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 4 of 68)
46. brian,
"so we give you 10% of the population telling the other 90% they are wrong. guess what? i'll side with the 90%. would you?"
By that argument I should vote Obama like 90% of my black brotherhood.
Mokele-Mobembe at 12:35PM on Apr 2nd 2008
47. Sophia- Thor was created when a fat white ape fathered children with emanciated slaves. They inbred to preserve the white.
White people are black, and black people are white.
Their eyes turned blue from a form of albinoism.
Joseph at 12:36PM on Apr 2nd 2008
48. Botts
One of the problems with the New Revised Standard is the use gender neutral language. I think the Revised Standard Version is better.
janesophie1 at 12:38PM on Apr 2nd 2008
49. Mokele-
If one person pioneers a new science, only one fraction of a percent is aware of the knowledge.
I wouldn't side with the 90%. They are the workforce and are not exposed to the truth!
Joseph at 12:39PM on Apr 2nd 2008
50. rev, all I have seen from your posts, is the type of narrow uneducated fool that fundamentalists want to create. You (and others like you) are the best examples of why we should not walk down the theocratic path. Your words may be slightly different, but you are the same as the radical muslim. You and your type are a threat to America and Americans.
JefFlyingV at 12:41PM on Apr 2nd 2008
51. Botts
One of the problems with the New Revised Standard is the use of gender neutral language. I think the Revised Standard Version is better.
janesophie1 at 12:45PM on Apr 2nd 2008
52. brian,
This was my message to you on the last blog in case you missed it. With that, be well.
"it came to me what the deal is with atheist and being gay. its not christians who make them feel bad for theit sin. its the sn itself. they are weighted down by their sin. same as anyone else. they try hard to justify what they do because we humans have justice built into us by god. we all want to have a sense of being right. if there is no god right or wrong do not exist. so whats the fight about? its the weight of doing and being wrong. thats exactly what it is. and the price they pay is the continual fighting within and without to be justified. place the blame not on christians but on the weight of their sin bearing down on them. searing your concious just does not work. you need a savior to deliver you from sin. thus the weight is on jesus' shoulders" brian
Brother brian,
First, let me say thank you for your civil message. Also, it seems that your message was well thought out, and at least that is a start. This opens dialog where we can understand things. More importantly, we can try to get a grasp of what our world is now and how it's different from thousands of years ago.
My response to your well thought out message is as follow:
Just because someone doesn't believe in God, doesn't mean that they don't know right from wrong. Believing or Knowing God doesn't give the believers and knowers the authority to say so.
As you know, I am a believer that Gays are born the way they are. It's not a behavior or choice. Therefore I don't consider it wrong and also not a sin. But having sexual relations outside of or before marraige is a sin whether it is with someone of the same sex or not. That is clear.
In regards to Atheists, I was one for a long time. I didn't feel bad or think that I was wrong in any way. I helped others and I had tremendous meaning in my life.
God isn't here to give you meaning. If you think so, you are mistaken. God is here because God is here. That's all there is to it.
Believing that you go somewhere after you die if you follow the rules accordingly should not give you added meaning.
Life in itself is meaningful. We find Love, we have kids, we try to make a difference. Knowing God can your cause with these things, but not believing in or Knowing God will not hurt your cause either.
That's my take on it, and I am certainly open to dialog on the issues.
Botts at 12:51PM on Apr 2nd 2008
53. Here is a review of Dawkins' book which compares, "The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution by Richard Dawkins" to Dawkins other works.
by Michael Behe. Yes, THAT Michael Behe.
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_ancestorstalereview_0506.htm
Seems any ACTUAL school textbooks written by Dawkins are overlooked, which is surprising since Behe compares "The Ancestor's Tale' to a school textbook!
not-pboyfloyd at 12:46PM on Apr 2nd 2008
54. It's hard to tell when Joseph is being facetious, satirical, or serious.
Mokele-Mobembe at 12:50PM on Apr 2nd 2008
55. "Botts
One of the problems with the New Revised Standard is the use of gender neutral language. I think the Revised Standard Version is better." Jane
Hi Jane,
Yes, you are correct about it's neutrality towards Gender, however, it is still the less evil of all the other ones.
The UBS Greek New Testament is the way to go, but it is hard to read and you have to give yourself patience to learn it. But by far, nothing can be misconstrued in it.
Botts at 12:53PM on Apr 2nd 2008
56. America was lost after only 15 years. Independence was outlawed 12-15-1791. There's nothing to save.
Fundamentalists are actually written into almost every State Constitution. It is the law that we return to fundamentalism whenever the psychopaths (that would be the God Ra, as in Sun's Ray) have taken us from the core of our existence, family.
The US was founded against religion, to be independent from breeding. Religion reasserted itself by force 12-15-1791. If you are a student of any science, you will discover we are divided then united, so that every person has a different face. The united Nations of the earth.
Joseph at 12:51PM on Apr 2nd 2008
57. Teaching science and evolution is not an endorsement of Atheism. You just think it is because knowledge is the natural enemy of religion. Keep the people dumb and you can control them. That’s what religion has done for centuries. The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. But the fictional story of some “god” making everything is just ridicules. Maybe the Asian story of the world being on the back of a stack of turtles should be taught in schools also? Science and evolution are valid “school” subjects and should be taught in school, your religious stories are not and can be taught in you church or home.
John at 12:55PM on Apr 2nd 2008
58. dd wrote:
The real problem with Darwinism in the public school classroom is
that it is often taught in an atheist way.
******************************************
To the contrary, I think the problem is that Atheism is taught in a
Darwinian way.
America's Most Gangsta at 12:56PM on Apr 2nd 2008
59. The theory of Evolution should be taught in science class and the creation stories in a humanities class. I think this would solve the problem. Incidentally, what do you all think of efforts to clone the Woolly Mammoth or Saber Tooth Cat? I think we should not be reviving these animals. The environment is completely different now. Where would you place them? It could prove dangerous.
janesophie1 at 12:55PM on Apr 2nd 2008
60. Botts
Do you like The New Jerusalem version? It is beautifully written; the language I mean.
janesophie1 at 12:56PM on Apr 2nd 2008