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 3 of 58)
31. Joe Bob already pointed out that Dinesh's "money quotes" don't demonstrate what he claimed. A study "of whether, and to what degree, atheist views are being smuggled into biology classrooms" might well be interesting - but until a problem's actually been demonstrated, let's not use public funds for it. How about Dinesh puts up some of his own funds to back such a study?
(What methodology would be used to study that, anyway? What would the control group be?)
Ray Ingles at 8:51AM on Apr 7th 2008
32. It amazes me that DD can have read the extensive commentary on his last posting re "Darwinism" = Atheism= stealth antichristianity and still dare to suggest that anyone other than "believers", let alone the courts, would buy into his theory that teaching evolutionary theory in the public schools is an effort to deny the possibility of a creator.
There is no way that atheism could be construed as a religion under current constitutional interpretations. As usual, if believers want to impose their views on the rest of us, they will have to find a way to amend the constitution. Repeatedly asserting that atheism, agnosticism, or any other LACK of belief in a creator constitutes a POSITIVE religious statement is simply wishful thinking on DD's part.
Harvey at 8:56AM on Apr 7th 2008
33. Dinesh is right on target, once again, as usual!
The government should be NEUTRAL towards religion, not HOSTILE against religion. The anti-Christians have been pretending to be non-religious, though, in truth, they are actively anti-religious. This is an important distinction.
The "New Atheists" of the recent bestselling authors are actively AGAINST religion, not neutral. They seek to impose their religious non-beliefs upon the general public, through the courts and public institutions, such as schools and universities. The righteous (Christians) shall contend with the wicked (atheists).
The atheism of these New Atheists is a religious viewpoint which is NOT neutral towards religion, but rather an intellectually satisfying form of religious bigotry parading as enlightenment.
Rev 3:16 at 8:57AM on Apr 7th 2008
34. I've never held back laughter this hard, EVER!
"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."
Whatever, but I believe we should be allowed to be taught the TRUTH - or is it unconstitutional to teach TRUTHism? Is there any school that EXPLICITLY teaches atheism, or are you looking desperately DESPERATELY for some IMPLICIT link to help keep your books relevant?
Mokele Mbembe at 8:59AM on Apr 7th 2008
35.
I must be missing something. What theological text is the basis of athiesm? Is there a huge building with stained glass windows or a dome that I'm supposed to go to once a week? What is the symbol of athiesm?
Oh, that's right - it's NOT a religion. But I suppose if you fear death so much that you believe outrageous fairy tales, (most of which were stolen), you project that same thinking on everyone.
KennyG at 8:59AM on Apr 7th 2008
36. Rev, the constitution states that there will be NO establishment of a religion. Change the constitution and weep if they don't pick your religion. Thats why the writers were AGAINST it.
Against the establishment of a religion, NOT neutral.
Dennis at 9:01AM on Apr 7th 2008
37. Rev, the books by the "New Atheists" aren't science textbooks. If they offend you, then how do you think we Yorubans feel about all those Christian books we see in bookstores?
The righteous (Yorubans) shall contend with the wicked (Christians)!
Joe Bob at 9:04AM on Apr 7th 2008
38. brian; "to suppose that god created the heavens and the earth is to suppose right", but to do so is to suppose without any scientific evidence.
Evolution has moved beyond Darwinsim in the last 150 years and is a part of the biological sciences.
Creationism = mythology
Evolution = science
Leave mythology out of the science class. It's more suited for the history, liturature or world religions classroom.
Ryan Anderson at 9:04AM on Apr 7th 2008
39. 32. Dinesh is right on target, once again, as usual!
Who are these "new atheists" you refer to. I am totally unaware of any organized movement which requires (as does Christianity) a statement of disbelief in a creator, which has some generally agreed to book regarded as indisputable, which meets regularly (ie Sundays in Church), pays tithes to support its leader, etc, etc, which calls it self the religion of "New Atheism".
Harvey at 9:05AM on Apr 7th 2008
40. But not matter what you say Dinesh D'Souza, there still is no evidence for God or Gods. To improve this world let's teach people to have opinions about science and the world around them based upon evidence and not wishful thinking. It's all part of growing up.
Michael at 9:06AM on Apr 7th 2008
41. High school is hard enough. The last thing these kids need is to have to watch videos with Kirk Cameron and that Sonny Bono looking guy blathering on about how someone made his watch.
Have a heart, please.
Ryan Anderson at 9:11AM on Apr 7th 2008
42. Don't believe him? Here is an experiment for you who have nominal faith or none at all. Take a college course (if in HS, take a course from a teacher who does not know you), pretend to be a Christian. Raise some honest objections to inferences of atheism (do some research, maybe read DD's book). Like JefFlyingV above, many give no argument but that Christians are dumb, or like joebob, calls DD a liar, but from reading his rants, doesn't appear to have read DD's blog. This might surprise you, but there is significant ridicule for well thought out arguments supporting a belief in God, without ANY attempt to answer the arguments, just attacks on the Christian. It might surprise you to find that this is a fairly common experience for Christians in education. Christians do not deny science or scientific discoveries, only unscientific inferences that God does not exist. The fact that Einstein had "unbounded admiration for the structure of the world" is actually unscientific. Admiration is no more scientific than faith. Funny, those who would argue against my faith, seem to leave Einstein's admiration alone. Real science can disprove neither. No agenda?
Srfnrev at 9:17AM on Apr 7th 2008
43. Dinesh, as a former biochemist who left the lab bench to administer a university biochem department, I have a question for you. Have I been saved, or am I now a high priest??
Either way, I want to update my cirriculum vitae. Let me know, I'm ready to tell the world.
Dennis at 9:22AM on Apr 7th 2008
44. Srfnrev; I attended college in the early 90s. In the early 90s I was a christian, today I am not. I attended a state college.
I saw no bias. However, I did see what a closed minded person who beleives an unprovable myth to be fact would preceive to be a bias. Many of the hard core evangelicals/fundamentalist in my classes did not know how to debate and thus did not do well in discussions like you are describing. This is because they think they are always right, because they have god on their side.
I mean seriously, why even take an anthopology class on the pre-history of humans and their ancestors, if you don't even believe the main premise of the class. Ridiculous.
If the colleges have gotten worse since the 90s, I can't blame them. Have you ever argued with brian or with Observant?
Ryan Anderson at 9:28AM on Apr 7th 2008
45. @41 "Funny, those who would argue against my faith, seem to leave Einstein's admiration alone."
Let me try to explain it to you. Einstein believed in no personal god. For example he didn't believe in your god, the christian one. He didn't believe in any kind of god that meddles in the affairs of human beings.
Joe Bob at 9:35AM on Apr 7th 2008