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 3 of 43)
31. Nice writing Dinesh and I agree.
Willet at 9:14AM on Apr 9th 2008
32. Allow me to try and explain it to you theists.
Imagine there is a church with a pastor who, before the begining of every sermon, were forced to read a disclaimer stating that the bible offers no emperical, testable, observable data. He is forced to do so because a segment of society insists that he do so to present a fair and balanced outlook on religion. Would you be upset? I would. Not on behalf of myself, but on behalf of the woman I love who does believe. A church is not a research laboratory, and a church is not required to defend the existance of god any more than a UFO fan club is required to prove the existance of UFO's. That's one of the greatest strengths of America... we can believe whatever we want to believe.
Science is the church of Atheism. It has been for centuries, because ultimately it can explain observations in the universe without falling back on the excuse of some great metaphysical being running the show. And in science there is no question that only a non-theistic view works. At Liberty U, do they have a seminar titled 'God's will in covalent bonds?' No. How about 'Jesus and his take on weak atomic theory.'? Probably not. How about 'Scripture related to the removal of an inflamed human appendix.'? And that, my friends, is the point. When you start to mix real science with anti-scientific religion things fall apart very quickly.
Please note, above, I said non-theistic, not atheistic. There are many many science and medical personel who truly believe that there is a God and subscribe to its moral precepts. But when it comes to their professional work their faith has to take an aside. A doctor can not treat an infection without taking into account a virus' ability to evolve to become resistant to antibiotics. Likewise a geologist cannot study a fault system and presume that said fault is only six thousand years old. Their ability to do science would be impossible. It would be like an artist blinding themselves before painting. And while in other aspects of society they can turn off their theism back on and believe in Jesus or Allah or whatever, as soon as they step into the lab the faith has to take a back seat to science.
Specific responses to come.
Somber at 9:24AM on Apr 9th 2008
33. [YAWN]
Good morning worl-- [sniffy sniffy] what's that smell? Oh, it's another DD blog. His personal crusade to save the world from a perceived atheistic apocalypse has led him to nitpicking lines in science textbooks. Well, everyone needs a hobby. I'm more interested in the response posters though.
Mokele Mbembe at 9:47AM on Apr 9th 2008
34. First, two of Rev's talking points:
The public school system, which currently outlaws Christianity, is the tool of choice to re-program children of the general population.
>> The public school system does not outlaw Christianity. Many school, if not all schools, allow for the establishment of religious clubs to meet on school grounds before or after school to pray, discuss the bible, and talk about events that matter to them. What the public school cannot do is teach religion as scientific fact nor institute a religious activity that forces all students to participate. The issue with school prayer isn't that it is prayer, but that all students were expected to do so. Those that did not were frequently singled out for ridicule. Likewise, no school I have ever taught at has ever punished a student for saying a prayer in class so long as they are non-disruptive to the rest of the class.
All the while the active atheists lie about promoting atheism to diminish religious belief in the children and general public.
>> I have nearly gotten fired for admitting to a class of 8th graders that I was an atheist. That's it. Told them I didn't believe in God and four parents the next day called voicing their concern that their children were being taught by an atheist. Any teacher in the public school who did behave in such a way as you or Dinesh insinuate would quickly find themselves unemployed. Public schools are allergic to contraversy.
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.
>> and as your personal view, that is fine. But on a scientific view, it is not. Are chemistry teachers supposed to teach the theory of chemistry and present the alternative belief theory of alchemy? Should we insist that physics classes also delve into astrology? What you miss... and I have no idea if it is intentional or ignorance... is that in science a theory is as good as you get. The only scientific proof stronger than a scientific theory is mathematical. Gravity is a theory. Atomic bonds are a theory. They have been tested and retested and the theories themselves adjusted to become more accurate to worldly observations. We do not teach the theory of alchemy because science has proven that theory to be flawed and incorrect.
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.
>> as would many scientists, after a great deal of peer review and argument. Because science does not assume that all the facts of the universe are known, nor does it presume an arbitrary intelligence meddling and changing the rules, scientists realize that occasionally the theory they work under much change. Newtonian physcial theory was supplimented by Enstein's relative theory, which is now being challenged by Hawking's quantum theory.
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.
>> Likely because you are not a scientist. If some discovery were made that proved the current theory of evolution as flawed, a scientist who continued to cling to those outmoded beliefs would be the equivalent of a chemist refusing to give up on the theory of alchemy. More likely, the theory of evolution itself would change, as it has several times... most notably with the discovery of DNA.
