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 57 of 58)
841. 831. Maybe the whale will return to land some day, then we can study the process.
------------------------
Nah, by that time we'll be aquatic. Or spaceborne. Or extinct.
Godless Heathen Brian at 7:20PM on Apr 9th 2008
I've got $20 on extinct.
STaylor at 10:26AM on Apr 10th 2008
842. Have You gotten your Own Personalized version of the BIBLE?
That's right!
Now Available, your "Own Bible" a personalized version of The Bible WITHOUT all the things you just don't believe! We don't add a thing, (that would be a sacrilege); we just wipe away the words and sins that you'd prefer not bother with. [King James and Living Bible type versions available]
Call Today! Interactive DVD ROM Versions and Rush Orders extra.
Th1nkF1rst at 10:54AM on Apr 10th 2008
843. I note that you are unwilling to educate yourself in evolutionary science, and are still regurgitating nonsense from creationist sources. Apparently it doesn't bother you in the slightest that such sources are demonstrably and systematically dishonest.
Can I assume that there is a general education problem here when I have stated at least a dozen times that variation within species is not a problem but I keep getting responses that I shouldn't have a problem with variation within species? You and others keep coming back with variation...as your reason to discredit me even after I've explained myself over and over again. Is that an integrity thing for you? That you constantly blast me and set yourself up as an authoriy for everyone to see when you can't possibly have missed the fact that I accept variation without doubt, and that variation is not the a problem with anybody in the world as far as I know?
If anybody on this blog would like to see scientific discussion without religion concerning evolution you can look at the "Science Against Evolution" website. Go to the topical index page first. The moderator will not allow religious discussion, so if the only way you can win an argument is by saying that all people that doubt certain aspects of evolution are religious fanatics, you won't get anywhere. And if you do pull up a web site that is Christion based, you have the wrong one.
-------------------------------------------------
Why not reflect on what that tells us about your intellectual and moral integrity?
Richard Forrest at 3:12AM on Apr 10th 2008
You are the only one that has dodged giving answers to questions, I haven't. So where is your integrity? And what are you,a shrink? Maybe you ought to see someone about your unhealthy obsession over creationist.
STaylor at 10:49AM on Apr 10th 2008
844. STaylor wrote: "Can I assume that there is a general education problem here when I have stated at least a dozen times that variation within species is not a problem but I keep getting responses that I shouldn't have a problem with variation within species?"
Your problem is that
1) you insist that Macro- and microevolution are completely different phenomena.
2) you insist on a meaning for the term "microevolution" which is different from that used by biologist, and is only used by creationists.
3) you have virtually no knowledge of evolutionary theory and apparently no desire to learn anything about it.
4) the information sources on which you are relying are demonstrably and systematically dishonest, yet you seem to see no need to try to educate yourself from more reliable sources.
"You and others keep coming back with variation...as your reason to discredit me even after I've explained myself over and over again."
And, as has been explained to you over and over again, your notion that this is not evolution is false. Your sources are demonstrably and systematically dishonest.
"That you constantly blast me and set yourself up as an authoriy for everyone to see when you can't possibly have missed the fact that I accept variation without doubt, and that variation is not the a problem with anybody in the world as far as I know?"
We call this variation "evolution". Given time and circumstances, it leads to cladogenesis - i.e. the origniation of new species.
I've offered to post a reading list from which you can educate yourself in the subject of evolutionary theory, but evidently you prefer to stick with sources whose demonstrable dishonesty doesn't bother you.
"If anybody on this blog would like to see scientific discussion without religion concerning evolution you can look at the "Science Against Evolution" website."
Oh, please!
I've had a quick skim through some of the articles on that site and every one makes reference to the Biblical account of creation. They are all no more than the same old creationist arguments which are regurgitated over and over again in spite of the fact that they are utterly discredited. The fact that they authors of the site are pretending that they are not motivated by their religious convictions is such a blatant falsehood that even a child of five could see through it.
Take for example the article entitled "Radioactive Dating Explained". It starts with C14 dating which is not used by geologists. It presents a distorted, incomplete and dishonest account of the way in which radiocarbon dates have been calibrated against other methods such as tree-ring dates, artifacts of known date, varve analysis and so on. It dismisses any scientific conclusions as "guesses", and fails to provide any evidence or argument whatsoever to form any alternative conclusions from the evidence.
Just compare this article with the wikipedia entry on radiometric dating methods:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
Compare for example, the sections on isochron dating.
If this is where you are getting your information from, no wonder you are badly misinformed.
"if the only way you can win an argument is by saying that all people that doubt certain aspects of evolution are religious fanatics, you won't get anywhere."
I haven't accused anyone of being a religious fanatic. I've accused creationist sources of being systematically dishonest, and posted evidence to support this conclusion. Creationists such as yourself seem unwilling to address this evidence.
"And if you do pull up a web site that is Christion based, you have the wrong one. "
The web site which you invited us to read is quite obviously a "Christian" one. Why else does it make frequent references to the Bible?
"You are the only one that has dodged giving answers to questions, I haven't."
Oh dear. You seem utterly determined to provide more evidence to support by conclusion that creationists are dishonest.
