Shouldn't biology teachers and textbooks stick with science and leave metaphysical statements--especially statements implying or promoting atheism--out of the classroom? I have made a constitutional argument that they must, and some leading Christian groups are now reviewing this strategy. Meanwhile, atheists on this blog and elsewhere noisily contend that there is no problem, and that no one is peddling atheism in the name of science.
In this context it's instructive to review a controversy generated several years ago by the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) when the group decided to remove the words "impersonal" and "unsupervised" from its position statement on the teaching of evolution. The NABT is a membership organization of thousands of teachers at the elementary, secondary and college levels. It has been in the forefront of legal battles against "creation science" and "intelligent design."
The original statement said, "The diversity of life on earth is the result of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, historical contengencies, and changing environments." And there it is: the official statement of the largest pro-evolution group of teachers smuggling metaphysical atheism into a scientific claim about evolution. Let's remember that this metaphysical pronouncement appears in an instruction manual for science teachers nationwide. So much for atheist ideologues who say that this is not an issue for anyone to worry about.
Two thoughtful academics, philosopher Alvin Plantinga and theologian Huston Smith, noticed the problem and wrote the NABT. They pointed out that the vast majority of Americans believe that a personal agent, God, is responsible for both the universe and for life. What Christians object to is not the idea that the earth is old or that one life form has evolved into another; what they object to is the insinuation, using the authority of science, that Gd does not exist and that material reality is all that there is.
Plantinga and Huston noted that terms like "impersonal" and "unsupervised" are not scientific terms. "It is extremely hard to see how an empirical science such as biology could address such a theological question as whether a process like evolution is or isn't directed by God. How could an empirical inquiry possibly show that God was not guiding and directing evolution?"
The NABT board found the argument persuasive, and decided to drop the two unscientific terms from its statement. At this point, a group of atheists, led by one Massimo Pigliucci, filed an open letter with more than 100 signatures accusing the NABT of bowing to religious pressure. But Eugenie Scott, writing on behalf of the NABT, pointed out that the NABT's decision was scientific and not political. Scott noted that making metaphysical claims about God's existence or nonexistence "is venturing outside of what science can tell us."
Atheists who were hoping to use the battering ram of evolution to attack religion were bitterly disappointed by this outcome. But this was one small episode: I'd like to see a coordinated strategy over the next several years to increase their dismay. Imagine the apoplexy in the God-hating camp if courts rule that atheist interpretations of evolution by scientists such as Richard Dawkins, William Provine, Steven Pinker, Douglas Futuyma and others have no place in the biology classroom! When atheism is the loser, science is the winner.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 43)
1. Still hatin', Mr D'Souza?
Why are atheists your enemy? If atheism is that big a threat to your religion, how strong can your god be?
mac at 12:57AM on Apr 9th 2008
2. "When atheism is the loser, science is the winner."
Now that is a statement we can all agree with.
Bryan CRT at 1:01AM on Apr 9th 2008
3. Why is it that some believers insist on characterizing atheists as "God haters?"
I don't hate God. I don't believe in God.
I do hate religion.
I also despise the fact that there are many in the religous community who value faith over logic and reason.
Brian # 3 at 1:28AM on Apr 9th 2008
4. And once more Dinesh is claiming a grand victory for a phantom war being fought only in the terror infested corners of his petty mind. Wave your battered flag and shout your Huzzahs if it makes you feel a little more safe and secure in that dark, terrified little mind of yours. I have little doubt that we could have a christian taliban in power and you would still rail endlessly against the insidious invasion like a theistic Goebbels. You could place the world into a second dark age with a church empowered once more to execute any who dared challenge its preconceptions and find yourself still swearing of a great battle in opposition to the atheistic threat.
But your fear is understandable, Disesh, if somewhat pitiful. The slow progression of time, the advancement of science, and the... dare I say it?... evolution... of society implacably marches on and scrapes away at your theocratic world. Discovery by discovery more christians realize there is more promise and wonder in the universe than what your sad holy text promise, and less and less can your terror and hatred and lies sway those who simply want some promise that this existance has purpose and meaning beyong what we give it. What hollow brazenness you present, Dinesh, what decayed and crumbling faith. If you truly believed in your own words you would have to reason to argue. The absolute and unconquerable nature of your diety would make such a struggle rediculous. But in the depths of your heart, Dinesh, I suspect that you know the truth. You're simply too scared to admit it.
