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 4 of 43)
46. zzzzzzzzzzzz
(another hard-hitting "news" blog from double d).
America's Most Gangsta at 10:28AM on Apr 9th 2008
47. Mo-Mo,
I have concluded my research. You are indeed John McCain with a larger stalk. (my friends.)
America's Most Gangsta at 10:29AM on Apr 9th 2008
48. Biology without Ideology
Taxation without Representation
Doctors without Borders
Double d without a Clue
Man without a Face
Men without Hats
America's Most Gangsta at 10:29AM on Apr 9th 2008
49. Rev 3:16 "The public school system, which currently outlaws Christianity, is the tool of choice to re-program children of the general population...."
Would it be fair to say that the secular schools and government are trying to "un-program" children? I don't think that's a bad thing either.
Ryan Anderson at 10:25AM on Apr 9th 2008
50. Once again, (I think for the third day in a row) DD has boosted his viewership by posting about an issue that he knows will get people upset. Once again,(also for the third day in a row) you folks fall for it. Why not spend your time on something more important? Something like reading or spending time with your kids or masturbation? Nothing will be proven or solved here. No one's mind will be changed here. If I wasn't stuck at work, I wouldn't be commenting on this either. C'mon, folks, you're getting played.
Wake up, Sheeple... at 10:30AM on Apr 9th 2008
51. I am in favor of cleansing science in classroooms of any agenda which deals with religion. I agree that science teachers should not take any position on religion or atheism. They should just teach the science. What they should not teach is that there are non scientific alternate explanations for natural phenomena. Science should not be a battle ground for philosophical and theological discussions. This constant attempt by you and others to circumvent keeping religion out of science has led to unnecessary distractions further promoting the dumbing down of American eductaion while our competition in other countries get smarter and more productive. If you want to believe in virgin births and the earth as the center of the universe, knock your self out. Just don't foist it on the rest of us and please keep it out of the classrooom paid for by the aAmerican taxpayer.
Eric at 10:30AM on Apr 9th 2008
52. Here's an idea: Let's just scrap science altogether, and stop flying around in airplanes, imitating god. Let's forget about medicine and surgery. Faith healing works well, I hear, especially with those wonderful hand-surgeries performed by the leading faith healers, where they plunge their hands into the chest cavity and pray.
People, folks, we have nothing to worry about. A great cleansing rain is gonna fall and wash away all the muslims...and the christians, two at a time can climb into a great big boat and sail away into heaven.
I also hear snake-charming is good for what ails ya.
America's Most Gangsta at 10:50AM on Apr 9th 2008
53. "Science is the church of Atheism." - Somber
So true, Somber, so true.
Monty at 10:48AM on Apr 9th 2008
54. "How could an empirical inquiry possibly show that God was not guiding and directing evolution?"
By the same token, how could an empirical inquiry possibly show that the position of Jupiter relative to the Big Dipper was not guiding and directing the lives of (insert zodiac sign here)?
You see, DD, that just because you can't completely disprove an idea doesn't mean that the idea has any merit to it. This is why circumstantial evidence does not fly in the court room.
The issue being debated with regards to evolution is whether or not it happened with any supernatural interference. We have a theory (Darwin's) which has stood up to well over a century of scrutiny and which explains the diversity of life without recourse to any supernatural agents.
On the other hand, we have creationists of all stripes trying to smuggle vague, unsupported ideas about a supernatural agent or agents directing the evolution of life into the science classroom. These claims rest on circumstantial evidence and "hey, maybe"-type arguments at best, and outright lies at worst (ex: the claim that the bombadier beetle somehow stabilizes two very reactive chemicals within its body is commonly made by creationists. In reality, the two chemicals are harmless even when mixed together, and an enzyme catalyzes the reaction rather than inhibiting it. The chemicals could have already been present in the beetle performing different tasks before being recruited for self-defense).
As a side note, a truly intelligent designer would have set up the Universe so that life would evolve without any need for later tweaking or interference. Unfortunately for your case, DD, the existence of such a designer would only support Deism, not Christianity.
keltendo at 10:52AM on Apr 9th 2008
55.
It seems to me that as far as DD is concerned that
not mentioning God when teaching evolution
= promoting atheism.
That's a pretty big leap.
FL Chick at 10:53AM on Apr 9th 2008
56. The kind of idealogy that DD is talking about is evidenced by Somber's statement:
"The slow progress of time, the advancement of science, and the...dare I say it?...evolution of society...implacably marches on..." #4
Notice how Somber makes the leap from the advancement of scientific understanding to what she calls the evolution of society. Evolution for her, is not just a scientific theory explaining the biological generation and diversity of life, but also an idealogy that explains the progression of history. Certainly, evolution as a theory of biology has scientific warrant but evolution as an idealogical construct does not.
randy at 10:54AM on Apr 9th 2008
57. #31, 42
Bravo Somber on your comments in #31, and Randy, for this in #42: "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."
I'm Mormon and my faith teaches me to search knowledge and wisdom out of the best books (sorry, I don't have the exact quote), and it doesn't exclude science books. Also, another favorite quote is "the glory of God is intelligence." I really like that one. What it means to me is that there is lots to learn while we're alive, lots to challenge us and make us grow. Whether or not you believe in God, I think that's a good mantra to live by.
By the way, my business partner is an atheist and we get along just fine, thank you very much, but maybe that's a blog for another day.
Lloyd the Lurker at 11:03AM on Apr 9th 2008
58. Certainly, evolution as a theory of biology has scientific warrant but evolution as an idealogical construct does not.
randy at 10:54AM on Apr 9th 2008
Evolution of society needs no scientific merit. It has philosophical merit and historical merit. To deny that society has evolved is to deny life, itself exists.
I really don't see your point randy.
mac at 11:08AM on Apr 9th 2008
59. Science is ristricted to the observable and Atheism by definition is as well. The physical senses, the tools of science, are used both to prove or disprove a matter. If one cannot disprove a matter, how can one logically and honestly discount it? I therefore believe that the logical intellectual position of a person who describes him/herself as an atheist should not be "There is no God" because he/she can not prove it. On the other hand if they say, "I do not believe there is a God" then they are entering into the metaphysical. They are entering the arena of faith through that unscientific statement of "belief." By believing or not believing a matter without the use of the five senses is known as "faith."
Saul Cortez at 11:33AM on Apr 9th 2008
60. mac,
I think randy's point is organized religion is static therefor he fears evolution of religious thinking.
I believe the reason Christianity fears evolution is because if evolution is true that would make organized religion (Christianity) the anti-Christ.
Jerry Brown at 11:26AM on Apr 9th 2008