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 2 of 43)
16. Dinesh,
Remember how the bible starts? In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Right from the start we see the introduction of all the ingredients of science. Time (In the beginning), Personhood (God), Energy (created from nothing), and Matter (the heavens and the Earth). Now remember Rene Zeltwanger's line in Jerry Maguire? She says to Tom Cruise's character, "You had me from hello".
I am in love with a God who wants me to love Him with all my heart, soul, mind and strength. He doesn't want me to check my mind at the door, or hide in some corner of it under a terrorism fear blanket. He wants all of my mind.
Oh, and all that wonder of the heavens? That's there to display His glory.
gary at 7:02AM on Apr 9th 2008
17. ATHEISTS
Reply to: Atheists who were hoping to use the battering ram of evolution to attack religion were bitterly disappointed by this outcome.
What planet do you live on, Dinesh?
Evolution is taught in public schools and colleges.
Teachers are forbidden to teach Catholicism.
Yes, stupid people cling to phony religions.
This is a TEST that Atheists use, to separate smart people from dumb ones.
It's like wearing an "I AM STUPID" sign on your back.
The comparison of the chimp and human genomes is not going to go away. But you're too much of an irritable little primate to think hard enough to understand what that means.
William Hays at 7:14AM on Apr 9th 2008
18. "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."
Seriously, this is all you have? Really? Wow. Why even write articles about atheism and evolution? Maybe give Obama another crack? Especially if this is your "smoking gun".
You almost sound paranoid now.
Ryan Anderson at 7:22AM on Apr 9th 2008
19. So they removed "unsupervised, impersonal", leaving "unpredictable and natural process".
I have no problem with that -- they both really mean the same thing. A natural process is one that is not being supervised by any sort of supernatural being. No need to be redundant...
Note also that this was not in any public school textbook, as DD was saying in his previous post. This is just a statement of position by a professional association. I don't believe any public funds are involved, at all.
Joe Bob at 7:37AM on Apr 9th 2008
20. I'm still waiting to see quoted biology texts showing an atheist agenda from books used in public schools. Until I see it, I'm not going to humor this nonsense as a problem.
And by the way Stig, I'm not an atheist. Yet I agree with the atheist arguements moreso than any made by people like you. There are actually several people who post here, not atheist, who continually PROVE Dinesh wrong on every account. Go meditate on that.
Strados at 7:38AM on Apr 9th 2008
21. D' Souza,
All you are looking for is someone to blame because your religion is failing beneath you. Its falling apart under your feet and you feel better by trying to bring science down with you . Your pathetic attempts to discredit any atheist also reflects on your inept thinking.
Atheist for life(and not after) at 7:40AM on Apr 9th 2008
22. DD: "What Christians object to is not the idea that the earth is old or that one life form has evolved into another..."
Whoa! Maybe some chritians don't object, but lots of them do, and try to have creationism taught as if it were science...
Joe Bob at 7:44AM on Apr 9th 2008
23. Joe Bob- reminds me of a constant discussion I have with students here. Some of them are completely and utterly convinced that Catholics are not Christian. I won't go into details, but let's just say that they are willfully, even GLEEFULLY, blind to basic facts just to keep their own agendas and convictions.
Strados at 7:54AM on Apr 9th 2008
24. I can imagine, Strados... Kids that have been indoctrinated tend to resist any challenge to the dogma. And it's understandable -- cognitive dissonance is very uncomfortable...
Joe Bob at 8:20AM on Apr 9th 2008
25. When atheists claim that they are not promoting atheism through Darwinism in the classroom, that is just part of the standard liberal strategy to be sneaky. They will continue to heavily promote atheism, all the while claiming to be unaware of any promotional strategy at all.
As Dinesh writes in WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT CHRISTIANITY?, though atheists selfishly lose interest in making the personal sacrifices necessary to care for children and have fewer of their own children, the atheists become greatly interested in re-programming the thoughts and beliefs of everybody else's children to eventually align with their own atheistic beliefs.
