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 6 of 68)
76. To the jobless bloggers, or to those whose job it is to blog.
If you believe in what you hear, then sing to a brick wall. If you believe in logic, you won't believe in anything that is spit back and forth between you bloggers.
It's time for a change, truth, not more crap.
Joseph at 1:24PM on Apr 2nd 2008
77.
Teaching evolution is not imposing atheism on anyone. Many Christians believe in the existence of a god who caused things to evolve.
Science does not concern itself with god, not because of some hatred for the supernatural, but because we have to be able to have empirical, verifiable evidence to be able to determine fact from fiction. If science used 'god' as the answer to every question--where would the state of science be?
Anytime you insert the supernatural into science, it's akin to using something as unwieldy as Santa Claus to explain why we ultimately have presents at Christmas time. You start concocting all kinds of magical explanations as to how the presents got there and, ultimately, this distracts from the more obvious solution which is: No superpower had to be present to make those presents appear. Science never says 'There is no god' because that conclusion is irrelevant in science. Just as the Santa Claus explanation is pretty much irrelevant as to the explanation of who brings us gifts each year. SCIENTISTS have concluded there is no god because science shows no evidence of one--which is a totally different statement.
Sophia Rox at 1:26PM on Apr 2nd 2008
78. "Botts
Do you like The New Jerusalem version? It is beautifully written; the language I mean." Jane
From what I've read, it's extremely poetic and beautifully written. Not necessarily accurate, but beautiful. No doubt.
Botts at 1:27PM on Apr 2nd 2008
79. Janesophie=
That would depend on a person's interpretation.
If God is a force of intelligence. Then Yes, I love God for the things created. If God wants subordination for these things in religion, then the answer is No.
If God is a breeder. Then Yes, I love God for the beauty and intelligence created. If God wants subordination for these things in religion, then the answer is No.
If God simply wants to rule. Then No, I do not love God.
Joseph at 1:30PM on Apr 2nd 2008
80.
Thanks, Botts. The NSRV sounds like it may be just what I was looking for. There are so many versions to choose from, it is hard to make a choice.
janesophie: I like the idea of a version that is gender neutral. Makes more sense given how much of religion is a guess that became a belief.
While "God" may be easier to say or write, for me the definition of that is not necessarily the God that is described in any religious text but more along the lines of "that which caused us to be."
I think that idea is much more open minded to all the possibilities, even the possibility that what caused us is not an intelligent being/spirit.
But I like information and since the Bible is the primary source of information about Christianity, I want to read and understand more of it than I have thus far.
So thanks again Botts, janesophie and Ryan!
FL Chick at 1:34PM on Apr 2nd 2008
81. "What evidence is there, like Mr. D'Souza mentioned, is there that God did not cause the changes that Darwin noticed as "evolution"?"
--------------------------------------------
What? Does Chris know how ridiculous this sounds. You can insert ANYTHING for the word "god" and the sentence makes the same amount of sense: None.
Linda at 1:34PM on Apr 2nd 2008
82.
I know that Joseph does not believe in the Saber Tooth Cat. That is his right. I still would like to discuss the ethics of cloning extinct animals like the Saber Tooth Cat or Woolly Mammoth. I think we should not be attempting to revive these animals. The environment is different. It would be reckless to introduce them to contemporary habitats.
janesophie1 at 1:35PM on Apr 2nd 2008
83. Grant Lefleche-
Brain dead. The mayan and inca civilizations were the first panama canal. They moved supplies from the atlantic fleet to the pacific, to colonize the west.
There are no fossils of sabretooth, it is a creation to fool you. Fossils don't survive unless they are underwater in sediment that replaces the cartilage or boney structures.
Your a fool for believing what you hear. Why don't you pray to a brick wall or something.
Joseph at 1:40PM on Apr 2nd 2008
84. Janesophie: thanks for responding to me, but since there is no "god", your point is moot.
Seriously, about extinct animals, there has never been enough DNA found to be able to clone one.
Only in Jurassic Park, the movie.
Linda at 1:40PM on Apr 2nd 2008
85. I think we should revive the T. Rex! Yes, revive the dinosaur. Oh wait, John McCain is still alive and kicking!
America's Most Gangsta at 1:41PM on Apr 2nd 2008
86. FL Chick
The problem with gender neutral language is that sometimes it can take away from the original meaning of the passage. I would get a comparative bible so you can read two or three versions at a time and compare.
janesophie1 at 1:41PM on Apr 2nd 2008
87. janesophie1,
Who said we'be releasing them into the wild? They could be kept in a zoo or biodome (if you think zoos are ethical enough). Strict security is important.
Mokele-Mobembe at 1:43PM on Apr 2nd 2008
88. brian says , "did you know that only 2% of americans are strict atheist..also 8% are reported to be agnostic."
janesophie1 says, "People stay away from Christianity because ... Most people are too arrogant to allow God to be the ruler of their lives."
Christians, in general must be concentrating real hard on those 10% to be able to imagine that they are somehow the majority of people.
brian, DD etc, seem to be scrutinizing the 2%! By 'scrutinizing' I mean misrepresenting, demonizing, denigrating, scoffing at, horrified by etc.
I don't think that brian agrees with much of what DD says. In fact I don't think that brian understands much of what DD is saying.
I DO think that brian knows that DD is 'dissing' atheists and that he(brian) wants 'in on the "fun"'.
It seems to work like the sycophants guffawing with the schoolyard bully, willfully ignorant of their own ignorance.
not-pboyfloyd at 1:47PM on Apr 2nd 2008
89. Linda
It would be better to state since I don't believe in God, as opposed to since there is no God.
janesophie1 at 1:48PM on Apr 2nd 2008
90. Mokele=
Jurassic Park is America. T-Rex is being bred in churches everywhere, to pass down those original genes to people who need them. And at the same time, they are in a prison, to be exsponged when the time comes.
Joseph at 1:50PM on Apr 2nd 2008