You proclaim the subtractions of two words a victory? If two words is merit enough to evoke such bold words I must admit I am boggled at the pettiness of the conflict. When science has shown the continents have moved by natural forces, when science have learned the secrets of the atom and dated the world, when science has opened up the mystery of the genome and given us cures you still state that there is a place in your hollow faith for theism. Where are your alchemists, Dinesh? Where are your mystics and your human sacrifices upon an altar? Where is the church with such worldly power that it can execute a man for blasphemy or heresy? Where is a periodic chart with no more elements than fingers on one hand? Where is your geocentric solar system? You have lost them all, Dinesh. One by one, century by century, the trappings and grandeur of faith and God have faded and unraveled and still you persist and clutch any straw or spiderweb or illusion that presents itself.
And why... because the truth is too horrible for you to bear. The realization that this universe is cold and empty and that we glorious inheriters of chance need only decide what meaning we wish to place into it. It is a cold truth, the certainty that like the heat-death of the universe we too will fail, our legacies forgotten. But for you and theists like you the truth is far more terrible still: the unbarable acknowledgement of your folly and backward ways; the child who as an adult refuses to dismiss imaginary friends and insists on looking for faeries in the garden. If the truth is cold and hard for one who accepts it I can only pity those who have farther to fall and so much more to lose: not some arbitrary and hypocritical place of torment but the humiliating and mortifying admittance of foolishness.
Sadly, Dinesh, I can not make you mature. I can't wave a wand and let you see your denial and fear for what it is. I can not show you the absense of something that doesn't exist nor prove your own wishful thinking. Ultimately, the best that I can do is to try and mitigate the damage you do to yourself and others... to keep watch and to object every time you seek to plunge the world back into your comfortable fantasy simply because you refuse to grow up. But it is a duty that I will step up to. So wave your flag and shout your huzzahs, beat your chest and swell with pride over your two little words. We will be here, waiting for you to wake up, grow up, and join us in trying to make this world a better place; more equitable, less painful, and less fearful.
Because if we don't, nothing will.
Somber at 1:50AM on Apr 9th 2008
5. Why don't you just admit it Mr. D'Souza. You're trying to gather up enough dust bunnies with your blog to throw them into your apparently "too-large" hat in the hope a real rabbit magically appears. It is the twisted logic and convoluted wordplay you often use that presents more damage to the image of Christianity (albeit on a small scale) than any atheist could hope to accomplish - if indeed that is what atheists were hoping to accomplish. I seldom any longer visit this blog, because your semantic spins are so silly as to not warrant any serious consideration. Though I do find the posts a fine source of diverse and well presented ideals and I would like to contribute more often it would be nice if the debate were carried on a blog, with an author who can - at least on occassion - write with sincerity rather than sensationalism.
Equally, I am still confused as to how any so-called Christian could offer you support when, clearly, your purpose is to abuse people's faith as a means to justify your hate mongering and give you some jollies. It would seem, by your language of smirks, that your faith is a faith for profit, and your words are (dare I say it?) Satanically deceptive.
Roglo at 2:30AM on Apr 9th 2008
6. "Shouldn't biology teachers and textbooks stick with science and leave metaphysical statements--especially statements implying or promoting atheism--out of the classroom? I have made a constitutional argument that they must, and some leading Christian groups are now reviewing this strategy."
DD - you're awesome. And yet more irrational Atheist rants in response.
Stig at 3:06AM on Apr 9th 2008
7. Oh, D'Inept, at it again. Tilting at windmills and claiming victory when you knock loose a shingle. If Plantinga and Smith had been SCIENTISTS, then their objection/ recommendation might have been noteworthy. What exactly is "metaphysical atheism" besides an oxymoron? Atheists reject the metaphysical. That is the point of their being athiests. Scientists concern themselves with scientific observation of our physical world. That is the point of being a scientitist. Scientists can not quantify a god or what role he/ she/ it may or may not have in the universe and its various underpinnings, and as a result the metaphysical is ignored. But don't feel bad. I'm pretty sure they ignore lots of science at Liberty U. and Notre Dame.