Dawkins is overwhelmingly motivated by a hatred of God which is evident by his bestselling author status among the New Atheists.
>> Not being Dawkins himself, I can only assume, but he has stated that he doesn't hate God. Hating God would be like hating the tooth fairy; nonsensical. What Dawkins feels is twofold: one, religion has gotten a free ride for far too long and needs civil public discussion questioning it, both for the well being of society and for the well being of religion. Two, that religion hurts society more and more as it blindly promotes bigotry, intolerance, and meddles in the studies of science.
>> Personally, I know the dangers of the meddling well. My father died of a disease that could have potentially been cured or treated through stem cell research. And knowing that millions of human embryos are flushed every year in fertility clinics... ::shakes her head in disgust::
Somber at 9:48AM on Apr 9th 2008
35. "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."
DD, the biology teachers said that evolution is impersonal. That is true. They do not say that God did not create life, only that life evolved after it first emerged, however that was. I'll bet that at least 75% of the biology teachers in this country are Christian.
Natural processes are impersonal. They are not guided by anything. To recognize that does not disprove God. This statement is as much Deist as it is Atheist or Agnostic.
I don't know if you're actively lying to mislead people, or if you really don't know better. If the latter is the case, you could learn a lot by reading the comments on this blog.
Jacob at 9:56AM on Apr 9th 2008
36. I really don't understand Dinesh's points on atheism in science class. Let's say we put the words "supervised by God" into the evolution statement. Where do we go from there? Don't we have to throw everything out, and go back to nothingness? If there is a God, doesn't "he" wish for us to enjoy enlightenment about our world?
Also, the timing of the FLDS raid is making me equate Dinesh with Warren Jeffs! Think as I think, he says. He screams. He whines and pleads....
abbot at 9:57AM on Apr 9th 2008
37. Dinesh,
What say you about your country of origin - a billion people. Most are not Christian and have not HEARD of creationism - do they all have it wrong? Have they been consistently wrong for a few thousand years? Should they rewrite their textbooks? Or, do you simply change the language to suit your near term goals?
madhu at 9:58AM on Apr 9th 2008
38. "Biology Without Ideology" is the topic, and I agree with him that ideology does not belong there. Maybe "impersonal" and "unsupervised" don't scientifically have fertile purchase in the soil of general evolutionary theory. What? Did you think I was going to blast DD for every little thing just for the sake of blasting him? That's HIS MO, not Mo-Mo's MO.
Mokele Mbembe at 10:06AM on Apr 9th 2008
39. NABT’s Statement on Teaching Evolution
"Scientists have firmly established evolution as an important natural process. Experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision are procedures that clearly differentiate and separate science from other ways of knowing. Explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events or beings, whether called “creation science,” “scientific creationism,” “intelligent design theory,” “young earth theory,” or similar designations, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum."
The above statement is from the NABT’s own site...It seems like you missed the part about "beings" Mr D'Souza.
Perhaps the windmill just wasn't large enough this time sir.
chris_kitzer at 10:07AM on Apr 9th 2008
40. 12. To Somber and Roglo:
You sound like fundamentalist religious fanatics who have run out of argument.
>> If you mean we sound frustrated and annoyed, you'd be partially right. It's like trying to explain to some one that a thunderstorm isn't God planning on singling you out for a lightning bolt. Eventually every calm, rational argument gets exhausted and all that is left is an emotional call for sanity.
Why don't you just rebut D'Souza point by point instead of mainly spewing vitriol and insult.
>> Try reading post 4 a little more closely.
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.
>> And my point is: it is. I have never seen an atheist or theistic statement in any biology book I have ever taught. And, when discussing evolution, if any child ever brings up the topic of God I don't say "you're wrong". I say "That's something to discuss with your parents or your preacher. I am not allowed to discuss that topic with you." As simple as that.
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.
>> Thank you. Glad you agree with me.
I sense that your main objection is not really about the issues that D'Souza raised.
>> The issues that he raises are non-issues painted in a layer of social concern.
He usually advance intellectually decent arguments.
>> If you thought his was an intellectually decent argument then I blush as to what you thought of mine.
Its really about him being a Christian person dabbling on contoversial issues and foisting his views, and you don't like that.
