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 7 of 68)
91. @ Joseph.
I think that you should take your medication, before you end up wondering the streets!
not-pboyfloyd at 1:50PM on Apr 2nd 2008
92. jane, why is it necessary for me to cater to your set of beliefs?
JefFlyingV at 1:55PM on Apr 2nd 2008
93. D' Souza's argument could have been applied to the "theories" that the earth revolves around the sun, the earth is round, or that the moon does not generate light. I'm not sure, but I'll bet many atheists believe in human digestion. Is this guilt by association reason to stop teaching about the function of internal organs?
augiemoe at 1:58PM on Apr 2nd 2008
94. Mokele-Mobembe
I hate zoos, but realize they are important to preserving species. Soon, we will only have tigers, rhinos, etc. in zoos. I think it would be cruel to revive a species (if it is ever possible) and store it in a zoo.
janesophie1 at 1:55PM on Apr 2nd 2008
95. not-pboyfloyd-
Same ole, same ole. When you can't defeat an argument, you resort to stupidity. Oh, he must be on drugs. I don't understand the truth.
You can't handle the truth, maybe you should get some drugs to help you.
Joseph at 1:55PM on Apr 2nd 2008
96. @janesophie1, you say "It would be better to state since I don't believe in God, as opposed to since there is no God."
You seem to be under the delusion that atheists just don't like the idea of God 'being in charge' or something.
Atheists don't believe that there ARE any gods, not even one!
As a Christian yourself, it is probably hard to imagine that anyone could not believe that there was any gods at all, so you no doubt disregard that and imagine that atheism must be another religion like yours, stripped down to ignore "GOD!"
You might imagine atheists thinking, "I don't care what GOD says, I'll do things MY WAY!"
But that's not how it is. To an atheist, that way of thinking would be like a child thinking, "I don't care if Santa brings me presents, I'll be bad anyways!"
I am just wondering if you can even see the giant chasm between your worldview and atheist's worldview?
not-pboyfloyd at 1:59PM on Apr 2nd 2008
97. You people just don't seem to get it.
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 controlled.
You say you are a new species, as in evolution. But you can't seem to stick around unless you continue to make more of yourselves from the species you deemed to have evolved from.
Joseph at 2:01PM on Apr 2nd 2008
98. @ Joseph.
I'm not saying that you're on drugs at all. I'm saying that you 'sound' schizophrenic! If you don't have medication for that, go see your doc!
not-pboyfloyd at 2:01PM on Apr 2nd 2008
99. Re:
It would be better to state since I don't believe in God, as opposed to since there is no God.
janesophie
Actually, Linda's first assertion is more accurate as there is absolutely no concrete evidence that proves the existence of any god. The burden of proof always falls on the person making the assertion so it is the same as you saying to Linda, 'It would be better to state since I don't believe in unicorns, as opposed to since there are no unicorns.'
If one can't prove their assertion without at least one shred of evidence, it's perfectly reasonable, until any evidence appears, to conclude that there are no unicorns...or gods, in this case.
Sophia Rox at 2:02PM on Apr 2nd 2008
100. Joseph, the only purpose you are serving is to drive up the post count. I'm not even reading all your crap. STFU.
AndrewV at 2:03PM on Apr 2nd 2008
101. Linda,
They recently found a hadrosaur with petrified skin. Just thought you'd find that interesting.
In the future I want to ride a Utahraptor to work every day, and chain it up in the municipal parking zoo! Scratch that /// I want to work from home, but take dates for moonlit rides on my brontosaurus. By my brontosaurus I mean my [content has been removed by an administrator]!
Mokele-Mobembe at 2:04PM on Apr 2nd 2008
102. Mokele: You would, you funky sauropod.
AndrewV at 2:05PM on Apr 2nd 2008
103. The problem with religious faith is that since it is not based upon either reason or natural phenomena it can not support or deny either reason or natural phenomena. And because science is based upon both reason and natural phenomena it has nothing to say about supernatural religious faith.Free exercise of religion and opinion are both guaranteed in our system which has no religion nor opinion beyond the law.
PF at 4:14PM on Apr 2nd 2008
104. Sophia=
Unicorns are white males who Peg-a-sister (Pegasus). It's how the white race has remained after it was defeated in Greece. God, the King, was considered a tyrant (T-Rex).
The majority will always believe those in charge are tyranical, because they simply don't have the education.
Joseph at 2:07PM on Apr 2nd 2008
105. I bet he is Ada Calhouns goofy god-tube posting (creationist whatever it was 2 months ago) come to life.
JefFlyingV at 2:10PM on Apr 2nd 2008