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 4 of 58)
46. Srfnrev---
Why should there be any discussion of God (or any deity)in a science class? If people see fit to "identify" themselves as Christians (believers) in such a setting, they run the risk of their listeners assuming that they are proselytizing (as Christians are urged to do to "save" unbelievers), rather than honestly questioning. Such "questioning" should be properly reserved for phlosophy/religion classes.
Harvey at 9:39AM on Apr 7th 2008
47. Srfnrev; "Real science can disprove neither"
Correct. Science also cannot (or hasn't) proved god exists.
The burden of proof is on the believers, not on the non-believers.
Ryan Anderson at 9:39AM on Apr 7th 2008
48. Evolutionary theory is the best theory we have for the origins of life -- from a strictly naturalistic perspective. So when a text says or strongly implies "therefore there is no God," it has stepped off its own map and into the waters of another worldview it cannot define or even address with its own lens. It is annoying to me that those who claim "objectivity" cannot see when they are acting as sophomoric metaphyisicians.
Chardino at 9:56AM on Apr 7th 2008
49. Plops down two pennies...
I'm a substitute teacher, with more than a year of experiance. I'm an atheist, and I'm a lesbian, and ironically the former has caused me more problems than a latter. But I believe that it is important to be a public representative of both atheism and homosexuality. I've subbed for biology classes in 3 different school districts and in every one I've always looked curiously for the grand atheist pogrom against faith.
You don't find it. Why? Because while college textbooks are free to wallow in contraversy, 6-12 science textbooks are woefully lacking on the subject. The only one that came close was one book that at the end of every chapter had a 2 page spreadsheet on a prominent scientist in the field, and Darwin's talked about how he became "disillusioned" with religion. Hardly the Nichzie riot act.
The reason why there is so little God in science classes is simple... there is no room for God in science. You can't take the scientific process, and when you reach your conclusions, say either 'Well this isn't what I thought, God must have tampered with my results' or say 'Well these results conflict with what religion says they must be, so they must be wrong.' Science factors in only measurable, quantifiable, verifiable fact. Anything else is, at best, a soft social science. And notice they don't offer psychology or sociology in high school.
Now. I know what you're going to say: oh there are scientists who say there must be a god from their observations of science and the universe. That is very true. There are also people who say there must be aliens zipping around mutilating cattle to study humans. It isn't that both say it respectiely though, it's that both are saying it without any kind of verifiable evidence to a skeptical third party. There are rhetorical arguments, but not evidence. And that is the catch, really. Anyone can believe whatever they like. But when you claim your belief is absolute truth, then you have a higher standard to answer.
Somber at 9:45AM on Apr 7th 2008
50. "But when you claim your belief is absolute truth, then you have a higher standard to answer."
Well said, Somber
Mokele Mbembe at 9:50AM on Apr 7th 2008
51. Since atheism has no body of beliefs (i.e. no doctrine), what DD is really upset about is that the absence of God leads to more liberal social beliefs. I really think that DD believes evolution to be true, and sees ID and Creationism for the nonsense that it is, but he sees it as a bulwark against liberal thinking infiltrating its way into our schools. If that happened, before you know it teenagers could be having sex with each other! Imagine if that happened!
And I really think that sex is the big scary boogeyman behind much of Christian fears. Look at how brian thinks that atheists are just sex lunatics who deny God because He makes us feel guilty about our perversion.
AndrewV at 9:54AM on Apr 7th 2008
52. @ 47:
Great post Somber! If you cannot test and reproduce results using the scientific process, its not science. If something isn't science, it doesn't belong in a science class.
The decision to believe in God or not is every person's individual decision. However, sticking to science in science class and ignoring the supernatural is not "anti-Christian". Teaching that the Loch Ness Monster exists in biology class would be unscientific, so is teaching creatonism. It's best to not mix the supernatural with scientific naturalism.
DD, you have continually failed to differentiate between science and atheism. You can believe in atheism and think that God was still ultimately the cause of the world's existence, or you can ignore God in that context. My atheism had nothing to do with my belief in evolution. My family are all Christian, and they all believe in evolution.
Jacob at 9:59AM on Apr 7th 2008
53. AndrewV; it's no coincidence that christianity replaced the chthonic earth religions which celebrated sex. I think today's prudishness is a hold over from the suppression of the older faiths and their rituals.
Ryan Anderson at 10:00AM on Apr 7th 2008
54. Harvey,
The "New Atheism" is real.
Ask Hays to enunciate on how the rules consist, among other things "no tolerance, no compromises, no backing down", etc.
This is a HOT topic for sure!
Dinesh did not call it a religion (however, it's ideologies are spreading with an almost 'evangelical-like fervor'. Not meant as a put down to evangelicals).
But rather, he's claiming it's the "promotion of ANTI-RELIGIOUS ideology in the public schools.."
It doesn't bother me that evolution is taught in schools. Sure, let Science be Science class, based on such.
Okay, don't push religion on others.
I still don't see how a child learning about other people in the world (a substantial amt) believing in God is threatening to any non-believer. I didn't say make that kid pray to God or believe in God.
I do think that what goes on in a classroom should be based on fact and balanced and neutral, for what it's worth.
C'mon guys, this won't be figured out any time soon: let's try and 'chillax' a bit. I said TRY
;)
Devon at 10:03AM on Apr 7th 2008
55. Science seeks the truth, and religion dictates it.
It's as simple as that.
ex- christian at 10:02AM on Apr 7th 2008
56. @50
Strictly speaking, the theory of evolution does not address the origins of life. But anyway...
Please show us a high school biology textbook that says "therefore there is no God". Please note that this is not the same as saying "no god is needed to explain the evolution of species".
Joe Bob at 10:04AM on Apr 7th 2008
57. @55
Good Point. Just as long as that statement doesn't draw out to there is no Creator of that species.
That's fair, no?
Peace
Devon at 10:08AM on Apr 7th 2008
58. There is no creator of a species, other than the species itself.
Prove that there is a creator, and then you can say that. till then, keep it in your church.
ex- christian at 10:12AM on Apr 7th 2008
59. The lie here is that Atheism is a belief system where Evolution, Materialism, String Theory, Moral Relativism are all essential dogma, and its ultimate goal is to destroy all religion.
Evolutionist does not mean Atheist. Ivy intellectual my ass.
If science exposed a fault in your beliefs, what would you do? Linus, it's time to let the security blanket go.
Mokele Mbembe at 10:13AM on Apr 7th 2008
60. Devon; I don't think you want to go down the road of holding one person (William Hays) up as an example of all Atheists.
Were do we even begin on the list of bad christians?
I don't think Hitler, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Eric Rudolph, Pope Urban II, Torquemada, Goody Proctor, Jim Bakker, brian or countless others represent all people of faith.
Ryan Anderson at 10:13AM on Apr 7th 2008