaos. Not intelligent DESIGN!
When someone 'tries' to organize the truth, another religion is designed to confuse the people. This keeps people in power, in power! Athiesm is another religion. Desire to belong to a mutant race is a religion. Literary science is a religion.
Create a newer and higher language, then call others stupid. Then you will be just a newer model to the one's you are calling stupid. And man's descent is now inevitable. And the world will swing from trees as it once did.
It happens every two hundred years. US is at 232.
Joseph at 11:56AM on Apr 2nd 2008
23. No, evolution doesn't disprove god(s). (It's called "evolution" - the only people who really call it Darwinism are those ideologically opposed to evolution. If there were a organized opposition to Relativity, it'd be called "Einsteinism".) As I've noted before, all it does is weaken a particular argument *for* god(s), the "argument from apparent design in biology". That used to be a "slam dunk" and now evolution shows that it's not.
Too many people confuse 'undermining a case for god(s)' with 'actively arguing against god(s)'. Eventually people will get used to it. Recall that Napoleon asked Laplace, back in the day, why there was no mention of God in his treatise on celestial mechanics. Laplace replied "I had no need of that hypothesis". Nobody considers celestial mechanics to be an argument against god(s) - well, not anymore, anyway. Took a few centuries, though.
Ray Ingles at 11:58AM on Apr 2nd 2008
24. JefFlyingV,
Agnostic is the proper term for the indifference you speak of. For example, case-insensitive languages in computer science are also called case-agnostic. Agnosia is an inability to identify or recognize objects and stimuli perceived by the senses. The information is received, but the mind is indifferent to it.
Mokele-Mobembe at 11:58AM on Apr 2nd 2008
25. "Darwinism, ID, creationism, etc. don't belong in science class. Period."
Then why don't we teach Disney and other fairy tales in science class instead? And call it fantasy? If you are not going to teach science (for example, evolution) in science class, then what will you teach there?
Poetry?
brandon at 12:00PM on Apr 2nd 2008
26. Right on, Joseph. Religious institutions have amassed vast amounts of power and money, funded by their tax-exempt statuses.
This is a world-wide occurence, not just in the US. In Denmark, everyone pays a 1% tax to the "state religion" automatically, regardless of their religious persuasion. The irony of that is that few Danish people attend church anymore.
Moke: thanks for writing what I was thinking.
Linda at 12:01PM on Apr 2nd 2008
27. I think I see a flaw in your argument, D'Souza.
You say, "All that is necessary is to parade the atheist claims.."
These 'atheist claims' would have to be in text books right?
Can you cite any text books with any atheist claims?
Go ahead!
not-pboyfloyd at 12:02PM on Apr 2nd 2008
28. Okay guys,
I think Darwin was on to something . . . natural selection. Nobody ever told me the entire time that it meant I had to abandon my belief in God. I actually think the two fit quite nicely together, one telling me how it happened, the other telling me why.
Personally, I think it is a good thing that we question exactly how God may or may not do things. It challenges us to find answers; it forces us to constantly reassess. That is called growth. I believe that when we try to hold on to an antiquated idea because it is safe, we not only deny ourselves, but we diminish God. If you look at a lot of the so called bad guys of science, you'll see them echo much the same sentiment.
The info is out there and won't go away. Maybe to look at it with open eyes, trusting in God, we'll actually see it as not a threat.
mrbline at 12:03PM on Apr 2nd 2008
29. BTW, I'm not able to find any examples of public schools using textbooks by William Provine or Richard Dawkins; indeed, I can't seem to find anything like a school textbook written by either. Can anyone point out a clear example of an actual case of this happening in the real world?
Ray Ingles at 12:05PM on Apr 2nd 2008
30. Still, you people banter endlessly!
The Bible is a compilation of books written by pharoahs. Genesis- Pharoah Moses I. It was their ideas on how everything started, because writing hadn't been invented yet when the events occurred.
How the Universe started is a different debate from how did the human universe started.
It is now used to educate people to abstract language. People who have a brain learn a new language from reading it. They coalesce from the different interpretations & create alliances to disadvantage others, those they consider Neandrathal.
Anyone who believes their is a God, is used by those malicious enough to use them as slaves. Aka- Egypt, the first church on the planet. It started out as a prison. Greece, home of the original ape, was constantly at war. The prisoners were used as an army, and the first civilization fell.
End of story. You bible thumpers should know this, if you 'able' to read the book you speak of. But of course Cain killed Able.
Decaying atoms in the darkness of space formed into rock, then planetoid bodies, as they grew over billions of years, they developed molten cores under the pressure, after billions more years they developed into stars just like our Sun. It happened all over the Universe. No Big Bang.
Earth was a swamp world, most dinosaur fossils are fish! Cartilage from aquatic animals fossilize into what we see today, bones decay from the elements. As the polar regions of our planet froze, the earths crust twisted and cracked, creating the land and the oceans. No island of Pangia.
Joseph at 12:05PM on Apr 2nd 2008