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 6 of 58)
76. Here's a real problem for all of you: Synthetic life
http://www.umbc.edu/synthlife
Dinesh, I'm still waiting to find out if I'm either saved or a high priest, from or of this religion you wrongfully call atheism.
Dennis at 11:10AM on Apr 7th 2008
77. brian,
Actually I've yet to see a televised news program be completely unbiased, which is why I get most of my news from sources online I know are on both sides of the line. That way I can glean the real story. But you know my kind. We don't like accepting what we're told at face-value. Always looking for that whole TRUTH thing.
Strados at 11:21AM on Apr 7th 2008
78. It's the MONKEYS vs the MUDDIES again.
Why is it always Evolution and Big Bang that bring up this argument? There are many many topics in science that suggest the world we live in is the product of processes that have operated for well over a paltry six millennia. Plate Tectonics, Stratum Geology, Sloan Survey, Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, Hubble Redshifts, Speed of Light, Extrasolar Parallax, Weird Science, etc.
Mokele Mbembe at 11:22AM on Apr 7th 2008
79. "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
Ryan,
THANK YOU for bringing up Goody Proctor. "The Crucible" is a BRILLIANT book and I suggest everyone read it. Shows you how dangerous religion coupled with a mob mentality is.
K at 11:23AM on Apr 7th 2008
80. OK, now we have devolved into an argument with little b(oy) brian and the rev. Dinesh's point has been blown out of the water. Agreed??
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7203186.stm
Synthetic life.
Dennis at 12:23PM on Apr 7th 2008
81. Dennis- I think the term you're looking for is "anti-priest" for your CV.
Strados at 11:25AM on Apr 7th 2008
82. Jacob- I was under the impression that the Mill-Urey Experiment actually ended inconclusively because they couldn't get anything to happen?
Strados at 11:28AM on Apr 7th 2008
83. @59
Ryan, fair enough, my man.
(Though, gotta tell ya, I'm biting my tongue here). I'm going to Chillax ;)
And, for others, I did not say prayer in schools. Please re-read my comments. I just spoke to LEARNING about people in the world who believe in God.
Did you know that statistics and studies show that when God was taken out of public schools that within a few short years afterwards the bad behavior in schools not only sharply increased but that the TYPE of behaviors went from say, running down the halls, chewing gum, etc to higher truancy rates, talking back to teachers, vulgarity, violence against other students/teachers, etc??
Coincidence?
Maybe. And, Maybe Not.
Devon at 11:31AM on Apr 7th 2008
84. Thanks for the reading list, DD. I've put every book down, except the one by Miller, who tries to tie religious belief to earth science.
Can't improve on what has been posted here already.
I know for a fact that the two books, "Evolutionary Biology" and "Creative Evolution" are college texts, and at most might show up on a high school honors reading list. The first two are books of essays, including essays from Nobel Laureates.
It's been since 1965, but I have a distinct memory of Mr. Apicella's 10th grade biology class covering the topic of evolution in one day (probably the most allowed during those ancient times), and there was one red-faced student who started verbally protesting the topic of evolution.
He looked like he was going to cry. Mr. Apicella had to send him to the nurse so we could continue the class. There were no protests from my fellow students. There was never a mention of religion, which is what may have disturbed that student.
Just a memory that popped up thanks to DD.
Thanks, DD. By the way, your blog demonstrates, once again, how to make a strawman argument.
I miss Clif. Do you think if I say his name 5 times he will appear?
Clif Clif Clif Clif Clif
Linda at 11:34AM on Apr 7th 2008
85. Strados, I want to make certain, worst thing you could do is pad the resume. I mean if I put down I was a Dartmouth scholar and had the lack of reasoning displayed here, I'd get crucified here too. (No pun intended).
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/17/colbert-nails-dinesh-dsouza/
Here's a fun site.
Dennis at 11:37AM on Apr 7th 2008
86. Use a natural process that will change an animal that has fins and gills into an animal that has feet and lungs. Roadkill has all of the natural elements needed for life, why don't scientist just bring one back to life? It has been proven without a doubt that life only comes from life, believing that scientist might one day create life from nothing is faith and you lost me on the drivers ed thing. However, the foundation of evolution is that life appeared from none living natural elements. If you are denying that you are denying the validity of evolution.
STaylor at 11:38AM on Apr 7th 2008
87. Dennis @ 81: This is usually the standard routine. But a lot of us ignore brian altogether.
@84- Now THAT is something worth reading.
Strados at 11:40AM on Apr 7th 2008
88. Strados,
Yes, the Miller-Urey did not prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the chemical evolution hypothesis. I'm pretty sure however that they were able to get organic compounds to form from inorganic compounds though. So, chemical evolution is not a scientific theory the same way that evolution by natural selection is.
Still, its more evidence then there is for biblical creation.
Jacob at 11:42AM on Apr 7th 2008
89. STaylor states:
It has been proven without a doubt that life only comes from life, believing that scientist might one day create life from nothing is faith.
I Reply: Can't you freaking read?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7203186.stm
Synthetic life.
Dennis at 11:42AM on Apr 7th 2008
90. Hey Taylor, did you not see the link that Dennis posted?
You sound like a petulent child, trying to find holes in a topic you know next to nothing about.
===========================================
Thanks for the links, Dennis. I'm a little pissed that I didn't know about the conference at UMBC. I would have tried to attend. I would blame my nephew, (who goes there) but honors? Not hardly. :-)). Love that boy.
Linda at 11:44AM on Apr 7th 2008