I've provided you with long and detailed responses to your questions trying to correct the fundamental misconceptions you have about science in general and evolutionary science in particular. I've explained how genetic variation in populations can lead to speciation, I've explained to you what the terms micro- and macroevolution actually mean, I've provided you with links to web sites which provide more detail on these matters. I've even offered to post a list of recommendations for reading matter from which you can remedy the evident gaps in your education.
I haven't noticed you answering *any* of the questions I have asked you. Why, for example, should anyone accept *your* definition of the term "macroevolution" rather than that used by the scientists who actually study the subject?
As you evidently think that all dogs are genetically identical, why do *you* think that Great Danes and Spaniels look different?
"So where is your integrity? And what are you,a shrink? Maybe you ought to see someone about your unhealthy obsession over creationist."
What is unhealthy about being opposed to systematic dishonesty?
I'm quite happy to play this game: one of my reasons for posting in public forums such as this one is to expose the fundamental dishonesty of creationism, and you are providing much useful evidence.
Just stop to think for a moment.
I've presented evidence which others can read, even if you refuse to do so, which demonstrates (to my satisfaction and that of many others at least) that creationist sources are systematically dishonest.
What message do you think that you and other creationists are sending out to the world by refusing to address that evidence? A logical explanation would be that creationists condone dishonesty provided that it comes from one of their own.
How do you interpret this behaviour?
Richard Forrest at 11:51AM on Apr 10th 2008
845. “I wouldn't waste my time on the early your church fathers. A council of catholic priest who teach water baptism for the remission of sin is the same as having lost people teach something they know absolutely nothing about”.
Observant:
By rejecting the Early Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils, you are in effect rejecting Jesus. He spoke to these holy men with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They prayed, discerned and guided the faith of millions through the ages. They are saints in heaven. You believe the words of JM Carroll, but the words of men that gave us the New Testament, elucidated the nature of the Trinity, fought heresies, and most of all knew men that spoke, ate, and died with the apostles; you call heretical! It hurts me; truly hurts me. I have never read anything on this blog that caused me more distress. I am very sad for you! Observant, you really need to pray and ask God to guide you. I asked and received. It is difficult to abandon prejudices and cultural identity, but if you really love Jesus you will allow him to lead. May the angels and saints pray for you. Peace!
janesophie1 at 11:52AM on Apr 10th 2008
846. Richard Forrest:
I have a question. I know that most Anthropologists agree that modern humans evolved in Africa; what happened to the other links, i.e. Homo erectus, Neaderthals, etc? Did they interbred with humans or just become extinct? Also, and this intrigues me, since we have so many issues with skin color. I read that all humans were once very pale, after we lost our fur and that skin color is an adaptive feature. On the cave walls in France, the pictures depict very dark humans, almost black. How long would an adaptation to the pale coloring of modern Europeans take? Did the pale humans in Africa die off because there skin color was a disadvantage?
janesophie1 at 12:08PM on Apr 10th 2008
847. RTaylor wote:
"If anybody on this blog would like to see scientific discussion without religion concerning evolution you can look at the "Science Against Evolution" website."
...and for your reading pleasure, I've analyzed one of the articles from this web site:
http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/livingFossils/index.php
Richard Forrest at 1:07PM on Apr 10th 2008
848. ::zzzzzzz::
Oh, sorry, I must have fallen asleep. Can someone tell me how many weeks it's been that D'ouche mentions HIS BOOK in his blog? I swear it's the only reason he writes the garsh-dingit things - they make no sense otherwise....
UFeelMeYet?? at 3:14PM on Apr 10th 2008
849. I feel ya.
TJ at 3:54PM on Apr 10th 2008
850. “I wouldn't waste my time on the early your church fathers. A council of catholic priest who teach water baptism for the remission of sin is the same as having lost people teach something they know absolutely nothing about”.
Observant:
By rejecting the Early Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils, you are in effect rejecting Jesus. He spoke to these holy men with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They prayed, discerned and guided the faith of millions through the ages. They are saints in heaven. You believe the words of JM Carroll, but the words of men that gave us the New Testament, elucidated the nature of the Trinity, fought heresies, and most of all knew men that spoke, ate, and died with the apostles; you call heretical! It hurts me; truly hurts me. I have never read anything on this blog that caused me more distress. I am very sad for you! Observant, you really need to pray and ask God to guide you. I asked and received. It is difficult to abandon prejudices and cultural identity, but if you really love Jesus you will allow him to lead. May the angels and saints pray for you. Peace!
janesophie1 at 4:14PM on Apr 10th 2008
851. Sorry, didn't mean to post twice!
janesophie1 at 4:16PM on Apr 10th 2008
852. 846. RTaylor wote:
"If anybody on this blog would like to see scientific discussion without religion concerning evolution you can look at the "Science Against Evolution" website."
...and for your reading pleasure, I've analyzed one of the articles from this web site:
http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/livingFossils/index.php
Richard Forrest at 1:07PM on Apr 10th 2008
An article in the Talk Origins website says that common sense and all that that implies cannot be used with evolutionary discovery.
