My blog last week on how science classes and science textbooks cannot legally promote atheism in any way brought a torrential response. Interestingly no one questioned my constitutional argument that if the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment protects both religion and atheism, then the "no establishment" clause forbids any agency of the government from advancing either.
Let's remember that the constitutional standard is very exacting. If a single public school teacher handed out bibles to his students, this would constitute a violation of the "no establishment" clause because no organ of the state is permitted to advance religion even to a slight degree. By the same standard, any statements made by biology teachers or biology textbooks that advance atheism would constitute violations of the First Amendment because they would involve a state institution in the promotion of atheism.
From the usual suspects--including, it turns out, one law professor who has worked to prevent creationism in the public schools--comes an unusual defense. We hear that there are no textbooks that are being used to promote atheism! There are no teachers who make atheist statements in the classroom! Evidently I have been blogging about a problem that does not exist.
Really? How can these ideologues be so confident of what is not happening? In my research for What's So Great About Christianity I did turn up some suggestive quotations from leading biologists with an atheist agenda.
Here is Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson in his widely-assigned book On Human Nature: "If humankind evolved by Darwinian natural selection, genetic chance and environmental necessity, not God, made the species."
Biologist Stephen Jay Gould writes in his essay in the book Darwin's Legacy: "No intervening spirit watches lovingly over the affairs of nature...whatever we think of God, his existence is not manifest in the products of nature."
Douglas Futuyma asserts in his textbook Evolutionary Biology: "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."
Biologist William Provine writes, "Modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws...We must conclude that when we die, we die, and that is the end of us." Evolution, Provine has also said, is the "greatest engine of atheism."
In his essay on "Darwin's Revolution" in the book Creative Evolution, Francisco Ayala credits Darwin with proving that life is "the result of a natural process...without any need to resort to a Creator."
I suspect these quotations are merely the tip of the iceberg. Biologist Kenneth Miller--a star witness on behalf of evolution in recent court cases--writes in his book Finding Darwin's God that "a presumption of atheism or agnosticism is universal in academic life...The conventions of academic life, almost universally, revolve around the assumption that religious belief is something that people grow out of as they become educated."
I'd like to see a systematic study of whether, and to what degree, atheist views are being smuggled into biology classrooms. Such a study should be welcomed by all who want to protect science from unwarranted ideological manipulation. Even so, I can understand the eagerness of atheist ideologues to avoid such an inquiry. After all, their "open mindedness" is largely a pose. They are open-minded about facts that support their ideology and closed-minded about facts that don't.
What remains beyond dispute is that the quotations given above are not strictly scientific. At best, they are metaphysical conclusions or interpretations that are being drawn from biological evolution. At worst, they are atheist propaganda masquerading as science. They constitute the promotion of an anti-religious ideology in the public schools, and when they show up Christians can do better than to say, "That's not nice." They can insist before the courts, "That's against the law."
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 58)
1. hm.
I'm not sure that atheists are slowly injecting their poison into our school systems . . . besides, American students are so sucky at science, shouldn't we be focusing more on teaching algebra so kids can learn chemistry, and not 'did god do it or not?' . . .
the fact is, if it's true that academe is resoundingly atheist/agnostic, it's not out of spite or arrogance (for many this is not the case, but they are jerks, and all ideologies have a whole lot of jerks) but rather a need to take a fully objective view, and not leave any matters to faith. Putting ones mind in this mode allows for exquisite ideas to manifest sans numbing social concerns, and we must admit: faith leads to religion which is a cultural device, and inherantly acquires cultural impositions - counterintuitive to academia, as is evident through out history (No!, said the church, The sun spins round the Earth!)
Not to mention that many of the worlds top scholars are men and women of admirable faith and belong to religious orders that would be offended to have their quest for truth skewed as atheistic.
I'm not one of them, but they're out there!
This just seems like a hastily-crafted, paranoid rant.
sarah at 3:31AM on Apr 7th 2008
2. DoubleD, are these High School textbooks or are they College textbooks?
Can science be taught with a religious theme?
DoubleD, if chriastianity (your catholicism) is so great, how is science (personified by Darwin) a threat?
JefFlyingV at 4:32AM on Apr 7th 2008
3. Christian math>
t + t = ttt. Oh look, a miracle.
