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 5 of 58)
61. Mokele; sorry about mentioning Hitler. I forgot.
Ryan Anderson at 10:15AM on Apr 7th 2008
62. 55. @50
Strictly speaking, the theory of evolution does not address the origins of life. But anyway...
Joe Bob at 10:04AM on Apr 7th 2008
This is why evolution is problematic, there is no foundation. The core of the debate is that evolution is not based on good scientific method, it's already been proven by good science that life comes from life, that is why Frankenstein is fiction. Matter doesn't appear from nothing, animals do not change genetically over time and 4.5 billion years can never be verifiable. Evolution is faith based and should not be taught as science. Leave out the religion and stick to science for science class.
STaylor at 10:17AM on Apr 7th 2008
63. Well conservatism is a murky beast. Most political ideologies get fuzzy around the edges... especially where they get into power. Once upon a time republicans were adamant that the government should spend as little as possible, tax as little as needed, and never ever spend so much that you can't pay it off. Really. There were also republicans who were appalled at government intrusions into home and private life... the government knowing what you were doing with yourself was supposed to be a liberal thing. And republicans were always happy to leave the world alone and let it fight its wars and keep to ourselves.
Allright. I am a little biased against it. In a nutshell conservatives are about letting people take care of themselves with not being dependant on a vast government apparatus. So where does God figure into all things conservative? It's true that conservatives have always embraced 'american tradition' over new and expanded societal norms. And personally, I don't think its a bad thing. Societies need breaks to keep people from flying into transmetropolitan. But for many prominent religious leaders in the 80's and 90's it wasn't enough.
The problem, simply put, isn't religion. It's evangelicalism. Most religous people are content to stay at home, live their lives, pray their prayers, and at most annoy othes by nocking on their door early in the morning. (answer it once naked, and I promise they will never ever come back.) Evangelicals like Falwell, however, weren't content with that. Rather than see the problems in America according to economic, racial, or political terms... they saw the problem as a moral one. A lack of God was the reason for the 70's and 80's. In short, their belief.
Had they been content to simply stay at home and believe what they wanted, no problem. Instead these men saw a wonderful machine poorly calibrated, in need of a few upgrades, being fought over by two engineers who couldn't agree whether to add bells and whistles or take them off... and promptly began to attack it with a sledge hammer in the interest of 'driving out the demons'.
Now... probably because they were interested in the voting block... conservatives who really didn't have all that much invested in theology, who had a much greater root in the traditional nuclear family, decided to say to these people 'I want to help you. Nevermind that some of them, Marion "Pat" Robertson in particular, made sensationalist claims and predictions that never came true or were blatantly self serving. Nevermind that some of them, like Falwell and Phelps, wanted national policies that were adamantly unconstitutional. The conservatives thought that they could pat them on the head, get their votes, and put it to bed. The right is realizing the evangelical movement is like a St. Bernard. Cute as a puppy, but a monster to try and control.
Somber at 10:18AM on Apr 7th 2008
64. STaylor,
It has never proven that life comes EXCLUSIVELY from life.
Mokele Mbembe at 10:20AM on Apr 7th 2008
65. I did not see any examples of high school biology textbooks promoting atheism and i don't remeber any of my teachers ever broaching the subject. While I am sure that most scientists probably are atheists and say so regularly in books they write, I don't believe that our children are actively being taught anything either affirming or denying god. Religious people see evolution as "atheist" as you do so evolution itself is teaching atheism. This is absurd as evolution is a biological fatc and is recognized as valid by the catholic church among others. This is just anohter way to try to back door religion into science. Sorry, it isn't going anywhere.
Eric at 10:21AM on Apr 7th 2008
66. Staylor: actually the origin of life is a seperate topic from evolution called Parthogenisis. It's kinda like having drivers Ed and automotive engineering classes. Driver's Ed is a very well established topic. Engineering is a bit further afield.
BTW, did you know that it's likely DNA developed in ice from cyanide and nitrates? Wicked cool stuff if you can understand it.
Somber at 10:21AM on Apr 7th 2008
67. Devon:
Good post.... But-
If believers feel that creationism or any religious belief should be given fair consideration or equal time in public schools, then it would be incumbent on them to give equal consideration to evolutionary theory in their churches! How would that work?