>> You are correct. I do not like his views. I likewise do not like the views of Falwell, Robertson, Phelps, Geobbels, Himmler, Mao, McCarthy, Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Hitler, Hoover, Bin Ladin, Saladin, Swift, Milton and even Jefferson gets on my nerves from time to time. Anyone who claims to have an absolutely correct version of truth is not going to do well by me, especially when their truth gives them license to cause harm to others.
What can you do, he's a blogger.
>> I can do only as I can. To admit futility would to forfeit hope itself.
I've never seen him use any cuss words or any foul language the way you do.
>> Do you think that it is expletives alone that make something obscenes?
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.
>> And such is your opinion. I do as I can to the best of my ability and it is my belief that to remain silent while others speak lies and advocate policies that cause real harm to society and the people within it is the greatest betrayal I can make to myself and to the world in general. And if my words distress another enough to respond then at the very least I know they read something that prompted them to respond. What more or less could I ask for?
Somber at 10:08AM on Apr 9th 2008
41. Truth Hurts when Dinesh is right!!!
Atheists, Live with it.
(When atheism is the loser, science is the winner.)
Your days are outnumbered.
Right-Wing at 10:11AM on Apr 9th 2008
42. Response to:
"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
Matt, no impartial scientist in their right mind what try to apply scientific naturalism and the scientific method to the supernatural. That means no trying to prove God, Angels, ghosts, anything. You are right that science can't disprove God.
But evolution is impersonal. As anyone with an open mind who has learned about evolution can tell you, it happens without any intervention. It could be watched by God, but evolution is not affected by God.
I think that it makes sense to let superstition and the supernatural be for churches, and let science and hard facts be for schools. Endorsing the accepted scientific theory on the diversification of life is not anti-Christian, it's anti-Stupid. You only get problems when religion tries to approach science on science's own terms, as is the case with ID.
Jacob at 10:14AM on Apr 9th 2008
43. Why are there no scientific facts given here? For over 200 years some
of the brightest minds on earth have been trying to find evidence to
back up the theory of evolution. Instead every associated field of
science has disproven in over and over. Yet it still persists.
Evolution is based on faith. It is mathematically way beyond the
realm of possibility. I challenge you evolutionary faithful to post
one single scientific fact to support your faith. I also challenge
you to post one scientific error in the Bible. Not one that
contradicts your theories, but contradicts a scientific fact. Over
3500 years ago a man named Moses said the earth is a sphere. Isaiah
confirmed it over 2800 years ago(THE WORD IS "CHUGH"). Science didn't
suspect that until The 15th century. Moses also layed out the exact
sequence that archaeology has proven things appeared on the earth.
The fossil record confirms that each appeared suddenly, not
gradually. Likewise there is no fossil record of anything in between
the species, ie a creature superior to an ape but inferior to a man.
Yes, religion has made many rediculous claims. But consider the fact
that western religions are Catholic or protesters that broke away
from the Catholic church but kept almost all of it's doctrines.The
word "catholic" means "universal", it is a collection of many
different religions mostly non-christian. That is why rituals to the
furtility goddess, the goddes of the east, Easter is still practiced.
That is why the rituals of the winter solstice are held on December
25th. That is why many religious leaders wear capes with outlines fo
fish scales and an open mouth fish head hat. That is why the pope
carries a symbol of the sun god on a staff. That is why the Bibical
illiterate claim the earth was created in six 24 hour days. The list
is endless. All of these beliefs contradict the Bible. It's easy to
disprove much religious theory just as it is much scientific theory.
There is false Christianity just as there is false science. I for one
am a "show me" person. SHOW ME THE FACTS! Either side.
IHIQPLUS at 10:20AM on Apr 9th 2008
44. "But when it comes to their professional work their faith has to take an aside."
Somber, this is only true if one subscribes to a fundamentalist and literalist interpretation of the text. Many people of faith understand that the bible is not a scientific textbook and should not be used to make statements of scientific fact. They do not have to set aside anything, save a literalist mindset that would have been somewhat peculiar to many first century people of faith.
randy at 10:16AM on Apr 9th 2008
45. I'll bet that Dinesh isn't concerned about all those astronomy courses that teach orbital mechanics by only referring to impersonal forces like gravity, completely excluding the possibility that angels push the planets around in their orbits, as his church used to teach.
Brian Westley at 10:22AM on Apr 9th 2008