This makes it pretty much a moot point to try and argue evolution. That means you believe what you want to believe, I'll believe what I want to believe.(I'm assuming that you respect the Talk Origin Site) So "Uncle". I'm moving on. Nice to meet you.
STaylor at 9:19PM on Apr 10th 2008
853. RTaylor wote: "I'm moving on."
...leaving the blatant dishonesty of the sources on which you rely unchallenged, leaving the questions which you have been asked unanswered, leaving your ignorance of science in general and evolutionary theory in particular intact, and providing additional evidence to support my conclusion that creationists are quite happy to accept dishonesty provided it comes from their own side.
As I said previously, one of the reasons why I post on forums and discussion boards is to expose the fundamental dishonesty of creationism.
Thank you for your help.
Richard Forrest at 3:30AM on Apr 11th 2008
854. janesophie1 wrote:
"I know that most Anthropologists agree that modern humans evolved in Africa; what happened to the other links, i.e. Homo erectus, Neaderthals, etc?"
The history of human evolution is not my field - I'm a plesiosaur palaeontologist - and I tend to avoid it. It is dominiated by huge egos, and probably the most highly politicised field in any science, let alone palaeontology. New discoveries tend to become sucked into a maelstrom of controversy, and it can be difficult to find an objective interpretation in all the conflicting accounts.
However, as new discoveries are made a clearer picture is emerging.
The early history of the lineage of apes which produced humans included several different species of hominim which lived at the same time. We know of several species from about 3 million years ago in three genera, Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Homo. All these early forms were African, and the early hominims were basically just another family of great apes closely related to chimps and gorillas. Some were tool users, but then so are chimps, and their brain size and presumably intelligence was on par with that of chimps. It's worth noting that in some measures of intelligence chimps outperform humans. Intelligence is not a single measure on a linear scale. It's a lot more complex than that.
About one and a half million years ago one of the human ancestors first migrated out of Africa, and spread across Asia. This species is called Homo erectus, and is one of a number of species of the genus Homo which existed at the time. The other hominim genera, Australopithecus and Paranthropus remained in Africa. There is some material from Europe which has been assigned to different species of Homo, but the European material is fragmentary and there is no general agreement between researchers. Homo erectus was large, about the same size as modern humans, and had a brain size roughly intermediate between that of modern man and chimps. This was the first human species to use fire.
About half a million years ago a species of Homo much closer to modern man appeared in Africa, called Homo rhodensis. H.rhodensis had a brain capacity close to that of modern humans, and according to some researchers is simply an archaic form of H.sapiens. There seems to have been a divergent radiation around this time, with one lineage of Homo remaining in Africa and spreading east into Asia, and another spreading into Europe. The European form is Homo neanderthalensis, and was well adapted for the extreme cold of the ice age climate of the time. At this time H.erectus was still found in Asia, so we had three species of man living at the same time.
There is a huge bottleneck in human evolution about 250,000 years ago. Modern Man, H.sapiens spread out of Africa at around this time. The population from which all modern humans is descended was no more than a few hundred individuals, which is why H.sapiens is genetically much less diverse than our closest relatives, the chimps. There is more genetic variation between populations of chimps living a few miles apart than there is between all humans. Neanderthal man and modern man were contemporaries in Europe, and it has been suggested that they interbred. A skelton from Portugal shows a mixture of characters of neanderthal and modern man, but as is always the case this is highly disputed. We have some DNA studies of neanderthal man, and there is no evidence for any neanderthal DNA in moden humans. This doesn't mean that they didn't interbreed, but if they did so their progeny died out without contributing to our gene pool. H. erectus was still living in Asia until about 70,000 years ago, so there were still three species of man living at the same time. I don't know of any DNA studies on H.erectus. The recent discoveries from Flores have been described as a relict population of H.erectus, and it is possible that there were three species of humans as recently as 20,000 years ago.
There is no evidence for any interbreeding between H.erectus and H.sapiens.
"Also, and this intrigues me, since we have so many issues with skin color. I read that all humans were once very pale, after we lost our fur and that skin color is an adaptive feature. On the cave walls in France, the pictures depict very dark humans, almost black. How long would an adaptation to the pale coloring of modern Europeans take? Did the pale humans in Africa die off because there skin color was a disadvantage?"
Dark skin in humans probably evolved when our ancestors lost their body hair. Obviously we can't determine skin colour from the fossil record, but is it highly probable that the small group from whom all modern humans are descended was dark-skinned. There are several different mutations which can produce lighter skin. It seems that there is rather selection against light skin in hot climates where sunlight is intense, but that when that constraint is removed there is a tendency for skin to become lighter. Light skin arose more or less independently in a number of different human populations. According to some researchers, it may take only a thousand years or so for light skin to become dominant in populations. Needless to say, this is another area of intense controversy.
Richard Forrest at 4:23AM on Apr 11th 2008
855. DD is afraid that the "Atheist Majority" is going to spoil this paradise created by the religious faithful of the world. Well, I have my prison shank sharpened to defend my confused mind from the clarity of those with faith.
Jim B at 6:34AM on Apr 11th 2008