JefFlyingV at 4:38AM on Apr 7th 2008
4. The best example of God in Science is Issac Newton, which is considered the patriarch of modern physics, the so called atheists of atheists, where religion and the occult is not part of the equation. But even Newton was a great believer of the occult, of alchemy. The basic fact is that perhaps our human mind can't digest the fact that life and existence can be reduced to mere equations. Many premier scientists remark God in various comments, such as Albert Einstein remark that "God does not play dice with the universe".
Nadlan at 4:39AM on Apr 7th 2008
5. Oops, looks like DD is lying as usual. Of the five quotes that he gives, only one is from a book that might be used as a textbook in a public school biology class. And that one just says that no supernatural entity is required to explain evolution, which of course is true, and which of course is not a declaration that there are no gods.
Now of course it is true that the theory of evolution is in conflict with certain religious doctrines. But if you want to throw out ALL science that is in conflict with ANY religious doctrine, then you'll have to pretty much do away with all of science.
Do DD and his ilk really want that? I don't think so. They know that science is necessary for the functioning of a modern economy, if for nothing else. Maybe they just want the masses to remain ignorant?
Joe Bob at 5:52AM on Apr 7th 2008
6. Faith in God and salvation through Jesus Christ cannot be removed by anything never mind psuido science. One has it doesn't and it as simple as that.
davey at 5:57AM on Apr 7th 2008
7. By the way, I adhere to the Yoruba religion, and we believe that lightening is caused by the god Chango, who uses it to increase his sexual energy. I take offense at physics books that try to force me to believe that it's just a natural electrical discharge, with no supernatural cause, reason, or purpose! I'm going to find me a good lawyer...
Joe Bob at 6:07AM on Apr 7th 2008
8. Nadian, Issac Newton was also into alchemy big-time, and that turned out to be totally wrong. And you forgot to mention this quote from Einstein:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Joe Bob at 6:20AM on Apr 7th 2008
9. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... "
Dinesh, you fail to understand that science is not promoting atheism ... they are only trying to give the best explanation for how the world works. So while a thousand years ago, nature could be easily explained with: that is how God did it. We have since found more naturalistic explanations that have done away with this sprititual and unknown power. And let us face the truth ... it was your own church who trained and then encouraged many of these first men of science to go out and explore the wonders that God hath wrought. It isn't their fault that they could find no mysterious hand of God as being the only explanation. Perhaps your real venom, instead of being aimed at Darwin should be thrown on Gutenberg for bringing printing and reading to the masses. I think if you want a better way to destroy atheism, then ban all books and schooling ... the masses were far more accepting of the Bible for those 1500 years when few could even read it!
JimCO at 6:27AM on Apr 7th 2008
10. I have a honours degree in applied science and have taught physics and mathematics at college but I love the Lord Jesus with all of my heart and am a firm believer in creation. There isn't anything that can remove my faith. I am a protestant by the way.
davey at 7:09AM on Apr 7th 2008
11. joe bob your comments on your so called religion are about as big as your brain by the sounds of it
davey at 7:11AM on Apr 7th 2008
12. http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
AN ATHEIST NO MORE at 7:23AM on Apr 7th 2008
13. I'm about 99% certain that none of the books listed here are used in public school classrooms.
Collegiate level courses, perhaps, but not grade school science.
Interesting arguement. Still no evidence. Use books that are cited as being used in the classroom.
Strados at 7:31AM on Apr 7th 2008
14. DD,
once more right on with evolution ultimately trying to say there is no god. this is becoming more and more apparent especially as one reads the dialogue on this blog. if evolution is true why do we need a creator? if we do not need a creator then that opens up exactly what atheist are really after and thats the moral issues that a "GOD" requires and desires his creation to follow and there is the real rub that atheist have. get rid of god and you get rid of his moral law,presto you try and take the voice of christians away.
but when you get rid of morality and it is replaced by decadence you get attacks on us by radical muslims who hate our decadent culture. so evolution has and agenda for atheist.
brian at 7:42AM on Apr 7th 2008
15. single-minded dope masquerading as intellectual
America's Most Gangsta at 7:43AM on Apr 7th 2008