Harvey at 10:25AM on Apr 7th 2008
68. Harvy: Ah but then the churches can claim private exclusion from government oversight. Nice for them, em?
As I used to say... don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church.
Somber at 10:27AM on Apr 7th 2008
69. Harvey; great point about teaching evolution in church. Also, wouldn't ALL creation myths need to be taught in school if the genesis myth is going to be taught?
I'd be all for a class called "creation myths". That way the kids would know what they are getting.
Genesis is not science.
Ryan Anderson at 10:29AM on Apr 7th 2008
70. And science is not religion!
Harvey at 10:33AM on Apr 7th 2008
71. And on, and on, and on... Dinesh, you just look like a frightened, pathetic sheep as you keep flailing your tracts in our faces to prove YOUR point. Problem is, both you AND the Atheists are only seeing the tip of the iceberg and are certain in your FAITH, that you know the rest. Look around, then train your gaze outwards. Whoa! Where's your 'god' in all that? Now, gaze inward... There is far more than meets the eye that exists. Even if we can't acertain it's existence by the meager means we have discovered, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Silly Humans, with your tiny insect brains! Grow up! There's more to this than meets the eye. And more than your tiny imaginations and twisted mythologies will possibly EVER understand.
Love ya!
R-
Robert at 10:37AM on Apr 7th 2008
72. what if there was no life after death? What if this life was all we knew we would get? Would we still believe in God? Would we still be moral and just? Would we be interested in life sciences like evolution or biology? What would we teach our kids?
You call people atheists....which uses the word-part "theist". You can't really use your god-word to describe non-god folks.
So.....dinesh, the s=disturber; what if we do teach science without God? what can you do about it? why does it bother you so much?
abbot at 10:40AM on Apr 7th 2008
73. @61 Wow, STaylor, that's the most confused reasoning I've heard since, since, ... whenever brian last posted.
Let me see if I can summarize... We know that life forms have been evolving naturally for 3.5 billion years, but we're not sure how the whole process got started. Therefore, therefore, ... therfore what?
Joe Bob at 10:42AM on Apr 7th 2008
74. So, if science positively confirms, with physical evidence, a valid scientific theory for the creation of life from non-life via a natural process, should this be taught in schools? Or, more directly, what if science finishes disproving all the tenants of your religion? We don't need religions to tell us what causes lightning or earthquakes anymore. We don't need a god to make us out of a clot of blood or some dust; we have a better explanation for where our species comes from (Evolution via Natural Selection). And soon we will have a better explanation for abiogenesis (life from non-life). Should new scientific theories explaining the origins of life not be taught because they positively disprove religious myths?
Here's an interesting article describing how the chemical seeds of life may have been planeted on earth (via natural means):
http://www.physorg.com/news126694357.html
Darron at 11:16AM on Apr 7th 2008
75. Staylor says:
"This is why evolution is problematic, there is no foundation. The core of the debate is that evolution is not based on good scientific method, it's already been proven by good science that life comes from life, that is why Frankenstein is fiction. Matter doesn't appear from nothing, animals do not change genetically over time and 4.5 billion years can never be verifiable. Evolution is faith based and should not be taught as science. Leave out the religion and stick to science for science class. "
---
Have you ever heard of the Miller-Urey Experiment? Probably not. Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
In a nutshell, the Miller-Urey experiment found that under conditions similar to what we think the early earth was like, inorganic compounds reacted with each other to form ORGANIC compounds, what all living things are made of. These compounds would then react and become more complex compounds. Eventually cells would form and, voila! Creator-free life. (Of course, you could still believe God created the universe.) The concept behind the Miller-Urey experiment is called chemical evolution (do you want to take notes?). It is a hypothesis as to the orgin of life. It is not yet a scientific theory, which is as close to a fact as you can get in science. I'm NOT going to explain the scientific process here.
In essence, pay attention in high school biology bfore commenting on evolution.
P.S. You say life comes from life. But according to Genesis, wasn't Adam made from clay?
Jacob at 10:55AM on Apr 7th 2008