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 7 of 58)
91. STaylor,
Hasn't a Dr. Herbert West achieved this?
Mokele Mbembe at 11:48AM on Apr 7th 2008
92. Devon, I agree with you that religion in the classroom helps behavior issues. This does not outweigh, however, the freedom of religion we as citizens are supposed to have. You want religion in the public schools? Okay. Which one?
There are private schools for this sort of thing.
Strados at 11:49AM on Apr 7th 2008
93. A guy who believes dead people can come back to life and fly off into outer space is critizing scientists? DD you may be a wack job cult member but you have chutzpah. Then again you make your living selling mush to other cult members.
Larry at 11:50AM on Apr 7th 2008
94. This is hilarious!
Most indoctrinated, brainwashed religous people that oppose Evolution, only oppose it because they know nothing about it. They listen to their pastors, priests and people like Dinesh, and eat up their shit.
This is what makes Dinesh dangerous. Let me explain.
Dinesh knows all about Evolution. He knows that Evolution is a fact, and that it in no way does Evolution get in the way of God. He knows that the Bible is not a Science book.
But Dinesh knows that to continue Control of society, they must dumb down and brainwash society. Tell them that Evolution is the enemy. Once people can think on their own, they'll realize how brainwashed they are. The Church can't have that.
What a shame you are Dinesh.
True followers of Christ, have zero problems with Evolution. It doesn't contradict the Bible in any way. We as true followers like Knowledge.
Botts at 11:52AM on Apr 7th 2008
95. @ 85, STaylor.
Wow! I used to think brian was the epitome of ignorant evangelical christians!
"Use a natural process that will change an animal that has fins and gills into an animal that has feet and lungs."
That natural process is called evolution. It usually works over millions of years, and is far beyond the human ability to "use". It does happen. That's how land life developed. Going in the opposite direction, whales used to be similar to modern bears, they "returned to the seas".
"Micro-evolution" is relatively small changes in traits of a population of animals. If you take a population of fish from a pool with predators that eat small things, to a pool with predators that eat large things, then the fish will get smaller. It has been demonstrated. Google it.
"Roadkill has all of the natural elements needed for life, why don't scientist just bring one back to life?"
Umm, because its roadKILL. It is dead for a reason, probably massive internal and external damage.
"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."
The point Somber was trying to make (I think) was that evolution and the origin of life are different. Evolution deals with the change of life after it was created.
"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."
That's called chemical evolution. Yes, it says organic compounds resulted from chemical reactions between inorganic compounds. Evolution by natural selection ("Darwinism") says no such thing.
Sheesh.
Jacob at 11:57AM on Apr 7th 2008
96. Speaking of reanimation, I always thought that John Kerry looked exactly like Dr. Carl Hill (David Gale). Now just imagine Kerry's head talking from a bedpan.
Mokele Mbembe at 11:57AM on Apr 7th 2008
97. Jacob,
brian once asked me:
"can you explain briefly,the origin of the universe i which mlk and linda belong?can you explain the design of the universe ..."
That's right, he wanted me to explain the entire universe -- briefly. My explanation couldn't fit on a bumper sticker (readable beyond tailgate range) so it went over his head.
Mokele Mbembe at 12:00PM on Apr 7th 2008
98. Dinesh,
Nice blogg. But there is also a train of thought out there that describes Darwinism as culture vandalism.
I guess the 4 Icons of Darwinism, The Miller Experiment, Tree of Life, Haeckels' Drawings of Embryos and the Missing link aren't holding up so well under current science.
Willet at 12:02PM on Apr 7th 2008
99. Botts, I couldn't agree more.
I think most people who oppose evolution do not understand it. They think that it means that fully-formed mammals sprung to life from the muck, just by pure random chance! The first "life" was the formation of inorganic material into the building blocks of proteins and amino acids which led into the development of single-celled organisms. This was a giant leap. From single-celled to multi-celled was another giant leap. Past that, evolution is easy.
AndrewV at 12:02PM on Apr 7th 2008
100. "I'd like to see a systematic study of whether, and to what degree, atheist views are being smuggled into biology classrooms."
Here D'Souza admits that he has no facts to back up his wild-eyed claims.
Hey, Dinesh, instead of writing unsubstantiated crap, why not write about the current American economic catastrophe--another conservative Republican "success" story!
emelpe at 12:13PM on Apr 7th 2008
101. Sheesh.
Jacob at 11:57AM on Apr 7th 2008
Everything you just posted is based on faith.
Putting a different name on origin and saying it isn't related to evolution is just smoke and mirrors.
STaylor at 12:16PM on Apr 7th 2008
102. The first "life" was the formation of inorganic material into the building blocks of proteins and amino acids which led into the development of single-celled organisms. This was a giant leap. From single-celled to multi-celled was another giant leap. Past that, evolution is easy.
AndrewV at 12:02PM on Apr 7th 2008
You have the answer! All this time and the answer is right here in this blog! Now how do we get this thought published and put an end to all the arguing?
STaylor at 12:18PM on Apr 7th 2008
103. AndrewV -- Most people in this country don't read anymore and know little about math and science. You wonder why they can't grasp the complexities of how life came into being. Hey Adam and Eve, it's just so much easier to see it that way and then people can go back to reading their comic books and sending their paychecks to a cult leader like Dinesh for their dose of mush.
Larry at 12:21PM on Apr 7th 2008
104. Strados, I disagree about that religion in school kept students better behaved in the Olden Days.
Do you think that the "Our Father" that we said at the beginning of the day actually made a difference in behavior? It was rote at best for most students.
The degradation of behaviour in our schools can be tied to one group: parents. In raising little princes and princesses, we created entitled little kids who thought their shit didn't stink, and acted accordingly.
If there was a behaviour problem amongst my siblings, we were at fault, and had to own up to it.
Linda at 12:23PM on Apr 7th 2008
105. Larry,
Perhaps we could put out a comic book that can edumacate them. Evolution-Man, with the power to transform into any creature - but over a period of millions of years.
Mokele Mbembe at 12:24PM on Apr 7th 2008