Lefty 34 at 3:00AM on Apr 9th 2008
8. Haven't read this guy in some time -- thought I would check in to see how his personal fear/war on athiesm was going and was so pleasantly surprised to find so many well-spoken comments. I am constantly running up against fear filled Christians friends who tell me that I must believe in some sort of higher power. They know me to be a kind and moral person and they just cannot equalize this with the fact that I am an Athiest. Sometimes I am not sure if I should scream or giggle when they insist that I am just going thru some type of phase....
Pamala at 3:10AM on Apr 9th 2008
9. Boy, when it comes to patting Dinesh on the back, you can count on Dinesh to be first in line. Argument aside, is there a more self-aggrandizing, self congratulating, self-promoting, and dare I say, self-absorbed doofus in the world? Now he gives us "metaphysical atheism". Metaphysically, my Chevy Impala is a Porsche 911 Turbo S. Couldn't Dinesh's benefactors do any better?
Lefty 34 at 3:26AM on Apr 9th 2008
10. 7. "Shouldn't biology teachers and textbooks stick with science and leave metaphysical statements--especially statements implying or promoting atheism--out of the classroom? I have made a constitutional argument that they must, and some leading Christian groups are now reviewing this strategy."
DD - you're awesome. And yet more irrational Atheist rants in response.
*****************************
The original statement simply says that in the diversity of life on earth there is no observable supervision or personal component to life's processes, metaphysical or otherwise. Since A. science deals with the observable, and B. neither God nor his guiding hand have been SCIENTFICALLY observed, this is a valid statement. The irrational reaction came from Plantinga and Smith.
Lefty 34 at 3:36AM on Apr 9th 2008
11. Wow, D'Souza just doesn't get it. Evolution is unsupervised, impersonal. That's the whole point. Pretending that you accept evolution by natural selection but complaining when people point out it's nature is just pathetic.
http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2008/04/dsouza-aghast-as-he-discovers-many.html
Tom Rees at 3:58AM on Apr 9th 2008
12. To Somber and Roglo:
You sound like fundamentalist religious fanatics who have run out of argument. Why don't you just rebut D'Souza point by point instead of mainly spewing vitriol and insult.
D'Souza's main point is that Biology should be taught in schools as Science not concerned with or influenced by metaphysics or religious or anti-religious views whether deliberately or not. Its a reasonable position because truly a single "infectious" concept introduced in any science discipline erodes objectivity and then science becomes a tool of ideology.
I sense that your main objection is not really about the issues that D'Souza raised. He usually advance intellectually decent arguments. Its really about him being a Christian person dabbling on contoversial issues and foisting his views, and you don't like that. What can you do, he's a blogger. I've never seen him use any cuss words or any foul language the way you do. I wish I don't have to say it, but you may not realize it: the way you reacted to or commented on D'Souza's article betray bigotry and intellectual inferiority.
JunMendzPnoy at 4:43AM on Apr 9th 2008
13. "The original statement simply says that in the diversity of life on earth there is no observable supervision or personal component to life's processes, metaphysical or otherwise. Since A. science deals with the observable, and B. neither God nor his guiding hand have been SCIENTFICALLY observed, this is a valid statement. The irrational reaction came from Plantinga and Smith."
Brights?
Stig at 5:10AM on Apr 9th 2008
14. Somber and Roglo just like to see what they have written on a post, I believe. Somber's post, in particular, was a melodramatic, campy read. It was like watching the movie, "Mommy Dearest".
Science can't disprove the existence of God, and so it can't comment with certainty whether or not a process is impersonal and unsupervised by God. Misters D'Souza, Plantinga,and Smith just want to hold biology teachers by their own standard of impartiality.
Matthew Rand at 6:17AM on Apr 9th 2008
15. http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
FORMER ATHEIST at 6:31AM on Apr 9th 2008