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 2 of 58)
16. 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
17. I think this is a great strategy. I wonder if there are groups already working on this? or is this something new?
Judging by the original ideas that seem to flow from DD i wouldnt be surprised!!!!
kumar at 7:44AM on Apr 7th 2008
18. so whats the solution? fair and balanced just like fox news!!!! teach both devolution and creationsim and let people decide whether they want to believe a lie or the truth. rational people will side with creationism
brian at 7:48AM on Apr 7th 2008
19. brian...I couldn't help but read you saying FOX news was "fair and balanced". Either you have an under-appreciated sense of humor or we live in parallel dimensions. Fox News is some of the most sensationalized, biased, self-serving fecal matter I've seen passed off as journalism.
And I'd like to note...it's possible to seem balanced while spinning like a top.
Strados at 7:54AM on Apr 7th 2008
20. One fatal flaw in your argument D'ouche, well the first paragraph anyway, I didn't get past that tripe. Atheism is not a religion. No Free exercise, no establishment clause.
You just can't grasp that anyone cannot survive without an organized religion. You think Catholic, hindu and atheism are all differant "sects", they're not.
Dennis at 8:07AM on Apr 7th 2008
21. davey,
1) My religion is just as valid as yours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoruba_mythology
2) Wow, you teach physics and math in college! What college would that be?
3) You might be interested in a favorite topic of mine, "Miraculous Mathematics". Whenever you run into difficulties proving a theorem, you just say "And then a miracle happens!", and "poof", the theorem is proven, Q.E.D.
Joe Bob at 8:09AM on Apr 7th 2008
22. Oooooohhhhh, an atheist agenda. Stating that science does not require anything to fill in the gaps of knowledge, they're smart enough to say they don't know until new data comes in.
Atheism is not a religion.
Dennis at 8:12AM on Apr 7th 2008
23. Atheism is a religion, just like:
1) not collecting stamps is a hobby
2) not playing baseball is a sport
3) "bald" is a hair color
...
Joe Bob at 8:19AM on Apr 7th 2008
24. Exactly Joe Bob, thanks for that clarification.
Dennis at 8:22AM on Apr 7th 2008
25. Dinesh; "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"
We didn't need to because atheism is not a religion.
brian; the solution is to teach science in science class.
Ryan Anderson at 8:27AM on Apr 7th 2008
26. strados,
the fox thing was thrown in there like a worm on a hook. knowing a liberal would bite,thanks!! but surely you do not think nbc,cbs or abc are fair and balanced?
brian at 8:29AM on Apr 7th 2008
27. Dinesh,
Well said and well done!
Devon at 8:39AM on Apr 7th 2008
28. D'ouche "suspects" this is the tip of the iceberg? Dude, you did research for your book, right? Five entire lines out of 5 full books, or 100 books is all you found??
Your supposition is full of crap.
Dennis at 8:44AM on Apr 7th 2008
29. Thanks D'ouche, your usual doublespeak is circular at best, this straightforward supposition is like shooting fish in a barrel, thanks again! Go back to obfuscating and you'll get more support from the proud uninformed 19%.
Dennis at 8:50AM on Apr 7th 2008
30. ryan,
yes i agree, but evolution is theory.can science not be taught given to sides to a theory? to suppose that god created the heavens and the earth is to suppose right. and to teach that along with evolution would be fair and balanced. the bible does not say how he did it, it just said he did.
do you not think god foresaw this when he created the universe. that there would be those who would question it. why right there in genesis the serpent tempts eve with the question,did god say...
and now we KNOW the rest of the story. ryan just like kevin carters picture, thats the rest of the story. thank god one day he will redeem the mess we have made and eradicate the lies that have been perpetrated on people,yes there is a reckoning coming when god will set it straight
brian at 8:51AM on Apr 7th 2008