The public school system, which currently outlaws Christianity, is the tool of choice to re-program children of the general population. All the while the active atheists lie about promoting atheism to diminish religious belief in the children and general public.
The dissenters on Dinesh's blog are treated fairly and allowed to speak out with their opposing viewpoints, often in droves of hateful, angry spewing, no less. When I visit other web sites that promote liberal values, I find that the liberals greatly censor out all opposing views from being expressed. Dinesh is to be commended for keeping his blog forum so open to opposing opinions. The liberals and atheists on their own web sites are nowhere near as fair!
My personal view on this issue of Darwinism is that the public schools should be allowing open study of the weaknesses in the THEORY of Evolution, instead of dogmatically proclaiming their faith in its "truth" until another alternative arrives. Even the famous atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins says that he would abandon evolution if a more complete idea could explain what is now supposedly being explained by evolution. To me, this means that Dawkins does not really believe in Evolution as much as he is just going along with it until something other concept can refute the existence of God. Dawkins is overwhelmingly motivated by a hatred of God which is evident by his bestselling author status among the New Atheists.
Rev 3:16 at 8:32AM on Apr 9th 2008
26. Dinesh is right, to a limited extent. They shouldn't have put "unsupervised" in that statement. A better phrase is "apparently undirected".
Go to this page: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html and search for the phrase "unequal in most cases". You'll see a graph of the genetic divergence between mice and humans for a wide variety of genes. The data matches a Gaussian curve extremely well, what we'd expect for a random process. We don't see evidence for intelligence guiding these mutations, despite sophisticated mathematical tools being used on the data.
That doesn't prove there isn't guidance we can't yet detect, of course. But it does justify the phrase "apparently undirected".
Ray Ingles at 8:47AM on Apr 9th 2008
27. 1) I agree with the majority of you that Mr. D'Souza is tilting at windmills when he states that terms like "unsupervised" and "impersonal" are proof that biologists are promoting atheism. I understand what the authors meant, and it had nothing to do with promoting atheism. It had to do with the nature of scientific inquiry. Scientific inquiry relys on cause and effect relationships that can be observed and are consistent. That requires that they be within nature, not outside of it (supernatural). Otherwise, science is meaningless.
2) More importantly, I hope that everyone realizes that they are only having a conversation with each other, not with Mr. D'Souza. I have seen no indication in any of his posts that he reads or cares what you have to say. If you are hoping to change his mind with your comments, you are wasting your time. If you are satisfied with this bveing only a conversation among yourselves, then have at it.
Larry at 4:06PM on Apr 9th 2008
28. JUST IN THE BIBLE IS AMERICA'S FAVORITE BOOK. AMERICA'S FAVORITE BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IMAGINE THAT!!! NOW I WONDER WHY. I DID NOT SEE ANY ATHEIST BOOKS ON AMERICA'S FAVORITE LIST.. GO TO YAHOO ITS ON THE FRONT PAGE SECTION AS THE BIBLE RIGHTLY SAY'S WISDOM IS KNOWN BY HER CHILDREN. PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!
brian at 8:48AM on Apr 9th 2008
29. I'm an atheist but I feel sorry for religious folk. They're starting to lash out like cornered rats, to wit, Dinesh's posts in regards to atheism. It's my personal belief that so long as religion is harmless--and I think Christianity largely is--we atheists must be compassionate and not be too vocal about God or gods not existing. The fact is, religion provides meaning and fulfillment to billions of people, and even if it does have irrational foundations, there's no denying that it serves some ends that very important to all men: community, tradition, an understanding of your place in the universe, etc. I am not advocating abandoning evolution and ideas unpalatable to religious folk(do they also take issue with teaching children plate tectonics? But according to the bible, the earth is six thousand years old!) but rather I'm calling for atheists to realize that far more depends on religion than a mere belief in God.
abe at 9:02AM on Apr 9th 2008
30. brian; FAVORITE does not equate to truth.
The qu'ran is Saudi Arabia's favorite book. I don't hear you trumpeting that.
Ryan Anderson at 9:01AM on Apr 9th 2008